文章分析：Plastic Recycling Doesn’t Work and Will Never Work

上次我們(men) 轉載了The Atlantic “大西洋月刊”雜誌5月期上的一篇argumentative essay，今天我們(men) 就一起來解析一下這篇文章，用我們(men) 中級課上講授的批判性閱讀方法來審閱它的結構框架，論證過程，以及哪些地方還可以進一步改善。

Plastic Recycling Doesn’t Work and Will Never Work

（標題直接表明了作者觀點和態度）

By Judith Enck and Jan Dell

About the authors: Judith Enck is a former EPA regional administrator, the president of Beyond Plastics, and a visiting professor at Bennington College. Jan Dell is a chemical engineer and the founder of the Last Beach Cleanup.

Americans support recycling. We do too. （文章開頭直接說明環保問題社會(hui) 現況，然後立馬開始建立common ground，為(wei) 什麽(me) 這樣寫(xie) ？我們(men) 要看看文章針對的audience是怎樣的？明顯大多數讀者對文章觀點是持懷疑態度的，也就是說是持反方觀點的，所以迅速建立common ground，有利於(yu) 展開下麵的邏輯論證） 

But although some materials can be effectively recycled and safely made from recycled content, plastics cannot. Plastic recycling does not work and will never work.（文章標題沿用到此處，也就是本文的thesis。但是根據我們(men) 課上所講的thesis撰寫(xie) 方法，這裏的thesis顯得過於(yu) 簡單，隻表明了觀點，但並沒有把下文中的幾個(ge) 理由原因歸納在thesis裏。同學們(men) 不妨思考一下，根據下麵的全文內(nei) 容，返回來如何改進這個(ge) thesis？）The United States in 2021 had a dismal recycling rate of about 5 percent for post-consumer plastic waste, down from a high of 9.5 percent in 2014, when the U.S. exported millions of tons of plastic waste to China and counted it as recycled—even though much of it wasn’t.

Recycling in general can be an effective way to reclaim natural material resources. The U.S.’s high recycling rate of paper, 68 percent, proves this point. The problem with recycling plastic lies not with the concept or process but with the material itself. （本段實際上是在延續上段的末尾部分——繼續闡述美國各種廢品材料回收的現狀。我們(men) 在課上說過，對於(yu) 文章議題的現狀簡介，這往往就是argumentative essay的hook。當現狀較為(wei) 複雜的時候，可以在第二段繼續闡述。這裏因為(wei) 是雜誌文章，段落要求短小精悍，所以第二段繼續第一段的內(nei) 容）

The first problem is that there are thousands of different plastics, each with its own composition and characteristics. They all include different chemical additives and colorants that cannot be recycled together, making it impossible to sort the trillions of pieces of plastics into separate types for processing. For example, polyethylene terephthalate (PET#1) bottles cannot be recycled with PET#1 clamshells, which are a different PET#1 material, and green PET#1 bottles cannot be recycled with clear PET#1 bottles (which is why South Korea has outlawed colored PET#1 bottles.) High-density polyethylene (HDPE#2), polyvinyl chloride (PVC#3), low-density polyethylene (LDPE#4), polypropylene (PP#5), and polystyrene (PS#6) all must be separated for recycling. （在organize pattern上，本段采用了典型的classification 方式）

Just one fast-food meal can involve many different types of single-use plastic, including PET#1, HDPE#2, LDPE#4, PP#5, and PS#6 cups, lids, clamshells, trays, bags, and cutlery, which cannot be recycled together. This is one of several reasons why plastic fast-food service items cannot be legitimately claimed as recyclable in the U.S. （上段是采用了facts的evidence種類，本段則是采用了example的evidence種類。在後麵還采用了expert opinion的evidence種類。如我們(men) 在課上所講，各種evidence要混合使用，才有說服力）

Another problem is that the reprocessing of plastic waste—when possible at all—is wasteful. Plastic is flammable, and the risk of fires at plastic-recycling facilities affects neighboring communities—many of which are located in low-income communities or communities of color.

Unlike metal and glass, plastics are not inert. Plastic products can include toxic additives and absorb chemicals, and are generally collected in curbside bins filled with possibly dangerous materials such as plastic pesticide containers. According to a report published by the Canadian government, toxicity risks in recycled plastic prohibit “the vast majority of plastic products and packaging produced” from being recycled into food-grade packaging. （引用政府文獻作為(wei) expert opinion evidence）

Yet another problem is that plastic recycling is simply not economical. Recycled plastic costs more than new plastic because collecting, sorting, transporting, and reprocessing plastic waste is exorbitantly expensive. The petrochemical industry is rapidly expanding, which will further lower the cost of new plastic.

