Some costs and benefits of recycling

I realize...

I've been writing about the health risks involved with toxins in water, but have neglected the environmental aspect of avoiding plastic water containers. As I build my elementary cost/benefit analysis of abandoning non-sustainable materials, I realize I've taken for granted some facts about recycling.

The question: Should we recycle?

Taken for granted as true:
-Recycling is not cost effective, but the planet's well-being is more important.
-Recycling materials, in any form, is good for the environment.

Inquiry that set off my investigation:
-I was told once that recycling plants actually cause immense air pollution. This didn't make sense to me--I thought we recycle materials so we don't have to incinerate trash.

The findings.

First, there are 3 forms of recycling materials (glass, metal, paper, plastic, biodegradable waste, electronics, and textiles).
1) Recycle the materials as a fresh supply of the original. Wiki says: think reused copy paper in the office.
2) Recycle the material to form a new material. Wiki says: think cardboard.
3) Take materials from original products to save their value. I say: think scrapping a wrecked car for its parts.

Fiscal costs/lack of costs:
Critics say it's more fiscally expensive to recycle than to just fill a landfill and create new materials. Ignore the externalities for now, since we're only talking about monetary costs.

The 2004 Danish Environmental Assessment Institute stated that incineration is the most effective method for disposing of drink containers, even aluminum ones. And in 2002, New York City Mayor Bloomberg doubted his efforts to push recycling. His pioneered recycling program was losing money, so he chose to omit glass and plastic recycling from the program. According to the mayor, the price of recycling trumped priorities -- recycling cost twice as much as disposal. So he sent plastics and glass back to the dump.

Yet Michael Shapiro, director of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of Solid Waste, reports that “A well-run curbside recycling program can cost anywhere from $50 to more than $150 per ton…trash collection and disposal programs, on the other hand, cost anywhere from $70 to more than $200 per ton. This demonstrates that, while there’s still room for improvements, recycling can be cost-effective.”
(http://environment.about.com/od/recycling/a/benefit_vs_cost.htm)

I leave this topic thinking:
Recycling can be more fiscally expensive, but its means can be improved to be more cost-effective, as long as these programs are still supported and revised.

Benefits of recycling (externalities):
Recycling materials, across the board, causes savings on the energy we use and the air pollution we cause.When we recycle paper, we save 73% on the air pollution that would have otherwise been caused by trash incineration. We also save about 25% on energy used--which, yes, is also a fiscal savings. Savings on energy and air pollution also span the recycling of steel/aluminum, plastics, glass, and cardboard.
(The League of Women Voters (1993). The Garbage Primer. New York: Lyons & Burford. pp. 35–72)

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (thumbs up to Jackson's great job at the EPA, especially for discussing the Clean Air Act with President Obama this week) favors recycling, reporting in 2005 that recycling caused U.S. carbon emissions to drop by 49 million metric tonnes.
("The truth about recycling". The Economist. June 7, 2007.)

I leave this topic thinking:
Since we're spending money either by recycling or by chucking waste into incinerators, air pollutants, landfills, even space--we might as well realize how we want to spend our money. Some say quantity over quality: let's landfill until we suffocate in filth and blast garbage into space until a comet of trash wipes us out in 2200. Others say quality over quantity: let's spend a little more money to save the Earth some dignity.

The United States had 7,265 curbside recycling programs serving 108 million people last year. I think some people prefer quality over quantity. 4 points for recycling.

Sigg Love

Today I stopped in the BU business school Starbucks for a hot tea. 

I sat next to a man at the counter 

And put my Sigg bottle down next to his. 

Our bottles had matching dents on the side. 

And at that moment, 

Our silver and red Siggs knew it was meant to be.

Cleaning your bottles and filtering your water

I was happy to know my family has been using the Sigg bottles I bought them for Christmas, yet they've brought up a couple criticisms:

1) Drinking hot coffee from a Sigg can be dangerous idea if you're not wearing oven mitts on your hands

2) Cleaning a Sigg isn't so easy, after all

My solutions:

1) I wouldn't drink my hot tea from a Sigg and risk burning my hands, but I would also prefer not to use disposable paper or styrofoam alternatives. I say- buy or make a holder! I linked, in an earlier post, evidence of the new trend to knit bottle holders. I also found some cool handmade bottle holders like this one on www.etsy.com :

http://www.etsy.com/view_listing.php?ref=sr_gallery_8&listing_id=21558534&ga_search_query=water+bottle+holder&ga_search_type=tag_title&ga_page=3&min=&max=&order=

2) I fill my Sigg with soapy water, cover, shake, and leave overnight. This may be ineffective. 

I would suggest to use one of these scrubby brushes, made originally for... potatoes. 

H2Ox2.com also sells this $12 brush specifically for metal bottles 

http://www.h2ox2.com/store/cleaning-brush-bottles-tops-p-23.html

... I would agree that scrubbing the inside of your bottle is probably pretty important.

ALSO! FOR ANYONE WHO DRINKS TAP WATER!

I found this clip on YouTube, convincing me to replace my broken Brita filter. Please watch and enjoy- it's a short clip that can be fast forwarded through.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3xJX9rstYEw&feature=related