Your Questions About Recycling
by
Filed under Recycling Q & A
George asks…
i am having a debate on how recycling should be reqired by law and i am arguing the negative side…?
and i cant seem to find any supporting facts to back up my argument.Can someone help me?
The Expert answers:
I would focus on one aspect of recycling – newspapers. Do a search on it and see how effective it is. It’s my understanding that it isn’t very effective. As for things like aluminum cans, you can’t win that argument (because of the energy savings), same goes for plastics and glass. But I think if you study the process, the costs (vs benefits), what we use recycled newpaper for and what would happen if we didn’t recycle newspapers, you can make a good argument (organize you outline along those lines).
Sandra asks…
What’s really wrong with recycling your own papers for a different class?
Meet Joe. Joe could be, if he were not a hypothetical example, a college student at any university. Several times, he has considered turning in papers that have already received a grade in a previous class. Clearly, he wouldn’t turn in the exact paper (grade, comments, and all), but it would be a printout of the same paper nonetheless. Joe has thus far restrained himself – apparently, his university would consider this to be plagiarism and would most likely result in his failing the class and (possibly) expulsion. This restraint is only due to the fear of being found out and punished for something that should be a non-issue in the first place. This is a completely unnecessary fear. “Recycling” papers from other classes is not only morally permissible, but in some cases (admittedly, few and far between) should be actively encouraged.
Ordinarily, I have little use for Utilitarianism. There are far too many flaws and loopholes (for lack of a better word) for me to justify using it as the decision-making moral theory on which I base my life. In this situation, however, I find it both useful and defensible. Turning in a “recycled” paper for a grade in a different class maximizes happiness for the only two people in the situation whose happiness matters – the professor and the student. This Utilitarian principle, maximizing happiness, defends the recycling student while at the same time pleasing the professor.
What, then, defines happiness in each person’s situation? Having never been a professor, it would be unfair for me to say that I know exactly what would make him or her happy, but I can offer a few logical guesses. Students doing well in class (gradewise) would make a professor happy. Seeing that, while a student may not have the best grades in the class, he or she is actively learning and (or) enjoying the class would make a professor happy. Knowing that (based on students’ test scores, papers, or attitudes) he or she is doing a good job and living up to his or her and the university’s expectations would logically make a professor happy. There are probably more “happiness indicators” for professors, but as I said, I have never been one and therefore do not know everything about the position. Collectively, these happy professors make for happy deans, provosts, and chancellors, but this situation is concerned with the professor only. I will refer to “byproducts” later.
The happiness of students is something I know a little more about. Good grades make students happy. Learning more about something that actually interests them makes students happy. Being actively involved in a class they enjoy makes students happy. Having fun in a class (yes, this is possible) and living up to their own expectations for themselves are both excellent components of student happiness. Different students have different ideas about what makes them happy, but these are a few basics. Eerily enough, it seems that they mirror the things that make professors happy. The symbiotic relationship demonstrated here shows that as one side is made happy, the other follows, and vice versa. Once again, there are byproducts of the happiness that will be discussed later.
Now we come to the actual paper in question, “recycled” or not, as the case may be. What about a paper makes a professor happy, or at the very least satisfied? The student should be able to answer the question(s) in detail, showing knowledge of the material covered in class (at minimum). Hopefully the student will be able to go above and beyond to show an ability to synthesize material from other sources, and to draw his or her own conclusions other than regurgitating simple facts and repeating the professor’s own words on paper. It should be turned in on time and satisfy whatever requirements are placed upon it in terms of length, format, sources, and so on. Notice I do not include the requirement of it not being a “recycled” paper, since this paper is designed to make that even more of a moot point than I already consider it to be. Each discipline (sciences, history, literature, and so on) will of course have its own peculiarities, but in any case the paper should be well written, demonstrating a grasp of and control over the language. These things, and I am sure there are more and different things in different class situations, are what make professors happy.
