The average American produces 4.51 pounds of trash a day up from 2.68 pounds in 1960. Recycling has long been touted as the solution, but there are downsides to recycling too.

Pros and cons of recycling

Recycling can be an important part of waste management: effective recycling of all kinds of materials can prevent them from clogging up landfill, polluting the environment, and can avoid the environmental strain caused by manufacturing new items.

However, there are many issues associated with recycling. It’s important to understand these complexities in order to make more eco-friendly decisions not only around how you deal with your waste, but in how you live your life more generally.

Advantages of recycling

Before we dive into the issues and challenges associated with recycling, let’s take a look at the benefits of this approach and why it can be valuable in some circumstances.

Recycling helps reduce pollution

Traditionally, the world has dealt with its trash in one of two ways, both of which cause pollution:

In addition to these types of pollution, landfill also causes other kinds of environmental degradation. Most notably, large tracts of native habitats are cleared to make way for landfill, resulting in deforestation, which can, in turn, threaten endemic species, lead to water scarcity, and contribute to climate change.

One of the major benefits of recycling is that it can greatly reduce the amount of trash we send to landfills or incinerators, helping to reduce pollution as well as avoid other environmental problems associated with these approaches.

Additionally, responsibly recycling hazardous waste ensures that it won’t pollute the environment and threaten human health. For example, one quart of engine oil can contaminate over two million gallons of fresh water if not disposed of properly.

For advice on how to recycle or otherwise responsibly dispose of tricky household items, see our posts on LED light bulbs, kitchen knives, propane tanks, and broken glass.

Recycling cuts energy and resource use

By recovering materials rather than sending them to landfill, we don’t need to mine or manufacture new ones, thereby protecting our planet’s limited resources.

Furthermore, the mining and manufacturing industries damage the environment in a range of ways from clearing native habitats to leaching toxins into the soil and waterways and emitting greenhouse gasses which contribute to climate change.

Therefore, recycling materials can help to scale back these activities and reduce their negative impacts on the environment.

Recycling also helps to save on the energy needed to make these new products and materials. Although the recycling process uses some energy, this is generally much less than manufacturing new materials.

Glass, for example, requires less energy to recycle than manufacture, as existing glass melts at much lower temperatures than its raw materials. In this way, recycling helps to reduce fossil fuel consumption and greenhouse gas emissions, as well as having economic benefits.

Recycling raises awareness of environmental issues

Getting people to recycle can have impacts far beyond the initial effect of recycling that plastic bottle or BRITA filter. By getting more involved in this process and making an effort to dispose of our trash more responsibly, we become more conscious of our eco-footprint.

Essentially, going through our trash and recycling what we can makes us think about the environment and how we impact it, on a regular basis. It makes us think about how much waste we create, and may well encourage us to take steps to reduce this.

Furthermore, for anyone who wants to be more eco-friendly, recycling can be an easy first step to take, as well as being a great way to teach kids about environmental issues. It can also be an important part of a mindset shift that may open people up to be more environmentally-friendly in other ways too.

In some cases, this can pave the way for other lifestyle choices that go even further to protect the planet, such as composting, installing solar panels, or avoiding palm oil.

Recycling can save you money

Not only can recycling be beneficial to the environment, but it can also be advantageous to your wallet.

You can make money through recycling certain materials, most notably some types of metals – learn how here. You’re unlikely to earn large amounts this way, but it’s something!

Some towns also offer cash incentives for recycling glass items or aluminum cans. Products made from recycled materials are often cheaper, so opting for these kinds of products can save you some cash.

The recycling industry creates jobs

Recycling is a labor-intensive process: large numbers of people are needed to run recycling facilities, from transporting and processing waste to creating new products from recovered materials. In this way, the industry can create a range of skilled and semi-skilled jobs.

Ecocycle.org estimates that we would generate around 1.1 million jobs in the USA if the recycling rate increased to 75%. Currently, we recycle around 30% of solid municipal waste.

According to the same organization, recycling and reuse creates nine times more job opportunities than incinerators and landfill sites.

Furthermore, the recycling industry has the potential to drive economic growth, creating new jobs as it does.

Pitfalls of recycling

While recycling can be environmentally, socially, and economically beneficial, the wide-spread and aggressive campaigns promoting it over the past few decades have overlooked its risks and downsides. This has also led to it becoming something of a band-aid solution that can allow us to overlook the more challenging, underlying causes of our waste problems.

Our recyclables may be exported

China took almost half of the world’s recycling waste for decades until they banned the process in 2018. In the years immediately before the ban, many Western countries exported large volumes of their recyclables there: in 2016, the US alone sent them 16 million tons of paper, metal, and plastic.

Of these, around one-third were not recycled due to contamination and ended up littering the Chinese countryside and oceans instead. We continue to send our recycling to low-income countries across the world, such as Kenya, Senegal, Ethiopia, Ghana, Laos, Bangladesh, and Cambodia.

Not only does this pass the waste problem on to others who are probably less equipped to deal with it, but it means we lose control of the process and how much of these materials are actually recycled. Not to mention the greenhouse gas emissions generated by transporting literal mountains of trash across the globe.

We also lose control of how this waste is handled, as the Chinese example shows: around 1.5 million metric tons of plastic is dumped off the coast of the country every year. It’s disturbing to think how much of this may be our own waste that we dutifully sent to recycling.

Furthermore, as more countries institute bans against accepting foreign recyclables – Vietnam, Thailand, and Malaysia quickly followed China and introduced laws against importing plastic waste – we need to look for other options. As a result, we’re increasingly relying on countries with poor environmental protections, opening this situation up to even worse impacts on the planet.

Recycling inadvertently encourages us to use disposable items

Critics say that recycling gives us a false sense of security, as it makes us feel like we’re solving our waste problem when really it’s only slowing down or delaying the damage we’re causing the environment. 

Recycling isn’t really the ultimate solution to pollution and waste management as it uses large amounts of energy, is expensive, and can be hazardous to people and the environment if not done properly.

Furthermore, plastics can only be recycled a limited number of times: usually once or twice, so we still need to keep manufacturing more plastic items.

It can even encourage us to use non-recyclable materials. For example, not all plastics are readily recyclable, but many people don’t understand this, so may use them under the false assumption that they can be recycled.

In this way, recycling can potentially do more harm than good by allowing us to justify using disposable items, not to mention using energy and resources as well as producing pollution and greenhouse gasses during the manufacture of these items and during the recycling process itself.

Recycling programs also fail to address our biggest source of waste. In the US, food waste makes up the biggest proportion of municipal trash.

