by: Brittanie Claire

Since I entered at the University of Georgia I have seen so many organizations at the Tate Plaza encouraging people to “go green.” Although these organizations seem to focus on the movement of “going green,” they only really cover the base of recycling at the University of Georgia and even more recently, they have been talking about eating organic food.  Very little is discussed on the transportation aspect, so my paper is here to analyze hybrid cars and whether or not they are actually worth the money spent.

To start off this literature review I decided to actually find out what a definition of a hybrid was.  According to wikipedia.org, a hybrid electric vehicle (HEV) is a hybrid vehicle that combines a conventional propulsion system with a rechargeable energy storage system (RESS) to achieve better fuel economy than a conventional vehicle. Its secondary propulsion system, additional to the electric motors, means that it does not require regular visits to a charging unit as a battery electric vehicle (BEV) does. In college student language, a hybrid electric vehicle is a car that operates off of more than one source, such as gasoline and battery.

The first person I thought when I thought of this paper was Clark Howard and his show, “Save More, Spend Less, and Avoid Rip-Offs.”  He is constantly talking about hybrid cars and whether or not they are worth the money.  In 2008, Clark Howard thought that because hybrids were so expensive, $25,000 or more, that it would be a waste of money to buy a new hybrid car but it would most definitely be a smart investment to buy a used hybrid car.  The reasoning behind this was because when the gas prices skyrocketed in summer 2008, so did the prices for fuel-efficient/hybrid cars. Now in 2009, Clark Howard has stated that Honda has recreated a one of their cars called the Honda Insight Hybrid that cost only $19,800 but it also has plenty of room and four doors, unlike the two it originally had.  This car promises to be a good investment from day one of ownership (Howard).  Overall, Clark Howard feels like a hybrid car is a great investment if it is bought used or if it is under $20,000.

A similar opinion to Clark Howard is one Mark Hamer who wrote an article named “Hybrid Cars cost driven by rising oil prices,” that stated that in the United Kingdom, hybrid cars are cheaper because they have to compete with diesel fueled cars, which get just as good a mileage as their hybrid counterparts. In Hamer’s article, a motor industry analyst named Anthony Pratt states that hybrids are appealing to people who want to add a “green tinge” to their automobile.  Pratt also states that in 2008, hybrid cars should have sold one for every 40 conventional cars.  Also, he says that for it would take at least seven to eight years, while driving at least 14,912.91 miles a year, for a hybrid to pay off.  The last thing Pratt says was that the Prius was never really marketed when it first came; its popularity came from chat rooms and word of mouth (Hamer 22). The Prius seemed to be a prized possession for consumers of the green market.  It then leaked to other consumers in the mainstream market. From this article, it seems as if getting a hybrid vehicle is perceived as a thing to do if you want to save money, even though you won’t be saving money.

In the third article that I read, John Rockhold discussed the fact that two of America’s favorite cars makers, Toyota and Honda, were coming out with a hybrid option for their two most popular cars, the Camry and Civic, respectively.  Rockhold stated that it seems like a popular choice to buy a hybrid car because the government gives tax incentives, tax credits, for around $2,500, if you buy a new hybrid.  Also, Rockhold mentions that hybrids sometimes aren’t a sensible option for some consumers because of the price tag.  He list alternatives for cars that get good gas mileage, such as the Honda Fit which gets 34 miles per gallon (mpg) and cost $15, 200 and the Toyota Yaris which gets 36 mpg and cost $12, 430.  Whereas, the hybrid Honda Civic cost $22,700 and gets 49 mpg and the hybrid Toyota Camry gets 40 mpg and cost $26,480 (Rockhold).  Overall, Rockhold seems to support the claim that hybrid cars are better for the environment but they are not always better for the pocket.  Also, Rockhold shows other alternatives to hybrid cars for consumers who cannot afford them.

Out of all of the articles I searched, there was only one real, very short article about how two French scientists feel as if hybrid cars are stopping the research and development of hydrogen fuel cells and electric cars (“Hybrid cars over-hyped?”).