What about a paper makes the student happy? It should be able to be completed to the standards of both professor and student in the given amount of time. It should be over things the class has covered or been given opportunity and direction to cover on their own. The student should be able to understand and follow the directions easily. Easily, however, may not always mean that it does not take time. Hopefully the topic will hold the student’s interest – maybe providing a different spin or alternative view of said topic, or allowing the student to provide opinions and his or he
or allowing the student to provide opinions and his or her own individual take on the subject matter. Shorter papers and fewer source requirements (if any) certainly help, but alas, such is not always the case.
It is possible for a “recycled” paper to fit every single one of these requirements for both student and professor. Where then is the problem? Somehow, “recycling” papers has fallen under the heading of plagiarism. Surely this cannot be classical plagiarism, copying verbatim or paraphrasing from a source, without giving credit where credit is due. The student has clearly done all the work involved in the paper, and for the sake of argument we can assume that he or she turned in a copy of the original bibliography or Works Cited page along with the “recycled” paper. All it would take to “legally” beat the plagiarism argument in this case would be to put the entire paper in quotes and list it on a Works Cited or bibliography page as being “published” in the
class it was
class it was turned in to before:
Herfkens, Timothy. “On the Morality of ‘Recycled’ Papers in Academia.” Ed. R. Mohr. Contemporary Moral Problems, University of Nebraska at Omaha. Omaha, NE, 2005.
Of course the form may have to be reworked for different disciplines, but the example is clear. A ridiculous example, certainly, but it could be done if only to prove a point. Where would be the merit in, in effect, punishing a student for writing a good paper for a previous class (or not being able to see the future)?
Imagine (and it is not very difficult) a paper giving a Marxist interpretation of George Orwell’s classic novel Animal Farm. This could easily be used for a Critical Theory class demonstrating the student’s knowledge and application of Marxist theory. It could just as easily be used for a literature class, proving that not only does the student have an in-depth knowledge of the book itself, he or she realizes that it is more than a cute little animal fairy
cute little animal fairy tale. Had the student known that he or she would be reading and writing a paper on Animal Farm in a future class, it is reasonable to imagine that he or she would have or could have chosen a different critical approach to the book or chosen a different book to practice Marxist theory on. Well, the whole seeing the future thing does not happen and (horror of horrors) the student earns an “A” on the paper. Why in the world would the student not turn it in again to the literature professor, if it satisfies all the requirements for the second paper as well? Not only does it fit all the professor’s
requirements, it would more than likely also satisfy the above requirements for making both the student and professor happy. It really should not even matter if the professor knows or finds out that it is a “recycled” paper – happiness is maximized for all involved. He or she got what was asked for, and the student will probably get another good grade.
In fact,
In fact, a student “recycling” a paper (or papers) almost by definition is maximizing happiness every single time. Logically, there is no point to “recycling” a paper that earned or received a poor grade. So, the paper in question will have already maximized happiness in one class for both professor and student. If a situation arises where the student can use a high-scoring paper again, is he or she not then (Utilitarianly speaking) morally obligated to use the same paper again, knowing that it is highly likely to maximize happiness for both the second professor and him or her self? This is then seen as a superogatory act, one that (according to class discussion) would be seen as obligatory by both Bentham and Singer.
Now, what about those byproducts? First of all, there are the happy deans, provosts, and chancellors that were referenced earlier. A student earning good grades would make the parents happy, and depending on each individual family structure, the extended family (s
family (siblings, grandparents, and so on) would be happy as well. Happiness is being passed around like marijuana at a 311 concert! The student would also be happy that he or she had to do a little less work for a class.
That last sentence seems to be the sticking point, revealing a problem in the mindset of what seems to be (in my experience ONLY – no surveys conducted) a minority of professors. Never in ten full time semesters at this university have I heard this “recycling” of papers mentioned as a problem, much less on a par with plagiarism, until now. Coming from an English major who has written quite a few papers, that means something. There is, in this situation, a focus on “did the student do the work” rather than “does the student know the material.” Not only that, the “did the student do the work” part is restricted to a four-and-a-half month time frame. However, grading is based on “does the student know the material.” Of course the student should do the work – th
Of course the student should do the work – that is a given. Does it really matter when? No.
