To the Editor:
Re “The Complicated Truth About Recycling,” by Oliver Franklin-Wallis (Opinion guest essay, Dec. 3):
We all need to recycle paper, cardboard, glass and metal, and compost yard waste and food scraps. But we need to be honest about the failure of plastic recycling.
Americans are increasingly aware that over 94 percent of the plastics they use are not recycled, because they’re not recyclable. There are too many different colors and different polymers, and thousands of different chemical additives that make it very difficult to recycle plastics. The plastics industry has known this for years, but it has plowed millions of dollars into advertising designed to deceive consumers.
There really is no way to boost plastic recycling rates. The solution? Manufacture and use less plastic. Alternatives to plastic are all around us.
Plastic is being produced at an alarming rate, and it’s expected to double in the next 20 years. Relying on plastic recycling is like trying to mop water from an overflowing bathtub while the faucet is still running. It’s time to turn off the plastic tap.
Judith Enck
Poestenkill, N.Y.
The writer is a former E.P.A. regional administrator and current president of Beyond Plastics.
To the Editor:
With 2.5 million beverage containers buried, burned or littered every minute, Oliver Franklin-Wallis contributes a much-needed critique of recycling. But what a missed opportunity to highlight a proven alternative — deposit return systems — and call out the real offender: corporate producers. They are fully responsible for making and marketing single-use products and packaging, yet they are completely unaccountable for managing the enormous waste they create.
Blaming consumers for the failures of recycling perpetuates a false narrative. Recycling originated with the very companies producing disposable packaging, in order to shift the cleanup burden on to taxpayers.
We won’t recycle our way out of the current crisis. But readers need to know there is “recycling with results” that comes with deposit return systems. In “bottle bill” states, beverage containers are recovered and recycled in a closed loop, achieving recycling rates double or more than states with only curbside recycling.
In Europe, modern deposit return systems are proving a potent tool for conserving resources and reducing waste and carbon emissions. Stop the waste at its source and end the circular debate on recycling.
Elizabeth Balkan
Brooklyn
The writer is director of Reloop North America.
To the Editor:
The plastics industry agrees: Recycling is still the best option to keep waste out of our environment, as Oliver Franklin-Wallis concludes.
He mentions our advocacy initiative “Recycling Is Real,” which highlights the industry’s commitment to recycling and the hardworking people who make it happen every day.
The truth is, we wish we didn’t have to create this campaign, but unfortunately there is a lot of misinformation about recycling in our country. Activist organizations actually tell Americans that recycling is a “myth” and, in some cases, not to bother recycling at all.
The plastics industry wants to recycle more, which is why companies across our industry work tirelessly to improve recyclability and invest billions of dollars into the technologies to recycle and the prevention of waste.
There are many ways we can improve recycling rates in the U.S. We need accurate and up-to-date data on recycling rates, improvement to our recycling infrastructure and greater access to recycling for more communities.
The plastics industry is already at the table, prepared to work together toward public policy proposals, real investments and innovations to improve recycling around the world. We need partners to take a seat next to us and work to achieve our shared sustainability objectives.
Recycling is very real. It’s important that Americans hear this fact and encourage others to recycle more. If we commit to recycling, we can keep plastic in our economy and out of our environment.
Matt Seaholm
Washington
The writer is president and C.E.O. of the Plastics Industry Association.
Campus Protests, Free Speech and ‘Teach-Ins’
To the Editor:
In her Dec. 5 column, “A Backlash to Campus Protests Threatens Speech,” Michelle Goldberg argues strongly for her central point: “If we don’t want escalating bigotry to enable escalating repression, we need to err on the side of speech.”
While I disagree with Ms. Goldberg on whether anti-Zionism constitutes a form of antisemitism (I believe it does), I also believe that critics of Israel have the right to express their views on campus, short of calling for or supporting violence.
But the seeds of the current controversy over threats to campus free speech were planted years ago, with enforced censorship of perceived verbal “microaggressions,” the claimed need for “trigger warnings” of potentially offensive literary references, as well as administrative reprimands — or worse — for faculty who do not adhere to progressive political and intellectual orthodoxies (i.e., “cancel culture”).
School authorities should oppose overt bigotry and intimidation and condemn them. But we can, as Ms. Goldberg advocates, put a stop to escalating campus repression and err on the side of speech and academic freedom, or we can keep expanding the definition of disallowed thought and expression, promoting and protecting only certain favored viewpoints. Clearly, not both.
Alan M. Schwartz
Teaneck, N.J.
To the Editor:
Does anybody remember the “teach-ins” during the Vietnam War period?
Instead of university administrators silencing outraged students, remaining silent in the face of hyperboles, or publishing equivocal statements to assuage critics and donors, why don’t they organize teach-ins to educate the many students whose knowledge of Israeli, Hamas and Palestinian relations is scarce if not distorted?
Those teach-ins should be educational events, not for propaganda and denunciation of one side or the other. Is not teaching the prime function of universities?
Wake up, university administrators! No more double talk. Make clear to students the facts behind the dogmatic jargon and the real tragedies that we see before us.
Vivian R. Gruder
New York
The writer is emerita professor of history at Queens College, CUNY.
Hollywood, Don’t Glamorize Guns
To the Editor:
Re “Hollywood Is Wrangling Over What to Holster” (front page, Nov. 27), about the aftermath of the killing of a cinematographer on the “Rust” film set:
There is a simple solution to this issue: The entertainment industry could stop making films and TV programs that glamorize gun violence. Problem solved.
Michelle Finamore
Salem, Mass.
Issue No. 60,000
To the Editor:
Dear New York Times: Congratulations on the publication of your 60,000th issue on Dec. 12 — an almost incomprehensible achievement.
Each day, for the 45 years of our marriage, my wife has refused to go to sleep at night until she has finished reading that day’s paper cover to cover. In fact, she credits The Times with the success and longevity of our marriage.
Hey, wait a minute …
Randy Heller
Larchmont, N.Y.