Recycling: Savior of our Planet… or the Plastic Industry?

If your elementary school education was anything like mine, recycling was praised as the hero of sustainability. We learned about the three R’s of sustainability—reduce, reuse, and recycle—but focused heavily on recycling. We read books explaining how the process worked, and in 4th grade we even oversaw collecting recycling around the school.

But what we weren’t told was that these three R’s are actually listed in order of importance, with recycling being last. Although recycling, when done perfectly, is quite revolutionary, in practice it is often not very effective. For most plastic recycling does not make sense, because it is costly and the plastic degrades every time it goes through the recycling process. But even when it is recycled, it often ends up in the landfill due to contamination or because the sheer volume of plastic overwhelms recycling centers. In fact, in 2021, only about 5-6% of plastic waste actually was recycled (Osborne, 2022).

Before the 1980s, plastic recycling wasn’t widely popular because it was more expensive to recycle plastic than to produce it from virgin materials. As a result, recycling was primarily reserved for glass, paper, and metal (Gonzales & Sullivan, 2020). But then the triangle with a number—known as the Resin Identification Code (RIC)—started appearing on plastics (Fig. 1). Many plastics that were not actually recyclable ended up in recycling bins because the symbol closely resembled the universal recycling logo (Gonzales & Sullivan, 2020; Osborne, 2022).

Figure 1. A comparison of the Resin Identification Code and the recycling symbol. Shown on the left is the RIC on the bottom container holding water bottle cleaning tablets—a number 5—which is not recyclable at Furman. On the right is the recycling logo on the cottage’s recycling bin.

This symbol was added by the plastic industry under the claim that it would help sort plastics, but the industry also funded many campaigns and commercials promoting recycling. The goal was to make consumers comfortable buying plastics. If people believed recycling worked well and that all plastic could be recycled, they were more likely to keep purchasing plastic products (Gonzales & Sullivan, 2020). Some argue that the addition of this symbol was a purposeful intent to deceive people by the plastic industry, but it cannot be proven.

But either way, these campaigns and confusion with the RIC symbol widely benefitted the plastic industry (Gonzales & Sullivan, 2020). Today, single-use plastics are so common that it is hard to imagine life without them. But if recycling was so heavily promoted by the plastic industry potentially in order to increase plastic sales, should we even recycle?

The answer is yes! Recycling is still an effective way to reduce waste going to the landfill and also limit the amount of virgin materials being used, but it should be used as a last resort (US EPA, 2025). Instead of using recycling as an excuse to buy single-use plastics because “they can be recycled,” we should focus on the lesser known five R’s, which expand on the traditional three. These five R’s are Refuse, Reduce, Reuse, Repurpose, Recycle (Fisher, 2024; Robertson, 2021).

The most important thing we can do when it comes to single-use plastics is to refuse them altogether. Instead of buying disposable plastic water bottles, opt for a reusable one. If you cannot completely cut out plastic water bottle use, then reducing your use is the next best option. But if you do end up using a plastic water bottle, try to reuse it multiple times by refilling it. After that, you can repurpose it—giving the plastic a new life by turning it into something else.

For example, in the cottage this year, we used plastic water bottles to create fruit fly traps (Fig. 2). Once the plastic has served its life in these ways, it should finally be recycled, but only if it has been properly cleaned and is a type of plastic accepted by your local recycling system. (Fisher, 2024). At Furman, only numbers 1 and 2 can be recycled.

Figure 2. Example of the type of fruit fly trap the cottage created to repurpose a plastic water bottle (Trap-anything.com).

This is just one example of how to implement the five R’s into your life, but they can—and should—be applied whenever you use single-use plastics or anything you might eventually dispose of. In the Greenbelt, we have applied this by aiming to reduce our plastic use and avoid plastics whenever possible. For example, we refuse plastic grocery bags, use laundry detergent sheets instead of detergent that comes in plastic jugs, and make homemade decorations instead of buying plastic ones.

Understanding the hierarchy of waste management is important for our community because it allows us to make sustainable decisions about what we are consuming and what to do with items afterward.

