Recycling programs have been put in place world over with the end goal of reducing global pollution. Many institutions have committed to this noble program through elaborate measures that have seen the reuse of biodegradable waste. While recycling is one-step to waste management, its constraints outweigh the benefits. Recycling programs involving schools, particularly, have emerged as flawed and inconsistent with the global anti-pollution agenda (Lee 167). The programs are sensational and only espouse cosmetic results rather than long-term tangible outcomes.
Inclusion of the recycling programs in local schools is a time-wasting endeavor. Much of these programs do not enable schools to deliver on their mandate effectively. The school curriculum ought to be committed to education-centric activities that in the long-run match educational goals (Miller and Spoolman 297). Recycling only serves to promote one of the least effective waste management endeavors in children. It further creates a wedge between the impressionable students with realists who believe that recycling should not be hailed wholly for its benefits but critically analyzed in terms of its long-run outcomes. The programs do not mean that the schools will churn out better citizens. It only brings about ill-informed students that have little information on the other facets of the pollution fight. The programs have been posted by other proposal drafters to be an essential and sure way of saving resources. This is not wholly true because other forces in play in the management and conservation of resources (Miller and Spoolman 298). At times, demand and supply forces are essential in sustaining some of the resources used extensively by industries. The paper industry, for instance, has brought about intensified reforestation efforts that have seen many trees planted by industries and individuals. Research points that 87% used by the paper industry are planted purposefully for producing paper (Lee 167). It thus suffices to say that consumption or demand for paper essentially enhances forest cover for any country. Another notable example is landfilling as an alternative to recycling. Pundits argue that landfilling is cost-effective than recycling making trash management an expensive activity. This highlights that recycling is not a full-proof option when saving or conserving resources.
The proposer of the recycling programs in local schools further failed to point out the unhygienic and hazardous conditions associated with recycling. Much of the individuals intended to be incorporated in these programs are young children that are vulnerable given their scope of understanding. The recycled products are recovered in very unsafe areas such as garbage sites, which are conducive for disease spread, debris formation and other harmful chemicals, toxins and waste (Lee 169). Further, some of the proposed recycling sites might serve to enhance pollution and in the soil, water and air. The toxins might seep in soil making it harmful for any future plant-life or even affect underground water reserves. The air pollution may bring about a variety of airborne ailments, which may be chronic or intricate bringing about extra costs in health management of affected individuals (Miller and Spoolman 297). Additionally, this may serve to vilify the noble efforts of waste management and pollution-reduction efforts in schools. The young citizenry might abhor the anti-pollution agenda if they face these effects directly ending up much disillusioned and fearful of such programs in future when they are of age. The youthful enthusiasts may also fail to note that recycling also creates more pollution in some cases. Recycling of newspapers, for instance, requires old print to be bleached off. This being a chemical-intensive affair brings about more harm than good than doing away with the papers altogether.
The recycling programs in schools, moreover, have gaping holes in their elaborate agenda. The framers of these endeavors fail to point out to the concerned parties about the durability and utility of recycled products. Some of the products that students deem fit to re-use may be weak and essentially fail to serve their intended purpose effectively. This is because most of the products netted in this ambitious program might have been overused or outlived their usefulness. The proposers of the programs further fail to appreciate that much of the foundation of recycling is founded on unreasonable elitists that advocate for a change in the standard of living. This does not serve in anyway for the betterment of the world given the dynamics associated with the contemporary society. In a 1990 paper dubbed Waste Management: Towards a Sustainable Society, the authors, Stallworthy and Kharband argue that there is need to scale down standards of living. They argue that hospitals ought to stop using disposable needles in order to reduce wastage (Pollard 436). This is in contrast to the health and safety agenda that has generated plausible results, over the years, in reducing infections and probable health-related fatalities. These authors or recycling-apologists further propose that builders ought to stop doing away with bent nails as part of the recycling agenda. They fail to understand the need for quality and precision that is essential in the building industry.
The programs being time-intensive may not yield their ultimate intent. It is essential for the proposers to understand that recycling cannot be treated as a pastime activity but a thorough venture for it to attain tangible outcomes. The programs need to be tailor-made for different classes with absolute different teaching methods. This will ensure that the students understand the multi-faceted nature of the war against pollution. Additionally, a well-structured curriculum will ensure that students embrace recycling as a way of life with time through appreciation of new facts. The programs should further appreciate the pros and cons of recycling as an activity. Learning should incorporate facts and room for debate and critical thinking. It is the only way that students can fully embrace an idea and own it. This can only be allowed to have an elaborate and enjoyable discourse around it.
In conclusion, recycling programs in local schools as aforementioned do not posit proper benefits that warrant them as a necessity in the local schools curriculums. It is ill informed as it may affect schools and education-centric endeavors. The programs are the least sure way of protecting resources far from the popular notion surrounding recycling. It is prudent to note that there are other forces at play in the management and conservation of resources. The programs in local schools may expose children to hazardous and toxic conditions. Much of the individuals intended to be incorporated in these programs are young children that are vulnerable given their scope of understanding. Moreover, the programs fail to highlight the poor durability and utility of recycled products. Some of these products have outlived their usefulness and may end up being costly to the end-user due to element of replacement. The other constraints associated with these programs is the lack of tailor-making of the teaching plans to suit various classes to match their understanding.
Lee, Garry. Environment and Sustainability. Southampton: WIT Press, 2014. Print.
Miller, G T, and Scott Spoolman. Sustaining the Earth. Belmont: Brooks/Cole, Cengage Learning, 2012. Print.
Pollard, Simon J. "Waste management: towards a sustainable society: by O.P. Kharbanda and E.A. Stallworthy Gower Publishing Group." Choice Reviews Online 28.07 (1991): 435-436. Print.
Cite this page
Opposition Essay Sample on Inclusion of the Recycling Programs in Local Schools. (2019, Jun 25). Retrieved from https://speedypaper.com/essays/opposition-essay
If you are the original author of this essay and no longer wish to have it published on the SpeedyPaper website, please click below to request its removal: