To my surprise, my family responded relatively warmly. I hung up a chart on the refrigerator with a pen conveniently attached (if they had to expend effort looking for a pen to record the data, I wasn’t going to get much), and acted as the annoying voice in the back of their head reminding them to be aware of the plastic they’re consuming.
In addition to learning more precisely what is and isn’t plastic, and in which category the pieces belong, the data collection compelled us to be mindful—mindful of our plastic intake, where we dispose of these plastics, and how dependent on plastics our lives have become.
I think that doing research before participating in this plastics audit was a good idea. It allowed us to be mindful in another way, besides the aforementioned ones: we were able to understand, at least to some extent, the damage of plastics in the environment. It contextualized what exactly we were doing. However, it then led me to wonder: yes, all those who participate in such a data collection will inevitably learn of the harm caused by plastics, but does that prompt a real shift in plastic consumption? Is there a tangible change in attitude and lifestyle? Besides, how many households could even make a dent in national—or even citywide—plastic consumption? We talked a bit in class about what corporations can do, since they’re the ones with the power. But what can the average layperson, who’s throwing out 6 pieces of plastic a day, do to positively impact the environment?
This led me to think about what recycling really does. Why didn’t we just count the plastic that we didn’t recycle? I did some simple googling, and came across an informative CBS News article, in which I learned that “the materials least likely to be melted and reused were plastic: PET…bottles and jars had a recycling rate of 29.2 percent, white translucent bottles a rate of 27.5 percent.” Also, a professor from Baruch (go CUNY!) was quoted as saying, “Even if everyone is America was perfect at recycling everything, it wouldn’t make a dent in the overall flow in the waste materials.” Ultimately though, recycling isn’t bad and “it helps companies and governments save some money in the long run.” Still, I’m not satisfied.
All I can say is, instead of providing answers, this data collection prompted lots of questions.
And so it goes Miriam. The curious are never done, and wicked problems will never go away. After reading that article you shared (which I thought was nicely done), I’m more convinced than ever that solutions need to be aimed at packaging rather than recycling.
It’s scary to think that recycling really isn’t enough. Majority of the plastics I found myself using were soft plastics anyway, the type that NYC wants us to toss in the trash. This is annoying as this is the mot common form of packaging and almost impossible to avoid. Upcycling is an interesting way to change the idea of recycling, but probably is not spread widely enough to matter much.
This post reminded me of the same concerns that I had when doing the audit and the class discussion, does recycling matter? Maybe there should be a bigger discussion on production rather than waste treatment.
It’s interesting that the article mentions that though the global impact of recycling might not be much, its effects would be felt on a local city level, particularly through the money saved from “disposal fees.” Even if the primary effect of our recycling is that it makes us feel better, it’s still worth it for that — “mindfulness” might not be much on its own, but it can be a step towards actions, hopefully making us more likely to support new policies and to support industries making strides towards friendlier materials.