According to the polls that my group took in downtown Athens, people feel as if hybrids are “cool” but too expensive.  We noticed a trend that many people from the Georgia area did not really have an opinion about whether or not hybrids were better for the environment or the pocket but the people from other states, such as California, New York and Florida, had a bigger appreciation for hybrid vehicles and how they affected the environment.  Also in our poll, we noticed that a disproportionate amount of college students seemed to like the idea of a hybrid but did not understand how they worked or what the point of one was; all they could say was, “Well, Cameron Diaz bought a hybrid car, so they must be pretty cool.” The discussion after that was whether or not they felt it was a fad to like hybrids cars because the celebrities endorse them. 

All in all, most articles I found state that hybrid cars are environmentally beneficial but the price of a hybrid might not make it worth it.  During this project, I have figured out that people see “going green” as a way to be included in the “in crowd” that is really just following the Hollywood stars.  Clark Howard believes that getting a used hybrid car is worth the money but a new one is not necessarily a smart consumer choice.  A motor industry analyst, Anthony Pratt, states that it would take at least 7 to 8 years for hybrid vehicle to pay off.  At the end of the day it is up to the individual, whether or not they believe that hybrids are really worth the money because evidence shows that they help the environment.

Sources:

Hamer, Mick. "Hybrid cars driven by rising oil prices." New Scientist 183.2464 (11 Sep. 2004): 22-22. Academic Search Complete. EBSCO. UGA Library, Athens, GA. 28 Apr. 2009  <http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN =14558901&site=ehost-live>.

Howard, Clark. "Hybrids & Alternative Cars on clarkhoward.com." ClarkHoward.com    Home: Save More, Spend Less and Avoid Rip-Offs on clarkhoward.com. 28 Apr. 2009 <http://clarkhoward.com/liveweb/shownotes/category/5/434/>.

"Hybrid cars over-hyped?." CCPA Monitor Sep. 2008: 13+. Academic Search Complete. EBSCO. UGA Library, Athens, GA. 28 Apr. 2009 http://search.ebscohost.com/lo gin.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=34738420&site=ehost-live>.

"Hybrid vehicle -." Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. 28 Apr. 2009 <http://en.wikip edia.org/wiki/Hybrid_cars>.

Rockhold, John. "Two of America's Favorite Cars Go Hybrid." Mother Earth News (Aug. 2006): 22-22. Academic Search Complete. EBSCO. UGA Library, Athens, GA. 28 Apr. 2009 <http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h &AN=21559753&site=ehost-live>.

by: Courtney Jenkins 

Nowadays, people are doing anything they can to look better and feel better; from working out to plastic surgery to eating healthier. As of late, eating organically has become a growing trend. The one problem is that organic food sometimes costs two and three times more than normal processed food, and in harsh economic times like these, eating organically is not necessarily easy to come by. It seems as though having lots of green goes hand in hand with “going green” and eating “green”. So, those of us doing our best to stretch out wallets in everyday life are stuck with eating nonorganic food most of the time. So, this led me to ask the question; is eating organic food actually healthier or is it just an excuse for companies to charge more for food?

             Magkos, Arvaniti, and Zampelas, authors of Organic Food: Buying More Safety or Just Peace of Mind? A Critical Review of the Literature wrote that even though it is difficult to know the exact risks and benefits of organic vs. non-organic food, you must keep in mind that organic does not automatically mean safer. However, they also wrote “At our present state of knowledge, other factors rather than safety aspects seem to speak in favor of organic food (Magkos et al., 2006). Their research found that modern conventional agriculture uses chemicals that ultimately end up in produce. There are more than 130 different classes of pesticides containing around 800 entries. Pesticide residues enter food four ways: on-farm pesticide use, post-harvest pesticide use, pesticide use on imported food, and cancelled pesticides that are in the environment (Magkos et al., 2006). Pesticides are prohibited in organic food production, and after many experiments over long periods of time (under controlled conditions), researchers have found that organically cultivated fields have up to 96.5% less pesticides than those that are conventionally cultivated (Magkos et al., 2006). We must keep in mind that organic foods are not free of pesticides; they just contain considerably less amounts than conventional foods. Magkos and colleagues’ research did not conclude whether or not organic foods were safer than their conventional counterparts. They concluded that even health benefits and risks associated with eating organic food or conventional food was yet to be successfully evaluated. The only evidence they could support was that there were less pesticides present (Magkos et al., 2006).

