L EARNING ABOUT AN I SSUE ( RECYCLING ) C ONSIDERING S OURCE C REDIBILITY S ELECTING R ELEVANT E VIDENCE M AKING AND S UPPORTING A C LAIM D RAFTING AND R EVISING S TRATEGIES FOR A RGUMENT W RITING Jean Wolph March 2015 Jean Wolph, Louisville Writing Project, for NWP CRWP funded by the Department of Education

In this mini-unit, we’ll look at the credibility of our sources. We’ll try to highlight what is credible about sources that support our claims. We’ll try to “throw some shade”—to show why readers should not see the information as reliable—on sources that do not support our claims. Jean Wolph, Louisville Writing Project, for NWP CRWP funded by the Department of Education

Illustrating | Use specific examples from the text to support the claim Authorizing | Refer to an “expert” to support the claim Countering | “Push back” against the text in some way (e.g., disagree with it, challenge something it says, or interpret it differently) We’ll practice some ways that writers use sources to develop their arguments: Jean Wolph, Louisville Writing Project, for NWP CRWP funded by the Department of Education

Positives and Negatives of Recycling What Can We Expect for Future Landfill Space and Fees? Don’t Recycle: Throw it Away! Communicating the Benefits of Recycling: informational article by the EPA Recycling—Cost-Benefit Analysis L EARNING ABOUT AN I SSUE First, we’ll read articles (and excerpts) to help us understand the issues about RECYCLING. Why do some people support it? Why do others oppose it? Jean Wolph, Louisville Writing Project, for NWP CRWP funded by the Department of Education

Positives and Negatives of Recycling What Can We Expect for Future Landfill Space and Fees? Don’t Recycle: Throw it Away! Communicating the Benefits of Recycling Recycling—Cost-Benefit Analysis C ONSIDERING S OURCE C REDIBILITY Which are informational? Which are opinion? Jean Wolph, Louisville Writing Project, for NWP CRWP funded by the Department of Education

Positives and Negatives of Recycling: an informational article What Can We Expect for Future Landfill Space and Fees?: a press release from a waste management company (press releases tend to give one side—the side of the organization that sends out the release. They may be factual or they may not.) Don’t Recycle: Throw it Away!: an argument by a college teacher Communicating the Benefits of Recycling: informational article by the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) Recycling—Cost-Benefit Analysis: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (informational) Which are informational? Which are opinion? Jean Wolph, Louisville Writing Project, for NWP CRWP funded by the Department of Education

Positives and Negatives of Recycling What Can We Expect for Future Landfill Space and Fees? Don’t Recycle: Throw it Away! Communicating the Benefits of Recycling: informational article by the EPA Recycling—Cost-Benefit Analysis Look at your packet. Which of these seem more credible? Less credible? Why? Jean Wolph, Louisville Writing Project, for NWP CRWP funded by the Department of Education

Positives and Negatives of Recycling: an informational article What Can We Expect for Future Landfill Space and Fees?: a press release from a waste management company Don’t Recycle: Throw it Away!: an opinion piece by a college teacher Communicating the Benefits of Recycling: informational article by the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) Recycling—Cost-Benefit Analysis: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Which of these seem credible? Less credible? Why? Jean Wolph, Louisville Writing Project, for NWP CRWP funded by the Department of Education Seems credible because it’s balanced, but who or what is BUZZLE? Seems less credible because it’s by the company and about the company; does agree with some other sources Might seem credible because it’s by a college professor, but it’s quite out of date Seems credible because it’s a governmental agency; it is charged with protecting our environment May seem less credible because of its reputation, but science topics on Wikipedia are well vetted; does agree with some other sources

Positives and Negatives of Recycling: an informational article Communicating the Benefits of Recycling: informational article by the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) Recycling—Cost-Benefit Analysis: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (informational) L EARNING ABOUT AN I SSUE We’ll read the informational articles first. Jean Wolph, Louisville Writing Project, for NWP CRWP funded by the Department of Education

As we read, we’ll record key words for reasons that are given to support recycling (+) and reasons that are used to oppose it (-). Jean Wolph, Louisville Writing Project, for NWP CRWP funded by the Department of Education Reasons to Support Recyling (+ or PRO) Reasons to Oppose Recyling (- or CON)

Positive and Negative Effects of Recycling Adapted from effects-of-recycling.html (8.2) effects-of-recycling.html Recycling involves remanufacturing used material into useful products. Recycling is the process of reclaiming waste materials for reuse. This helps conserve energy. It also saves natural resources. Plastic bottles, glass, and newspapers can be recycled to make useful items. Here are some pros and cons of recycling.

