Sounds to me like you are a keen recycler - of myths, hearsay and pub banter. Try doing some proper research:

You say few precious resources are saved by recycling: what about energy? For example 30-70% with paper, 95% with aluminium, compared to new production (www.wasteonline.org.uk). And old forests are valuable in other ways, eg. as wildlife habitats.

You say recycling won't save much in carbon emissions: 20% of London's environmental footprint is due to its household waste (www.citylimitslondon.com). I'd say that's worth saving.

I'm not aware of this surplus of landfill sites you claim, but that's not the issue: we need to avoid landfill because it gives off methane, a potent greenhouse gas.

If time is money, then weight based charging is the way to go: if you want to save time and not recycle, the council can charge you more. I'll happily spend a couple more minutes a day separating my waste, if it reduces emissions and contributes to saving lives - that's people, not stuff.

Bernard Burns, London, UK

Sorting your recycling is "too hard?" ????? Remembering what goes where simply takes sitting down for a few minutes, once, and figuring it out. Too hard... really?!?!? How have you managed to make it through life so far? Breathing is a pain in the ass too - you have to remember to do it every few seconds, then inhale, then exhale... what a nuissance.

Then comparing sorting your trash to kids picking through dumps in third world countries... I don't even know where to start with that one.

This whole article is a parody, right?

Doug, San Diego, CA, US

This is an unusually set of reasoanble comments. Except of course for Mr. Heyer who simply calls teh author uninformed without providing evidence, if even only anecdotal such as provided by the others. The fact is, the total effort involved in producing most of recyclable products is greater than the effort required in making replacement. The point collection and transport of recylclables -- in partiucular aluminum, paper and plastic -- costs far more is every way (energy, time, etc.) than the gathering and transport of the raw materials from concentrated sources. Moreover, returning the old material back to a useful form for manufacture most often takes more energy than the processing of the raw materials into the new product.

Dave Steed, Santa Fe, NM, USA

Waste Management is an issue. Some can be recycled with ease but the majority is a non cost effective recycling operation. With current technology it is possible to turn 1200 tonne of municipal waste per day into 35 megawatt of saleable electricity and the process has a zero carbon foot print. The same techniques can also be applied to hazardous waste management. This is a more cost effective and environmentally friendly way to recycle by recovering much of the original energy input. The technology and the investment opportunity exists but it is either a case of ignorance, a luddite approach or some wooly thinking political correctness that is holding back the opportunity for more effective and efficient waste management.

Christopher Nash, Woking, England

This is probably the most uninformed stance on recycling that I ever read. How does Spiked magazine pick their "science writers"? Incredibly creative headline, by the way.

Cornelius Heyer, Munich,

Rob Lyons is ABSOLUTELY right.
And I very much hope that he doesn't mind if I add that this whole hand knitted business of recyling is nothing more than another example of local authorities being frightened to death of not blindly doing what others are doing, irrespective of the real value of whatever it may be.
Maybe the whole thing about 'doing your bit' is satisfying, but thats exactly the misleading and almost propaganda like way the British public were made to feel in the second World War when their metal railings were cut off to make munitions. But were they? - I don't think so.

Chris Parsons, Kouklia, Cyprus

Anybody thought about recycling at the molecular level ? Anybody out ther studying physics anymore?

Bob, Faversham, UK

As far as I can tell, the main argument for recycling is that it's more efficient to recycle old materials than to produce them from scratch.

If that was true, surely the economics would negate the ridiculous charges and taxes that seem to accompany any new recycling initiative? With the exception of metals, glass and some types of plastic, I can't see how recycling does anything other than cost money and waste time.

Harry, London, UK

One problem with recycling is that there still does not seem to be enough connection between pakaging and recycling. What is the point of putting so much effort into recycling when supermakets and manufacturers continue to use such excessive pakaging, much of which is unrecyclable? By the way, does Rob Lyons know anything about recycling? Where are all the big holes for landfill? not in his back yard I suspect.

richard sinclair, petersfield,

Joan Bailie is spot on, when I lived in the UK I found the whole process incredibly frustrating with so many ridiculous rules on what is/isn't acceptable, that it's enough to make most people just not bother at all. Here in the US I have just one recycling bin and there are no restrictions, I put cardboard, paper, plastic containers, bottles, cans, doesn't matter what it is, if it's recyclable it goes in the same bin, why? Because the truck that picks it up has different compartments for each type of waste so the collector then sorts them into the separate bins so we don't have to, it couldn't be simpler and as such acts as an incentive to do it, when it's this easy there's simply no excuse not to. The US may have a bad environmental reputation under Bush but locally the story's very different and the UK could learn something about how it's done here by allocating better resources to the effort rather than relying on people's goodwill and patience in overcoming archaic rules.

John Kench, Charlotte, NC (Ex-UK)

The trouble with recycling is that it probably wastes more energy than it saves. The whole present ecological argument seem to be a phobia and superstition.Humanity always needs some major cause to worry about.We no longer bbelieve in witches, religious faith is at a low ebb, the cold war is over, few believe in the imminence of nuclear armageddon, so we have global warming and the ecology to to occupy our minds. Is it not all a lot of nonsense that can not stand up to truly critical rational examination?

George Herbert, Bournemouth,

I'm in favour of recycling and in my area there is a weekly collection for recyclable refuse - but it is so limiting that I find it all extremely frustrating. I'm expected to recycle my plastic bottles but I not allowed to recycle plastic supermarket wrappers or the likes of yoghurt pots or the plastic containers from bleach, washing up liquid etc; I recycle newspapers, magazines and the contents of junk mail but I am not allowed to recycle envelopes; I am allowed to recycle some sorts of cardboard but not others; I can wash my tins and glass bottles and jars and put them out for recycling but I am not allowed to hand over wax cartons or the like.
What I recycle is undoubtedly small in comparison to what recyclers in somewhere like Holland manage - and I wish I could do more - but I suppose it is a simple matter of fact that nobody want the rest of my rubbish. I guess 'they' haven't figured out a way to profit from it!

Joan Bailie, Belfast, N. Ireland