Sustainable Development: Why bother to recycle? Advocates say recycling is essential for a healthy planet, but others say recycling has more to do with conspicuous 'good citizenship' than good waste management. Is recycling not only inconvenient but unnecessary for sustainable development? In this clip, Thomas Deichmann of the German magazine Novo says recycling is a waste of time. The best way to dispose of household waste, he says studies show, is to burn it. Recycling has become a political issue, rather than a practical problem for engineers, and Deichmann says this is a mistake.
Bio
Thomas Deichmann
Thomas Deichmann is founder and since 1992 Editor in Chief of the bi-monthly German magazine Novo, published in Frankfurt. Since 1993 he has worked as a freelance journalist and researcher for numerous quality papers across Europe, including Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, Focus, Die Zeit, Financial Times Deutschland, Die Welt, Brand eins, Suddeutsche Zeitung Magazin, Die Tageszeitung, Ernaehrungsdienst (all Germany), Der Standard (Austria), Profil (Austria), Weltwoche (Switzerland), De Groene Amsterdammer (Netherlands), Trouw (Netherlands), De Morgen (Belgium), Helsingborgs Dagblad (Sweden), spiked (UK).
During the 90s, Deichmann's journalism covered international relations and the civil war in the former Yugoslavia. Since 1999 he has focused his research and writing on science topics, and modern biotechnology in particular. His investigative journalism and his "enlightenment" approach repeatedly cause international and national wide debates. He has appeared on radio and TV repeatedly. He has lectured at universities and journalism schools such as the Henri Nannen Schule (Berlin), Schule fair Publizistik (Cologne) and Technische University Berlin on reporting and journalistic standards.
He studied Civil Engineering at Darmstadt University and was awarded his diploma in 1989, spending some years working at Darmstadt University and as a freelance engineer.
Recovery and reuse of materials from consumed products. The main motives for recycling have been the increasing scarcity and cost of natural resources (including oil, gas, coal, mineral ores, and trees) and the pollution of air (seeair pollution), water (seewater pollution), and land by waste materials. There are two types of recycling, internal and external. Internal recycling is the reuse in a manufacturing process of materials that are a waste product of that process, and is common in the metals industry (seescrap metal). External recycling is the reclaiming of materials from a product that is worn out or no longer useful; an example is the collection of old newspapers and magazines for the manufacture of newsprint or other paper products.
If recycling is such a waste of time and money, why are the waste companies willing to pay you to recycle aluminum cans? Because it's cheaper to recycle them than manufacture from scratch. That's also why there are people fishing through garbage cans and dumpsters collecting them, because it makes economic sense to recycle them rather than throw them away.
SQUAREHEAD is also right, it would be much more effective to reduce our use of materials in the first place. So much garbage is unnecessary. If things weren't so overpackaged and overproduced, there would be a lot less trash to worry about at the end of the line. It just makes sense to try to minimize your impact on the environment by using as few resources as possible.
Jeesh where is Al Gore when you need him? Oh he's flying out to some party somewhere on a jet to give a speech that we saw in a move to go neutralize some carbon.
It's not to say recycling is useless. If it makes you feel like you are doing something for the world, then recycle. There are other things you could do to make yourself feel better, like purchasing a tote that says you recycle because then you'll be an urban hipster too. That kills two birds with one stone, which is a very very smart way to kill a couple of birds by the way and also carbon neutral.
Recycling is not useless, it's very educational ask any polar bear... that furry poster child for global warming is like HUGE now.
What recycling does however is it puts this discussion in the forefront of everyones minds and the by-product of that is big companies that are dumping hazardous materials into the water and sky are not getting slapped fines. Recycling is really about educating with guilt.
Why use guilt, though when you could throw a party? We'll find some celebrities that want to stay in the lime light be green for a day.
Instead of offering a sustainable plan in lieu of his criticisms (which are nonetheless very solid ones), Thomas Deichmann falls into a Foucault-esque mentality in seeing spheres of elitist control masquerading as a progressive stance on a greener planet when it actually stands for a reactionary (not revolutionary) cause: to keep the masses busy basically by "lowering horizons" so to speak in the pettiness of the recycling system that we now have at hand.
There are two issues I have with his arguments:
1) If he wishes to leave the issue to the elite and not think about recycling as an issue for all (i.e. the masses), who will keep the elite accountable for a credible balance of powers?
2) With only criticism and no skeletal frame of how any player in society may have an impact on recycling and sustainable green development, he may just be another figure with a lot of bark and no bite.
This issue ranks around the middle of serious issues..... Can't we as individuals and companies take responsibility for our own waste, by recycling, taking public transportation, and carpooling?
This video just brings to light an issue that is meant to be highly politicized
The debate definitely breaks-down, but that should be expected with an official title like "Recycling is a Waste of Time!” The organizers of this debate were just asking for it.
What really struck me while watching was the human emotion involved, especially coming from the audience!? Watch the full version and check out the audience reactions during the Q&A segments - mostly siding with the anti-recycling panelist Thomas Deichmann. Being a native Californian, this really caught me off guard.
From what I gather, they make it really difficult to recycle in certain parts of Europe…and most people have to pay for the service! I live in a small Californian town where the cost is covered by minor taxes. We don’t have to separate all the different types of glass, cans and plastic – it all goes in the same bin. All recycling is separated at a plant, which employs people who otherwise may not be able to find work.
I barely have to think about the process, which means it’s easy and doesn’t burden my life. I also don’t feel like it’s an evolutionary step backwards, like Deichmann seems to argue. That point of view seems completely daft. If it were easy, and free…most people would recycle.
i actually agree with the speaker, recycling takes too much time and the process of recycling is expensive (labor, facilities, etc). we should concentrate our efforts and money on other solutions.
this makes me so mad...there is NO evidence backing up what he is saying, he is just trying to justify his own lazyness...yes lets just throw away whatever we want, who cares about saving the planet for future generations...disgusting...
I agree that many of the recycling systems can become more localized. Personally, I think reduction and reuse of waste/recyclables have a greater effect than recycling. However, what does anyone (ie elitists) have to benefit from creating participation in an innefficient recycling program. That seems a little paranoid and feels like conspiracey-mongering.
I will consider the possibility that the recycling system isn't the most efficient, but this argument is not strong enough to convince me to stop using the system myself.
member. 
