Page 637 - Environment: The Science Behind the Stories

90 TABLE 22.2 Recovery Rates for Various Materials
100
in the United States 96
80
Total amount recovered (millions of tons/year) 60 recovered Recovery 70 Recovery rate (percent) Newspapers 72
90
PERCENTAGE THAT IS

RECYCLED OR COMPOSTED
MATERIAL
70
80
Lead-acid batteries
63
Paper and paperboard
60
50
58
Yard trimmings
50
Total
50
Aluminum cans
40
amount
Glass containers
33
40
rate
Total plastics
8
30
30
Data are for 2010, from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
20
20
a recycling bin on a New York street. In contrast, cities from
10
10
Austin to Durham to Fresno to Pittsburgh to Portland run
0 0 well-funded programs with high participation rates.
1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 Recycling’s growth has been propelled in part by eco-
Year nomic forces as businesses see prospects to save money and as
FIGURE 22.10 Recovery has risen sharply in the United entrepreneurs see opportunities to start new businesses. It has
States. Today over 85 million tons of material are recovered also been driven by the desire of municipal leaders to reduce
(65 million tons by recycling and 20 million tons by municipal waste and by the satisfaction people take in recycling. These
composting), comprising one-third of the waste stream. Data from latter two forces have driven the rise of recycling even when it
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. has not been financially profitable. In fact, many of our popu-
lar municipal recycling programs are run at an economic loss.
The expense required to collect, sort, and process recycled
from 6.4% of the waste stream in 1960 to 26.0% in 2010 (and goods is often more than recyclables are worth in the market-
34.1% if composting is included) (FIGURE 22.10). The EPA place. Additionally, the more people recycle, the more glass,
calls the growth of recycling “one of the best environmental paper, and plastic is available to manufacturers for purchase,
success stories of the late 20th century.” which drives down prices. And transporting items to recycling
Recycling rates vary greatly from one product or mate- facilities can sometimes involve surprisingly long distances
rial type to another, ranging from nearly zero to almost (see THE SCIENCE BEHIND THE STORY, pp. 638–639).
100% (TABLE 22.2). Recycling rates among U.S. states also Recycling advocates, however, point out that market
vary greatly (FIGURE 22.11). Highly variable rates from city prices do not take into account external costs (pp. 164, 183)—
to city depend largely on how heavily a city invests in mak- in particular, the environmental and health impacts of not
ing recycling convenient for its citizens. Despite New York recycling. For instance, it has been estimated that globally,
City’s credentials overall as a sustainable city, its recycling recycling saves enough energy to power more than 6 million
program leaves much to be desired, and it can be hard to find households per year. Each year in the United States, recycling
WA ME
MT ND MN VT
NH
OR WI NY MA
ID SD
WY MI PA RI
CT
NV NE IA IL IN OH NJ
UT CO WV VA DE
CO
CA KS MO KY NC MD
DC
TN
AZ OK AR SC
NM
MS AL GA
TX LA
HI FL
AK
Recycling rates FIGURE 22.11 U.S. states vary greatly in the
0–10% 30–40% rates at which their citizens recycle. Data are for
10–20% 40% or more 2008 (with earlier data for several states), from van Haaren,
R., et al., 2010. The state of garbage in America. BioCycle
636 20–30% Oct. 2010: 16–23.

M22_WITH7428_05_SE_C22.indd 636 13/12/14 2:25 PM