Recycling and carbon emissions

One of the things which significantly irritates is how the general fashion is unable to connect the dots. Here the specific example is the idea that recycling is good as a method of reducing carbon emissions. It isn’t:

Oxfam has calculated that carbon emissions produced by the world’s wealthiest 10% are equivalent to those of the poorest half. Today, we publish new research showing that the average Brit will emit more carbon in first two weeks of 2020 than the citizens of seven African nations emit in an entire year.

The good news is that there are increasing signs that the public is ready to act. As many as four in five Britons said they are likely to take one of a number of actions this year to reduce their carbon footprint. More than two-thirds (68%) said they were likely to use energy-efficient products or utility providers and 79% of people said they were likely to recycle more.

Of course, we understand how the position is reached. It is a general assumption that reducing carbon emissions is a good idea. It is equally generally thought that recycling is a good idea. But that does not mean, as is asserted there, that recycling reduces carbon emissions.

Goodly portions of recycling cost more than the landfill of old and the creation of new from virgin materials. That greater expense is evidence pure and simple that more resources are required to recycle than to not do so. One obvious resource that more may - note, may - be needed of is energy. Recycling can therefore increase, not reduce, emissions.

That is, it isn’t true that this general ragbag of all the things people think are nice produce the desired or even claimed outcome. It is necessary to be specific about the outcomes of specific policies, not just assume that if it’s fashionable the outcome will be as desired.