Erin Ballard

Haslam

ENGL 1010 - Period 1

November 13, 2020

Rhetorical Analysis on “The Reign of Recycling” by John Tierney

Link to the Article:

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/04/opinion/sunday/the-reign-of-recycling.html

“The Reign of Recycling,” an article composed by John Tierney and published in

The New York Times​ on October 3, 2015, presents the author’s view on recycling in the

United States. His target audience is people who recycle in this country. Tierney makes

the argument that recycling isn’t as beneficial as we are taught to believe. He wants his

readers to come away from his article educated about recycling and the real effects it

has on the environment.

Tierney begins by estimating that most people in the United States recycle in one

way or another, but he claims that it is wasteful. He points out that recycling is typically

more expensive than sending waste to landfills. Next, he describes the future of

recycling as unsustainable. While recycling has routinely been advertised as a way to

save the planet and reduce carbon emissions, it doesn’t always do either of those

things. The importance of recycling is ingrained in us from a young age, but the majority

of people don’t know the real cost or effects it actually has. Then, he explains that

originally, recycling was presented as a solution to the problem of not enough room in

landfills for the amount of waste we produce, but this crisis has yet to indeed exist. In
addition, Tierney says that recycling has its own downsides including pollution from

facilities, more trucks on the road, and unpleasant conditions for those living near

recycling plants. He concludes by discussing possible solutions to the recycling problem

including a carbon tax, suggested by an economist. His overall purpose is to educate

people about recycling and point out that the reality of it is different than what most

imagine.

Throughout “The Reign of Recycling,” John Tierney utilizes rhetorical modes and

devices to persuade his audience that many of their preconceived ideas about recycling

and its impact on the earth are not absolute. The author effectively uses logos when he

gives a plethora of logical facts to explain to the reader how, statistically, recycling

changes or doesn’t change the environment. His use of ethos gives his readers reason

to trust his opinion because it is backed up by experts. He adds pathos to his article by

giving real-life examples to explain topics and change the reader’s personal connotation

to words. Lastly, Tierney concludes his article with a rhetorical question that sticks in the

minds of the readers and keeps them thinking even after the reading has ended.

The author uses logos to help the reader see his view on recycling. Tierney gives

facts and statistics that allow the reader to better understand recycling including how

much waste needs to be recycled to “offset the greenhouse impact,” the national rate of

recycling, how much space we have available for additional landfills in our country, and

the environmental effects incinerators have on the earth. This evidence helps the reader

to feel informed about the topics and see how logical the author’s argument is. Every

point he makes is able to be proven. The way he lays out the facts and explains
everything in a straight-forward manner causes the reader to question what they have

heard and been taught about recycling since they were in grade school.

Tierney’s use of ethos makes him seem trustworthy and believable. First off, he

writes for ​The New York Times​ which is a well-known and respected newspaper. He

also mentions that he has written a long article prior to this one about recycling, also

published by ​The New York Times​. We know he isn’t a random person on the internet

trying to spread misinformation, and he obviously knows what he is talking about. He

quotes creditable people including the chief executive officer of Waste Management, the

country’s biggest recycler of household waste. Information from the Environmental

Protection Agency is mentioned several times as well. He cites Thomas C. Kinnaman

who is an economist at Bucknell University. Kinnaman did an extensive research study

of the civil expense of landfills, incineration, and recycling. As a reader, we can trust the

information provided by each of these sources because of their occupations and

experience in the fields of recycling, economics, and the environment. Each one adds to

the credibility of Tierney’s argument throughout the article and comes together to give

the reader confidence that although “The Reign of Recycling” is an opinion piece, it has

validity and is supported by dependable experts.

In addition to logos and ethos, John Tierny uses pathos when discussing

recycling and its place in our society. Pathos was not utilized as much as the other

rhetorical devices, but it still has a presence in the article. The topic being debated, the

environment and human’s impact on it, is something that many people are passionate

about. I wouldn’t consider myself one of those people, but I did go into the article with a

firm opinion that recycling is an exemplary thing to do and everyone on the planet
should do as much of it as they can, whatever the cost. Tierney uses logos and pathos

hand in hand to challenge readers’ views on recycling. For example, in our current

society, the word “landfill” is typically given a negative connotation. We think dirty, slimy,

and gross. The author realizes that this is the way most people feel and works to shift

that way of thinking. He makes the word seem neutral and even positive in numerous

ways. He describes landfills as a cheap way to dispose of waste, so that our money can

go to better things. He shares the example of the park where the United States Open

tennis tournament is played. That park used to be a landfill. This aids the reader in

realizing that landfills can become beautiful, useful places. By shifting the reader's

emotions attached to various words and ideas mentioned in his article, Tierney changes

their beliefs about recycling and better defends his claim.