Joe is having a good day now. After Joe read this paper and explained it to his professor, Joe’s professor announced to the class that “recycled” papers would no longer be a problem in that particular class. Joe’s unnecessary fear is gone. Look, happiness even before receiving a grade! He has turned in his “recycled” paper, the one that he received an “A” and high praise from the previous professor for, and even told the current professor that it was a “recycled” paper. “Recycling” papers has been proven to be morally permissible (at worst) by the Utilitarians, and happiness will abound on all sides.
I apologize MOST profusely for the length . . . I wrote this for a philosophy class 4 1/2 years ago. Just curious as to other reactions.
MANY thanks to all who take the time to read and react.
The Expert answers:
Yeah, I didn’t read all that, but education, unfortunately, ends up being about process. You go through the process of giving every teacher, lecturer, etc what they want. It’s like a love fest for the professors point of view. It lessens as you go through the system, but it’s not until you’ve got Phd after your name that all of a sudden, what you think actually means something.
Donald asks…
How to get town to expand recycling program?
I recently moved to a small town in Texas from a town in New Jersey, and am suprised that each home doesn’t get recycling bins or anything like there was where I lived in NJ. A lot of money can be made from recylcing right? And its good for the environment. But in the town I’m in now you can only put recylable materials in a place at the municipal building. I dont think that is convenient for most people.. and most people would recycle if they had a bin they just had to put stuff in and then a truck can take it away.
What can I do to get my town to have a program like that? What articles can I read about this topic so I can know more about the facts? Cause I don’t know much on the topic but its definitely something I want to rally for. I’m 16 years old and its a suburb of Dallas, if that helps. Should I call my municipal building or go there myself or what? I dont know what I should do as the first step.
Thanks if you can help!
The Expert answers:
I live here in North Texas and was asking myself the same question, I did alot of research and found that a company called Abitibi Bowater has it’s own program which encourages local Texas companies to start recycling, the program is called “EcoRewards Recycling” and they actually make it profitable for local businesses to start recycling.
My point of contact was Casey, see below;
Casey Gray “Business Recycling Consultant”
EcoRewards Recycling
1923 Meridian Street
Arlington, TX 76011
Tel: 800-874-1301
I wrote and article on the experience which you can read on my blog;
http://www.oureverydayearth.com/2009/11/02/inside-the-recycling-process-with-ecorewards/
You can also visit the EcoRewards website directly here;
http://www.ecorewards.com/
They can supply local businesses with curb side pickup recycling bins as well as larger recycling containers. Contact them and see if they can help your town.
Charles asks…
Can a professor copyright an exam?
I am wondering if a professor can copyright an exam… For example, I am taking a biology course in University and we had a 50 question multiple choice exam… Firstly, if the questions is factual (along the lines of “Which of the following statements are correct?”, or “What occurs after glycolysis?” can they br protected or can they be redistributed? Secondly, although it is a multiple choice exam, the student is choosing the answer and is it therefore considered his/her own expression?
As far as the material being redistributed… It will be redistributed solely for educational purposes, i.e. emailed to a friend or student taking the class in the future to help them study and prepare for an exam.
(I do know that redistributing an exam will tend to upset professors, and many professors recycle exams, however, that is another issue. My concern here is strict legalities and whether I can or cannot redistribute an exam under fair use for educational purposes.)
-Em
The Expert answers:
(1) YES, a professor CAN copyright an exam. Of course, copyright only protects “expression” and not “facts,” so some of these factual questions may not, in and of themselves be copyrightable (if there’s no “originality” to the question). However, other parts of the exam are copyrightable — like the order and selection of the multiple choice answers, the order and selection of questions (which could be considered independently copyrightable “factual compilation”), and the particular expression used for longer questions.
