Are government subsidies going to save recycling?

I am not sure where you get your comment that recycling generates little or nothing to support the American people. It is well proven that recycling plays a significant role in reducing greenhouse gasses (see Stop Trashing the Climate referred to in my other response). Of course there are also the environmental benefits of reduced energy and water use and resulting pollution from turning pre-processed materials back into new products vs. what goes into mining and transforming virgin materials.

But the economic benefits have also been documented. According to EPA and other sources, recycling provides 2-10 more jobs/ton of waste than disposing of those materials in a landfill. And the National Recycling Coalition commissioned a study of the economic impacts of recycling using data from 1997-1999. Information about the study and an analysis of the methodology can be found on EPA's website at http://epa.gov/epawaste/conserve/rrr/rmd/rei-rw/index.htm

In Massachusetts, where I work on clean technology initiatives, we have identified materials reuse and recycling as one of five clean tech industries in which the state has leadership in terms of jobs, manufacturing, technologies, and academic researchers. According to a Northeast Recycling Council's study of economic impacts of recycling in Massachusetts (also around the same time frame as the national study), recycling employed about 20,000 people-- about 5-6,000 people more than the clean energy industry in the state in 2007. A few other facts from MA:

- the companies employing the 20,000 people in recycling (again, around the year 2000) had combined annual sales of over $3.5 billion. The indirect and induced effects associated with this activity include support of an additional 20,000 jobs and $142 in revenues

- the combined direct, indirect, and induced impacts of recycling in the state led to over $200 million being brought into state coffers in the form of taxes and fees

- in 2004, Massachusetts recycled 7 million tons of paper, glass, plastics, organics, textiles, etc. 4 million tons of that were turned by Massachusetts manufacturers into new products

- recycling the 7 million tons reduced greenhouse gas emissions by 2 million metric tons of carbon equivalent/year

What's currently going on in the market does not show a lack of planning or poor business practices as may be argued about the car companies (or the financial industry). It shows that 1) recyclables are commodities and will fluctuate up and down with international commodities markets, especially if we continue to not internalize pollution externalities of resource extraction and waste disposal and 2) that local markets should be developed to provide goods to local end-users, reducing transportation costs, environmental impacts, etc. It is another case that being so dependent on China to support our economy doesn't necessarily make sense.

But your comment also implies that government subsidies are what props up recycling, and this is also not the truth. Recycling collection services are paid for as a less expensive way to manage waste than sending it to landfills or waste to energy facilities. These facilities are not expected to pay waste generators to put their materials there. Why should recycling facilities, which provide much more benefit to society, be expected to do so?