Recycle to save the environment. After all, who wants plastic to end up in an ever-expanding landfill? Surely, all the plastic bottles that we drink out of could be turned into new gadgets after a quick sip. But most of the time, this is wishful thinking.

It turns out that only around 5% of all plastic that is thrown into recycle bins is actually remanufactured into new usable products. Plastic products are often fragile in terms of their ability to be recycled, easily being damaged by food stains or residual fluids from their use as containers or bags. As a result, much plastic that arrives at recycling facilities has to be discarded into landfills, even after traveling thousands of miles initially to avoid said locations of environmental destruction. And, even if the plastic is recyclable, it is usually cheaper to manufacture new plastic from petroleum. All in all, recycling programs cost cities and their taxpayers hundreds of millions each year, for futile outcomes. Perhaps the other two R’s, Reducing and Reusing of plastic bags and bottles, would be more attainable targets for everyday environmentalists.

Electric vehicles are yet another example of a failed eco-friendly solution. Although they do not emit any greenhouse gases while being driven, their manufacturing processes are intensive in their land destruction and pollution. Lithium and cobalt are key components of these vehicles’ batteries, whose mining is known to contaminate groundwater supplies and requires enormous quantities of energy to conduct. To reduce greenhouse gas emissions in transportation practices, redesign of cities to be more friendly to pedestrian and cyclist commuters would be far more effective. It would bring the added benefit of reduced traffic jams due to the space inefficiency of cars on roads.

The energy that powers these recycling processes and electric vehicles is not as clean as it is often marketed to be. Solar panels frequently contain toxic metals embedded in them, such as cadmium and lead that cause them to be classified as toxic waste once unusable. Hydropower releases significant methane, a highly potent greenhouse gas, into the atmosphere due to its depletion of oxygen in aquatic environments. Meanwhile, nuclear energy releases no emissions, and disposal of its waste can occur in isolated, shielded environments. Despite its reputation being tarnished by the Chornobyl disaster, which was largely the result of obviously faulty engineering imposed by the notoriously corrupt and repressive Soviet Union, it remains an incredibly safe source of energy.

Acknowledgement: The opinions expressed in this article are those of the individual author, not necessarily Our National Conversation as a whole.