Arguing Cause Nw

Trash? What Trash?

Trash, trash, and even more trash. The amount of waste the we produce is getting out of control. What the problem is, is that we are throwing away too much product and or material that has potential to be reused to benefit us in different ways. The cause of this problem is that the consumer isn't aware of the effects that their waste is having on the environment. "In the U.S. alone, over 230 million tons of trash is produced each year" (Boehkle). To put that into perspective, there are 2,000 pounds in one ton. That's 4,600,000,000,000 pounds of trash. That is an outrageous amount of trash that gets thrown out each year by one country, 318.9 billion people. Something needs to be done about the amount of waste America is producing. If one country can produce that much waste in one year, imagine what the world is producing in that same amount of time.

  • Is it clear what I mean exactly?
    • Yes
  • Where might the reader be confused? What could be misleading or muddled?
    • Maybe putting the 230 million tons into pounds could be difficult to understand?
  • How does the claim(s) in this paragraph relate to my main claim?
    • I give supporting details that go back to the main claim about the amount of waste we produce being out of control.
  • What support have I used to argue this claim? What links this support to my claim?

The causes of this problem are simple. Americans simply don't have the time in their busy lives to reduce, reuse, and or recycle. Throwing every possible thing away is more convenient for a good portion of the population. You see more garbage cans than you see recycling cans. This problem gives more accessibility to products that could be recycled to make their way into a garbage container versus the appropriate container. Americans are good for the idea that we get in our head that once something no longer belongs to us, that it doesn't really exist anymore. This isn't true for the waste we produce. Once a product leaves our possession it doesn't just disappear. "Improper garbage disposal isn’t just an eyesore; it poses a serious threat to nature" (Boehlke). "Birds, mammals, and reptiles can be injured or killed by the trash we throw away. The magnitude of the problem is growing every day, especially because some types of litter do not readily disintegrate and therefore remain in the environment as a threat for decades" (Barbalace).

  • Is it clear what I mean exactly?
    • Yes, time is an issue when it comes to recycling
  • Where might the reader be confused? What could be misleading or muddled?
    • The reader might be confused when I talk about certain containers making into the right disposal bin.
  • How does the claim(s) in this paragraph relate to my main claim?
    • I claim that American's are too busy to think of what they're doing with their trash.
  • What support have I used to argue this claim? What links this support to my claim?

Leading into the next paragraph, failing to recycle has immense effects on the environment. "If New York City shipped all of its trash to West Virginia the commute would produce 760,000 tons of CO2 each year" (Palmer). Not only does the excessive amount of waste take up tons of space, literally. But it is also harming the air we breath. Palmer gives a good scenario in his article. If going from NYC to West Virginia can create that much CO2 per year, just think of the rest of the country and how much more carbon dioxide is being produced. The types of things that we throw out can also harm the wildlife.

  • Is it clear what I mean exactly?
    • I think so
  • Where might the reader be confused? What could be misleading or muddled?
    • The reader might be confused with the abbreviation CO2 instead of carbon dioxide.
  • How does the claim(s) in this paragraph relate to my main claim?
    • My claim is that without recycling, CO2 levels increase significantly.
  • What support have I used to argue this claim? What links this support to my claim?

"Litter can be very harmful to wildlife. Discarded fishing lines can trap the legs, wings, or neck of waterfowl such as swans or moorhens. A fishhook may get stuck in a bird's throat. Water birds suffer lead poisoning when they accidentally swallow small lead fishing weights. Broken glass can cut the feet of foxes, coyotes, or badgers, and unbroken bottles present a hazard to various small animals. Lizards often crawl inside bottles or cans to bask warm interior, to seek protection or search for food; but they may find it difficult to squeeze out again and can die of overheating. Small mammals in search of food often get their heads caught in the openings of jars. Replacing lids on bottles and jars before discarding can help prevent animals from becoming entrapped. Birds, fish, and mammals may be ensnared by plastic six-pack holders. This can be prevented this by cutting up the plastic rings so that they do not become traps." (Barbalace)

An average person might read this and believe that there are far worse situations in the world that need more attention rather than how much we are throwing away. The argument comes up about how the decisions American's make about recycling won't affect anyone's lifestyle in any way. While this may be true to one individual, think about your children, nieces, nephews, and anyone else who may be considerably younger than you. Would you want them to live in a world where the air is so filthy that they have to wear a mask to be able to go for a walk? This issue may not directly effect one person in any way, but long term will affect those that that one particular individual cares about and is related to. You might then proceed to explain how recycling centers aren't easily accessible to everyone. While this may be true as well, there are steps you can take to stretch out the length of time in between recycling containers. The idea of using a reusable water bottle instead of buying bottled water becomes a viable option. If there isn't a recycling container in a certain town or city, take action and organize a committee to contact a business that could supply one and empty it weekly or monthly.

  • Is it clear what I mean exactly?
    • I feel as though it is clear what I am trying to say.
  • Where might the reader be confused? What could be misleading or muddled?
    • I can't say as though I find a place where a reader would be confused.
  • How does the claim(s) in this paragraph relate to my main claim?
    • My claim is that a good majority of people won't or don't care about the affects of not recycling.
  • What support have I used to argue this claim? What links this support to my claim?

Eventually, with 230 million tons of waste being produced in the US alone per year, we are going to run out of room to put garbage and other waste materials.

*"Arkansas reported enough capacity to go more than 600 years without opening another facility.** Massachusetts and Rhode Island, on the other hand, have just 12 years of capacity remaining. New York state, despite shipping most of the Big Apple's trash across state lines, has only 25 years of capacity left." (Palmer)

New York has only 25 years left of capacity, and most of their waste gets shipped out of state. The amount of carbon dioxide that will be produced after that 25 year limit from shipping elsewhere will be incredibly high. Public health is at risk with this circumstance. Our natural resources, wildlife, and our own personal health will decline if we don't do something about this growing issue now. It's time to stop sweeping it under the rug and face reality. Reduce, reuse, recycle

  • Is it clear what I mean exactly?
    • I believe so.
  • Where might the reader be confused? What could be misleading or muddled?
    • A reader might not be able to put into perspective how much space New York has left for waste.
  • How does the claim(s) in this paragraph relate to my main claim?
    • My claim relates to the main claim by comparing the annual amount of waste to two states' capacity of how much waste they can hold.
  • What support have I used to argue this claim? What links this support to my claim?

Works Cited NW
Peer Review NW
Revised Arguing Cause NW

Unless otherwise stated, the content of this page is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License