Food can’t be recycled, so by focusing on recycling as the main solution, we’re overlooking this key issue. Food waste not only clogs up landfills and emits pollution as it breaks down there, but producing much more food than we need has a range of negative impacts on the environment, from the use of toxic fertilizers and pesticides to contributing to climate change.

Recycling requires consumers to carefully prep their recycling

Another major problem is it relies on individuals to prepare their recyclables properly before putting them out curbside or sending them to a recycling facility.

Recyclables can be contaminated by food waste or because they’re mixed with materials the recycling facility won’t accept, such as straws and plastic bags. Such items are a huge red flag for recycling centers as they could get stuck in machinery and damage very expensive equipment.

If items are not thoroughly cleaned and properly sorted it not only makes that item unrecyclable, but it contaminates the whole load. Essentially, one greasy food container could mean that an entire truck of recyclable materials gets sent to landfill.

Recycling uses energy and can generate pollution

Unlike reducing and reusing, recycling is a fairly energy-intensive process. Unless this energy is produced from renewable sources, it means relying on finite fossil fuels, which also generates greenhouse gas emissions, contributing to climate change.

Waste to energy plants could be a solution to this issue, but are not common in the USA.

Although recycling generally consumes less energy than sourcing and producing new materials, it’s better to avoid this energy use at all, for example, by reducing our consumption.

Properly recycling everything from plastic to silicon does not generally cause pollution and eliminates the soil, air, and water pollution caused by other forms of waste disposal. However, if the recycling process is not managed properly, it can contaminate the environment in a range of ways.

Electronics, for example, are sometimes sent to developing countries for recycling, where non-recyclable components may be thrown out, polluting land and waterways if that country doesn’t have strong regulations in place to prevent this.

Likewise, if plastics are not processed properly, they can release VOCs, volatile organic compounds, when they melt, which pose a risk to both human health and the environment. This can be damaging to human health, as well as pollute the local environment, threatening plants and animals.

Along with environmental risks, there can also be safety risks for workers if facilities are not properly managed. For example, If facilities don’t take proper safety precautions, workers may be exposed to toxic components when they hand-sort trash or handle recyclable materials.

Recycling is actually expensive

Recycling is an expensive process, and this is even more true of the initial costs required to set up recycling programs and infrastructure in the first place.

Import bans from China and other countries have also made recycling less economically viable. Just a few years ago, local governments across the US could make money selling recyclable materials.

These sums were generally modest – not a substantial revenue stream, but enough to make it worthwhile for sanitation departments to recycle all kinds of materials. However, now the situation has completely reversed, with towns needing to pay huge sums of money to run their recycling programs.

The US’ dependence on exporting recyclables for so many years meant that, unlike some European countries for example, we never developed extensive recycling infrastructure, exacerbating these issues.

The comparative cost of recycling also depends on other waste disposal options and how expensive they are. For example, in the US, it’s relatively easy and affordable to find space for landfills, making recycling programs a less attractive option.

This cost-benefit ratio relationship means some materials are more difficult to recycle than others and makes the future of recycling uncertain. Around 100 towns have already suspended their curbside recycling programs.

The real question is how long will cash-strapped local authorities sponsor our addiction to disposable materials?

How can we fix the recycling problem?

One solution that would address some of the issues associated with recycling in the US would be to invest in recycling systems and infrastructure. This would make the process more efficient and cost-effective, making it more viable for local authorities to sponsor local recycling programs.

In turn, this would reduce our reliance on exporting our recyclable materials, giving us more control over how much of our waste is actually recycled and under what conditions, and avoid dumping our waste problems on other countries.

This investment would also need to be matched by a commitment by authorities to sponsor recycling programs, as even with better infrastructure, these processes are still costly. 

Encouraging businesses to use recycled materials in their products would also help to expand the domestic market and make recycling more economically viable, though it’s unlikely to cover all costs.

Legislation to restrict or eliminate landfill could also be part of the solution. Making it more expensive to send our trash to landfill would make recycling comparatively more affordable.

Simply put, as things stand, we make it too easy to send waste to landfill, passing the cost on to the environment instead.

A more radical approach could be to pass the cost of recycling disposable materials on to the companies that produce them, such as by requiring brands to pay a deposit or penalty for selling products in certain types of packing or containers. This would ultimately pass the cost on to the consumer, as manufacturers would undoubtedly put their prices up accordingly.

However, it would also encourage both brands and their customers to explore other options, including truly zero-waste solutions.

Although these steps can help to make recycling more efficient and cost-effective, a big part of the solution should also be pursuing alternatives in order to reduce our reliance on recycling.

Viable alternatives to recycling

While recycling undoubtedly has its place in both waste management and living an eco-friendly lifestyle, it’s not the end of the story. In fact, recycling should arguably be seen as a last resort after you’ve tried other approaches to dealing with and eliminating waste.

Go zero-waste

A zero-waste approach can go a long way to minimize our impact on the environment. There are a range of ways to achieve a zero-waste lifestyle, such as:

• Only buy products in reusable containers, and get refills of everything from grains to shampoo
• Compost your organic waste
• Look for zero-waste products such as toothpaste, deodorant, and even toilet paper
• Get creative and reuse, repurpose, and upcycle whenever possible
• Buy second-hand clothing and accessories rather than new items

Going completely zero-waste can be a challenge, especially at first. However, avoiding single-use plastics with reusable bottles, coffee cups, and shopping bags can be a good start.

Opt for quality over quantity

Another powerful way to reduce both our rate of consumption and the amount of waste we produce is by buying quality products.

Society has become geared toward cheap, disposable products. Much of what we buy today, from clothing and electronics to single-use plastics, is only built to be used for a short period of time before it breaks, wears out, or stops working.

On the surface, this doesn’t matter, as we can easily buy a replacement for a nominal cost. However, the cost is passed on to the environment through the additional drain on resources and energy needed to manufacture new items, not to mention the waste that is produced.

In contrast, when we buy good-quality items that last a long time, they don’t need to be replaced so often, so we throw away less. Additionally, less energy and resources need to be used to produce the replacement items we buy.

We can even go a step further and try to cut down on the amount of stuff we buy entirely. It’s important to buy quality-made products, but in some cases, we can avoid buying anything at all by adopting a more minimalist approach.

Repair rather than throw away

All too often, we throw away items that could be as good as new with a little TLC. Your toaster breaks, and instead of taking it to the repair shop, you jump online to buy a new one.

