We are repeatedly told to recycle our waste. However, what does the research say aboutthe costs and benefits of recycling? Unfortunately, not much is available. We may sense thatmore recycling is better than less recycling, but we really do not know. Our recycling habitsdeveloped not as a consequence of a scientific understanding of these matters but perhaps as abelief in something uncertain. Last year, a study estimated society’s optimal recycling rate tobe only 10%. And only specific recyclable materials should be included in that 10%. Whatdrives these results?
       The economics literature suggests recycling requires more economic resources thansimple waste disposal. The value of the extra energy, labor and machinery necessary to preparematerials for recycling can double the value of those resources needed to dispose of thematerial in landfill. The study, using municipal cost data from Japan, concluded that recyclingup to 10% appears to reduce social costs, but any recycling over 10% costs the environmentand the economy more than it helps. The environment and economy suffer as we transportsome recycled materials to destinations as far afield as China. These provocative resultscertainly require confirmation from future independent and objective research before broadpolicy goals can be adjusted. Also, many of the benefits and costs associated with wastedisposal and recycling vary across regions of the world, and thus optimal recycling rates may also vary. But if these results hold for other developed countries, then society shouldcollectively rethink how to approach recycling.
       The study identified several factors that help justify possible reductions in the recyclingrate. First, the environmental damages associated with both modern landfills and incinerationplants turn out to be less than traditionally imagined. These facilities certainly depressneighboring property values, but modern disposal facilities in most developed countries arerequired to abide by strict environmental standards, and air and water pollutants appear lessthan previously expected. Second, recycling is rather costly to municipal governments. Forexample, the cost for New York City to process one ton of materials for recycling markets isabout $300 more than the cost of simply taking that same material to landfill.
       The substantial environmental benefits of using recycled materials in production varysubstantially across materials. Aluminum and other metals are environmentally costly to mineand prepare for production. Paper, too, is costly to manufacture from raw sources. But glassand plastic appear relatively easy on the environment when manufactured from raw materials.These differences are vital. Although the optimal overall recycling rate may be only 10%, thecomposition of that 10% should contain primarily aluminum, other metals, and some forms ofpaper, notably cardboard and other sources of fiber. Optimal recycling rates for these materialsmay be near 100%, while optimal rates of recycling plastic and glass might be zero. Toencourage this outcome, a substantial subsidy offered only on those materials whose life cyclesgenerate positive environmental benefits should be applied.
       In the end, the economy and the environment, speaking in one unified voice, may wish forsociety to reduce the overall quantity of waste recycled. Perhaps recycling efforts need tostrictly focus only on those specific materials that really matter to the economy and theenvironment. Other materials can be simply disposed of in modern facilities.
【題組】22. What is the best title for the passage?
(A) Recycling in Japan
(B) Selective Recycling
(C) Materials that Can Be Used Again
(D) The Cost of Recycling in New York