More than three-quarters of all Americans recycle, and on the East and West Coasts, nearly 90% do. But although virtually everyone agrees that recycling is good for the environment, most people do not think of recycling as a solution for one of today’s biggest problems – energy dependence on climate-disrupting fossil fuels. A closer look reveals that recycling can play a serious role in reducing energy use and increasing efficiency.
Recycling delivers a host of environmental benefits, including conserving scarce natural resources, keeping dangerous and toxic chemicals out of landfills where they can leach into the groundwater, and reducing methane emissions from landfills. In spite of these benefits, recycling has always had its detractors. In a notorious 1996 New York Times Magazine article, staff writer John Tierney argued that recycling programs wasted more resources than they saved. That turns out to be a spurious argument, but it is closer to true if the only averted costs considered are those associated with collecting garbage and hauling it to landfills (although, it seems fair to mention that no one has ever criticized garbage collection for not paying for itself). But averted disposal costs are only a tiny slice of the savings generated from recycling. The big savings come in the form of energy.
Energy is used throughout the entire lifecycle of consumer products, from extracting and processing the raw materials used, manufacturing the products themselves, distributing those products to retailers, and of course, collecting and processing or disposing of products once consumers no longer find them useful. Those first two phases—extracting/processing raw materials and manufacturing—are by far the most energy intensive, and that is where recycling can deliver big reductions.
In his state of the Union address, President Obama set a goal of generating 80 percent of US electricity from “clean energy sources” by 2035. President Obama was using a very inclusive definition of “clean energy sources”, leaving coal without carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) technology as the big loser. Obama provided no details of how the country could achieve this goal but left it to Congress to work it out. Any new Federal legislation that comes out of this goal should recognize that electricity markets differ by state, and each state has its own body of laws, regulations, and administrative decisions that govern electricity regulation. A flexible approach from Congress will enable further regulatory innovation by states, dampen the effects of market failures, and allow states to allocate costs to meet their current situations and long-term priorities.
Last spring the 
Community solar is a concept that has lots of cheerleaders. And what’s not to love? At it’s best, this market-based deployment strategy can expand access to clean energy, create jobs, spur local investment, and help drive down the cost of solar panels.
When President Obama recently made his first state visit to India, environmentalists and energy reformers were excited to see renewable energy cooperation on the agenda. Yet, on further inspection, the scope of cooperation envisioned is narrow indeed.
The success of the Tea party has been a constant focus of the media leading up to and in the wake of November’s election. The newly elected cohort of Tea Party-backed candidates is making its way to Washington, bringing a cause for joy among some Americans and despair for others. There may only be 39 new Tea Party candidates heading to Capitol Hill, which is a relatively small number given the size of Congress, but don’t let the numbers fool you. In the short amount of time since the election, Tea Party candidates have shown considerable influence within the Republican Party. Many uncertainties remain over the direction of public policy during the next term, but one thing is for certain, the small but feisty Tea Party minority cannot be ignored.