Likewise, the heel comes off your favorite pair of boots (an easy fix), and you buy a new pair, or rather than mending a ripped seam in that near-new sweater, you get a new one.

The low cost and easy availability of all kinds of consumer items are largely to blame for this: it’s often quicker and even cheaper to buy a replacement than to have it repaired (or fix it yourself).

However, the cost to the earth is immense: every new product we buy takes energy and materials to make and probably produces pollution in the process. What’s more, our old item becomes trash that ends up in landfill or pollutes our waterways.

In contrast, repairing things typically involves minimal use of energy and resources, making this a huge net gain for the environment.

Should we skip recycling?

The short answer to this question is no: we shouldn’t ditch recycling entirely. Recycling can be an effective way to deal with trash and can form a vital part of a multifaceted approach to waste management and looking after the environment more generally.

However, over-reliance, particularly using recycling as an excuse not to pursue other tactics, is highly problematic, especially over the long term.

Arguably, we should see recycling as a short-term solution while we restructure how society functions, from production to consumer habits, in order to slash the amount of waste we produce or, better still, eliminate it entirely.

Check out our guides to recycling difficult items like cork and razor blades, and learn more about going zero-waste.

6 key environmental issues and movements in Japan

With over 125 million people living on a series of islands, Japan is a densely-populated country. It’s also biologically diverse with a range of climates and types of habitats, giving it a unique set of environmental issues and challenges.

The Japanese government and population are rising to this challenge, with a range of innovative solutions and policies, some of which set an example for the rest of the world to follow. Let’s take a closer look at the key environmental issues in Japan, and how the nation is tackling them head-on.

1. Waste management

Waste is a critical global issue, but managing waste is especially problematic in Japan, thanks to its dense population and high level of development. The country is the world’s second-highest generator of plastic packaging waste, with total volumes of municipal waste increasing exponentially since the mid-20th century, as the island nation rapidly industrialized.

Japan has long relied on incineration to deal with the large amounts of waste its population produces, destroying almost two-thirds of its trash this way. While countries like the US send the majority of their waste to landfill, this simply isn’t an option for Japan, which lacks the space to accommodate large landfill sites.

While sending trash to landfill has its own environmental implications, incinerating trash is perhaps even more problematic. It releases particulate matter, toxic chemicals, and heavy metals into the air which can be damaging to the environment as well as to human health.

This is one of the reasons that Japan has high levels of dioxins in its atmosphere, a group of compounds that are classified as persistent environmental pollutants (POPs). Dioxins can accumulate in the food chain, and threaten human health when ingested via food.

In 2001, the US Department of Justice raised issues with Japan over health risks to American service members stationed in the country. The DoJ claimed these deaths were caused by pollution from the Jinkanpo Atsugi Incinerator, and worked with the Japanese government to close the facility.

In recognition of this issue, local communities and municipalities have started introducing initiatives to slash the amount of waste they produce, mostly through recycling. Governments at various levels are supporting this movement through sponsoring technological advancements in incineration and recycling, as well as better packaging labeling and other policies to encourage recycling.

The town of Kamikatsu, for example, set a goal to become zero-waste by 2020. In 2018, the town reported an 81% recycling rate, which is very impressive compared to just under 24% of US municipal waste.

2. Nuclear power and radioactive waste

Japan was one of the countries that is the most reliant on nuclear power, generating around one-third of its electricity prior to 2011, but this has fallen significantly since then. This creates another critical waste management issue: how to deal with radioactive materials.

The nation is making moves to establish an underground storage site for radioactive waste, but the high level of seismic activity in Japan has led to a range of concerns over the underground storage of nuclear waste.

Public support for nuclear energy, which was previously very high, has waned since the 2011 incident at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant. A tsunami triggered a meltdown at three of the facility’s nuclear reactors when the loss of power caused their cooling systems to fail.

Now only 18% of the Japanese population is in favor of nuclear reactors.

In 2021, Japan attracted international criticism for dumping contaminated wastewater from the decade-old disaster into the Pacific – further highlighting its struggles with dealing with radioactive waste.

Therefore, the long-term solution may be to move towards less problematic sources of energy such as renewables. Japan is already making significant strides in this direction – more on this later.

3. Fishing and whaling

Overfishing is an issue in many parts of the world, but it’s particularly pertinent in the island nation of Japan, whose diet relies heavily on fish and fish products.

The average Japanese person eats around three pounds of fish a day. Therefore, it’s not surprising that the country is one of the world’s biggest catchers of fish, resulting in overfishing in Japan’s waters with consistently declining fish stocks. As a result, Japan has tightened its rules on fishing in recent years.

Whaling is another key environmental issue. Whale meat was an important part of the traditional Japanese diet, served raw and cooked in a number of dishes.

In 1986, Japan banned commercial whaling in 1986, “research whaling” never stopped, and limited commercial whaling in Japan’s own waters resumed in 2018.

On the other hand, the Japanese government emphasizes that it is an important part of their culture and argues that whaling can be conducted responsibly and sustainably. Though they set caps on the number of whales that boats can kill as part of sustainability quotas, this move continues to be met with international outcry.

4. Disappearing coral reefs

In 2016, Japan’s largest coral reef, the Sekiseishoko reef in the Sekisei lagoon experienced a mass bleaching event, destroying around 70% of the coral, with over 90% at least partially bleached.

The reef had been notable not only for its beauty and size, but also its diversity; over 400 different types of coral had been observed there.

The causes of this catastrophic event have been identified as rising sea temperatures due to climate change, as well as the introduction of starfish that eat the coral.

This issue is not unique to Japan, with rising sea temperatures impacting coral reefs all around the world. The world’s largest coral reef, the Great Barrier Reef in Australia, has reportedly lost half of its corals over the past 20 years.

The solution also needs to be a global one: scientists argue that we need dedicated, worldwide action to reduce carbon emissions and prevent further rising temperatures, both on land and in the ocean.

5. Protecting biodiversity and endangered species

According to National Geographic, Japan is one of 36 biodiversity hotspots in the world, that is, places where an exceptional number of unique species are surviving under the threat of extinction. Therefore, protecting this biodiversity and preventing important species from becoming extinct is another key environmental challenge the country faces.

Since the 1980’s, scientists have understood the importance of biodiversity and the need to protect every species in order to avoid upsetting the fragile balance of nature’s ecosystems. Japan is made up of nearly 7000 different islands, formed by tectonic activity and spanning a range of climates.

The country’s plants and animals evolved over time, adapting to these conditions, and being left largely untouched in isolation for millions of years. Nearly half of its animals and reptiles and around one-third of its plants are unique to Japan, giving the nation a responsibility to protect them.