Positive Effects of Recycling Preserves the Environment Recycling protects the environment. As the demand for paper increases, more trees are being cut. About 20% of all logs collected from our forests are used to make new paper. About 28,000 liters of water, 4000 kilowatt hours of electricity and 2 barrels of oil are used to make one ton of new paper. About 2200 pounds of solid waste is generated in making paper. By recycling paper, we save resources and create less waste. Air pollution drops by 74% when paper is made from recycled material instead of with new wood pulp. Recycling can prevent the destruction of forests. Recycling a ton of mixed paper or newspaper saves 12 trees. We need trees. They help keep the air we breathe clean. +

Let’s add to our chart. Jean Wolph, Louisville Writing Project, for NWP CRWP funded by the Department of Education Reasons to Support Recyling (+ or PRO) Reasons to Oppose Recyling (- or CON) Protects the Environment

Positive Effects of Recycling Preserves the Environment Recycling protects the environment. As the demand for paper increases, more trees are being cut. About 20% of all logs collected from our forests are used to make new paper. About 28,000 liters of water, 4000 kilowatt hours of electricity and 2 barrels of oil are used to make one ton of new paper. About 2200 pounds of solid waste is generated in making paper. By recycling paper, we save resources and create less waste. Air pollution drops by 74% when paper is made from recycled material instead of with new wood pulp. Recycling can prevent the destruction of forests. Recycling a ton of mixed paper or newspaper saves 12 trees. We need trees. They help keep the air we breathe clean. +

Partner Work: Use the article headings to finish the chart. Jean Wolph, Louisville Writing Project, for NWP CRWP funded by the Department of Education Reasons to Support Recyling (+ or PRO) Reasons to Oppose Recyling (- or CON) Protects the Environment

Group Work : In groups of 4, discuss and then highlight the important facts evidence in each section that could convince others to recycle or to stop recycling. What is COMPELLING? Don’t choose things you don’t understand. Put a + or – to show whether the fact will support the PRO or CON side. Saves Energy Recycling aluminum and glass reduces our energy use. The energy to recycle aluminum cans is 95% less than the energy needed to make a new can. Recycling an aluminum can saves enough energy to power a TV set for 3 hours. The amount of energy saved by recycling a glass bottle will run a computer for 25 minutes. Reduces Pollution Plastic waste causes soil and water pollution. Plastic recycling is an effective solution to this problem. In recycling, the plastic waste is recovered and reused. Recycling reduces greenhouse gas emissions. This reduces global warming. Recycling 35,116 tons of material is the same as taking 22,140 cars off the road. Recycling a ton of aluminum eliminates 12 tons of carbon dioxide emissions. Lowers Carbon Footprint Processing raw materials uses a lot of energy. Energy is used to extract and transport raw materials. Transportation uses fuels like diesel and gasoline. These fuels are the main source of green gas emissions. Recycling means less fuel is used. When less fuel is used, less carbon dioxide is released into the environment

Partner Work: Finish the article. Highlight reasons. Mark reasons for with “+” and reasons against with “-” Saves Energy Recycling aluminum and glass reduces our energy use. The energy to recycle aluminum cans is 95% less than the energy needed to make a new can. Recycling an aluminum can saves enough energy to power a TV set for 3 hours. The amount of energy saved by recycling a glass bottle will run a computer for 25 minutes. Reduces Pollution Plastic waste causes soil and water pollution. Plastic recycling is an effective solution to this problem. In recycling, the plastic waste is recovered and reused. Recycling reduces greenhouse gas emissions. This reduces global warming. Recycling 35,116 tons of material is the same as taking 22,140 cars off the road. Recycling a ton of aluminum eliminates 12 tons of carbon dioxide emissions. Lowers Carbon Footprint Processing raw materials uses a lot of energy. Energy is used to extract and transport raw materials. Transportation uses fuels like diesel and gasoline. These fuels are the main source of green gas emissions. Recycling means less fuel is used. When less fuel is used, less carbon dioxide is released into the environment

Conserves Natural Resources Recycling saves our natural resources. Recycling a ton of steel saves about 2500 tons of iron ore. Making plastic uses up fossil fuels. About 17 million barrels of crude oil is used every year to make plastic in United States. By recycling plastics, several tons of fossil fuel are saved. Reduces Landfill Use The need for landfills will go down if recycling is increased. Landfills, where we dump our trash, are overflowing in many countries. People living near landfills can have health problems because of the pollution. Adds Jobs About 1.5 million new jobs will be created if we recycle 75% of our garbage. Now the U.S. recycles only 34% of its garbage.

Conserves Natural Resources Recycling saves our natural resources. Recycling a ton of steel saves about 2500 tons of iron ore. Making plastic uses up fossil fuels. About 17 million barrels of crude oil is used every year to make plastic in United States. By recycling plastics, several tons of fossil fuel are saved. Reduces Landfill Use The need for landfills will go down if recycling is increased. Landfills, where we dump our trash, are overflowing in many countries. People living near landfills can have health problems because of the pollution. Adds Jobs About 1.5 million new jobs will be created if we recycle 75% of our garbage. Now the U.S. recycles only 34% of its garbage.

Negative Effects of Recycling Are there harmful effects of recycling? Water and Soil Pollution If recycling sites are not managed well, harmful chemicals in the trash can mix into water and soil. This can hurt plants and fish in the streams and lakes. When chemicals mix with rainwater, a poisonous mixture called leachate is formed. Leachate can be very dangerous if it reaches our water supplies. Cost Paper recycling can be expensive. Bleaching is required to make the paper reusable. Recycled paper is not always good quality. Plastic is difficult to recycle because there are so many different kinds of plastic. They have to be sorted carefully. You can’t combine different kinds of plastic. Health In bleaching recycled paper, harsh chemicals are used that can cause health problems to workers.

