OPINION:
Whenever focus group participants are asked whether they care about the environment and if so, what sort of “environmentally friendly” actions they take, it is an absolute certainty that at least half the room will respond that they recycle.
For years, that answer has elicited chuckles from professional environmentalists and other smart people who were absolutely certain that recycling — when the cost and emissions associated with the various processes were taken into account — was not really that much of an improvement over using virgin materials.
Moreover, recycling did nothing to address the “important” environmental issues such as clean air and climate change.
Well, unfortunately for the smart kids, a handful of professors at the University of Florida recently conducted a study to assess the environmental value of curbside recycling. It turns out that curbside recycling actually provides more environmental benefits than many of the most sacred cows of the environmental left — including, most notably, electric vehicles.
The study compared the environmental benefits — more specifically, the effect on climate change — of curbside recycling, switching from gasoline-powered cars and trucks to electric vehicles, and purchasing green electricity.
The study found that with respect to climate change mitigation, recycling is equal to or better than purchasing green power or mandating electric vehicles.
The authors sum it up clearly. “The recycling environmental ROI (return on investment with respect to the environment) is similar to or greater than both the ROI of switching to electric and hybrid vehicles and the ROI for voluntary green power purchase programs. … [T]he climate change mitigation benefits of recycling are on par with these other common climate change mitigation initiatives, and during the best markets, the investment in recycling pays out more.”
Timothy Townsend, a professor of environmental engineering sciences at the University of Florida who helped author the study, said: “Eliminating recycling squanders one of the easiest opportunities for communities and citizens to help lessen the impact of climate change and reduce our demands on natural resources. Recycling won’t solve the problem alone, but it is part of the puzzle.”
In short, all those focus group respondents over the years were on to something. Depending on the circumstances, recycling might be more valuable to the environment than requiring that the entire fleet of gasoline-powered cars and trucks be replaced with electric vehicles. It is safe to say that very few people would have anticipated that result.
This leads us to an important lesson: Be wary of those with credentials who are confident in their own expertise. The smart kids (including this author) who made fun of those focus group participants for emphasizing recycling were wrong. Just because someone is supposedly an “expert” does not make their opinions correct in every instance. In this case, as in just about every case involving humans, humility is in order.
It should also — but probably won’t — give pause to those who want to take away your cars. If they are wrong about something as fundamental as whether mandating fewer, more expensive electric cars is good for the environment, they are probably wrong about a lot of things.
You should view everyone — but especially those who want you to change some element of your life to align with their wishes and, not coincidentally, put some cash in their own pocket — with a dose of skepticism.
You should also be grateful to scholars like those at the University of Florida who remain willing to ask uncomfortable questions about the motives and wisdom of those in power.
• Michael McKenna, a columnist for The Washington Times, is president of MWR Strategies. He was most recently a deputy assistant to the president and deputy director of the Office of Legislative Affairs at the White House. He can be reached at mike@mwrstrat.com.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.