We are also very intentional about how we recycle, because recycling is only effective if done properly. To give our recycling the best chance of actually being recycled and not ending up in the landfill, we make sure to follow Furman’s regulations—only recycling numbers 1 and 2 and ensuring that all recycled materials are clean (US EPA, 2025). By doing this, we hope to live more sustainably and use recycling as a tool rather than an excuse.

References

Fisher, C. (2024, March 10). The 5 R’s: Refuse, Reduce, Reuse, Repurpose, Recycle | RTS. Recycle Track Systems. https://www.rts.com/blog/the-5-rs-refuse-reduce-reuse-repurpose-recycle/

Gonzales, S., & Sullivan, L. (2020, September 11). Waste Land: Planet Money [Transcript]. NPR.org. https://www.npr.org/transcripts/912150085

Osborne, M. (2022, May 9). At Least 85 Percent of U.S. Plastic Waste Went to Landfills in 2021. Smithsonian Magazine. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/the-us-recycled-just-5-percent-of-its-plastic-in-2021-180980052/?utm_source=chatgpt.com

Robertson, M. (2021). Sustainability principles and practice. Taylor & Francis Group.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2025, May 14). Recycling basics and benefits. https://www.epa.gov/recycle/recycling-basics-and-benefits

 

 

Touchdown…Tailgate…Trash

As a college student, my favorite time of the year is football season. I get to wake up early, watch some college football, and hangout with my friends at our school’s tailgate on a sunny day. I’m sure most college students would agree with me that tailgates are a blast… but what’s not a blast about tailgates is the number of single-use plastics and wastes going to the landfills or improperly disposed of. To be completely honest when I’m at a tailgate sustainability and recycling are not on my mind like any student. That’s what makes this such an issue is the amount of waste, culture promoting a wasteful mindset, and ineffective standards set by the school.

 

Our tailgate here at Furman

 

A lot of people simply don’t realize how easily waste is produced at tailgates. Speaking from my personal experience at Furman tailgates I see a lot of waste, whether that be in improper disposal of single-use plastics, littering, or food being abandoned. In my research I discovered a couple statistics that really stood out as shocking to me, [3] first being the fact that 85% of people who tailgate use only disposable or single use tableware. This is an issue as the more people who use single us plastics the more likely improper disposal will occur. Another not so fun fact I found was that around [3] 3000 tons of waste are generated through certain collegiate football tailgates annually. To put that into perspective the produced waste weighs the same as about 20 locomotives. I know at Furman we won’t be producing nearly as much waste as a huge football school does, but I’ve seen the aftermath of football games, and it definitely isn’t squeaky clean. In an article I read it mentioned that [5] 71% of waste at most football games were micro-litter, which is litter such as cigarette butts, bottle caps, and wristbands. The article [5] than goes on to say that a third of the students that they surveyed had admitted to littering at a tailgate within the past month. Thinking about the fact that such a substantial number of students admitted to this shows that this is an issue that isn’t viewed as problematic.

The main reason that improper waste disposal is such an issue is the culture surrounding tailgating. A lot of fan behaviors subtly encourage negative waste disposal ideas. Such as binge drinking of aluminum cans, for example college students shot gunning and then proceeding to spike the aluminum can on the ground. Some say this is the college experience, but I call it improper waste disposal. There is also a correlation between the result of the game and the fans environmental attitude. [6] It is found that fans who exhibit a more positive attitude recycle more than fans in a negative attitude. This correlates with whether the team has won or lost. This is due to the culture of the fanbase and tailgating as they are easily swayed by what goes on them around them. It also shows that college students get stuck in the moments and go by the flow. This flow can encourage to exhibit poor environmental tendencies.

Onto the question of what we as students can and what can our campus do to encourage more sustainable tailgates.