            Diane Bourn and John Prescott had about the same conclusions as Magkos, Arvaniti, and Zampelas. In their article A Comparison of the Nutritional Value, Sensory Qualities, and Food Safety of Organically and Conventionally Produced Foods they stated that in the U.S., consumers who purchased organic food purchased it because they felt it was safer, fresher, had better health benefits, and better nutritional value (Bourn and Prescott, 2002). Bourn and Prescott researched all four of these components and found the results to be lacking in evidence to support consumers’ reasoning to buy organic over conventional, as did Magkos et al. Bourn and Prescott’s research concluded that the different factors that can affect plant composition make investigations of the nutritional value of organically and conventionally grown food difficult to research and interpret.  However, because of the growing interest in the topic of organic food vs. conventional food, many studies have been conducted. The results in the differences in nutritional value of organic and conventional food varied from study to study. The finding that seemed to be consistent throughout the different tests was that the nitrate content seems to be lower in organic crops as opposed to conventionally grown crops. This could be a result of less compost being used in organic farming (Bourn and Prescott, 2002).

            Bourn and Prescott’s research differs somewhat from Magkos et al. in that they concluded that because of the lack of data on pesticide content of organic food, definitive conclusions could not be made about differences in pesticide use on conventional food. However, to be certified organic in the organic production system, the use of pesticides is prohibited, and because of the documented use of pesticides on conventional farms and food production, it is likely that certified organic food contains less residue levels (Bourn and Prescott, 2002).

             Lu et al., discovered through their experiment that substituting organic food for conventional food in children’s diets considerably lowered the children’s exposure to pesticides (Lu et al., 2006). The researchers substituted most of children’s conventional diets with an organic diet for five consecutive days and collected two urine samples a day. They discovered that the concentrations of the metabolites for malathion and chlorpyrifos (pesticides used in conventional farming) were undetectable after the organic only diets were introduced to the children. The pesticides remained undetected until the children were given conventional food again. They were able to show that an organic diet provides a protective effect against exposure to pesticides that are used in conventional farming (Lu et al., 2006). This experiment provided supporting evidence to the research that Magkos et al. and Bourn and Prescott did on organic food and pesticides.

            After reading about the research and experiments that these people conducted the question that I originally asked still remains partially unanswered. Is organic food healthier? Well, we can now conclude that it is definitely lower in harmful pesticides that may have adverse reactions to our health. However, better nutritional value and freshness of organic food compared to conventional food is yet to have substantial evidence supporting the claim. So, what do we do? Should we give in to the trend and pay a bit extra for the organic food with less pesticides, or do we take our chances on the foods with more of the bad stuff? I think it depends all on what food you are buying. There is not enough evidence out there to support the media’s claim that the residue found in conventional food causes cancer and other chronic illnesses.  Maybe organic food is better for us, more time and research will tell. Until then, it’s up to you if you want to eat organic or conventional. 

Below is a chart I found on Wikipedia that documents the pesticide load in produce.

Sources:

Bourn, Diane and Prescott, John. A Comparison of the Nutritional Value, Sensory Qualities, and Food Safety of Organically and Conventionally Produced Foods. Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition, 42(1):1–34. 2002.

Lu, Toepel, Irish, Fenske, Barr, and Bravo. Organic Diets Significantly Lower Children’s Dietary Exposure to Organophosphorus Pesticides. Environmental Health Perspectives, 114(2). 2006.

 MAGKOS, ARVANITI, and ZAMPELAS. Organic Food: Buying More Safety or Just Peace of Mind? A Critical Review of the Literature. Critical Reviews in Food  Science and Nutrition, 46:23–56. 2006.

by: Kevin Johnson

          With rapidly depleting natural resources, the United States, along with the rest of the world, is constantly in the hunt for efficient ways to alternately produce power.  Several methods have already been implemented.  However, problems can arise, and methods can become quite controversial.  That is, they fail to satisfy critical questions within the society that argues for the search for these alternatives in the first place. The key to finding the right method is to satisfy both dilemmas:  economical efficiency and environmental friendliness.  This paper will delve into the discoveries both old and recent that are on the brink of creating a cost-effective, green world, and analyze several viewpoints towards the burning question:  Is it worth it? 

            According to Julia Corbett, a communications professor and environmental communication enthusiast, green has become synonymous with affluence.  Since the 1980’s, green marketing has given consumers the impression that green is the gateway to the “good life”. But how is this idea of a green market “fad” applicable to energy?  Being “green” is an identity.  People identify with each other on this platform as a political standpoint.  For instance, over the past 10 years, homeowners in the mid-western United States have gradually bought into the solar-electric trend by installing solar cells on their roofs.  Is this innovation truly an innovation? Or is it the newest, “hottest” item to add to your home?

