1

Rhetorical Analysis of “The Reign of Recycling”

Sarah Sylvester

Ms.Stephanie Maenhardt

English 1010

November 10th, 2020

 2

In the article “The Reign of Recycling” written by John Tierney and published in The New York

Times, the author argues that recycling is expensive, ineffective and wasteful. Tierney addressed

his audience through this piece during the modern recycling movement: a time when pollution

and global warming were at the forefront of social attention. As per his typical writing style as an

environmentalist critic, the author’s tone and word choice seems consistently critical, and almost

accusatory, as he tackles the controversial issue of recycling. Tierney utilizes logos, ethos, and

pathos interwoven throughout his writing to effectively educate the readers on how burying

garbage is the easiest and cheapest solution for trash.

The author first claims that not much has changed economically or environmentally since the

modern recycling movement was implemented. He logically supports this claim by explaining to

the reader that while politicians continually aspire to reach higher rates of recycling, the reality is

that the national average has remained stagnant for quite some time. Furthermore, stating that it

typically costs more to recycle household waste, than to send it to the landfill. Still further

emphasizing that once you move past recycling paper and metals, into items such as glass and

plastic, the environmental benefit diminishes and the cost becomes more than it’s worth. He

provides statistics such as: “To offset the greenhouse impact of one passenger’s round-trip flight

between New York and London, you’d have to recycle roughly 40,000 plastic bottles, assuming

you fly coach. If you sit in business - or first- class, where each passenger takes up more space, it

could be more like 100,000.” - “…all the trash generated by Americans for the next 1,000 years
 3

would fit on on-tenth of 1 percent of the land available for grazing. And that tiny amount of land

wouldn’t be lost forever, because landfills are typically covered with grass and converted to

parkland.” - and “Once you exclude paper products from recycling everything else…is only two-

tenths of 1 percent of America’s carbon footprint.” He follows his evidence with a quote from the

chief executive officer of Waste Management, David P. Steiner: “Trying to turn garbage into gold

costs a lot more than expected. We need to ask ourselves: What is the goal here?”

In conjunction to the main ideas presented above, Tierney establishes credibility of his points by

further referencing well credentialed figures. Including Chris Goodall, the author of “How to

Live a Low-Carbon Life”; J.Winston Porter, an E.P.A. official; and Thomas C. Kinnaman, an

economist at Bucknell University. They each bring an important point to the table. Goodall

calculates that by washing plastic in order to recycle it, you’re actually creating a larger carbon

footprint! He states that because the warm water you’re using to wash the plastic is a product of

coal-derived electricity, it cancels out the environmental benefit of recycling the plastic itself.

Porter advised state officials that no more than 35% of trash was worth recycling for that reason

among others. And still Kinnaman provides the point that to offset the environmental cost,

something like a $15 tax per ton of trash taken to the landfill could be implemented instead.

In addition to substantiating logic and credibility to his readers, the author also uses selective

word choice to appeal to his readers’ emotions. An example of this is when he states: “ It makes

people feel virtuous, especially affluent people who feel guilty about their enormous

environmental footprint. It is less an ethical activity than a religious ritual, like the ones
 4

performed by Catholics to obtain indulgences for their sins…Religious rituals don’t need any

practical justification for the believers who perform them voluntarily. But many recyclers want

more than just the freedom to practice their religion. They want to make these rituals mandatory

for everyone else, too, with stiff fines for sinners who don’t wort properly.” Tierney uses this

point to provoke a response from environmentalists and peak the interest of others. Religion is a

very sensitive topic for most and this author manipulates that to his advantage in this example.

He also makes the comment that “ New Yorkers are spending for the privilege of recycling.” This

statement implies that citizens of New York that are required to recycle are being taken

advantage of. Something that some citizens may not even realize. I feel like this statement would

invoke an angry response from some. Another example the author gives is “Seattle has become

so aggressive that they city is being sued by residents who maintain that the inspectors rooting

through their trash are violating their constitutional right to privacy.” This strategic example

paints the picture of a code enforcement officer digging through the trashcan with intent to issue

citations for those who aren’t recycling. I can imaging it’s a very venerable feeling having your

trash dug through by a stranger, and the author was wise to refer this practice as being a violation

of ones constitutional rights. Anytime someone hears that their rights are being violated, they’re

most likely going to have some sort of emotional reaction to that.

Overall, from a readers perspective, Tierney did an effective job a convincing me that recycling

is not a very productive way to reduce our carbon footprint, and that it’s expensive and wasteful.

His article provided substantial statistical evidence to support logical claims; he referenced

multiple credible sources pertaining to his topic; and his article was emotionally relatable due to

presented hypothetical situations and references to religion. Because of his rhetorical appeals,
 5

I’m left feeling like the majority of recycling is a waste of money and bad for our environment.

Maybe we should just stick to the traditional ways of waste management!