Negative Effects of Recycling Are there harmful effects of recycling? Water and Soil Pollution If recycling sites are not managed well, harmful chemicals in the trash can mix into water and soil. This can hurt plants and fish in the streams and lakes. When chemicals mix with rainwater, a poisonous mixture called leachate is formed. Leachate can be very dangerous if it reaches our water supplies. Cost Paper recycling can be expensive. Bleaching is required to make the paper reusable. Recycled paper is not always good quality. Plastic is difficult to recycle because there are so many different kinds of plastic. They have to be sorted carefully. You can’t combine different kinds of plastic. Health In bleaching recycled paper, harsh chemicals are used that can cause health problems to workers.

M AKING AND S UPPORTING A C LAIM : Where do you stand on recycling? Jean Wolph, Louisville Writing Project, for NWP CRWP funded by the Department of Education Claim template: [Who] should [do what] because [why]. Examples: Families should recycle their trash because it will improve the environment. Our town should not recycle because of the cost and the dangers involved.

PQP Praise, Question, Polish Jean Wolph, Louisville Writing Project, for NWP CRWP funded by the Department of Education [Who] should [do what] because [why]. Does your claim have all 3 parts? Is there evidence to support your claim ? (think about the article you just read)

S ELECTING R ELEVANT E VIDENCE With your claim in mind, read the next two articles to look for (1) NEW reasons, pro or con, and (2) compelling facts. Jean Wolph, Louisville Writing Project, for NWP CRWP funded by the Department of Education Communicating the Benefits of Recycling: informational article by the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) Recycling—Cost-Benefit Analysis: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

BENEFITS OF RECYCLING Adapted from an article by the Environmental Protection Agency Retrieved from 7.9http:// "Recycling" means reusing. To recycle, we separate, collect, process, market, and use a material that would have been thrown away. Today’s newspaper can be turned into another paper product. Cans and bottles can be melted and made into other products. Quality products and packaging are being made from recovered materials. We can all help create markets for recyclables by buying and using these products. Why Should We Recycle? Recycling reduces our use of landfills and incinerators. Recycling protects our health and environment. Recycling removes harmful substances from the environment. Recycling conserves our natural resources. It reduces the need for raw materials. What Can We Recycle? Commonly recycled materials include: Paper (newspaper, office paper, cardboard, etc.) Yard trimmings (grass, leaves, and shrub and tree clippings are composted). Glass (clear, green, and amber bottles and jars). Aluminum (beverage containers). Other metals (steel cans, auto bodies, refrigerators, stoves, and batteries). Used motor oil. Plastics (soda bottles, milk jugs, bags, and detergent containers).

BENEFITS OF RECYCLING Adapted from an article by the Environmental Protection Agency Retrieved from 7.9http:// "Recycling" means reusing. To recycle, we separate, collect, process, market, and use a material that would have been thrown away. Today’s newspaper can be turned into another paper product. Cans and bottles can be melted and made into other products. Quality products and packaging are being made from recovered materials. We can all help create markets for recyclables by buying and using these products. Why Should We Recycle? Recycling reduces our use of landfills and incinerators. Recycling protects our health and environment. Recycling removes harmful substances from the environment. Recycling conserves our natural resources. It reduces the need for raw materials. (Raw materials are natural resources.) What Can We Recycle? Commonly recycled materials include: Paper (newspaper, office paper, cardboard, etc.) Yard trimmings (grass, leaves, and shrub and tree clippings are composted). Glass (clear, green, and amber bottles and jars). Aluminum (beverage containers). Other metals (steel cans, auto bodies, refrigerators, stoves, and batteries). Used motor oil. Plastics (soda bottles, milk jugs, bags, and detergent containers).

Add to your chart. Jean Wolph, Louisville Writing Project, for NWP CRWP funded by the Department of Education Reasons to Support Recyling (+ or PRO) Reasons to Oppose Recyling (- or CON) Reduces air pollution (from incinerators)

BENEFITS OF RECYCLING Adapted from an article by the Environmental Protection Agency Retrieved from 7.9http:// "Recycling" means reusing. To recycle, we separate, collect, process, market, and use a material that would have been thrown away. Today’s newspaper can be turned into another paper product. Cans and bottles can be melted and made into other products. Quality products and packaging are being made from recovered materials. We can all help create markets for recyclables by buying and using these products. Why Should We Recycle? Recycling reduces our use of landfills and incinerators. Recycling protects our health and environment. Recycling removes harmful substances from the environment. Recycling conserves our natural resources. It reduces the need for raw materials. (Raw materials are natural resources.) What Can We Recycle? Commonly recycled materials include: Paper (newspaper, office paper, cardboard, etc.) Yard trimmings (grass, leaves, and shrub and tree clippings are composted). Glass (clear, green, and amber bottles and jars). Aluminum (beverage containers). Other metals (steel cans, auto bodies, refrigerators, stoves, and batteries). Used motor oil. Plastics (soda bottles, milk jugs, bags, and detergent containers).

