Environmental fads and fallacies

Recycling, believed by many to be accomplished by separate collection or central separation, only increases the cost of waste management until someone buys the junk.Reuse with refundable deposits removes valuable items from the waste stream at the earliest possible point and directly rewards the person who does the work.Biodegradable plastics increase greenhouse gases in comparison to conventional plastics if deposited in a landfill. Biofuels have a very minor effect on greenhouse gases because they represent only a few years retention of carbon, in contrast to fossil fuels which have been stored for millions of years.Composting is not recycling, but the destruction of one-half of the energy value of wastes with the production of a humus similar to, but not as good as, that produced in all good soils. As NPK fertilizer, compost is seldom worth the energy necessary to spread it although it has many special uses to improve poor soils.A large number of the perceived risks from e.g. PVC, dioxins, incineration, furnace ash, waste fuel oil, etc. are derived from assumptions that have been unsupported or refuted by later studies, but which remain strongly entrenched in the public mind.Since it is not possible to set a practical scientific definition of hazardous wastes, legal definitions are established. Some of these limits are influenced by active lobbying of interested commercial parties and may bear little relation to environmental or health risks.Competition between environmental authorities to set the lowest limits for toxic emissions has led to scientifically absurd and destructively expensive legal limits on “popular” pollutants. The result is a greater exposure to other hazards that must be neglected due to lack of funds.