Waste Not
act-new-zealand
Mon Jun 22 2009 12:00:00 GMT+1200 (New Zealand Standard Time)
Waste Not
Monday, 22 June 2009, 2:45 pm
Column: ACT New Zealand
Waste Not
_
Hon Heather Roy, ACT Deputy Leader_
_
Monday June 22 2009_
I've just finished separating the plastics from the glassware and newspapers for this week's recycling collection and - as he does most weeks - my husband commented that my efforts are wasted because much of the cardboard, glass and plastic I carefully set aside for recycling ends up going to the dump anyway.
I like recycling - it makes me feel that I'm making a contribution to the environmental cause and taking an active part in caring for the planet. At the same time, I'm also very aware of the commentary about what really happens to the recyclables that others - like me - carefully separate and put out for collection each week.
The most recent piece I've seen on this issue is Michael Laws' 'Sunday Star-Times' column. Along with US liberal political commentator and filmmaker Michael Moore, he is a vocal opponent of recycling - which, they both claim, is a farce.
As a society, we are probably more ecologically aware today than we have ever been. Terms like 'global warming', 'climate change', and 'carbon footprint' barely raise an eyebrow when used in day-to-day conversation. We have been made aware - by politicians, broadcasters, activists, scientists and more - of the detrimental effect we are having on the planet and of what we need to do to reverse this as much as we can.
The truth is that much of what we put into our recycling bins ends up in the same place as the contents of our general waste rubbish bags: the local landfill. In fact, all glass put out for recycling in the South Island ends up being buried - because it is cheaper to do so than to ship it all the way to the country's only glass recycling plant in Auckland. It all comes down to money - do the benefits outweigh the costs?
Advertisement - scroll to continue reading
By these tokens, it would appear that we aren't actually making a difference at all by recycling. The growth of landfills - which recycling was supposed to help alleviate - is obviously going to continue, given that the same amount of waste - recyclable and not - is being poured into them as before.
While many believe that recycling is a relatively new phenomenon, it has been around for decades - in the US, current recycling levels are below those of the 1930s and 1940s. The US currently recycles paper, glass and plastics - and materials like lead and copper are increasingly being re-used.
As a global society, we have also been conditioned to believe that all recycling is good - hence the meticulous sorting of waste and recyclables that goes on in homes around the country the night before rubbish collection.
Recycling, we are told, is the best and most effective way to save resources and avoid waste. But what about the preservation of resources? And is recycling a good investment of these resources?
To begin with, one of the most recyclable materials in the world today is paper - but paper is a renewable resource.
International studies have indicated that it could well cost more money to recycle paper than to produce new paper. It has been speculated by some researchers that it may be possible to save more resources, not by recycling but, by burning old paper at incineration plants - harnessing the heat to fell more trees to make new paper rather than expending energy to collect old paper, sorting it, preparing it and then filtering it.
Whether or not such ideas would work better in the long run than the action we are taking now, the fact is that all options should be considered. We should all play a part in caring for the environment, but it should be through initiatives that actually do something - rather than those which simply pay lip service to the issue. We all know what the Greens say, but here's a quote from Michael Moore.
"No real recycling was taking place. We were being conned. So I stopped recycling. I came to the conclusion that when I recycled, what I was really doing was letting myself off the hook. As long as I did my little paper-glass-metal separation duty, I wasn't required to do anything else to save Planet Earth. Once my bottles and cans and newspapers were deposited in the appropriately colored barrels, I could press reset on my conscience and trust that someone else would do the rest of the job. Out of sight, out of mind, back inside my gas-guzzling minivan." - Michael Moore.
**Lest We Forget
**In late June 1942 the High Command of the Australian military began to receive reports that large numbers of Japanese soldiers were landing in northern Papua New Guinea.
General MacArthur, overall commander of all Allied forces in the region, was at first dismissive of the landing's significance, as it was widely assumed that it was impossible to march an army from the north coast to the south coast - while the track was only around 100 miles, the jungle was dense and then gave way to a high mountain pass. Soldiers from both sides had to deal with overpowering heat at low altitudes and bitterly cold nights at high altitudes. Malaria caused many deaths.
Whilst a ferocious defence was being fought by the small number of Australian and Papuan soldiers who encountered the Japanese army, the situation was completely misunderstood by MacArthur and most of the Allied high command. The troops at the front were being criticised for retreating when they were heavily outnumbered by elite Japanese units.
After the February 1942 fall of Singapore, Australia and New Zealand were engulfed with invasion hysteria as the Japanese seemed unstoppable. However, terror turned to relief after US naval victories at the Coral Sea and the Battle of Midway. Few stopped to think that the Japanese, thwarted at sea, would attempt to invade overland.
The truth filtered through to the Australian Government first. Japan had committed thousands of its best soldiers and was prepared to endure heavy casualties to reach the end of the track at Port Moresby. The most likely reason was to build up Port Moresby as a base to invade Australia. If that were not enough of a problem, most of Australia's forces were in the Middle East fighting Hitler and Mussolini. Churchill seemed reluctant to release them from duty and US President Roosevelt had little to offer. Australia and New Zealand were feeling decidedly expendable.
Australia, however, had a sizeable territorial force - the 'militia' - composed mainly of 18-year-olds, and a sizeable Reserve Army of hardy WWI veterans. Had I been in government at the time I would have opposed the deployment of a force of boys and middle-aged men to face such a formidable foe, but they were sent because they were all that was available.
Tales of their suffering and heroism could run to volumes but, suffice to say, they inflicted a heavy defeat on the Japanese forces and with it destroyed the myth of Japanese invincibility.
ENDS
Advertisement - scroll to continue reading
a.supporter:hover {background:#EC4438!important;} @media screen and (max-width: 480px) { #byline-block div.byline-block {padding-right:16px;}}
Using Scoop for work?
Scoop is free for personal use, but you’ll need a licence for work use. This is part of our Ethical Paywall and how we fund Scoop. Join today with plans starting from less than $3 per week, plus gain access to exclusive Pro features.
Join Pro Individual Find out more
Find more from ACT New Zealand on InfoPages.