 

Students at UNC Charlotte sorting waste after a tailgate

First, I’ve read about a total ban of single use at college tailgates [4]. While I don’t think that would work at Furman due to our consumption culture. Although this would cause in an immediate reduction of waste and a more positive environmental public perception. I think something Furman could do to replicate this would be having a student taskforce that sorted tailgate waste after the games such as they do at UNC Charlotte [2]. Another thing would be to engage the fans through interactive recycling signage, more accessible waste facilities, social media engagement, and incentives such as discounts or rewards for staying committed to sustainability [4]. I think we could do something like this at Furman for fraternities and sororities. Imagine if whoever left the least amount of waste behind after their tailgate got rewarded with some prize or a social media shout out. I’m sure it would encourage more productive and less wasteful cleanups.

Overall, the gameday environment is not one that promotes environmental mindfulness, but with the right resources Furman could also be a collegiate leader of low waste tailgates.


[1] “Game Day at Furman.” Admission Blog, May 15, 2025.
[2] “Getting Our Hands Dirty for Good: How UNC Charlotte Keeps Its Zero Waste Stadium Promise.” Inside UNC Charlotte, October 6, 2024.
[3] Linder, Jannik. “Tailgating Statistics.” Gitnux, April 2025.
[4] “Reducing Plastic in Sports Events: A Winning Play for the Planet.” Reducing Plastic in Sports Events: A Winning Play for the Planet, January 15, 2025.
[5] Scheaffer, Kristen. “The Environmental Impact of Tailgating and Litter.” The Prospector, November 9, 2022.
[6] “What Factors Influence Fans’ Gameday Recycling?” Sport Ecology Group, January 6, 2025.

 

The Environmental Dark Side of ChatGPT

When people think of ChatGPT, images of helpful AI answering questions, drafting essays might come to mind. It’s easy to get swept up in the convenience and fascination of talking to a machine that seems almost human. Having said that, behind the sleek interface and endless uses lies an environmental question that often goes unasked: what is the ecological cost of this technology?
According to Earth.org, ChatGPT produces around 8.4 tons of carbon dioxide each year, which is a little more than double what an average person emits annually. Earth.org, a site dedicated to environmental journalism and research, points out that this number shows just how much energy these AI systems really use. While ChatGPT might seem like it lives somewhere in the “cloud,” the reality is that it runs on powerful computers inside massive data centers. Those servers use a huge amount of electricity, which leads to greenhouse gas emissions. In other words, every time we use AI tools like this one, there’s an environmental cost that isn’t immediately visible.
The second big issue Earth.org highlights is how much water AI systems use. A recent study from the University of California, Riverside found that Microsoft used about 700,000 liters of freshwater to train GPT-3. To put that in perspective, that’s the same amount of water needed to make around 370 BMWs or 320 Tesla cars (McLean, 2023). This water is used to cool the powerful machines that generate so much heat during training. What’s surprising is that even after the training is done, ChatGPT continues to use water during regular conversations, a process known as inference. For a chat of about 20 to 50 questions, the amount of water used is roughly the same as a 500ml bottle, which aligns with reports noting that data centers can burn through water at a surprisingly constant rate just to stay cool (The Teen Magazine, 2023). That might not sound like a ton, but when you multiply that by billions of users and interactions, it adds up to a massive total footprint.
Something I found especially interesting, and a bit strange, is a point McLean mentions about politeness. It turns out that saying “please” and “thank you” to ChatGPT isn’t as harmless as it seems. Every word you type has to be read and processed by the system, and that requires both energy and water. When people all over the world use manners with the AI billions of times, that small act actually leads to a surprising amount of extra resource use. It’s wild to think that something as simple as being polite to a chatbot could have an environmental cost.
At the end of the day, tools like ChatGPT are changing how we learn, and communicate. But it’s also important to understand the hidden price of that progress. AI might make our lives easier, but it’s not as “clean” or cost-free as it appears on the surface. The more aware we are of its environmental impact, the better we can make choices about how and when we use it.

Resources

-The Environmental Impact of ChatGPT | Earth.Org

-ChatGPT Is Bad for the Environment: Here’s Exactly Why

[2304.03271] Making AI Less “Thirsty”: Uncovering and Addressing the Secret Water Footprint of AI Models