In 1996, John Tierney suggested in the New York Times Magazine article that "recycling is garbage." He wrote, "The money spent on recycling programs should have been spent on real social and environmental problems. Recycling programs not only increase energy use and pollution, but also cost more money than the disposal   of plain old garbage. Recycling may be the most wasteful activity in modern America." Environmental groups were quick to express their disagreement. They wrote reports on how recycling programs in cities can reduce pollution and cost less than regular garbage pickup and disposal. Michael Shapiro, an official of the US Environmental Protection Agency(EPA), said that "recycling can be good value for money, although there's still room for improvements." But in 2002, New York City, a pioneer of recycling, found that its recycling program was losing money, so it stopped glass and plastic recycling. Other major cities watched closely to see how New York was dealing with its remaining program (the city never stopped paper recycling). But then it closed its last landfill  , and private companies out of New York raised prices due to the increased workload of carrying away and disposing New York's garbage. As a result, glass and plastic recycling became profitable for the city again, and New York brought the program back. According to Cecil Adams of The Chicago Reader, the lessons learned by New York are relevant everywhere. He believes that, if managed correctly, recycling programs should cost cities less than garbage disposal. Even though the benefits of recycling over disposal are many, keep in mind that it better serves the environment to "reduce and reuse" before recycling is even considered as a choice. Why did other cities watch closely to see how New York was doing?
Because New York was doing extremely well. Because they didn't want to have a recycling program Because they felt worried about the waste of money. Because New York was running a new recycling program.