Click for more debate from Times Online and the Battle of Ideas

How many kinds of waste do you recycle? I have four containers helpfully provided by my local council. There's a box for the glass and cans, a bag for paper and card, a brown wheelie bin for the garden waste and a green wheelie bin for the rest. There's one other thing the council helpfully provides – the threat of a hefty fine if I don't do my civic duty and separate my waste.

If this colour-coded ritual was going to save the planet, I might have some sympathy. But separating our waste for recycling makes little difference to anything except increasing our council tax bills. Few precious resources are saved by this process. According to the government's latest waste strategy, paper, cardboard, discarded food, garden waste and 'sweepings' make up roughly two-thirds of what we throw away in our homes. These things – often literally – grow on trees. They certainly have little value.

Recycling might reduce carbon emissions – but not by much. We might send less waste to landfills, but in Britain there are plenty of big holes in the ground waiting to be filled in. Recycling isn't going to save the planet, but it is a constant reminder to us all of how our wasteful ways are supposedly screwing up the world.

Sorting waste is a pain, but I'll do my bit

David Aaronovitch: Some people respond to any call for public spirited behaviour as if they are hungover teenagers

The debate about our waste turns our old ideas about the right direction for society upside down. Traditionally, we've measured material progress by finding more efficient ways to produce the goods and services we need, on the principal that time is money. The three Rs – reduce, reuse, recycle – suggest we should be more concerned about saving resources than saving time. And if that means doing things in a manner which is less productive – and ultimately may mean we are poorer as a result – the moral imperative of “saving the planet” says we should do just that.

In other words, for all the fluffy talk about a caring, sharing, green future, environmentalists are ultimately more concerned about stuff than people.

One day, recycling may be an efficient process with highly mechanised systems sorting and processing waste by the tonne. There could be major advantages in dealing with our waste like that. Recycling might then be the best thing to do with rubbish. But for now, recycling is a waste of time – for householders, refuse collectors and waste processors. I believe the obsession with recycling is a backward step for society, inviting us to learn the lesson that human beings are parasites on the planet.

If you really want to see recycling in action, just look at the pitiful scenes of children picking over waste dumps in the developing world, looking for something with a modicum of value to sell on. Or look at shanty town dwellers forced to cobble together a home from the things that others throw away. Why on earth are governments and campaigners imposing that kind of thinking on modern, developed societies?

Click here to read David Aaronovitch's response: Sorting waste is a pain, but I'll do my bit

A Battle of Ideas debate on "Recycling is a waste of time" will take place on Saturday, October 27 at 17.15

---

Rob Lyons is a science writer and deputy editor of Spiked magazine