Is recycling a waste of energy?

Hey Mr. Green,
My friend refuses to recycle because he says the amount of energy it requires is enormous and the effect on the planet is negligible. Is he right? If not, how can I convince him to start recycling?--George in Santa Monica, California

Tell your friend that recycling does save energy, and lots of it--the equivalent of 10.2 billion gallons of gasoline per year from recycled U.S. municipal waste alone. And we still recycle only about a third of our staggering annual total of 250 million tons of waste, according to the EPA.

The savings do depend on the material. Recycling aluminum cans, for example, saves a high percentage of energy per pound, yet we Americans recycle only about half of our cans.

If your pal claims that recycling has its roots in tree hugger hysteria, point out that U.S. aluminum companies import more than 7 billion used cans per year--90,000 tons--to reduce their energy expenses and other costs.

Even if recycling didn't spare a crumb of coal or a drop of oil, its effect on the planet is far from "negligible." It averts some of the collateral damage from our material excess. A ton of recycled steel prevents 2,500 pounds of iron ore, 1,400 pounds of coal, and 120 pounds of limestone from getting gouged out of the earth, says the Steel Recycling Institute.

Recycling also slows the spread of dumps, keeps plastic out of the food chain, and prevents hundreds of millions of gallons of used motor oil from fouling our streams and lakes.

Are plastic cups poisonous?

Hey Mr. Green,
Given the recent concerns about the chemical bisphenol A in plastic containers, I wonder if my plastic cups are safe. I notice that some companies are now advertising BPA-free ones. So do those we now have contain BPA?--Judy in Hendersonville, North Carolina

Scientists have uncovered possible links between BPA (an endocrine disruptor) and an increased risk of breast and prostate cancer, genital abnormalities, attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, diabetes, early puberty in girls, and harm to wildlife. My immediate reaction: Shun any substance even remotely suspected of producing hyper eight-year-old adolescents or of turning male fish into females.

Some scientists believe BPA can disrupt biological development, so they warn that children and pregnant women in particular should avoid exposure. Besides concern about the compound in plastic baby bottles and other containers, BPA may also exceed safe levels in some canned food and beverages. Predictably, the chemical and food industries counter with studies showing that BPA is harmless. Opponents reply that the 200-plus research papers implicating the substance are more reliable, since the industry largely funded its own studies.

As you note, some companies have stopped selling cups and bottles containing BPA. Nalgene, whose popular bottles caused a furor, has phased out its use of BPA, even while contending that it's safe. General Mills makes the same claim, though it has eliminated BPA from its canned Muir Glen products.
As for your cups, if they're opaque, they're probably OK. The clear shatterproof kind and those with the number 7 recycling label on the bottom are most suspect.

We'll have to wait a while for the full story, however. The EPA has announced new studies, while the National Institutes of Health has initiated a $30 million research effort, scheduled for completion late next year.