Don’t believe me? Look at this case between the entity that creates the bar exam and a study-prep company:
http://lifeatthebar.wordpress.com/2006/10/03/pmbr-infringed-ncbes-copyright/
(2) The “first sale” doctrine provides that, if the professor GIVES you the exam, you can do whatever you want with that copy (except, of course, to make more copies from it). So if you want to put it in an exam file or pass it on to a student, copyright law wouldn’t prohibit that. Now, there may be other agreements, such as the school code of ethics, a confidentiality contract, or other regulations, that may affect that, but not copyright law. Of course, if you COPY the test, or if you acquire the test when the professor has taken it back into his possession, that’s a whole different kettle of fish.
(3) A student adding his own answers may either be a derivative work or may be independently copyrightable material (although circling “c” on a multiple choice portion would not likely be considered “original” as required by the Copyright Act). However, that does not change the fact that the underlying work is still copyrighted.
(4) The previous answer by one user is COMPLETELY wrong. First, it doesn’t matter if the work is for “educational use” or not. It’s still covered by copyright. Now, if you use a PORTION of a copyrighted work for educational purposes, that may allow you to gain the benefit of a very specific defense called “fair use,” but the fair use defense will likely not cover a wholesale copying of someone else’s work.
Second, copyright is original to the author. There has to be a specific, written “works for hire” contract between the author and his employer for the school to have copyright. And, in academia, the standard is for the professor, NOT the institution, to have copyrights in anything created for academic purposes. And even if the institution owned the copyright, by copying the test, you’d still be violating copyright — but it would be the school who would sue you rather than the prof.
Finally, copyright infringement is NOT about profits. If you make copies and give away copyrighted materials, you’ve committed infringement. Now, if you don’t do it for profit, you cannot be charged with criminal copyright infringement (i.e. Punished by the state), but you can still be sued.
In summary:
(1) Professors CAN have copyrights in tests
(2) If the prof gives you the test back, you CAN GIVE it to someone else without violating copyright (but no guarantees that you’re not violating some other rules). You CANNOT COPY the test without technically violating copyright (whether the professor cares or not is a different story)
(3) The fact that it was education, or not for profit, technically doesn’t matter under the Copyright Act. However, that may make a difference in determining whether you can be prosecuted by the government and what damages would be if a civil action was brought against you.
Hope this was helpful.
Lisa asks…
why doesnt the film industry recycle?
you would think they do but they don’t.
Ive worked in all the studios and sets. you may find one or two seperated bins out of the whole lot or a rare movie that encourages recycling but thats it.
The Expert answers:
Most don’t recycle, reduce pyrotechnics, etc. Feigning interest-level/concern for the inenvironment, the Film industry wishes to use offsets for their pollution-ridden industry practices.
No amount of public service announcements or celebrities driving hybrid cars can mask the fact that movie and TV production is a gritty industrial operation, consuming enormous amounts of power to feed bright lights, run sophisticated cameras, and feed a cast of thousands. Studios’ backlots host cavernous soundstages that must be air-conditioned to counter the heat produced by decades-old lighting technology. Huge manufacturing facilities consume wood, steel, paint and plastic to build sets that are often torn down and simply tossed out after filming ends. Not to forget the cross-country or overseas transport of gargantuan sets and the action-packed pyrotechnics which are always the trademark of a long-running A-lister. The energy guzzling continues on the exhibition side, too, with multiplexes drawing millions of kilowatts to power old-school popcorn makers and clunky film projectors that cash-strapped theater owners are reluctant to replace.
