home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: misc.consumers
- Path: sparky!uunet!ftpbox!mothost!white!rtsg.mot.com!sorbrrse
- From: sorbrrse@rtsg.mot.com (Russell E. Sorber)
- Subject: Re: Carburetors, gasoline, and why I don't recycle
- Message-ID: <1992Sep2.231737.11019@rtsg.mot.com>
- Sender: news@rtsg.mot.com
- Nntp-Posting-Host: cocoa39
- Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Group
- References: <1992Sep02.010828.24870@rs6000.cmp.ilstu.edu> <1992Sep2.044635.13345@julian.uwo.ca> <sbarnhar-020992082535@morril6t-21.micro.umn.edu>
- Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 23:17:37 GMT
- Lines: 58
-
- In article <sbarnhar-020992082535@morril6t-21.micro.umn.edu> sbarnhar@mailbox.mail.umn.edu (Dr. Barnhart) writes:
- >
- <stuff deleted>
- >
- >This is where I have to agree with the poster. Recycling, for all of its
- >benefits, still enables consumers to continue to continue wanton
- >consumption of overpackaged goods. "Why should I worry about all that
- >metal used in a case of canned soda? All I need to do is recycle it." And
- >suddenly not only is the consumerism OK, but by simply recycling you're an
- >environmentalist as well.
-
- The environmentalist position has been oversimplified here!
- All national and many local environmental groups advocate what
- they call the "3R's" , Reduce, Reuse, and Recycle, to be
- implemented in that order. Thus reduction, rather than recycling
- of unnecessary packaging is advocated by any true
- environmentalist. One group that I know of has even come to agreement
- with a smaller grocery chain to add "model grocery store"
- shelf labeling to encourage purchase of minimally packaged and
- minimally harmful products.
-
- >
- >All the recycling in the world is not going to make a sigificant impact on
- >the environment.
-
- In many areas of the country which are going through a "garbage crisis"
- recycling does help the environment as well as your pocketbook.
- In suburban Chicago, for instance, the closing of several
- landfills has necessitated a crisis with the following choices:
-
- 1) Reduce, reuse, or recycle by about 40%.
-
- 2) Because of much longer distances to the next landfill, pay 400%
- more money to dispose of municipal solid waste. This is considered
- by many to be an economic hardship as well as a temporary solution
- (since it will last only until the citizens of FarAwaySmallTown,IL organize
- against "foreign" garbage shipped in from the Chicago area.)
-
- 3) Build a garbage burning incinerator in an area which already has
- an air pollution problem. Emissions from incinerators have been
- correlated to asthma, lung cancer and any number of other problems.
- In addition, a guaranteed tonnage of waste must be promised
- to an incinerator operator, thus encouraging more (or at least the same)
- production of waste.
-
- The current plan is to reduce, reuse, recycle and hope to meet the
- 40% goal by 1994. If not, an incinerator gets built with all of its
- unwanted side effects.
-
- In this area less garbage clearly ensures a better environment.
- .
-
-
- --
- --------------------------------------
- Russ Sorber
- Software Contractor
- Motorola, Cellular Division
-