It is rising to this challenge, with the Japanese government leading the way with a range of initiatives to protect its unique species and biodiversity. These include working with farmers to reduce their use of pesticides and fertilizers to protect the broader ecosystem, and breeding programs for endangered species.

Many see Japan as setting an example for other countries to follow in protecting their own native species and promoting biodiversity.

6. Japan’s green future: carbon neutral by 2050

In recent years, Japan has become a global leader in carbon neutrality. The world’s fifth-largest emitter of greenhouse gases, in 2020 the country announced that it planned to be carbon neutral by 2050.

This will be no mean feat: in 2018, Japan produced more than one billion tons of greenhouse gases, so reducing this to net zero will be an enormous challenge. It will involve completely reimagining the country’s industrial structures and implementing sustainable practices at all levels, from individuals to large companies.

A big part of the government’s approach is heavy investment in new green technologies, from the research and development phase to full-scale commercialization and implementation. To do this, the Japanese government launched a 2 trillion yen ($15 billion) innovation fund in December 2020 which promises to fund everything from next-generation solar panels to hydrogen planes and cargo ships and fuel cell vehicles.

Another initiative is to make sure 100% of all new passenger car sales are of electrified vehicles by 2035, an area where Japan is already a global leader. Other approaches include building post-combustion CO₂ capture plants and massive offshore wind turbines.

Although the plan is being driven by the Japanese government, the business sector is also stepping up, with many companies and business associations adopting low-carbon action plans as part of a shifting culture towards sustainability.

However, it’s important to consider how much this relies on nuclear power: Japan’s plan involves revitalizing its nuclear industry and even building new plants. Given the concerns of nuclear power, and Japan’s particular issues with disposing of reactive waste, this could lead to further environmental and safety issues in the future.

Final thoughts

Though the country is unique in many ways, many of the environmental issues Japan faces are shared by the rest of the world. From coral bleaching and species extinction to dealing with radioactive waste and striving for carbon neutrality, there are a range of lessons we can learn from the island nation, both good and bad.

In particular, the country is taking amazing strides towards becoming carbon neutral in just a few decades, all the more impressive given its status as one of the world’s biggest emitters. However, this approach relies partly on increased reliance on nuclear energy, which comes with its own environmental concerns.

For more on the nuclear power debate, take a look at this guide to the pros and cons of nuclear energy or learn more about the types of renewable energy.

One solution that’s gaining traction is using household waste as an energy source. Though the idea of processing waste to generate heat or electricity is not new, waste-to-energy technology is an effective way of keeping waste out of landfill while creating a renewable source of power for communities. In this article we’ll cover:

• What waste-to-energy is and how it works.
• The technologies involved in waste-to-energy.
• Global adoption of waste-to-energy and why uptake is low in the US.
• Discuss if waste-to-energy is as good as it sounds.

So what is ‘waste-to-energy’ and what does it mean?

According to the World Energy Council, waste-to-energy (WtE) is a term given to a range of waste treatment processes that can generate energy. The energy generated by WtE can be electricity, steam, heat, or fuels like diesel, literally converting trash into energy for powering homes and communities.

Depending on the type of waste treatment process, WtE uses waste sources that include:

• Solid refuse called municipal solid waste (MSW)
• Semi-solid effluents from industry
• Liquids like domestic sewage 
• Gases like refinery exhaust fumes

WtE is a key solution for municipal solid waste management

With over 2 billion tons of waste heading to landfill every year, it’s easy to see why MSW is the most common source of waste for WtE. 

The processing of municipal waste by incineration in a combined heat and power plant (CHP) is the most common example of WtE in action and integrates seamlessly into solid waste management processes across much of the developed world. 

Generating energy from waste is not a new thing 

People have used their refuse to generate energy since pre-industrial times. Early examples of generating energy from garbage included burning of waste paper for heat and cooking or used cooking oil as lamp fuel. 

In 19th century England, they burned solid waste on an industrial scale to provide steam that was used to generate electricity. Another early example of getting energy from waste is the refuse-derived fuel (RDF) produced in Japan at the start of the 20th century. 

The benefits of WtE are tangible

WtE is attractive because it uses negative-value waste to produce valuable energy, bypassing the cost and pollution of using non-renewable energy sources like oil and gas. 

Rather than looking the other way and just dumping our trash, we can put it to good use as fuel for heating and lighting our homes. 

Other great benefits of WtE include: 

• Reducing the landfill burden. Landfill is the most common method of disposing of MSW. But it’s highly polluting as it generates greenhouse gases and leaches hazardous substances into the earth. WtE reduces landfill use as it diverts waste from the landfill to be used for energy.  

• Generating clean energy. WtE often involves burning waste, but, unlike gas, consumers can use the electricity, steam, and hot water produced with no further emission of greenhouse gasses. 

• Provision of baseload power. A WtE plant can provide power 24 hours per day just like a regular power plant, continuously adding valuable electricity to the grid.

• Reducing methane. As your trash rots in the ground, it releases methane, a notable greenhouse gas. By diverting waste from the landfill, WtE reduces the levels of methane emission as it is no longer being generated. 

• Recycling metals. The incinerated refuse usually contains large quantities of metal that is recovered for recycling after the plant has incinerated the waste.

How does the waste-to-energy process work?

Waste-to-energy is comprised of several established and emerging technologies that all have the benefit of generating energy as a byproduct of waste processing. At the most basic level, WtE revolves around diverting municipal solid waste (household trash) from the landfill to the WtE plant.

From this point there are three main technologies:

• burning the waste and using the heat to boil water and turn a steam turbine,
• converting the waste to synthetic gas as fuel for electric generators,
• processing the synthetic gas into fuel for vehicles or planes.

This video by Covanta, a leading waste-to-energy company explains the process:

Established and emerging WtE technologies

Waste-to-energy plants use a range of methods to extract energy from refuse. Here are  six of the leading WtE technologies being developed and used around the world: 

1. Combined Heat and Power (CHP) incineration

This is the most developed of the WtE technologies with over 2000 plants worldwide. These plants burn MSW to heat water, creating steam to turn a turbine and generate electricity. 

2. Co-combustion

This form of CHP incineration burns clean coal or biomass alongside mixed waste. Adding fuel makes it easier to control the combustion process to get more efficient energy generation. Co-combustion can offset the cost and emission of coal-generated power. 

3. Thermo-chemical conversion

Thermo-chemical conversion is a process that is being developed to limit the harmful combustion gases that are produced by conventional CHP incineration. It involves extraction of the energy content of the waste using thermal treatments rather than frank combustion. 