In 1967, 98 percent of rural farms had access to electricity (1).  Needless to say, the majority of modern households across the United States now use electricity on a daily basis.  The emergence of electricity usage was not a fad.  People wanted it in their house simply because it revolutionized their home or farm.  Firms had very few regulations, if any, to produce the electricity by any means.  Fossil fuels such as coal and natural gas were used in large plants known as fossil-fuel power plants to yield electricity for distribution among the masses.  Recently, however, stigmas have been placed on the huge corporations that burn fossil fuels in order to produce electricity, and most have shut down, like the Mohave Power Station in Laughlin, Nevada.  With the recent ozone scares, habitat destruction, and rapidly depleting non-renewable resources, the government and the American people have involved themselves, or at least thought about steps that should be taken to help our natural habitat.  This became the mainstream green marketing movement of the 1980’s. The end product electrical companies provide is the same: switching on a light, watching television, using a cell phone, and even enjoying a warm bath.  However, there are several popular, but not necessarily efficient approaches to electrical production at home or through a utility company.  The two methods that promote green affability and/or economically sound prices are dams and the recent innovations of solar panels.

            Dams produce electricity that is commonly referred to as hydroelectric power.  There are many advantages to hydroelectricity.  Since the dam is powered by the movement of water, no fuel is burned in the production process.  This means that greenhouse gas emission levels (carbon dioxide) are reduced.  Dams are also one of the oldest, most reliable systems, with reliability proven over time.  The first hydroelectric dam was created in 1882, only two years after Thomas Edison showed his discovery of incandescent lighting (1).   Hydroelectric dams use a renewable resource as its main input for production: rain water.  Water is free, and comes in abundant supply in many areas of the world.  These factors make hydroelectric power one of the “greenest” means of electrical production (2).

            Although the solution to the world’s power crisis appears to be found in hydroelectric dams, the dams do have their drawbacks.  Dams need huge amounts of water, isolated in a reservoir, in an area with consistent rainfall.  This alone greatly narrows down the areas in which a dam would be worth constructing for the mass-production of hydroelectricity (Perry). With the small amount of locations that fit these criteria, we reach a simple conclusion – all of the potential dam sites are already taken. In the early stages of the United State’s electrical era, dams produced over 50 percent of the nation’s power.  With an ever-increasing demand for electricity and a diminishing supply of possible locations for dams, hydroelectricity only comprises a mere 10 percent of the nation’s power today (2).  There is much talk about how dams are environmentally promotional; they do, however have a negative impact on the natural habitat of Chinook and Steelhead salmon in the northwestern United States.  According to an excerpt from Effects of Hydroelectric Development and Fisheries, hydroelectric dams on the Colombia River in Washington State have caused a high mortality rate in juveniles migrating downstream (Raymond).

             Going back to green, we ask ourselves, “Why would we as individuals care about how our electricity is produced?”  Environmentally conscious people push for hydroelectricity.  Research is conducted by people to make current dams produce at cheaper rates and thus greater efficiency through innovation.  Currently, hydroelectricity is about five cents per Kilowatt-hour (kWh), making it the cheapest power alternative among the energy firms engaged in mass production (7).

            Solar cells, also known as photovoltaic cells, are a more personal method for electricity production.  The panels come in a few sizes; a typical setup for Atlanta would be a 2-kilowatt system.  Product costs and installation fees can add up to between $20,000 and $30,000.  After these are installed, monthly savings start to occur – at an average of a whopping 34 bucks a month (Perry).  This means that it would take a little over 49 years for the cheapest setup in Atlanta to pay for itself.  Obviously, the numbers don’t line up.  However, famous celebrities like Robin Williams, Danny DeVito, and Carlos Santana raise awareness of the new industry, and promote the desire for typical people to live under roofs like the rich and famous (Heger).  In the words of Corbett, “…we are influenced by the communication of pop culture and social institutions … this communication becomes part of the larger social fabric…” (Corbett).  Although we are easily sucked into this green dream world, there is no doubt that solar cells are environmentally friendly.  However they are far from economically sound for the consumer.  According to the Energy Information Association, the average American household burns 11,040 kWh per year (8).  Assuming that this energy was created solely by hydroelectric dams, annual costs would only amount to a mere $552.  Until scientists explore better technologies to lower the costs of solar cells, people are better off financially going with good old fashioned power lines.