A two-year study released last year by the University of California, Los Angeles, concluded that transportation, special effects explosions, idling vehicles and diesel generators make the entertainment industry a major Southern California polluter, second only to the oil industry. A new study about pollution in Los Angeles is pointing a finger directly at — Hollywood. A report from the UCLA Institute of the Environment says the film and TV industry emits up to 140 tons of ozone and diesel particulate emissions each year from such things as trucks and generators, special effects explosions and the destruction of sets with dynamite. This makes Hollywood the second largest polluter in the region — trailing only the petroleum industry. In fact, the makers of the global-warming film “The Day After Tomorrow” belched out 10,000 tons of carbon dioxide emissions during production. One cannot ignore the huge carbon impact these action-packed films with pyrotechnics on steroids have on our environment from just one block buster. The movie made $543 million worldwide. Producers contributed $200,000 dollars to plant trees and take other steps to offset the pollution they created.
Also, one convenient yet controversial method is the purchase of carbon credits by studios and producers to offset the greenhouse gases from their production activity. The credits attempt to counter such pollution by investing in environmentally friendly projects such as more planting of trees or funding wind power, etc. Studios, and a growing number of other industries, calculate their emissions then write a check to one of several brokers who funnel the money to projects around the world. The goal is to become carbon neutral by funding activities that reduce an equal amount of emissions. This writer wonders if any major reductions, guidelines would be given to the industry also, not just as a recommendation to these major effluent contributors, as the purchase of credits sounds very much like an open season on anything goes as long as you can afford the payoff. This practice has come under fire by some who also agree that it is an easy way to avoid the hard work of directly reducing pollution. Others question whether carbon credit payments are actually going to projects that make that much of a difference. Regulating the path of where these monies actually end up without lining the pockets of bureaucracy would be an amazing feat.
“If you’re going to drive around in a big ol’ Hummer and then buy carbon offsets to mitigate that, that’s like getting drunk on the weekends and throwing some money through the window of an AA meeting and thinking you’re doing something,” said Ed Begley Jr., who was a poster child for energy conservation long before Al Gore made it trendy. Ed Begley Jr. Has a hilarious and informative show “Living with Ed” on HGTV. To read more of Ed who also has a great site with green tips go to LivingwithEd.net
Ruth asks…
how much aluminium is recycled per year?
does anyone know how much aluminium is recycled per year worldwide compared to how much is produced?
Even if you know the stats just for Australia or America it would help
thanks
xx
The Expert answers:
45%
The fact that they can be recycled to produce more cans means there is no excuse for many people to unaware of aluminum recycling. People should also be aware of the benefits that can occur from it. This has created a strong awareness of the recycling nature of cans and this has been a key factor in the growth of this area.
In many canteens, dinner halls and corridors across schools and places of work there is a recycling bin. Wherever people can be found drinking from a soft drink can, a specific aluminum recycling bin can be found for cans to be placed in. Compared to the recycling of many other products, it is easier to find a recycle bin. The provisions for recycling soft drink cans have been more progressively tackled and many people are aware of the need to recycle soft drink cans. This has created awareness and knowledge about recycling and this has moved from school to the outside world. One of the major tactics of marketing departments is to target children and get them to pass the message through to all the family. This is usually done in a bad manner but it can also be done promote recycling.
You may see people who go around picking up cans that are thrown away without thought and send them to a recycling center. There are some recycling centers that will make payment for numbers of soft drinks that are recycled. This is a way for people to make some money. It would take a phenomenal amount of aluminum recycling to make a fortune. However, it can help the environment and make a small amount of money back so many people can find the motivation to recycle. There are many places that could be a great source of finding soft drink cans that are thrown away:
– School playgrounds
– The beach
– The car park
– Parking lots
– Busy streets
The amount of products that are available to be recycled continues to grow but it is unlikely that they will grow to be more popular than aluminium recycling.
Lizzie asks…
How does recycling reduce pollution?
The Expert answers:
The sad fact of the matter is that recycling usually does not help the environment.
The exception: metals. The worst offender: paper.
