60-Second Earth

What's the Most Recycled Product in the U.S.?

It's not paper, plastic or even aluminum. David Biello reports














Share on Tumblr

Listen to this Podcast

Perhaps the most common manifestation of our urge to be "green" these days is recycling.  

After all, it makes intuitive sense to get the most use out of any given object. And when it’s applied, recycling generally works as designed, turning waste paper into fresh paper or old aluminum cans into new ones.  

But how much of our waste really gets recycled? According to the EPA, roughly one third of our total trash is reused, a percentage that has grown every year since the first Earth Day in 1970--and really took off in the 1990s.  

The most recycled product? It's not aluminum cans--only half are recycled. Or even office paper, at more than 70 percent. It's the lead acid batteries from your car. More than 99 percent of such batteries wind up recycled, keeping toxic lead out of landfills and waterways.  

That's a good thing as long as the recycling is done properly. Unfortunately, dismantling old lead acid batteries incorrectly is one of the 10 worst pollution problems for the globe, according to the Blacksmith Institute. And that's no way to celebrate Earth Day.  

—David Biello


21 Comments

Add Comment
View
  1. 1. hanmeng 05:21 PM 4/18/10

    It may make intuitive sense to get the most use out of any given object, but it doesn't always make sense economically. Recycling is often a waste of time & money.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
  2. 2. ronflank 11:27 PM 4/18/10

    it is sad to know that neither alu nor paper are the top winners. Lead however, has been economically viable to recycle since many decades. How good for the environment!

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
  3. 3. mikq in reply to hanmeng 09:34 AM 4/19/10

    Yes, it doesn't economically make sense as long as companies and people who run them are interested of their short-term profits. But if their incentives are based on long-term sustainability, and government realizes that we also need economical sustainability on long term, if we want to inhabit this planet, then it starts to make sense economically as well.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
  4. 4. danos 12:33 PM 4/19/10

    How much mercury will wind up escaping from compact florescent bulbs? Is most of it drifting about where the bulb broke -or will most it wind up in the trash, landfills, watertable?

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
  5. 5. SpoonmanWoS in reply to hanmeng 03:05 PM 4/19/10

    @hanmeng: You got some evidence, data, statistics or facts to back up that opinion?

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
  6. 6. danos 03:56 PM 4/19/10

    How much mercury is being distributed by compact florescent bulbs? What percentage gets scattered where the bulb breaks, in landfill, in water table?

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
  7. 7. gregdavid 04:18 PM 4/19/10

    Just imagine how much burnable fuel the 30% of unrecycled paper is. Think of how much less coal coal would have to be burned or how many less virgin forests would have to be razed. It saddens me that a very large sum of paper and wood or even plastic products are being burried in land fills when they are so easily recycled for something as easy as incineration for energy. Seems silly to waste so much fuel that will decompose anyway and thus return their bound up greenhouse gases the atmosphere anyway.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
  8. 8. jerryd 04:42 PM 4/19/10

    Danos your ignorance is rather large. For instance the CFL has far, far less the mercury than released by coal powerplants to power regular lights.

    Lead is recycled so much because it's widely known a a poison if not properly handled that laws were made making it mandatory.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
  9. 9. ka5den 05:32 PM 4/19/10

    How about cow shit, I think it is 100% recycled?

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
  10. 10. ka5den 05:33 PM 4/19/10

    How about cow shit? I think 100% is recycled.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
  11. 11. frgough in reply to ronflank 06:36 PM 4/19/10

    Yep, because we all know that lead is more toxic AFTER it has been taken out of the ground and put back in the ground. Because, of course, a human being touching anything automatically makes it more toxic than it was before.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
  12. 12. eltay3 in reply to hanmeng 09:53 PM 4/19/10

    Only if there are unlimited resources. Whith limited resources, it is always the smart thing to do in the long run.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
  13. 13. eddiequest in reply to hanmeng 11:03 PM 4/19/10

    hanmeng - is that chinese for 'moron'?

