Prof. Philip Stott, writing in the Times, argues that the decision whether to recycle needs to take into account both the economic and environmental costs:

...much recycling is ideological rubbish, a monumental waste of effort. And this is not just the view of free-market economists who see such "socialised systems of residual management" (rubbish collection to you and me) as market distortions. Both Valfrid Paulsson, the green guru and former director-general of Sweden's environmental protection agency, and Soren Norrby, the former campaign manager for Keep Sweden Tidy, argue that the whole concept of recycling household rubbish is a mistake.

They observe that "protection of the environment can mean economic sacrifices, but to maintain the credibility of environmental politics the environmental gains must be worth the sacrifice". Used bottles and glass cost twice as much as the raw materials, while recycling plastics is not only uneconomic, especially when oil prices are low, but often impossible - plastics coming in so many different chemical guises. Even paper recycling uses valuable energy and chemicals, with a strict limit on the number of times fibres can be recycled.

On a similar vein, Prof. Julian Morris argues in Spiked that where the invisible hand of the market is allowed to function, it is rather good at reducing waste. Letting the invisible foot of government take charge tends to increase waste.