4. Refuse-derived fuel (RDF)

RDF is an efficient way of generating fuel from various waste fractions separated using techniques like air classification and ballistic separation. Materials like recovered paper, cardboard, and certain plastics undergo processing into pellets for burning. 

5. Thermal gasification

This is a relatively immature technology that has the promise of converting the carbon content of waste into a combustible gas. 

6. Biochemical conversion 

Biochemical processes, including the use of microorganisms, can be used for accelerated decomposition of the waste, producing solid, liquid or gaseous fuels. An example of this is the production of bio-ethanol from fractionated waste. 

Just how efficient is WtE?

Waste-to-energy has the potential to not only transform waste management but also contribute significantly to sustainable energy production, but the efficiency and energy yields of these processes will determine whether WtE is viable for more widespread adoption. 

The World Energy Council reports that CHP facilities currently have a maximum efficiency of 35%. This efficiency rating varies according to the size of the plant, the type of waste it processes, and the power output it achieves.

The Netherlands is home to the largest CHP incineration plant in the world. The Afval Energie Bedrijf CHP plant in Amsterdam which has a capacity of 114.2 MW of electricity generation. 

This massive WtE plant processes 1.5 million tons of trash each year with an efficiency of 30%. For comparison, according to the US Office of Fossil Energy and Carbon Management, the average coal-fired power plant in the US has an efficiency of 33%, so WtE is not doing too badly. 

Why is Sweden practicing waste-to-energy, but not the US?

Though waste-to-energy plants are all over the world, certain countries have embraced this form of renewable energy generation. Sweden is renowned for its national recycling strategy that takes 99% of the nation’s trash and either recycles it or burns it for domestic energy consumption. 

This radical approach has transformed trash into treasure with waste becoming a valuable commodity that is even imported into the country generating over $100 million annually.

With virtually “zero trash heading to landfill”, Sweden’s 34 WtE power plants incinerate everything that cannot be reused to provide electricity for at least 250,000 homes and businesses. This works out at about 50% of all waste, compared to 40% in the United Kingdom and just 12% in the United States.

Waste-to-energy adoption in the US is low, but the tide is turning

The United States has one of the lowest rates of waste-to-energy adoption in the developed world. Despite this, the US still incinerates about 30 million tons of trash to generate electricity for homes each year.

As one of the largest oil producers in the world, it’s easy to see why America hasn’t yet embraced WtE. Because the US is such a major fossil fuels producer, the costs of using oil and gas are much lower than in areas that rely on imports, like Sweden. 

As of 2021, the US was consuming over 16 million barrels of oil daily and 30.28 trillion cubic feet (Tcf) of natural gas annually. The US’s expansive proved reserves of fossil fuels are expansive but finite, and eventually other sources of energy will have to become prominent as reserves decline.

The US also has cheap and readily available landfill space 

Sweden has another motivation lacking in the US; no room for major landfill operations. Whereas the US has an abundance of cheap, wide-open land. In 2018, the US landfilled over 146 million tons of waste, the vast majority being food. In contrast, only 4.6 million tonnes of waste is landfilled in Sweden annually, less than 1% of the MSW generated.

Political pressure favors oil and gas

Lobbying and other political pressure from the oil and gas industry may have influenced the expansion of WtE as it could compete with the dominance of oil for energy production. However, for cities like New York which has to export 14 million tons of trash annually, the waste management benefits of WtE are becoming hard to ignore.

WtE is an international effort 

Sweden is well known for its WtE efforts, but other countries including Denmark, Germany, Japan, and China around the world are also adopting WtE technologies. 

Are waste-to-energy practices better for the environment?

This is the big question. After all, current WtE practices largely involve the incineration of waste which is an energy-intensive and costly process. Here are some disadvantages of WtE: 

Environmental impact

Trash is dirty stuff and burning it on a large scale causes air pollution, releasing the very same greenhouse gases it seeks to mitigate. Right now, incineration is an unavoidable part of WtE. Still, there is evidence that overall, WtE strategies reduce carbon dioxide emission with every ton of processed garbage preventing the emission of a ton of CO₂.

Public health

The residual ash remaining from waste incineration contains cancer-causing heavy metals and dioxins that are released into the atmosphere. As recently as 2018, Ana Baptista, Assistant Professor of Environmental Policy and Sustainability Management at The New School, stated that NYC’s WtE facilities were producing up to 14 times the mercury, twice as much lead, and four times as much cadmium per unit of energy compared to coal power plants. 

Infrastructure costs

Getting energy from waste is expensive and the infrastructure for building and operating a single WtE plant can run into hundreds of millions of dollars. According to waste-to-energy International, a company that builds CHP plants, the development costs for a new plant are approximately $680 to $1,026 per ton of waste processed annually. 

What does the future look like for waste-to-energy?

Waste-to-energy remains controversial but, despite the pollution, it provides a practical, sustainable solution, to the problem of skyrocketing garbage. WtE industry experts are continually developing technologies that can make WtE cleaner and more efficient.

As urbanized populations continue to grow, the refuse they generate could provide the same populations with clean, sustainable energy while reducing the landfill burden. State-of-the-art WtE facilities are likely to be developed that can recover as much energy as possible from diverse solid waste sources while mitigating the effects of exhaust gases by cleaning and filtering them for maximum environmental benefit.

Difference Between Non-Biodegradable And Biodegradable Material

The primary difference between non biodegradable and biodegradable material lies in how it decomposes. At every tick-tock of the clock, various industries, factories, and farms around us produce billions of solid materials. Later on, these materials get shipped to the different consumption points where they are expected to serve their purpose.

Anything that exists around us is either a biodegradable material or a non-biodegradable material. From the plastic bottle that you use to pack your water to those paper documents on your office desk, everything has a side to pick.

Technology advancements have eased our lives by birthing an innovative form of life, but on the other hand, erratically affecting the environment and other life-systems. For instance, the plastic water bottles are convenient, but their disposal is a veritable demise to the environment.

The knowledge of the two forms of materials will significantly ensure that the environmental risks associated with waste disposal are averted.

Additionally, with the heightened ecological conservation awareness, it is quite crucial to understand the difference between non-biodegradable and biodegradable material.

What is Biodegradable Material?

A biodegradable material refers to any substance that can quickly decay or instead breakdown naturally. Agents that facilitate this natural breakdown process include bacteria, microorganisms, sunlight, air, soil, water, ozone, and many more natural agents.

