The article "Recycling By Mail" and the comments given by readers brought my attention to an article written By Alex Hutchinson for Popular Mechanics online. (
http://www.popularmechanics.com/home_journal/how_your_house_works/4291566.html?page=1) Titled "Is Recycling Worth It? PM Investigates its Economic and Environmental Impact", his article seemed quite relevant. He looks at the history of recycling and critics who said recycling was a waste of time and too costly. He moves on to the current environmental and economic status of recycling. I just want to quote a couple of his paragraphs/conclusions.
"To resolve the environmental debate once and for all, experts have begun to conduct detailed life-cycle analyses on recycled goods, calculating the energy consumed from the moment they’re picked up by recycling trucks until they are processed into brand-new products. When compared with the amount of energy required to send the same goods to landfills or incinerators and make new products from scratch, the results vary dramatically, depending on the material.
Aluminum, for example, requires 96 percent less energy to make from recycled cans than it does to process from bauxite. At the other end of the spectrum, recycled glass uses only about 21 percent less energy—but it still comes out ahead, according to a study by Washington-based environmental consultant Jeffrey Morris. Recycled plastic bottles use 76 percent less energy and newsprint about 45 percent less, he found. Across the board, the key factor is the energy intensity of extracting virgin materials, which is an order of magnitude higher than that of recovering the same material through recycling. “Even if you doubled the emissions from collecting recyclables, it wouldn’t come close,” Morris says. Overall, he found, it takes 10.4 million Btu to manufacture products from a ton of recyclables, compared to 23.3 million Btu for virgin materials. And all of the collecting, hauling and processing of those recyclables adds just 0.9 million Btu."
He goes on to say that not all recycling is efficient and some products are broken down into less usable materials. So it is a system that has its faults.
On the economic side, the demand for recyclables is rising and that is helping to outweigh the cost of gathering it but most curbside recycling programs still cost money. Some cities put major effort into their recycling like San Francisco who has a goal of 75%. For most cities, "recycling is generally desirable, but it’s not automatically good and efficient and cheap. It takes significant up-front capital investment to implement a state-of-the-art single-stream recycling program. For that reason, the newfound stability of the recycling market is just as important as the high prices, because it allows cities to plan investments around future revenue streams." In places like Chicago, the city was able to go from a system that cost them money to a system that pays them money.
I think as the recycling market grows, whether we should recycle or not will no longer be a question.