With today's growing interest in environmentalism, especially on college campuses, many are quick to label the "green" movement as a fad. With this argument often comes the assertion that smaller environmentalist agendas are useless and take valuable effort away from more serious problems.
Recycling sometimes falls into this criticized category, and as a Tufts Recycles! intern, I'm ready to set the record straight about the environmental, as well as economic, values of recycling.
Last August, junior Grant Reid published the article "A Prescription for Environmentalism" in The Primary Source. He argues that "to have the greatest possible impact, environmentalists at Tufts and elsewhere should refocus their energies on the core ideology of environmentalism, shun the faddists who cling to the cause, and partner with businesses to promote energy efficiency."
It is true that the development of energy efficiency, not to mention alternative energy sources, is integral to solving the current climate change crisis. But Reid seems to overlook the fact that we are college students, not CEOs, while moreover ignoring the simple truth that individual smaller-scale practices do add up to make a large-scale difference.
Reid scorns those hybrid-driving, fair-trade-coffee-buying, local produce supporters, who he claims "absolve themselves of their perceived responsibility to help the environment by simply consuming their way to a greener future."
I agree with this point to an extent; I also fully support his assertion that to truly accomplish change, one must "simply consume less." But the concept behind such ideas as organic foods, reusable bags and hybrid cars is to be put in place of, not in addition to, regular consumerism. Furthermore, when executed correctly - and by many people - large-scale benefits will arise.
My main concern is demonstrating the real benefits from individual recycling on college campuses. For most college students, there is barely enough time to take four or five classes, have a job and pursue one or more extracurricular interests - not to mention a social life.
For this reason, I argue that most college students do not have the time or the resources to focus their energy into teaming up with big business to conquer global warming.
Sure, there are smaller projects that students can be involved in relating to this cause, and many students major in engineering, environmental studies or other such related fields with the intention of working on efficient and alternate energy after college. But during our four years at Tufts, it is difficult to make large-scale changes individually.
An act like recycling, however, - if executed by many - can be done individually on a small scale in order to produce large-scale results. Last June, The Economist published "The Truth About Recycling," which validated the environmental and economic importance of recycling.
Researchers from the Technical University of Denmark and the Danish Topic Centre on Waste looked at over 200 recycling scenarios, including 55 different material life-cycle analyses, to address the commonly asked question, "Is recycling worth doing on environmental grounds?" and to attend to "doubts about whether the collection and transportation of waste materials requires more energy than it saves." They found that "in 83% of all scenarios that included recycling, it was indeed better for the environment."
Those apprehensive to the benefits of recycling may wonder what exactly the advantages are. "Perhaps the most valuable benefit of recycling is the saving in energy and the reduction in greenhouse gases and pollution" - lessened with the elimination of pollution-creating incinerators or methane-emitting landfills - "that result when scrap materials are substituted for virgin feedstock," affirms The Economist.
The article traces back to ancient times, when recycling was an "economic necessity." For thousands of years, recycling has been valuable - from the melting and reforming of metal for new weapons or tools, to the dealing and trade of metals and papers, to the peddling of scrap metals and rags during the Great Depression, to the reuse of scrap metals in WWII.
Modern recycling developed, devoid of economic incentive, merely to reduce the amount of waste we produce, when curbside collection began in America during the 1970s. Today, "single-streamed" collection, in which materials are collected together instead of separated by category, is becoming more popular because of its convenience, while simultaneously gaining suspicion concerning its accuracy.
Recent "take back" laws elicit producer responsibility from electronics manufacturers, allowing old computers to be given back to companies usually free of charge. But the future of recycling includes even greater ambitions: decreased, and/or sustainable, packaging.
To design products "with recycling in mind," companies can achieve the same individual concern of consuming less, but on a larger scale, benefiting the environment as well as cutting costs.
Recycling, therefore, is no "empty college cause," as Reid labels many examples of "Tufts' obsession with environmentalism." And even if it has become "trendy" to be a conscious and responsible member of our environment: Is that so bad?
Granted, the true issues are sometimes ignored in place of "ill-informed good intentions" and consumerism, as Reid points out. But at least a fad elicits some form of awareness. The next step is making sure that everyone knows the facts about what one is able to do to help the cause, on campus and off.
RecycleMania, a collegiate competition to determine the most recycle-friendly school in the nation, started yesterday. Tufts has distributed the bins. All you have to do is use them. Look out for announcements concerning RecycleMania. And remember, solo cups, smoothie containers from Hotung and plastic take-out containers from The Commons are all recyclable.
Call me optimistic, but I predict a victory for Tufts - but only with your help.
Lucy McKeon is a sophomore who has not yet declared a major.