The biodegradable materials are generally natural substances, and they happen to be non-toxic.

Biodegradable wastes are waste materials that get decomposed easily through natural factors. Abiotic elements, as well as other microorganisms, work together in breaking down the complex materials into simple organic matter which can become a part of the soil.

Decomposition of the biodegradable materials is beneficial to the soil as it increases its fertility as well as improves the soil structure.

However, it is vital to ensure that biodegradable waste is disposed of appropriately. The fact that biodegradable materials decay naturally, the mode of disposal would render them harmful to the environment.

Unplanned dumping of huge biodegradable waste piles may pose some severe threats to the environment, such as exposure to diseases or water pollution.

Examples of Biodegradable Material

The biodegradable materials are natural substances, mainly from plants and animals. These are vegetables, fruits, paper, and leather products, among others.

Biodegradable wastes are commonly composed of kitchen and food wastes, paper waste, green waste, as well as biodegradable plastics.

Other sources of biodegradable waste include sewage, human waste, as well as slaughterhouse waste.

See Related: 9 Best Ethical, Sustainable Gift Ideas

What is Non-biodegradable?

Have you ever seen materials that remain for quite a long time in the environment without breaking down? I bet maybe you have recalled some old plastic can that you once threw out of the window and to your amazement, later on, found it still in shape after a few years.

The non-biodegradable materials cannot be degraded by any natural or biological process, thus causing them to remain for quite a long period in the environment.

Non-biodegradable substances typically include inorganic substances, and not every content is eco-friendly. Besides, the fact that natural organisms can not decompose these materials makes them a dangerous source of environmental pollution.

It is undeniable that it is quite an uphill task to take care of the non-biodegradable waste. Ironically, the non-biodegradables are the most manufactured packaging materials, low cost, convenient to use, as well as readily available. Unfortunately, these materials do not add any value back to the environment once they become waste but rather pile up for thousands of years.

Examples of Non-biodegradable Material

The most common example of a non-biodegradable material is plastic. Plastics are common all around the globe and in any field. These plastics are manufactured in such a way that they exhibit strength and durability, which makes them harder to control after use.

For instance, such a small thing as glitter is essentially a type of microplastic that don’t biodegrade but instead exist for years polluting land and water.

Other examples include chemicals, metals, glass, polythene bags, and many more. However, it is crucial to consider metals as a unique option. Some metals are biodegradable, while others are not.

Some metals, such as magnesium, are easily absorbed by living organisms while other ferrous metals are easily degraded through oxidation; thus making them biodegradable. Other metals such as gold hardly react with natural processes, thus making it non-biodegradable.

Five Main Differences Between Biodegradable And Non-biodegradable Materials

1. As earlier discussed, the main difference between non-biodegradable and biodegradable material stems from the definition. The biodegradable materials naturally degrade with time, facilitated by natural agents such as bacteria, air, water, soil, and many others.  On the other hand, non-biodegradable materials do not decay naturally, and the natural agents of decomposition do not affect them.
2. Concerning the rate of degradation, non-biodegradable materials can maintain their originality and fail to decompose, or the process might be too slow taking thousands of years. Even though the decomposition of a biodegradable material may not happen overnight, the rate of decay is much faster in comparison to non-biodegradable.
3. At the very end, biodegradable substances break down and enter the biogeochemical cycles, which is eventually beneficial to the environment. Since the non-biodegradable substances do not break down naturally, they cannot become part of any biogeochemical cycles. This fact makes non-biodegradables to be toxic to the environment.
4. The other difference between non-biodegradable and biodegradable material is the fact that biodegradable elements are organic substances, while most non-biodegradable materials are inorganic substances.
5. It is easy to dispose of biodegradable materials as they decay and integrate with the soil while it is a different case with non-biodegradable products. It is quite hard and expensive to dispose of non-biodegradable waste since they have to be separated and collected to minimize pollution.

Well, the difference between biodegradable and non-biodegradable substances does not end there. How about their pollutants? How do biodegradable and non-biodegradable pollutants affect the environment?

Biodegradable And Non-biodegradable Pollutants

Life depends on a balanced environment or rather an ecosystem for development and growth. Once this balance gets tipped off, the survival of living organisms is huddled up. The disturbance, later on, grows into various disconnects within the environment affecting human life as well.

The amount of waste being heaped all around the world is continuously increasing. This increase is a notable fact once you tour around dumpsite and compare the current levels against previous years.  Billions of wastes get produced each year while new products are in line to be a pile of garbage in the future.

These wastes result from the activities within our homes, industries, and businesses. Additionally, the increased population, more so within cities, is another factor that is facilitating the massive amounts of wastes. Well, some may argue that biodegradable materials are safer than non-biodegradable materials, but the fact is that massive wastes are an environmental problem.

Whether the waste is biodegradable or non-biodegradable, they both happen to be pollutants, thus harmful to the environment as well as human life. The difference between non-biodegradable and biodegradable material trickles down also to how the contaminants affect the environment. Therefore, let us look at how biodegradable and non-biodegradable materials pollute the environment.

Biodegradable Pollutants

Biodegradable pollutants can eventually break down into harmless components with time as they result from biodegradable waste.  This waste might amount to be hazardous and potentially cause damage when they are in surplus amount or not properly dumped within the environment. Biodegradable pollutants can affect the environment in several ways.

The effects include:

• The biodegradable pollutants can produce enormous amounts of flora. If we don’t dispose of the waste properly, or if we leave them in the open, the microbial flora that is present around the waste heap can cause diseases in plants, animals, and humans.
• Another way in which biodegradable pollutants affect the environment is by their foul smell. During the process of decaying, organic materials generally produce a sharp foul smell which might make it uncomfortable to hang around within the surrounding environment.
• Biodegradable waste releases gases that contribute to the greenhouse effect. Biodegradable wastes decompose into organic carbon which later on breaks down to water and carbon dioxide. Increased carbon dioxide in the environment contributes to greenhouse gases.
• A significant presence of biodegradable waste in water bodies affects marine life directly or indirectly. When the waste reaches the water bodies, the microbial flora may cause diseases to marine life. Additionally, when organic waste decomposes into organic carbon, it can encourage the presence of oxygen-consuming organisms.
• Biodegradable dumpsite might as well happen to be breeding grounds for vectors and transporters which may spread communicable diseases. Examples of these vectors include rats, houseflies, and mosquitoes, among other agents.