Despite this stark failure, the plastics industry has waged a decades-long campaign to perpetuate the myth that the material is recyclable. This campaign is reminiscent of the tobacco industry’s efforts to convince smokers that filtered cigarettes are healthier than unfiltered cigarettes. （從(cong) 本段開始陳述opposing views，並進行反駁。我們(men) 在課上說過，客觀陳述opposing views並予以合理反駁，是argumentative essay必不可少的一部分，是建立作者ethical appeal的重要手段）

Conventional mechanical recycling, in which plastic waste is ground up and melted, has been around for many decades. Now the plastics industry is touting the benefits of so-called chemical recycling— in which plastic waste is broken down using high heat or more chemicals and turned into a low-quality fossil fuel.

In 2018, Dow Chemical claimed that the Renewlogy chemical-recycling plant in Salt Lake City was able to reprocess mixed plastic waste from Boise, Idaho, households through the “Hefty Energy Bag” program and turn it into diesel fuel. As Reuters exposed in a 2021 investigation, however, all the different types of plastic waste contaminated the pyrolysis process. Today, Boise burns its mixed plastic waste in cement kilns, resulting in climate-warming carbon emissions. This well-documented Renewlogy failure has not stopped the plastics industry from continuing to claim that chemical recycling works for “mixed plastics.”（這段舉(ju) 了一個(ge) 反方實例，並用正方實例進行反駁，這是我們(men) 課上講過的反駁反方實例的一個(ge) 方法。此外，注意本段裏無論是陳述反方實例還是反駁，都引用了相關(guan) resource）

Chemical recycling is not viable. It has failed and will continue to fail for the same down-to-earth, real-world reasons that the conventional mechanical recycling of plastics has consistently failed. Worse yet, its toxic emissions could cause new harm to our environment, climate, and health.

We’re not making a case for despair. Just the opposite. We need the facts so that individuals and policy makers can take concrete action. (Emotional appeal。大家思考一下，此處的emotional appeal是否合理fair？)Proven solutions to the U.S.’s plastic-waste and pollution problems exist and can be quickly replicated across the country. These solutions include enacting bans on single-use plastic bags and unrecyclable single-use plastic food-service products, ensuring widespread access to water-refilling stations, installing dishwashing equipment in schools to allow students to eat food on real dishes rather than single-use plastics, and switching Meals on Wheels and other meal-delivery programs from disposables to reusable dishware. （此處舉(ju) 出的各種有效環保途徑，可以看為(wei) 對前麵反方實例的進一步反駁，用正方實例進行反駁。）

If the plastics industry is following the tobacco industry’s playbook, it may never admit to the failure of plastics recycling. Although we may not be able to stop them from trying to fool us（此處的用詞“fool”，以及語氣tone，是否合適？我們(men) 課上說過，寫(xie) 學術文章時應盡量避免使用帶感情色彩的詞匯和語氣tone，以避免給讀者留下偏頗不公的印象，損害作者的ethical appeal）, we can pass effective laws to make real progress. Single-use-plastic bans reduce waste, save taxpayer money spent on disposal and cleanup, and reduce plastic pollution in the environment. （上一段中舉(ju) 出了各種取消一次性用品的舉(ju) 措，這裏也試圖指出禁止一次性用品有很多好處。但事實真是這樣嗎？徹底禁止一次性用品真的那麽(me) 容易而沒有任何負麵影響嗎？是否會(hui) 產(chan) 生新的問題？譬如，可重複使用的餐具如何有效清潔？是否會(hui) 產(chan) 生費用和衛生挑戰？以及額外使用的大量清潔劑對環境是否會(hui) 產(chan) 生新的汙染？問題似乎沒有作者所說的那麽(me) 簡單。同學們(men) 在進行批判性閱讀的時候，這裏就可以提出一個(ge) 大問號，然後再重複閱讀，看看文中是否有給出答案。如果沒有，那麽(me) 自己就需要從(cong) 別處查找資料，給出一個(ge) 答案。這個(ge) 答案，就是你自己對原文觀點的一個(ge) 評斷judgment。如果要你對本文寫(xie) 一個(ge) 書(shu) 評，這個(ge) 答案就可以是書(shu) 評的thesis。這就是批判性閱讀，與(yu) 批判性寫(xie) 作的關(guan) 係）

Consumers can put pressure on companies to stop filling store shelves with single-use plastics by not buying them and instead choosing reusables and products in better packaging. And we should all keep recycling our paper, boxes, cans, and glass, because that actually works. （本段和上一段，都可以看為(wei) 在thesis基礎上的適度延申，提出各種措施，呼籲大家付諸行動。但如上所說，這些舉(ju) 措的實際可行性，是值得同學們(men) 讀後思考斟酌的）