Buying it
Skeptics of Joel Fagin ("Recycling rage," The Firing Line, Feb. 13) must evaluate his words before offering opinions on whether his information is correct or not. In this case, limited and specific forms of recycling are important, but at the same time, the majority of recycling movements are greatly overexaggerated to almost an alarmist extent.
Many claim we are running out of room for landfills. Those people are correct. The problem with this statement is that you must change from a city view to a national perspective. You must also keep in mind that, yes, it is true that capacities for cities will run out, but on the grander scale of the nation, the space needed to handle American waste is actually quite small. When the Enviromental Protection Agency performed studies on landfill capacity in the 1980s, they made a vital flaw in their calculations. At that time, the waste disposal industry started using larger landfills due to new EPA regulations. Thus, when the EPA conducted its survey, it noticed a rapid increase in new landfills and concluded that we were rapidly running out of space. Their flaw was that they did not look at the capacity of the landfills, which were not in dire straits of being filled. An EPA spokesperson admitted this flawed study was a cause for the "myth" that our landfill space was running out.
Another way a proponent of recycling could view Fagin's letter, is that he's saying paper recycling isn't important. The only form of recycling I truly believe in is the recycling of aluminum. Paper, on the other hand, is a renewable resource that comes from trees. As we do not go to the beach to collect coconuts, we do not have to go to virgin rain forests to collect wood. Sure, if we continued to go to virgin forests in far-off lands, we would need to do more than just cut down trees. We'd have to be prepare the land, transport the trees, and finally, process them - thus increasing prices and skewing "recycling statistics" towards a fallacy of "how recycling is better than cutting down trees."
In the end, it is up to the reader to decide whose opinion is correct. I believe there is a better and more logical approach to devise methods to use landfills for energy. Perhaps a large-scale in situ method of landfill recycling to capture the energy potential its degradation products (carbon based derivatives) holds? Vincent Nieto Microbiology graduate student
Not buying it We can all agree that it is a mistake to follow trends blindly. As such, the Campus Environmental Center welcomed Joel Fagin's comments about recycling and waste in his letter "Don't buy into RecycleMania" (The Firing Line, Feb. 13), even if we do find them unqualified and obtuse. Fagin didn't do any research or quantify his claims and seemed more concerned with providing a unique perspective than an accurate one.
First, scarcity. Yes, trees are a renewable resource, and theoretically, if paper demand were high enough, using paper would increase tree production. It's easier to cut down forests than manage them, however, so swaths of virgin forest like the Canadian Boreal are being destroyed (check out www.forestethics.org). Furthermore, trees for paper are grown on lots and are not part of a forest ecosystem.
Now let's discuss waste. Mr. Fagin points out there are environmental problems associated with the recycling process, and he's right. The EPA tells us, though, that producing recycled paper results in 74 percent less air pollution and 35 percent less water pollution than producing virgin paper. Landfill methane can be captured but usually isn't and is often left to escape into the atmosphere where it is a 10 times more potent greenhouse gas than CO2.
Finally, landfills. Is the idea of abundant landfill space appealing to anyone? Landfills are near communities that generate trash, and that space isn't abundant. More than 40 percent of landfill waste is paper and cardboard. It would be nice if, instead of using our land to hold Fagin's newspapers, we could have parks so we wouldn't have to stand squished together on the greenbelt.
The CEC is one group that promotes resource conservation as a key to reducing our impact. For those who continue to use non-reusable goods, however, UT must to provide an outlet to handle waste. We are providing mechanisms that reduce our footprint on both ends, not rationalizations.
Nicole Leung Geography senior Co-director, Campus Environmental Center and Anna Pierce Humanities junior Co-director, Campus Environmental Center
Editor's note: On Feb. 12, the Texan published a front-page article highlighting UT's recycling efforts. Joel Fagin, a mechanical engineering graduate student, responded the following day with a Firing Line expressing his opinions about recycling. This is a great example of how the Opinion Page serves as an open forum for thoughtful and energetic debate. The editorial board has received numerous letters suggesting that we should not have published Fagin's letter, or that it should have been edited. While we reserve the right to edit Firing Lines for brevity, clarity and liability, we do not edit peoples' opinions. We are quite the fans of recycling, and in fact, often publish a note on the page reminding readers to recycle their copy of the Texan. But for the record, we're much bigger fans of free speech.
Be the first to comment on this article!