Attack of the MSU Students

My recycling letter to the State News generated some expected responses. One from recent graduate Gregory Bugosh and another from sophomore Nathan Burns. My response:

Bugosh was “shocked” to read my letter. Good. Most people are shocked when their nice, neat assumptions get challenged. Like most people, Bugosh has been consuming the standard line on recycling for years. He reacted as expected given that I told him he was not being fed the entire story. Unfortunately he’ll ignore reality and continue to promote the myths he has learned.

First he questions my credibility. Apparently I need to be an expert in waste management to be able to comment and pass along information. I wonder how many of the 6,000 petitioning students currently hold degrees in anything other than partying. Just because the crowd believes something doesn’t make it true (and it doesn’t matter if the crowd consists of 6,000 students or 9 other Big Ten schools.)

I will concede one point to Bugosh. My line about garbage trucks “spewing hydrocarbons”. Yes, he’s right, hydrocarbons don’t get emitted. Gases get emitted. My last minute editing change from “greenhouse gases” to (what I considered more ominous sounding) “hydrocarbons” made the statement inaccurate.

UPDATE: While reading some recent literature regarding ethanol, I discovered that hydrocarbons do get emitted. I retract my concession.


However, my lack of a doctorate in trash studies does not negate the facts.

In The Eight Great Myths of Recycling (PDF), Daniel K. Benjamin, professor of economics at Clemson University and a senior associate of the Property and Environment Research Center, reports on cost studies that show “curbside recycling costs run between 35 percent and 55 percent higher than the disposal option.” (Page 20). (Side note: Bugosh erroneously claims that I said recycling uses “35 percent more energy”. I stated costs, not energy, as reported in Benjamin’s paper.)

In addition to citing the above fact, I stated “Market prices provide a measure of resource scarcity and allow us a method for evaluating the efficient use of those resources.” Prices provide feedback on how efficiently resources are being used. They provide feedback on other characteristics, but in general, higher prices indicate scarcer resources. If raw or virgin materials are priced less than recycled materials it means raw materials are more abundant. Most raw materials cost less than recycled materials. Most, not all. And at different points in time, this can change. Recycled materials could be cheaper than virgin materials but historically they haven’t been. Part of the reason is the cost to recycle.

Recycling, like virgin materials, consumes resources. It costs money and resources to transport recyclables and convert them to useful products. Also, converting recyclables into usable products consumes energy, labor and other resources. For example, the process for manufacturing paper from recycled pulp consumes and pollutes more water than starting with trees.

Attempting to dissect every product’s resource consumption is enormously difficult. How much oil is consumed to transport forested trees versus oil consumed to transport paper to be recycled? Who knows. The only thing we can use to guide us is price. If it costs $7 per ton to dispose of waste but costs $10 per ton to recycle it, it’s more efficient to dispose of it.

According to Bugosh, I should use my energy to research the topic before attempting to convert others away from recycling. My letter provided 3 points of evidence – one cited from cost studies, one anecdotal experience, and one basic tenet of prices in economics. Other than pointing out my misuse of “hydrocarbons”, Bugosh provided no facts or evidence.

While Bugosh steered away from ad hominem attacks, Burns could offer nothing but. Burns claims I “fabricated various statistics”. See above. Burns claims I did not cite “a single piece of solid information.” See above. Burns refers me to “the many knowledgeable and helpful faculty members at MSU” regarding landfills and waste management issues. Which issues?

Landfill space? We have plenty. Also, we have plenty of land to open new ones. Page 6 of the paper cited above addresses this issue.

Perhaps Burns is concerned about toxic waste run-off from landfills. I don’t dispute that as a concern. But it’s irrelevant to the argument on recycling paper, plastic, tin, and glass bottle. These items don’t generate toxins. If Burns is concerned about pollution from rechargeable batteries or oil disposal, those are not the items The State News had in mind when they told students to pile their trash up at the recycle collection centers. Looking back at my letter you’ll notice I wrote “in general” recycling is a waste of resources.

Also, for some reason Burns seems to believe that I think recycling “should revolve solely around [me] and [my] needs.” I think it’s foolish to follow a practice that consumes more resources than simply discarding trash and I’m a self-centered bastard. Funny, I thought environmentalists wanted me to consume fewer resources.

Burns claims I use “one-sided arguments in order to reach whatever conclusion one desires.” Based on the research available and basic economics, I have reached my conclusions. If you have another conclusion, cite some facts and counter my economics. Of course that would be more difficult than simply ranting and attacking me and it wouldn’t make for an exciting letter either. Besides, you might find out some truths that counter everything you think you know.

I will have to say I love the last two lines from this art education sophomore: “You disgust me. Open your eyes.” It fondly reminds me of when I was a sophomore and how I knew so much.