Non-biodegradable Pollutants

Non-biodegradable pollutants result from the non-biodegradable materials. Some of the effects of non-biodegradable pollution include:

• By the fact that non-biodegradable waste does not break down quickly, they might, therefore, lead to landfills upon continuous disposal. The dumps render the land unproductive for any other activity since the waste might stay for hundreds of years without breaking down.
• The non-biodegradables, more so plastics, pose a threat since the burning of plastics releases toxic gases into the environment. Most people switch to this option to curb the landfill challenge. The exposure of these gases to the environment facilitates the greenhouse effect and may also cause acidic rain once the falling droplets react with the gas particles.
• In addition to the toxic gases, inhaling these fumes may lead to respiratory tract infections as well as other diseases such as tuberculosis. Therefore, we can all agree, burning them to minimize landfills is not a good option either.
• When non-biodegradable materials are exposed to air and water for quite an extended period, they release toxic pollutants. For instance, plastics may oxidize and issue out poisonous salts which are carcinogenic. If the toxins find their way into water supplies or enter the food chain, the aftermath would be fatal for humans, animals, and plants as well.
• Disposal of non-biodegradable wastes into water bodies may also disturb aquatic life as well as propel eutrophication. 

Reformative Steps to Take

Effective and efficient handling of waste ought to be emphasized. It should not only be the government’s or environmental organizations’ duty, but rather every living soul. If we all played a part in waste management, it would significantly reduce the environmental pollution risks and raise the hopes of a better tomorrow brought to life.

The first step to take is to ensure that we separate biodegradable and non-biodegradable wastes. Afterward, one can throw the biodegradable waste into a pit and then covered with soil. The pit ensures that the waste decomposes and adapts to the soil without polluting the environment.

With the non-biodegradable waste, the most efficient way of handling it is using the three R (3R) concept. This concept is a trend that aims at minimizing environmental pollution through non-biodegradable waste. The 3 ‘R’s stand for reducing, recycle, and reuse.

We have seen that these materials do not quickly decompose; therefore, reusing and recycling the materials will be a great way of minimizing pollution as well as more productive. Instead of throwing the plastic into the garbage pit, the same plastic can be melted and used to create another plastic product. The 3R concept is a win-win situation for both the manufacturers as well as environmental conservers.

Conclusion On The Difference Between Non-biodegradable And Biodegradable Material

The terms biodegradable and non-biodegradable generally refer to the effect a substance might have on the environment. Besides, understanding the difference between non-biodegradable and biodegradable material will remarkably reduce the pollution levels as well as encourage the use of biodegradable materials.

Has this post offered useful insights on degradable and non-degradable material? Give us your thoughts in the comments area.

Related Resources

• 53 Important Facts About Landfills You Need to Know
• 6 Key Environmental Issues in Japan You Should Know
• 5 Best Reusable K Cup Options to Become More Eco-Friendly

Green Coast is a renewable energy community solely focused on helping people better understand renewable energy technologies and the environment.

53 Important Facts About Landfills You Need to Know

Waste management is a critical issue that may be caused by human interaction with the environment. A growing population means a growing need for proper waste management.

Here we will highlight several statistics about waste management and landfills that you should know.

These statistics will help you make better decisions about how you approach the 3Rs of waste management and even living a zero-waste lifestyle.

What Are Landfills?

Landfills are sites or places set aside for waste materials disposal through burial. We can also refer to them as garbage dumps, rubbish dumps, or dumping ground among other names. Landfills are the earliest forms of waste disposal and treatment.

Traditionally, the waste would be left to decay or decompose by itself without being buried, but presently, the process involves burying the waste. Currently, these sites are also useful in the process of waste management, as they act as temporary waste consolidations and storage sites, before recycling.

There are numerous facts about landfills and pollution that we ought to learn.

More knowledge of these worrisome facts about landfills will help us become more environmentally friendly.

List of Important Waste Management And Landfill Statistics

Here are some of the most shocking statistics on waste management and landfills. Use these facts as a way to get smarter about your consumption.

1. Only 5% of waste plastic gets recycling with the remaining portion ending up in landfills (3% of it ends up in oceans and rivers)
2. If the United States converted all its non-recycled plastics into oil, each year the country would produce 5.7 billion gallons of transportation fuel
3. In 2014, the class of plastics, including sacks, bags, and wraps cost 14.3$ to recycle.
4. There are more than 2,000 landfills spread throughout the country, we are increasingly exposing our environment to pollution.
5. Beneath this disguise that we put on landfills to make them look better, there consists toxins and greenhouse gases that are really dangerous. If we continue with this ignorance, future generations will have a lot on their plates to deal with in terms of health. Every emission from the landfills poses a great danger to the surroundings and its survival.
6. American disposes of over 1,200 pounds of organic junk which they can easily compost by getting a container for an apartment composting or building a compost bin in the backyard.

We must take care of our environment to ensure that even the generations to come will have a place to call home. One thing we can do to guarantee this is through recycling. We should strive to recycle a higher percentage of our total wastes to ensure that less waste ends up in landfills.

Facts About Landfills And Recycling

1. Statistics show that only one-tenth of the total waste produced in the US is recycled. The rest nine-tenths of the total solid waste goes to landfills.
2. Despite all the efforts and campaigns to promote recycling, only 30% of the waste in the US goes to recycling centers. This is a very small amount considering that 75% of the waste we produce in the United States, is in fact, recyclable.
3. When we recycle one plastic bottle, statistics show that we save enough energy that we can use to light a 10-watt bulb for around 4 hours. The recycling process will also create less air pollution by 20%, and 50% less in water pollution as compared to when producing a new bottle.
4. Things like motor oil only get dirty and don’t wear out. Therefore, it’s economical and environmentally friendly to recycle it instead of disposing of it in landfills.
5. The current rate of recycling in the US is about 34.5%. We should add more efforts to ensure that this number rises to around 75%, which can have a great positive impact on the environment. If this number would increase to the 75% mark, it will be as if we have removed 50 million passage vehicles from our roads.

More Facts On Waste Material Recycling

If we take more initiatives to protect waste materials, from reaching the landfills, we will be saving our future. It doesn’t matter whether these materials are compostable or not; all of them add to environmental pollution. Here are more facts about landfills and recycling.

6. Top five cities that lead in recycling efforts in the US include San Francisco, CA at number one, followed by Boston, MA, and Chicago, IL, at number three. Denver, CO, and Portland hold number four and five, respectively.
7. The first five countries that lead in recycling include Switzerland with 52%, Australia at 49.7%, and Germany at the third position with 48%. Netherlands and Norway hold number four and five, with 46% and 40% respectively.
8. In every ten people, nine say they would participate in recycling if only it were an easier process.
9. Research shows that in the United States, recyclable packaging and containers worth $11.4 billion is thrown away each year. All this amount ends in landfills, adding to our continued misery.
10. Various studies indicate that on average, more women than men, are environmentally conscious. Therefore, women are more likely to do recycling, unlike most men.
11. Recycling is way cheaper than disposing your waste into the landfills or even incinerating it.