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
  14. 14. Johnay 11:19 PM 4/19/10

    I've been wondering about water, in particular the water locked up in landfills when someone tosses a half-drunk bottle of water or soda with the cap on. How much fresh water is locked up like that, and how long would it take to eventually leak out and return to the water cycle?

    Is it a lot for a long time? A little for a short time? Just curious.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
  15. 15. PhysicsTech 03:16 PM 4/20/10

    It is funny how many of us who post comments that have little to do with the topic at hand. With that in mind, I will comment to the article posted here: It shows that with respect to lead at least we have a public conscience! I was surprised to see that we are doing a responsible job with at least one toxin in our world. The comments regarding fluorescent lights - I think I would try to find a bigger problem to comment on. Unless you find it necessary to inheal deeply, I wouldn't worry too much about the effects.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
  16. 16. Plaisham 04:19 PM 4/20/10

    Hmmm I just read somewhere...Don't ask for references..I read tooo much and have forgotten where. But I had seen pictures and read articles where most batteries are shipped to third world poor countries where it is a real danger to self employed scavengers. While it looks good to say that HERE they are recycled...how much is actually hidden by large companies and shipped overseas to make the stats look good. here. Just curious.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
  17. 17. PhysicsTech in reply to Plaisham 05:05 PM 4/20/10

    The old slight of hand?
    Good point. If it is anything like PCBoard recycling, there is some Chinese father using the family wok to melt down the lead in the batteries. Much like they do with the solder and other metals on PCBoards today. Really sad sight to see an elderly man using his cookware in that way....

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
  18. 18. Macrocompassion 07:50 AM 4/21/10

    Is it based on the mass of the product? I imagine the most recycled substance is water not lead.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
  19. 19. bucketofsquid 10:50 AM 4/21/10

    I have my doubts about the claim that lead acid batteries are the most recycled product in the USA. A lot of these batteries are shipped to 3rd world countries where they are mishandled. That isn't really recycling. Steel on the other hand, is recycled right here in our country and this is done properly and has a very high percentage of recycling.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
  20. 20. Plaisham in reply to Johnay 04:27 PM 4/21/10

    Johnay....a half empty bottle..I can see. A half full bottle I can see but ...a half drunk bottle?? lol I had this mental picture of a tipsy bottle with little legs trying to get his cap off. Sorry didn't mean to be rude but I just finished one of Terry Pratchet books with "luggage with legs" Ok Ok sanity is over-rated and its off topic. but hey humour folks ..humour

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
  21. 21. danos in reply to jerryd 08:01 PM 4/21/10

    jerryd,
    My ignorance is rather total in regards to my question, but yours is completely total in regards to your manners.

    To those who might have knowledge: I really would like to know the 'mercury risk' introduced by our adoption of CF bulbs.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
Leave this field empty

Add a Comment

You must sign in or register as a ScientificAmerican.com member to submit a comment.
Click one of the buttons below to register using an existing Social Account.

More from Scientific American

See what we're tweeting about

Scientific American Editors

More »

Free Newsletters


Get the best from Scientific American in your inbox

  SA Digital

Latest from SA Blog Network

  SA Digital

Science Jobs of the Week

Email this Article

What's the Most Recycled Product in the U.S.?

X
Scientific American Magazine

Subscribe Today

Save 66% off the cover price and get a free gift!

Learn More >>

X

Please Log In

Forgot: Password

X

Account Linking

Welcome, . Do you have an existing ScientificAmerican.com account?

Yes, please link my existing account with for quick, secure access.



Forgot Password?

No, I would like to create a new account with my profile information.

Create Account
X

Report Abuse

Are you sure?

X

Institutional Access

It has been identified that the institution you are trying to access this article from has institutional site license access to Scientific American on nature.com. To access this article in its entirety through site license access, click below.

Site license access
X

Error

X

Share this Article

X