I can't believe that some states like NH haven't implemented a mandatory recycle program, and how many people just throw the recyclables into a trash bin without one ounce of thought. Many condo associations don't have any type of programs either to help educate their residents. State politicians should be more vigilant in helping to set into law recycling .
Recycling should be mandatory in New Hampshire as well as other states and countries around the world. It would help promote a greener earth and help reduce the carbon footprint of all humans on society. By making this a mandatory thing the world would see see better change and a brighter future.
Government - federal, state, and local - are charged with the duty to protect their citizens. Said premise is either explicitly stated or generally and acceptably inferred within each governing document at all levels. Waste, and specifically waste produced by people, produces a direct threat to established communities if it is not managed in ways that allows the environment to continue to support our human actions. Direct threats are too often thought of as immediate. This threat, however, must be considered over the long term, an often difficult horizon line to see amidst the demands of our present day. Our challenge (and what threatens us) is this: a finite planet cannot continue to process an infinite amount of waste.
Mandatory recycling is certainly one part of a larger, more complex and comprehensive solution that can help to remedy the aforementioned challenge. It should, however, come to realization as a result of a mandate from the community expressed through their elected officials as opposed to an edict or rule set forth by a bureaucratic arm of government. In the end, people need to want to change current behavior. Any mandate set forth without the understanding and will of those who are required to abide by it will fail. This truism is prevalent throughout most aspects of human change systems, but ever more so when it involves monetary developments. And mandatory recycling certainly carries a cost. Our responsibility as a citizenry is to inquire as to the other side of the equal sign. What is opposite cost? Benefit. In making the benefits clear - supporting the environmental system that supports us, establishing a consistent and constant industry, and reducing the risk of the ills associated and documented in current landfill mechanisms - perhaps people will demand rather than sulk from a mandate.
Recycling is essential to preserving the environment, that should be common knowledge. The argument for the opposing side states that recycling is expensive. On the contrary, earthprotect.Com states that "Recycling saves money by reducing space in landfills, by saving trees and by reducing the cost of dumping used materials". They also state that it would encourage hoarding. They have a point in that it would attract unwanted pests, leading to disease. However, I would argue that in this scenario, the pros (the benefit to the environment of the planet) far outweigh the cons (the sickness of a few individuals who were ducking fines because they weren't sure which bin to put their trash in.)
Not only would we be saving millions of dollars. LITERALLY. It also saves the only planet that we can live on. So why would we not recycle? I know it might be difficult at times but if everybody just persevered through it then we would get into the habit of recycling and it would be natural for us. We could save money and protect our Earth!
The more people that recycle, the more money it will save for New Hampshire. Right now 20% of us recycle and we save about 1 million dollars. So if we increase the percentage of people that recycle in New Hampshire that 1 million dollars could change into a much higher number.
The government need to get out of everyones lives. Stop telling us what to do. Recycling is a great idea but stop trying to force people to do what you think is right. Let the people in each area decide for themselves. Sometimes peer pressure works wonders for all involved.
Recycling may be a good idea, but I don't believe you can force people to recycle. People should be able to decide on their own that recycling is the thing for them to do. When we start nitpicking with peoples rights it doesn't stop until your not allowed to do your own thinking.
Many people recycle anyways, and if you enforced laws against not recycling, people who dont know about about recycling will be enforced, they will get fines, and thre will be alot of riots. Many people wont do it just because authoritys are telling them to, and in the end it will work out to be bad
Available stocks of most natural resources are actually growing rather than shrinking. How do we know? Market prices measure natural resource scarcity. Falling prices indicate a material is becoming more plentiful, and that is exactly what continues to happen for almost all raw materials. Resources such as timber are renewable, and non-renewable resources are more available than ever. They go much farther than they used to, and some have been replaced by resources that are even more plentiful. Skyscrapers and bridges use less steel than in the past; optical fiber (made from sand) carries 625 times more calls than the copper wire of 20 years ago. The list goes on.
Mandatory Recycling Laws make citizens pay fines for not complying with the programs. Some experts are of the opinion that Mandatory Recycling Programs are costly and in fact it costs more than sending waste materials to landfills. In New York, the recycling of some waste materials like glass and plastic was proved more expensive than sending them to landfills.
I do not believe that it should be mandatory to recycle, but I do believe that it is ethical to recycling. It's good for our economy, and always good to do, but we should not ask the government to tell us what to do inside of our own homes, it's not right.
If recycling becomes mandatory in NH or anywhere, that means that it become illegal to not recycle. I would imagine that the penalty would be some sort of a ticket or fine. Recycling is already an expensive process that would become even more expensive when each town has to hire one or more 'Recycling Enforcement Officers'. It would also encourage hoarding, because it would discourage people who currently don't sort their trash from getting rid of it. This is an invitation for pests, disease and squalor.
I believe that the best solution to this problem is for towns to incentivize recycling by offering it as a free service, while at the same time charging a higher price to get rid of trash. This would encourage people to take the extra step and sort recycling from trash in order to save money.
Another solution might be to charge a 'trash tax' on grocery or household items that are not sold in recyclable containers. The revenues generated from this tax could be used to offset the cost of the town's recycling facility or on ad campaigns encouraging recycling.
Consider this: smoking has never been illegal (just banned in certain places). But through public service campaigns, high tobacco taxes and incentives provided by health insurance companies, smoking rates are currently lower than they have been in many years (http://well.Blogs.Nytimes.Com/2013/06/25/why-smoking-rates-are-at-new-lows/?_r=0).
Environmentally, of course, everyone should recycle.