            Many measures have been taken to find the best alternatives to power in the United States.  However, certain requirements must be met in the eyes of society.  Green activists want power production methods that result in overall environmental friendliness.  On top of that, the efficiency and money-saving techniques are highly sought after by the producing firms.  Most would bring up solar panels as the explanation, although efficient personal means of electrical production has not quite been discovered.  However, the notion of celebrities coupled with the green identity has drawn more people to the industry.  Figures blatantly show the huge economic loss for the consumer.  Dams, on the other hand, are on the brink of becoming totally green and economically logical by producing electricity in environmentally friendly fashions at the best possible price.  Our energy crisis would end if only we had more dam locations.

Sources:

1. “Electricity.” <www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/eh/elec.html>.

2.  “Hydroelectric Power Use.”  <http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/wuhy.html>.

3. Perry, Pam. "Solar Panel Savings." <http://www.trustyguides.com/solar- panels3.html>.

4. Monica Heger. "Hollywood stars heat up solar power." Fortune: Giving Back. 15 Feb. 2006.CNN.<http://money.cnn.com/magazines/business2/business2_archive/2006/01/01/8368105/index.htm>.

5. Raymond, Howard L. "Effects of Hydroelectric development and Fisheries." North American Journal of Fisheries Management 8 (1988): 1-24.

6.  Corbett, Julia B. Communicating Nature. Washington, DC: Island Press, 2006.

7. "Comparing the Costs for Alternative Energy Resources." Green Living Answers. 2009. Google.<http://www.greenlivinganswers.com/archives/192>.

8. <www.tennesseepolicy.org/main/article.php>.

by: Avalee Jenkins    

        Many Americans have become familiar with the recycling trend in the past few decades, but few really know what recycling is, if it is in fact beneficial to the environment, and how cost efficient recycling actually is.  To understand the impact that recycling has on our world, it is important to know what recycling is, the alleged myths of recycling, and also the believed benefits of recycling.  

       What is recycling? Recycling refers to converting everyday garbage and trash into reusable materials.  Common recycled items include paper, plastics, aluminum, cardboard and some metals.  The main goals of recycling are to reduce the amount of waste filling our landfills and also reduce the fresh production of new materials and the pollution that would create.   According to the National Recycling Coalition, the average American discards 4.6 pounds of trash each day, adding to the overflow of landfills.  The NRC urges Americans to recycle at home in order to “significantly lower carbon emissions associated with extracting virgin materials, manufacturing products and waste disposal” (NRC).  Recycling alone is not significant enough to make a considerable impact on the environment, and experts agree it is important to incorporate the other two aspects represented in the recycling symbol.  The symbol for recycling is represented by three arrows forming the shape of a triangle, each arrow representing a different component of recycling. Commonly referred to as the “3 R’s”, the popular symbol stands for Reduce, Reuse, Recycle.  The Environmental Protection Agency encourages these three activities over just recycling, because when used together the 3 R’s are able to “save natural resources and reduce the need for landfills” (EPA).   Many of the experts against recycling do not incorporate the other two aspects of ‘going green’ into their analyses, leaving reducing and reusing raw materials out of their equations.  