ON YOUR OWN! With your claim in mind, read the next article to look for (1) NEW reasons, pro or con, to add to the chart, and (2) NEW compelling facts. Recycling: Cost – benefit analysis Retrieved from Wikipedia, ; adapted for classroom use 11.0 There is debate over whether recycling makes financial sense. It is said that dumping 10,000 tons of waste in a landfill creates six jobs. Recycling 10,000 tons of waste, however, can create over 36 jobs.. The U.S. Recycling Economic Informational Study says 50,000 U.S. recycling plants have created over a million jobs. Although New York leaders first thought recycling would be "a drain on the city," they later realized that recycling could save the city over $20 million. Such savings are often due to the reduced landfill costs. A study by the Technical University of Denmark found recycling is the most efficient method to dispose of household waste, 83% of the time. One exception is drink containers. Incineration is more cost effective, says a 2004 assessment by the Danish Environmental Assessment Institute.

Recycling: Cost – benefit analysis Retrieved from Wikipedia, ; adapted for classroom use 11.0 There is debate over whether recycling makes financial sense. It is said that dumping 10,000 tons of waste in a landfill creates six jobs. Recycling 10,000 tons of waste, however, can create over 36 jobs.. The U.S. Recycling Economic Informational Study says 50,000 U.S. recycling plants have created over a million jobs. Although New York leaders first thought recycling would be "a drain on the city," they later realized that recycling could save the city over $20 million. Such savings are often due to the reduced landfill costs. A study by the Technical University of Denmark found recycling is the most efficient method to dispose of household waste, 83% of the time. One exception is drink containers. Incineration is more cost effective, says a 2004 assessment by the Danish Environmental Assessment Institute. Some benefits that are hard to put price tags on. Incineration causes air pollution. Recycling lowers pollution and reduces greenhouse gases. Landfills cause leaching of chemicals into the ground and water supply. Recycling reduces that problem. Recycling reduces energy use. It reduces waste. It reduces our use of resources, which in turn reduces mining and timber cutting that damage the environment. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) favors recycling. The EPA says recycling cut carbon emissions by 49 million metric tonnes in Recycling is more efficient in densely populated areas.

Is this what you added to your chart? Jean Wolph, Louisville Writing Project, for NWP CRWP funded by the Department of Education Reasons to Support Recyling (+ or PRO) Reasons to Oppose Recyling (- or CON) Efficiency

Recycling: Cost – benefit analysis Retrieved from Wikipedia, ; adapted for classroom use 11.0 There is debate over whether recycling makes financial sense. It is said that dumping 10,000 tons of waste in a landfill creates six jobs. Recycling 10,000 tons of waste, however, can create over 36 jobs.. The U.S. Recycling Economic Informational Study says 50,000 U.S. recycling plants have created over a million jobs. Although New York leaders first thought recycling would be "a drain on the city," they later realized that recycling could save the city over $20 million. Such savings are often due to the reduced landfill costs. A study by the Technical University of Denmark found recycling is the most efficient method to dispose of household waste, 83% of the time. One exception is drink containers. Incineration is more cost effective, says a 2004 assessment by the Danish Environmental Assessment Institute. Some benefits that are hard to put price tags on. Incineration causes air pollution. Recycling lowers pollution and reduces greenhouse gases. Landfills cause leaching of chemicals into the ground and water supply. Recycling reduces that problem. Recycling reduces energy use. It reduces waste. It reduces our use of resources, which in turn reduces mining and timber cutting that damage the environment. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) favors recycling. The EPA says recycling cut carbon emissions by 49 million metric tonnes in Recycling is more efficient in densely populated areas.

What Can We Expect for Future Landfill Space and Fees?: a press release from a waste management company Don’t Recycle: Throw it Away!: an opinion piece by a college teacher Underline key words and phrases that show their points of view and supporting evidence. L EARNING ABOUT AN I SSUE Now let’s read the opinion pieces. Jean Wolph, Louisville Writing Project, for NWP CRWP funded by the Department of Education

What Can We Expect for Future Landfill Space? Adapted from an article by Barbara Hudson, Chartwell Information Services (8.8) James Thompson, Jr. is president of Chartwell Information, Inc. Chartwell was one of the first U.S. companies to publish data about waste disposal needs. In the 1980s, many groups said we were running out of places to put our trash. The scare led companies to build more landfills, however. In Thompson's opinion, there was never a shortage. In 1991, Chartwell discovered the U.S. had enough working landfills for over 18 years. Thompson says this is more than enough to handle our needs. According to Chartwell, the U.S. has landfill capacity for the next 18 years, even if no new facilities are built.

