Hey, kids, we know how much you enjoy propagandizing your parents about the alleged virtues of recycling, how morally superior it makes you feel, but guess what: You've got your facts all wrong!
"Polls show that most information adults get about the environment comes from their kids, who in turn get their views from school and children's television," reports Roy Cordato, professor of business philosophy at Campbell University. "Much of what kids learn is grounded in advocacy, not fact," Cordato observes. He cites as an example the myth of dwindling landfill space, noting that "all of the solid waste that America will generate for the next ten centuries [would fill no more than] one-tenth of 1 percent of the land area of the continental United States."
In an essay reprinted in a recent issue of Intellectual Ammunition, published by the Heartland Institute, Cordato also punctures the inflated egos of paper recyclers. "If we stopped making paper from trees, there would be fewer trees," he insists. "Eighty-seven percent of the trees that are used for manufacturing paper are planted for that purpose." Cordato points out that "both the amount of forest land and the number of trees in this country have been increasing for the last 50 years. Increased demand for paper has led to more, not fewer, trees."
Cordato also discounts the claim that recycling saves resources. "If recycling saved resources, it should cost less, not more, than other methods of trash disposal," he observes. "If recycling truly saved resources relative to landfilling and making products from virgin materials, people would not need to be exhorted, and in some cases forced, to recycle." Furthermore, "the recycling process itself generates pollution." Cordato cites newspaper recycling, which "requires that the old ink be stripped and the paper be bleached. This is a chemically intensive process that generates chemical waste, as opposed to the benign waste that would result from throwing the paper away."
Cordato denies that "people who recycle are better citizens or even care more about the environment than people who don't." When we base our behavior on false propaganda, he observes, "we are wasting resources and even generating pollution in the name of saving the environment."
Perhaps parents should sit down with their children and discuss exactly what it means to "think globally, act locally." It's clear from recent test scores that American kids don't know much about geography, among other things. Under the circumstances, thinking globally may be something they want to postpone for a while, at least until they've figured out why North America is invariably to be found on a map (if, indeed, it can be found) above South America (assuming, of course, that the map is rightside up). Acting locally is something children can do, however, and the more local the better. Here's a suggestion: If kids really want to improve the environment, and set a good example for their parents, why not start by cleaning up their own bedrooms? It doesn't get any more local than that!