In most cases, recycling a product consumes more energy and causes more side effects from re-manufacturing than simply burying the old and producing a new product. This is especially true of paper. In the US, and most first world countries, paper is produced exclusively from replanted trees. No new deforestation occurs. It isn’t the cleanest process, but initial production can’t even come close to the toxicity of recycling the paper. Plastic recycling creates toxic byproducts, and consumes more energy then simply creating a new product.
The other thing that has to be considered is landfill. There is a huge amount of FUD surrounding them. The fact is we are not running out of space (not even close), and modern landfills have not only incredible environmental safety records and protections, they also are used to create clean energy from the byproducts of decomposition. Most of the confusion stems from a very poorly worded report from a single person at the EPA about twenty years ago.
Metals on the other hand, are impact neutral when it comes to recycling, and it is much cheaper to recycle than to mine. The only real side effect that metal recycling creates is the black market in copper, people are stealing from constructions sites and even occupied houses to scrap the copper from AC, electrical, and plumbing systems. This is more of a side effect of the price of copper than recycling as a whole. Mining can have a large local environmental impact depending on the type of mine. 🙂 🙂
Michael asks…
What are some facts about water?
I’m doing a project at school about water. So can someone please give me some fun facts about water, uses for water, minerals that are found in it, or anything else you know about water?
The Expert answers:
The fun facts first:
If you drop a frog into boiling water it will hop straight back out again, but if you put it in cold water and heat it slowly the frog will boil to death.
There is the exact amount of water on Earth today as when the Earth was formed. Water is never totally consumed. It always recycles itself, in one form or another.
It is possible to drown and not die. Technically the term ‘drowning’ refers to the process of taking water into the lungs, not to death caused by that process.
Juice that has ‘all natural’ written on the label even if it has less than 20% or 10% of juice… The water is natural, so the contents are ‘all natural’
The elephant can smell water up to 3 miles away. Also, a dogs’ nose is so sensitive that it can tell the difference between a tub of water and a tub of water with a teaspoon of salt in it.
Why are those gossip-hunting spies called eavesdroppers? It is because in Middle English, the water that falls from the eaves of a house was called eavesdrop, and eavesdropper was first used to describe someone who would stand close to a house in order to hear what was going on inside.
The Catholic Herald, published in Great Britain, warms about the dangers of drinking holy water from religious shrines. While it may have curative powers in a religious sense, it seems that it also is a breeding ground for germs.
Old Faithful, a geyser in Yellowstone National Park, can spout water 170 feet in the air. That is as high as a 17-story building.
In Australia, a scientist put a Big Mac in a desk drawer and left it in there for a year to test the preservatives. When he pulled it out a year later, there was not a speck of mould on it. The only only thing different was that the buns were hard. He then microwaved it with a cup of water and ate it.
There are almost 800 different brands of bottled water for sale in the United States.
Other facts:
Ninety-seven percent of the earth’s water is ocean. Two percent of the earth’s water is frozen in glaciers. One percent is fresh water for us to use.
The average American uses about 100 gallons of water a day.
A shower, bathroom faucet, toilet and kitchen sink use two to five gallons a minute.
A dishwasher uses 25 gallons of water in a load.
A washing machine uses 30 gallons of water in a load.
75 % of the earth is covered with water.
97 % of earth’s water is in the oceans. Only 3 % of the earth’s water can be used as drinking water. 75 % of the world’s fresh water is frozen in the polar ice caps.
Although a person can live without food for more than a month, a person can only live without water for approximately one week.
The average person in the United States uses 80 to 100 gallons of water each day. During medieval times a person used only 5 gallons per day.
I picked the more interesting ones, hope these help. Visit my sources if you want some more.
Robert asks…
Soda Can tabs donations
i am currently the vice president for my sophmore class and i just wanted to know if there are any organizations that would donate to cause or would possibly donate back to our class for giving soda can tabs? Thank you.
The Expert answers:
Recycling cans is your best bet.
I know I volunteer my time at the local Ronald McDonald House, & they collect pop tabs, I save them for them too. I know for a fact that the $$ does go on things they need.
Powered by Yahoo! Answers