What Can We Expect for Future Landfill Space? Adapted from an article by Barbara Hudson, Chartwell Information Services (8.8) James Thompson, Jr. is president of Chartwell Information, Inc. Chartwell was one of the first U.S. companies to publish data about waste disposal needs. In the 1980s, many groups said we were running out of places to put our trash. The scare led companies to build more landfills, however. In Thompson's opinion, there was never a shortage. In 1991, Chartwell discovered the U.S. had enough working landfills for over 18 years. Thompson says this is more than enough to handle our needs. According to Chartwell, the U.S. has landfill capacity for the next 18 years, even if no new facilities are built.

Add to your chart Jean Wolph, Louisville Writing Project, for NWP CRWP funded by the Department of Education Reasons to Support Recyling (+ or PRO) Reasons to Oppose Recyling (- or CON)

Is this what you added to your chart? Jean Wolph, Louisville Writing Project, for NWP CRWP funded by the Department of Education Reasons to Support Recyling (+ or PRO) Reasons to Oppose Recyling (- or CON) Plenty of landfill space

Underline key words and phrases that show the author’s point of view. The Mises Institute monthly December 1995 Volume 13, Number 12 Retrieved at (6.2) Don't Recycle: Throw It Away! adapted from an opinion piece by Roy E. Cordato Many people think recycling is the right thing to do. Why? Their kids learn wrong facts in school. They use this misinformation to guilt their parents into recycling. One poll shows 63% of kids have told Mom or Dad to recycle. Parents, don’t feel bad! Throw that trash away. Don’t recycle trash you can’t get paid for. What kids are learning is based on liberal politics, not fact or science.

The Mises Institute monthly December 1995 Volume 13, Number 12 Retrieved at (6.2) Don't Recycle: Throw It Away! adapted from an opinion piece by Roy E. Cordato Many people think recycling is the right thing to do. Why? Their kids learn wrong facts in school. They use this misinformation to guilt their parents into recycling. One poll shows 63% of kids have told Mom or Dad to recycle. Parents, don’t feel bad! Throw that trash away. Don’t recycle trash you can’t get paid for. What kids are learning is based on liberal politics, not fact or science.

One argument for recycling is that we are running out of landfill space. A "public service" ad on Nickelodeon shows a city being buried in its own trash. This is typical of what passes for environmental education. Just as hysterical is American Education Publishing's 50 Simple Things Kids Can Do To Save the Earth. In fact, there is no landfill shortage. All the solid waste for the next thousand years would take up only 44 miles of landfill. This is just.01% of the U.S. landspace. How about the claim that recycling paper saves trees? Why not make new paper from old paper and save more trees from being cut down? Because it doesn't work. Supply meets demand. If we suddenly stopped making bread from wheat, there would soon be less wheat in the world. Farmers would stop growing it. If everyone stopped eating chicken, the chicken population would not grow but fall. The same logic applies to paper and trees. If we stopped using paper, there would be fewer trees planted. About 87% of new trees are planted just to produce paper. For every 13 trees "saved" by recycling, 87 will never get planted. It is the demand for paper in the U.S. that caused the number of trees to increase for the last 50 years. So if you want to increase the number of trees, don't recycle.

One argument for recycling is that we are running out of landfill space. A "public service" ad on Nickelodeon shows a city being buried in its own trash. This is typical of what passes for environmental education. Just as hysterical is American Education Publishing's 50 Simple Things Kids Can Do To Save the Earth. In fact, there is no landfill shortage. All the solid waste for the next thousand years would take up only 44 miles of landfill. This is just.01% of the U.S. landspace. How about the claim that recycling paper saves trees? Why not make new paper from old paper and save more trees from being cut down? Because it doesn't work. Supply meets demand. If we suddenly stopped making bread from wheat, there would soon be less wheat in the world. Farmers would stop growing it. If everyone stopped eating chicken, the chicken population would not grow but fall. The same logic applies to paper and trees. If we stopped using paper, there would be fewer trees planted. About 87% of new trees are planted just to produce paper. For every 13 trees "saved" by recycling, 87 will never get planted. It is the demand for paper in the U.S. that caused the number of trees to increase for the last 50 years. So if you want to increase the number of trees, don't recycle.

Others claims made by recycling advocates are just as bad. Recycling doesn't save resources. In general, recycling is more expensive than landfilling. The exception is aluminum. As former EPA official J. Winston Porter admitted, "trash management is becoming much more costly due to...the generally high cost of recycling.“ Children are also told that recycling will reduce pollution. They are not told that the recycling process itself causes a lot of pollution. Recycling newspapers requires old ink to be bleached from the pages. This process generates toxic waste, as opposed to the harmless waste from just throwing the papers away. Also, curbside recycling programs require more trash pickups. This means more trucks on the road. These trucks generate more air pollution. Due to mandatory recycling, New York City had to add two more pickups per week. Los Angeles had to double the number of trash trucks. The recyclers want more than just recycling. In Waste Management: Towards a Sustainable Society, O.P. Kharband and E.A. Stallworthy even complain that builders throw away bent nails and that hospitals use disposable syringes. "The so-called 'standard of living,'" they conclude "has to be reduced." Here is the real goal of the recycling gurus. They want to lower our standard of living. Unfortunately, it’s happening already in the many cities that bought expensive recycling plants. It’s lead to great waste, high taxes, and cash-strapped local governments. Recyclers are not better citizens. They are just ill-informed. This holiday season, unwrap those presents, stuff the paper in a big plastic bag, and throw it all away.