The rhetorical question Tierney inserted as the conclusion to his article is

powerful and an excellent use of a rhetorical device. Throughout his article, he gives

examples of cities that have attempted to reach the goal of “zero waste” and indicates

that this is not going to be achieved by way of recycling. In the last sentence of “The

Reign of Recycling,” he asks, “How can you build a sustainable city with a strategy that

can’t even sustain itself?” This brings every argument about the unsustainability of

recycling full circle. This question forces the reader to realize that although the purpose

of recycling is to sustain, the very method is not capable of sustaining itself.

Tierney successfully convinces readers of the truth about recycling by presenting

facts and structuring his article in a logical manner. He also puts an abundance of

credibility throughout the article, so the reader isn’t left with doubt about truthfulness or

worry about an overly biased opinion regarding recycling. He alters our perceptions of
formally negative ideas and leaves the reader with something to ponder about at the

closing of his article. All of these rhetorical devices play a role in achieving John

Tierney’s purpose for writing “The Reign of Recycling.”

Word Count: 1188

 Works Cited

Tierney, John. “The Reign of Recycling.” ​The New York Times,​ The New York Times, 3
Oct. 2015, www.nytimes.com/2015/10/04/opinion/sunday/the-reign-of-recycling.html.

Peer Review Comments

Peer Review #1: Sydnee Luker

What are some of the strengths of the essay?

The language you used was really great. You used a super clear and concise
vocabulary in order to help push the point that the author was trying to make.
Does the introduction establish the context of the text; ie, does it provide enough
background information to situate the text within a specific conversation? Does
anything need to be added? Cut?
It absolutely does! You put the date that it was published and the summary of the
authors intention then went very in depth into each topic.
Does the summary accurately and succinctly give an overview of what the original
text? Does anything need to be added? Cut?
Yup! The summary was actually perfect!
What is the thesis statement? Does the thesis focus on the text and not the subject
matter or argument?
You did an awesome job on the thesis girl! Also, the fact that you underlined it really
helped me haha.
Does the writer need to provide additional claims to support the thesis? What ideas do
you have for additional claims? Is each claim sufficiently developed? What details
would strengthen any of the claims?
Nope! You covered every base when it came to supporting points.
Does the essay focus on the rhetorical elements of the text (context, intended
audience, use of logos, pathos, ethos, use of rhetorical strategies such as style,
arrangement, emphasis, impact/effect on the audience, etc.)? Are any of these
elements underplayed or overemphasized?
All of your rhetorical elements are perfectly emphasized. There’s nothing you pushed
too hard.
How is the essay organized? Does the essay flow logically and smoothly from one
section to the next? Can you point to places where the essay flows, feels choppy,
and/or you feel informed or lost?
Great organization. The way you ordered the facts really pushed your points.
Are there any major spelling, grammar, mechanics issues that the student needs to be
made aware of?
 I didn't find anything that sounded off or looked wrong. I'm gonna be completely
honest, this is the greatest essay I’ve ever read and so I genuinely couldn't find
anything wrong with it. I’m sorry i’m no help.

Peer Review #2: Sophia Otis

1. I would add some other sentence or a couple of words before introducing the article.
2. I think this summary is a good one and the only thing I would add is to bring in a
little of his background or a little more on as to why it would be written, it would just
help it flow.
3. I would reword this so it flows better and focuses more on how logos is what you will
be talking about.
4. If its at all possible, is there an example of this?
5. I would try and bring out more on how this is logos and how the author uses it.
6. I would add some of these quotes in or paraphrase them to show how he uses
these people to show ethos.
7. Try explaining/elaborating on their significance to the text, like how because he
brings them in for ethos how that affects the text and the readers.
8. The other examples used before hand are good ones but with these words would
there be any you could show to make it flow more?
9. I would remember to write a sentence about the pathos claim.
10. Was this part of one of your reasons? The paragraph above seems like its the
conclusion but also a summary, but could also be another claim/reason. I would just
try to clarify what point you are making in that paragraph and this sentence here.

The strengths of this essay I feel are the summary and their thesis. The introduction I
think establishes the context of the text and I think it does provide enough background
information, although a little more elaboration on it would make it flow more smoothly.
The summary seems to accurately give an overview of the original text, but I would
add a little more on where it's coming from and some more on where the author is
coming from. The thesis focuses on the text, bringing ethos, logos, and pathos into
being part of their claim which overall supports the statement. The claim of ethos
seems to be fairly developed, but I would just add some more examples to more better
get the point across. The conclusion does seem to make an argument about the
overall effectiveness of text and the effect on the audience. The essay does focus on
rhetorical elements but the use of pathos is underplayed partly due to how there
wasn’t that much in the text itself. The essay does seem to flow logically, especially
between the summary and the thesis, but it felt choppy between the last three
paragraphs. Some additional feedback I would include is to make sure to be clear in
your reasoning and overall this essay seems to be written well.
Peer Review #3: I never received anything from a third peer reviewer.