Environmentalists Want to Change the Meaning of the Word ‘Recyclable’

If you are in the middle of the desert, are your clothes still washable, even if the nearest washing machine and source of water are hundreds of miles away? Yes.

Is the airplane you are taking on your next trip flyable, even if you personally don’t have the skills and experience to fly it? Yes.

Is a three-cheese green-chili burrito microwavable, even if the power is out? Yes.

One last question: If you have a plastic bottle, is it recyclable? Trick question (sadly). The answer depends on whom you ask.

Most words ending with -able mean that they have a capability related to whatever is in the beginning of the word. Fixable means that something is capable of being fixed, dyeable means something that is capable of being dyed, and wearable means something that is capable of being worn.

The most common definition for recyclable is “capable of being recycled,” similar to all the other -able words above. Environmentalists are challenging that definition, wanting to add that the infrastructure for recycling needs to be in place for a substantial majority of the population. The Federal Trade Commission’s Green Guides (which are not legally binding) suggest a 60% threshold — meaning 60% of consumers should have access to recycling facilities. At lower levels, claims that a product is recyclable need to be “qualified.”

That’s different.

If thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought — George Orwell

The characteristic of being washable/flyable/microwavable is considered independent of whether or not you have that capability at that location and/or point in time. Just as your inability to fly an Airbus 300 doesn’t make the aircraft unflyable, the inability of your locality to recycle a so-called recyclable material doesn’t make it non-recyclable. Changing the definition of flyable to mean “the plane can be flown and that a sober, alert person with the necessary knowledge and skill is present” would be silly. In fact, for such a definition to be completely accurate, it should be extended to include a qualified runway with air-traffic control, suitable weather, and so forth.

Top-down linguistic re-education

I am fully aware that word definitions change over time, but such changes have always been made by the users of the words, not by a central authority. Having word definitions forced from on high is right out of 1984.

I’m also aware that engineers and scientists have specific definitions for words that can differ from those of the general public — energy, power, force are just three examples. The legal system works similarly. Those are isolated worlds, however, where interactions with the public are few and, more importantly, controlled. Scientists, engineers, and lawyers will clarify that they are using a word in a very specific manner, different from its usage by the general public. (If you’ve been on a jury and had the judge read jury instructions, you know the point I’m making.)

This is different because someone is trying to control the definition of a word that the public already uses on a regular basis, and those interactions with the definition are not controlled.

Long-term consequences

If I was only concerned about definitions, this article would be a petty complaint. My real fear is the long-term consequences of the restricted definition being imposed.

If this definition convinces the public that plastic is not recyclable, that collective memory will last for a long time, even once plastic recycling becomes commonplace. Worse yet, that collective memory could be a barrier that prevents effective recycling industries from being established, which is the exact opposite of what the environmentalists should be aiming to achieve.

The anti-plastics crowd has become so fanatical that they can’t even see that their efforts are becoming counterproductive.