Others claims made by recycling advocates are just as bad. Recycling doesn't save resources. In general, recycling is more expensive than landfilling. The exception is aluminum. As former EPA official J. Winston Porter admitted, "trash management is becoming much more costly due to...the generally high cost of recycling.“ Children are also told that recycling will reduce pollution. They are not told that the recycling process itself causes a lot of pollution. Recycling newspapers requires old ink to be bleached from the pages. This process generates toxic waste, as opposed to the harmless waste from just throwing the papers away. Also, curbside recycling programs require more trash pickups. This means more trucks on the road. These trucks generate more air pollution. Due to mandatory recycling, New York City had to add two more pickups per week. Los Angeles had to double the number of trash trucks. The recyclers want more than just recycling. In Waste Management: Towards a Sustainable Society, O.P. Kharband and E.A. Stallworthy even complain that builders throw away bent nails and that hospitals use disposable syringes. "The so-called 'standard of living,'" they conclude "has to be reduced." Here is the real goal of the recycling gurus. They want to lower our standard of living. Unfortunately, it’s happening already in the many cities that bought expensive recycling plants. It’s lead to great waste, high taxes, and cash-strapped local governments. Recyclers are not better citizens. They are just ill-informed. This holiday season, unwrap those presents, stuff the paper in a big plastic bag, and throw it all away.

Add to your chart Jean Wolph, Louisville Writing Project, for NWP CRWP funded by the Department of Education Reasons to Support Recyling (+ or PRO) Reasons to Oppose Recyling (- or CON)

Is this what you added to your chart? Jean Wolph, Louisville Writing Project, for NWP CRWP funded by the Department of Education Reasons to Support Recyling (+ or PRO) Reasons to Oppose Recyling (- or CON) Recyling is about politics, not about environmental needs. Supply meets demand.

Research Overview Reasons to RecycleReasons NOT to Recycle Saves EnergyPlenty of Landfill Space Saves Natural Resources (forests)Can Cause Pollution (leachate) Creates Less WasteChemicals Cause Health Problems Reduces Pollution (air, water, soil)Can Be Expensive Reduces Carbon FootprintMore Political Than Environmental Reduces Landfill UseSupply Meets Demand Creates Jobs Efficiency What reasons did we find that support recycling? Not recycling?

S ELECTING R ELEVANT E VIDENCE Which reasons will be most convincing or most relevant to your claim? Research Overview Reasons to RecycleReasons NOT to Recycle Saves EnergyPlenty of Landfill Space Saves Natural Resources (forests)Can Cause Pollution (leachate) Creates Less WasteChemicals Cause Health Problems Reduces Pollution (air, water, soil)Can Be Expensive Reduces Carbon FootprintMore Political Than Environmental Reduces Landfill UseSupply Meets Demand Creates Jobs Efficiency

Reasons to Support Recycling Reasons to RecycleIs this reason relevant to families? Saves Energy Saves Natural Resources (forests) Creates Less Waste Reduces Pollution (air, water, soil) Reduces Carbon Footprint Reduces Landfill Use Creates Jobs Efficiency PRO Claim: Our families should recycle to save the environment. Which reasons will be most convincing or most relevant to our claim? EXPLAIN WHY.

Reasons to Support Recycling Reasons to RecycleIs this reason relevant to families? Saves EnergyYes, because this leads to a better quality of life. Saves Natural Resources (forests) Yes, because families care about the future for their children and grandchildren. Creates Less WasteMaybe not directly. Reduces Pollution (air, water, soil) Yes, because this leads to a better quality of life. Reduces Carbon FootprintYes, because families care about the future for their children and grandchildren. Reduces Landfill UseMaybe not directly. Creates JobsMaybe not, as most families probably won’t become part of the recycling industry. EfficiencyMaybe not directly. This is about efficiency in manufacturing, not efficiency at home. PRO Claim: Our families should recycle to save the environment.

Reasons NOT to Support Recycling Reasons NOT to Recycle Is this reason relevant to our town’s decision about recycling? Plenty of Landfill Space Can Cause Pollution (leachate) Chemicals Cause Health Problems Can Be Expensive More Political Than Environmental Supply Meets Demand Which reasons will be most convincing or most relevant to our claim? EXPLAIN WHY. CON Claim: Our town should not recycle because of the cost and the dangers involved.

Reasons NOT to Support Recycling Reasons NOT to RecycleIs this reason relevant to our town’s decision about recycling? Plenty of Landfill Space Does OUR town have plenty of room? I’d need to find out. Can Cause Pollution (leachate) This seems like a trap—the same thing happens in landfills as it does in recycling. Depends on whether liners are being used. *Chemicals Cause Health Problems Yes, towns need to worry about the safety of its workers. *Can Be Expensive Yes, towns need to spend tax dollars wisely. Political, Not Environmental Not sure readers will agree. Seems outside of my purpose. Supply Meets Demand Not sure this will make sense to my readers. It seemed like a stretch to me. CON: Which reasons will be most convincing or most relevant to your claim?