Facts About Landfill And Pollution

12. Gas emissions are one of the major environmental hazards that comes from landfills. These waste sites produce carbon dioxide and methane gases which both cause greenhouse effects in the atmosphere. Landfills also produce volatile organic compounds, although in small quantities, from organic materials decomposition by bacteria.
13. Despite the fact that the landfills are well disguised, it doesn’t remove the fact that more and more greenhouse gases enter our atmosphere every single day.
14. The incineration process generates dioxin, nitrogen compounds, and sulfur, furans, heavy metals like lead and mercury, as well as particulate matter.
15. If during the process, the air mixture and temperature are not ideal, other multiple products are released. These include chlorinated hydrocarbons, aldehydes, polychlorinated dibenzodioxins, and more.
16. The largest percentage of all soil pollution in the US comes from the landfills. They are one of the biggest sources of soil pollution. One interesting thing is that a large portion of the materials buried in landfills, around 80%, is recyclable.
17. More than 11 million tons of shoes, clothing, as well as textiles, ends up in landfills. All these waste materials can be recycled instead of dumping them into landfills.

Facts About Plastic

18. The energy necessary to produce 1.5 tons of plastic, is enough to provide power to around 250,000 homes.
19. For an average plastic bottle to fully discompose, it will take an average of about 500 years. This is an eternity, based on the amount of plastic we dispose of every day.
20. Research also shows that every hour, we dispose of 2.5 million plastic bottles. This number corresponds to around 42,000 bottles each minute. To curb this large disposal of plastics, there more and easier ways are being invented every day, to ensure that people embrace recycling.
21. The process of recycling plastics will help us save two times the amount of energy necessary to burn it.
22. More than 80% of the trash that causes harmful effects on the ocean comes from plastic waste.
23. Plastics cause more than 100,000 marine animal deaths both from ingestion and entanglement.
24. The University of Georgia conducted research that concluded that plastic trash amounting to 18 billion pounds, ends up in oceans each year.
25. The quantity of plastic wrap we produce every year is enough to shrink-wrap, the whole state of Texas.
26. Another different research shows that the oceans hold around 25 trillion fragments of plastic rubble. Around 269,000 tons of this wastes float on the oceans while 4 billion plastic pieces for every square kilometer, lay on the ocean floor.
27. Approximately 65% of all household waste consists of packaging materials.

Paper Waste Facts

29. Every year, Americans receive around 4 million tons of traditional mails. Majority of these paper mails, end up in the landfills.
30. During American holidays and festive seasons, a further additional waste amounting to around 5 million tons is produced. Of this waste, approximately 4 million tons comprises of shopping bags and wrapping papers.
31. The energy we use to produce and dispense junk mail in a single day can very well heat up to 250,000 households in the US.
32. Businesses in the United States use an average of 21 million tons of waste paper annually.
33. Every person in the US produces around 650 pounds of waste paper each year.
34. An average person in the US uses approximately 500 pieces of disposable cups every year. A good part of these disposable cups ends up in the landfills. This continues to add up to the garbage menace in the country.
35. Every year, Americans produce almost 400 billion photocopies. This translates to around 750,000 of paper copies per minute. At this rate, more waste continues to accumulate in the landfills.

Recycling of Paper Waste

36. Just like recycling any other waste materials, it will take less energy to recycle paper, than producing new paper from trees.
37. When we recycle paper, it means that we cut down fewer trees which is good for our environment. The more tree we have around, the more carbon dioxide they can remove from the atmosphere.
38. An average of 390 gallons of oil is necessary to manufacture one tone of the paper. With recycling, we can reduce this amount significantly.
39. One ton of recycled paper ensures that we save more than 350 gallons of oil. It also helps us to conserve 17 trees, as well as save landfill space.
40. A single person in the United States uses an equivalent of two trees in paper form, each year.
41. If we can recycle, 1/10 of all the American newspapers annually, we can manage to save more than 25 million trees.

Facts About Glass Waste

42. If we dump glass waste in the landfills, it will take an average of 4,000 years to decompose completely. Recycling is the best thing to ensure that glass bottles and other glass waste, don’t end up in landfills.
43. It is possible to infinitely recycle glass waste without a decrease in its quality or purity.
44. Approximately 80% of all glass waste taken for recycling, undergoes a re-melting process to provide raw materials for new glass containers.
45. Within the last 30 years, the weight of glass bottles has reduced by around 40%.
46. The manufactures of glass products want to make sure that 50% of their total raw materials, will come from recycling glass waste. If they can do this, they will have saved enough power to cater to 21,978 households for a whole year. Also, they will be able to remove approximately 181 tons of glass waste, from landfills on a monthly basis.

Facts About Aluminum Waste

47. Estimates show that Americans produce 65 billion of aluminum cans waste every year. However, unlike glass, aluminum is significantly recycled.
48. Since aluminum is one of the most recycled items in the US, the aluminum waste that ends up in the landfills can only contribute to around 1% of the total waste.
49. Similarly, to glass, we can recycle aluminum as many times as we can. It has no limit as it doesn’t change its composition in any way.
50. The amount of energy we save by recycling just two cans of electricity is sufficient to power one computer for a whole day.
51. After we recycle aluminum, we can re-purpose the new cans within 60 days.
52. The amount of aluminum thrown out in the United States in just three months is enough to rebuild the county’s entire commercial air fleet.
53. The energy we use to produce one new aluminum can, is enough to recycle 20 old cans into new ones.

Like these facts? See our interesting facts about electricity to continue your knowledge.

Conclusion On Facts About Landfills

From this article on facts about landfills, it is evident that landfills can cause more harm to the environment, than good.

Therefore, to ensure that minimal waste ends up in the landfills, it is a high time that we embrace recycling. This way, we can be able to preserve our environment for future generations.

How much are you doing to ensure less waste end up in landfills? Share with us in the comments.

 Related Resources

• 6 Key Environmental Issues in Japan You Should Know
• How to Recycle Brita Filters (Safe & Eco-Friendly Tips to Consider)
• A Guide to Eco-Friendly Recycling

Green Coast is a renewable energy community solely focused on helping people better understand renewable energy technologies and the environment.