PRO/CON: Are U.S. recycling programs too costly?

If you’re worried about the planet, please make sure your garbage is buried in a landfill. There’s plenty of space available.

Why the charade? Because “reduce, reuse, recycle” is an emotional slogan, not reasonable environmental policy. Years of brainwashing make most Americans blind to the actual evidence surrounding recycling programs.

Even the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) says it only makes sense economically and environmentally to recycle about 35 percent of our trash. Among those materials are paper and aluminum cans, according to the government department.

More intelligent environmental policies would consider the costs and benefits of recycling programs. They should scrap those that are wasteful and harmful to the environment.

We Americans consume a lot and waste a lot, which means we dump far more trash than is necessary into landfills. In fact, we produce twice as much waste per person as Western Europe.

Some critics see matters differently. They argue that recycling is too costly and ineffective to continue, and some states seem to agree with them. They have balked at paying part of the cost of municipal recycling, saying that cities should end their programs or pay for the cost themselves.

But there are ways to deal with that cost rather than declare it over the top and abandon recycling programs. We could follow the lead of the most innovative cities by putting a price on trash. If people have to pay more, they will find ways to reduce the amount of trash they throw out, as will businesses, and the fees can cover the cost of recycling programs.

We are in the early stages of an important sustainability transition that will focus on efficiency throughout a product’s life cycle, reducing the environmental impact, and rethinking business and household consumption. That’s the way to go.

The PRO author focuses on the financial impact of recycling, while the CON author focuses on its environmental impact.

The PRO author focuses on the social influences on recycling, while the CON author focuses on the economic influences on it.

The PRO author focuses on the intersection of recycling and business, while the CON author focuses on recycling among individuals.

The PRO author focuses on the financial burdens of recycling, while the CON author focuses on the legal burdens of recycling.

Recycling is not does not make sense economically.

People are using inaccurate methods to test recycling programs.

The government should help pay for recycling programs.

Reducing and reusing are less expensive than recycling.