Reasons to Support Recycling Reasons to RecycleIs this reason relevant to your claim? Saves Energy Saves Natural Resources (forests) Creates Less Waste Reduces Pollution (air, water, soil) Reduces Carbon Footprint Reduces Landfill Use Creates Jobs Efficiency If you are PRO recyling, test these reasons. Are they relevant to your claim?

Reasons NOT to Support Recycling Reasons NOT to RecycleIs this reason relevant to our town’s decision about recycling? Plenty of Landfill Space Can Cause Pollution (leachate) Chemicals Cause Health Problems Can Be Expensive More Political Than Environmental Supply Meets Demand If you are against recycling (CON), test these reasons. Are they relevant to your claim?

S ELECTING R ELEVANT E VIDENCE There will usually be MORE evidence than you need. Pick the strongest or most COMPELLING facts. It can be helpful to number your reasons (see the sample chart) Then mark your articles to show which reason a fact or quote goes with (see the next slide). Reasons to Recycle 1. Saves Energy 2. Saves Natural Resources 3. Reduces Pollution (air, water, soil) 4. Reduces Carbon Footprint

Positive Effects of Recycling Preserves the Environment Recycling protects the environment. As the demand for paper increases, more trees are being cut. About 20% of all logs collected from our forests are used to make new paper. About 28,000 liters of water, 4000 kilowatt hours of electricity and 2 barrels of oil are used to make one ton of new paper. About 2200 pounds of solid waste is generated in making paper. By recycling paper, we save resources and create less waste. Air pollution drops by 74% when paper is made from recycled material instead of with new wood pulp. Recycling can prevent the destruction of forests. Recycling a ton of mixed paper or newspaper saves 12 trees. We need trees. They help keep the air we breathe clean. +

Flashdraft! With your articles and charts in hand, use this framework to quickly write a draft of your argument. Jean Wolph, Louisville Writing Project, for NWP CRWP funded by the Department of Education Overview of the Issue Some people say… Other people say… My claim and the most compelling evidence that supports it In the end, I say…

Where will you find information for each section? Jean Wolph, Louisville Writing Project, for NWP CRWP funded by the Department of Education Overview of the Issue Some people say… Other people say… My claim and the most compelling evidence that supports it In the end, I say…

PQP Praise, Question, Polish Jean Wolph, Louisville Writing Project, for NWP CRWP funded by the Department of Education In partners or triads, switch drafts. Use Post-Its© to do the following: Where does the writer explain why he/she is writing and give us background information about recycling? What more do you want to know? Where does the writer let us know what the PRO recylclers think? What more do you want to know? Where does the writer let us know what the CON recylclers think? What more do you want to know? Where does the writer let us know what he/she thinks? How many pieces of evidence does he/she use? What more do you want to know? Where does the writer let us know what to do or think, now that we’ve read the piece? What did you like? What suggestions do you have? Switch back. Use these comments to make revisions to your draft.

How can we explain the process we just used? How will we apply it to our own research and argument writing? Jean Wolph, Louisville Writing Project, for NWP CRWP funded by the Department of Education

H OW COULD WE USE AUTHORIZING TO ENHANCE OUR ARGUMENT ? Authorizing: Referring to an “expert” to support the claim Get Ready to Revise! Jean Wolph, Louisville Writing Project, for NWP CRWP funded by the Department of Education

Authorizing is a move in argument writing. First, we select a compelling piece of evidence. Then we identify the source of the evidence. Finally, we show the importance of that source, if it is not obvious. Jean Wolph, Louisville Writing Project, for NWP CRWP funded by the Department of Education

How is this writer using AUTHORIZING? Jean Wolph, Louisville Writing Project, for NWP CRWP funded by the Department of Education We should recycle our old electronics, says John Duncan, a research chemist at the University of Kentucky, because if we send them to the landfill, they release harmful, hazardous chemicals into the environment.

How is this writer using AUTHORIZING? Jean Wolph, Louisville Writing Project, for NWP CRWP funded by the Department of Education We should recycle our old electronics, says John Duncan, a research chemist at the University of Kentucky, because if we send them to the landfill, they release harmful, hazardous chemicals into the environment.

