Talk:Criticism of recycling

message: I was wondering how the following sentence (under the header "saves trees") makes any sense: "Incidentally, the reduced forests would be farming forests for paper production, albeit reduction of such forests could create the need to move into virgin forests.Landsburg, Steven A. The Armchair Economist. p. 81. " How would reducing farming forests create need to move into virgin forests? I'm going to remove the sentence from the page until its explained (I can't check the source it comes from). Fresheneesz 20:58, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reduction of farming forests create need to move into virgin forests???

message: How about broadening this article to one that looks at both the costs and benefits of recycling, something that isn't just about criticism. Even if we do keep an article on just criticism it should be called criticism of recycling, not recycling criticism (are we recycling the criticism itself?) Richard001 (talk) 23:34, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes I'd agree with that name change.  I tend not to like criticism articles in general; with the revamp I've done of Recycling, I hope most points from both sides are covered there.  At some point, I'd like  to formally merge this article back into the main one. --jwandersTalk 04:40, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It occurs to me that, in order to criticise recycling techniques and policy, it is necessary to understand what the alternatives are.  Most defences of recycling are based on a comparison with virgin manufacture followed by (typically) landfill, but there are alternatives - full-life-cycle planning (e.g. burning cardboard and paper locally), re-use (e.g. returnable glass bottles), and simply doing without!  It is clear that different kinds of waste, in different localities will need different solutions, so simply taking a position "Recycling is good/bad" doesn't make any sense.  Recognising that this article may need rethinking, (and it seems clear that the main recycling article isn't the place to explore these) is this a good place for it? 91.84.53.236 (talk) 09:35, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I support the remerge into the main article. This criticism article here seems more like loose collection of random (or not so random) newspaper articles. It would be better if the criticism could be condensed to the main points, properly referenced and then merged back into recycling. Splette :) How's my driving? 15:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Article rethink

message: From the section "Working conditions":
"Critics often argue that while recycling may create jobs, they are often jobs with low wages and terrible working conditions."
From an economic perspective, the argument that something "creates jobs" is fundamentally flawed. Creating jobs is only a good thing if the work that's being done is competitively productive. Otherwise, it's just taking labor and resources away from places where they're really needed. If, as some would argue, recycling is inefficient, that would pretty much invalidate the argument that it creates jobs, regardless of what working conditions might be like.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.16.132.180 (talk) 08:48, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Creates Jobs?