Last weekend, the Washington Post published an article (http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/american-recycling-is-stalling-and-the-big-blue-bin-is-one-reason-why/2015/06/20/914735e4-1610-11e5-9ddc-e3353542100c_story.html?postshare=9721434954644992) on the economics of recycling (in the Politics section) that received over 500 comments online. It discusses problems associated with the use of the large blue bins for single stream recycling, the costs and problems of recycling glass containers, the decreasing use of newspapers bringing down the revenue from that source, and other issues, with a focus on the recycling industry in the DC area. In its cost-benefit analysis of recycling, it does not, however, give attention to the value of recycling as a way to mitigate the amount of trash that ends up in land fills or incinerators (both naasty sources of pollution and environmental degradation). Certainly this diversion of waste has some economic value to society. I'm sure the system can be managed better, but even if these recycling facilities/operations are not always profitable (which they have been for most of their existence), wouldn't people be willing to pay something for the ability to tell our children and grandchildren that we made some effort to reduce the amount of trash that we left for future generations to deal with?