How are these writers using AUTHORIZING? “James Thompson, Jr. is president of Chartwell Information, Inc., one of the first companies in the country to actually collect and publish empirical data about waste disposal and projected needs. In 1991, his company discovered that, rather than running out of landfill space, the United States had enough working landfills for over 18 years at projected capacity, more than enough to handle expected waste.”—”What Can We Expect for Future Landfill Fees and Space?” by Barbara Hudson, Chartwell Information Services. Retrieved from landfills.html. According to the Manhattan Institute’s Center for Energy Policy and the Environment (2008), a conservative think tank, increased regulation has eliminated many potential sites for landfills, straining our ability to dispose of waste. Jean Wolph, Louisville Writing Project, for NWP CRWP funded by the Department of Education

How are these writers using AUTHORIZING? “James Thompson, Jr. is president of Chartwell Information, Inc., one of the first companies in the country to actually collect and publish empirical data about waste disposal and projected needs. In 1991, his company discovered that, rather than running out of landfill space, the United States had enough working landfills for over 18 years at projected capacity, more than enough to handle expected waste.”—”What Can We Expect for Future Landfill Fees and Space?” by Barbara Hudson, Chartwell Information Services. Retrieved from landfills.html. According to the Manhattan Institute’s Center for Energy Policy and the Environment (2008), a conservative think tank, increased regulation has eliminated many potential sites for landfills, straining our ability to dispose of waste. Jean Wolph, Louisville Writing Project, for NWP CRWP funded by the Department of Education

How might we change this passage to use AUTHORIZING? “ Never dump your used motor oil down the drain — the used oil from one oil change can contaminate one million gallons of fresh water.” — United States Environmental Protection Agency, common-recyclables#gla common-recyclables#gla Jean Wolph, Louisville Writing Project, for NWP CRWP funded by the Department of Education

AUTHORIZING The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency warns to “ [n]ever dump your used motor oil down the drain — the used oil from one oil change can contaminate one million gallons of fresh water.” Jean Wolph, Louisville Writing Project, for NWP CRWP funded by the Department of Education

Try it: Review: Reread your draft. Did you tell where your facts came from? If not, ADD the sources. Think: Is the source reputable? In what ways is this person or agency an “expert”? Write: Where could you point out why the source is credible? Find 2-3 places in your draft. Jean Wolph, Louisville Writing Project, for NWP CRWP funded by the Department of Education

PQP Praise, Question, Polish Jean Wolph, Louisville Writing Project, for NWP CRWP funded by the Department of Education In partners or triads, switch drafts. Use Post-Its© to do the following: Has the writer identified the source of any information that came from the article packet? Put a question mark by any fact that doesn’t have attribution (identification of the source). Look at the identifications of sources. Has the writer helped us see their credibility? If not, what should be added? Switch back. Use these comments to make revisions to your draft.

How can we explain the process we just used? How will we apply it to our own research and argument writing in order to make a stronger connection between our evidence and our claim? Jean Wolph, Louisville Writing Project, for NWP CRWP funded by the Department of Education

C OULD WE COUNTER SOME OF THE EVIDENCE THAT O PPONENTS OF RECYCLING MIGHT OFFER ? Countering: “Pushing back” against the text in some way (e.g., disagreeing with it, challenging something it says, or interpreting it differently) More Revision! Jean Wolph, Louisville Writing Project, for NWP CRWP funded by the Department of Education

Countering is another move in argument writing. First, we acknowledge a claim that is in opposition to ours. Example: Others will argue that our school should NOT increase its recycling efforts. Jean Wolph, Louisville Writing Project, for NWP CRWP funded by the Department of Education

Countering Then, we identify evidence that our opponents might use to support their claim. Example: Those who are against more recycling quote statistics that indicate there is no landfill shortage. They claim that “[i]f all the solid waste for the next thousand years were put into a single space, it would take up 44 miles of landfill, a mere.01% of the U.S. landspace.”—Cordato (1998) Jean Wolph, Louisville Writing Project, for NWP CRWP funded by the Department of Education

Countering Finally, we suggest a different way of thinking about their evidence: Example: This statistic is extremely outdated, however. A quarter of a century ago, it was the best prediction of future landfill needs. More recent analyses, however, note the problem of increased regulation. These regulations have eliminated many potential sites for landfills, according to the Manhattan Institute, Center for Energy Policy and the Environment (2008), a conservative think tank. We’re also AUTHORIZING here, as we draw on information from a recognized authority, The Manhattan Institute. Jean Wolph, Louisville Writing Project, for NWP CRWP funded by the Department of Education

Acknowledge the other side’s claim: Note the evidence they are using that we want to refute: Suggest a different way of thinking about their evidence: Choose a piece of evidence that you highlighted or put on your chart which does NOT support your claim. Jean Wolph, Louisville Writing Project, for NWP CRWP funded by the Department of Education

PQP Praise, Question, Polish Jean Wolph, Louisville Writing Project, for NWP CRWP funded by the Department of Education In partners or triads, switch drafts. Use Post-Its© to do the following: Has the writer used the 3 steps? Acknowledge the other side’s claim. Note the evidence they are using that we want to refute. Suggest a different way of thinking about their evidence: Is the wording clear? Accurate? Logical? What could the writer do to counter even more effectively? Switch back. Use these comments to make revisions to your draft.

Next Steps: Add this to your draft. Revise your original flashdraft to include this new text in which you counter their argument. Jean Wolph, Louisville Writing Project, for NWP CRWP funded by the Department of Education Step

How can we explain the process we just used? How will we apply it to our own research in order to make a stronger argument? Jean Wolph, Louisville Writing Project, for NWP CRWP funded by the Department of Education