There are many myths surrounding the idea of recycling, including myths about economic benefits, landfill space, natural resource use and the effect that recycling has on the environment.  Many people refuse to buy into the idea of recycling, and continue to believe that ‘going green’ and recycling is just a popular fad.  In Daniel Benjamin’s article on EcoWorld, he explains how “recycling is not always the environmentally correct choice” and that “it costs more the recycle these (raw materials) than bury that used and manufacture the new from scratch” (Benjamin).   Benjamin explains in the beginning of his article that it would be more cost efficient to the American people to “mine the landfills and recycle them all at once” if we were to run out of resources, as  “it would be easier and cheaper than perpetual recycling” (Benjamin).  In a separate article “Recycling Myths” Lawrence Reed addresses the common American fear that not recycling will lead to an overflow of landfills.  Reed comments that “Entrepreneurs know how to construct landfills now that pose absolutely no hazard to the environment, and anyone who has flown over almost any state knows there is plenty of land for this purpose, but ‘nay saying’ regulators have almost closed down this efficient waste management option.  Another common belief among Americans is the need to recycle to conserve natural resources like metals and trees.  Reed addresses this idea when he notes “most of the trees that are planted in America are planted with the intent of eventually harvesting them to make things like paper” (Reed). He continues that is Americans “used less paper, there would be fewer trees planted” (Reed).  Benjamin also writes that “available stocks of most natural resources are growing rather than shrinking, but the reason is not recycling… but thanks to innovation” (Benjamin).   A similar argument against recycling is that the energy and oil used by the garbage trucks to pick up curbside recyclables and deliver them to the processing facility is more detrimental towards the environment than just throwing the recyclables away.   A study by Popular Mechanics states that picking up recyclables “eats up about 50 to 60 percent of the budget of a typical curbside recycling program” (Hutchison).   Although there are many arguments against recycling, claiming the damages outweigh the benefits, in the end through reducing, reusing, recycling, there is a positive impact on the environment.

There are many benefits to recycling, both economical and environmental.  The recycling industry creates 4 jobs for every 1 job created by the waste disposal industry, while at the same tie creating  $37 billion in annual payrolls (Recycling Revolution).  Environmentally, recycling can help reduce our dependency on international oil.  The Filter For Good Campaign sponsored by Brita Water Filters and Nalgene explains this phenomenon in reference to recycling plastics when they report that of the 50 billion water bottles used in the last year, 38 billion were returned to a landfill.  Those 38 billion water bottles are the equivalent to 912 million gallons of oil (Filter For Good).  Aluminum is the most recycled product in the United States, which is important as a standard aluminum can takes over 500 years to biodegrade.  On the positive side however, aluminum can be recycled continuously without any negative effects on the quality of the can, and can also be restocked as a new can in 60 days or less.  Here in Athens-Clarke County, the Solid Waste Department collects recyclables from approximately 9,912 residential customers (ACC).  The Recycling Division offers recycling pick up for some locations, recyclable drop off locations, and information on how to create your own composting pile.  The University of Georgia also has its own Go Green Initiative called “Go Green at UGA” with “the intent to provide the best outcomes for the human environment and the natural environment both now and into the indefinite future” (UGA Go Green).   Some of the goals listed on their website includes “using environmentally sounds work practices, improving indoor air quality, reduce emissions, and decreasing the campus’s overall waste stream,” just to name a few.  Under the UGA Go Green Campaign is the UGA recycles program, which offers educational information on where and how to recycle on campus.  Though there are many arguments against recycling, there are just as many if not more in favor of recycling and the economic and environmental benefits it has on America.

After understanding just what recycling is, and how there are many parts to recycling and ‘going green’, it is easy to see that recycling is ultimately beneficial towards the environment.  Although there may be economical set backs, it pays in the present and future to recycle.  Locally, Athens-Clarke County and the University of Georgia have created recycling programs to help encourage citizens and students alike to recycle. 

Sources:

Athens-Clarke County Solid Waste Department. Reduce-Reuse-Recycle. 21 April 2009.

            http://www.acc-recycle.org/

Benjamin, Daniel. “Recycling Myths: Smothered in Garbage vs. More Landfill Capacity

            Than Ever.” 15 November 2003.  EcoWorld. 21 April 2009.             http://www.ecoworld.com/features/2003/11/15/recycling-myths/

Environmental Protection Agency. 22 April 2009.  www.epa.gov

Filer for Good. “Learn the Facts.” 20 April 2009.              http://www.filterforgood.com/learn_the_facts.php

Go Green UGA.  22 April 2009.  http://gogreen.uga.edu/about.html

Hutchison, Alex. “Recycling Myths: PM Debunks 5 Half Truths about Recycling.”  10             Novemeber 2008.  Popular Mechanics.  25 April 2009.              http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/earth/4290631.html

National Recycling Coalition.  27 April 2009.  http://www.nrc-recycle.org/aboutnrc.aspx

Recycling Revolution. 22 April 2009. http://www.recycling-revolution.com/

Reed, Lawrence. “Recycling Myths.” The Freeman Ideas on Liberty. March 1995. 

            Volume 45. http://www.thefreemanonline.org/columns/recycling-myths/