The Real Cost Of Recycling - IELTS Reading Answers & Explanations
From Collins Practice Tests For IELTS 2 Academic Reading Test 4 · Part 2 · Questions 14–26
Reading Passage
You should spend about 20 minutes on Questions 14–26, which are based on Reading Passage 2 below.
Reading Passage 2
Some years ago, in 2009, the Mayor of London's advisor on waste questioned the efficiency of recycling, making environmentalists very angry. The chief executive of the independent not-for-profit company Waste and Resources Action Programme (WRAP), Dr Liz Goodwin, responded, saying that the advisor's comments were unhelpful to recycling initiatives and that 'WRAP's independent research, carried out by internationally recognised experts, has shown that across the board recycling is the best environmental option'. Dr Goodwin went on to say: 'Around two thirds of households now recycle as a way of life. The message to householders is that recycling is delivering great environmental benefits and there is absolutely no reason for them to stop.'
However, others can see several reasons to stop recycling, calling the UK's recycling schemes a disorganised waste of time. At the moment recycling means ordinary people sorting out their own waste when it could be dealt with more economically, more efficiently and in a more environmentally friendly way. In the past 20 years in the UK, people have accepted their work as unpaid labourers for councils and waste recycling companies. Every week millions of households diligently sort out their plastic bottles from their glass bottles, their cardboard from their paper, and put it into the correct container. The type and colour of container varies significantly throughout the country; in parts of Scotland you can't recycle aluminium foil but in the south of England the council positively want it. This may seem like a small matter, but it does point to the lack of a coherent strategy for waste disposal. The Chartered Institution of Wastes Management certainly thinks that Britain doesn't have a national strategy. More importantly, if we could count the number of hours spent sorting out recyclable waste – 45 minutes each week by one estimate – and then multiply it by the number of households – 24 million – we get a massive 18 million hours spent each week on recycling.
Other places, however, do things differently. In Maryland, USA, a high-tech system for sorting out waste in a plant and recycling it afterwards increased recycling use by 30 per cent, probably because people did not need to spend three quarters of an hour every week sorting out the waste. There are other issues caused by asking people to give their free time to sort out waste. Because most people generally do not want to do this, local authorities have introduced a range of punishments to deal with them. One is to decrease the regularity of waste collection; another is to check people's rubbish bins and fine them if they put the wrong waste in the wrong bin. Putting paper in the wrong recycling bin cost a journalist from Wales £200.
One reason why questioning the efficiency of recycling makes environmentalists uneasy is that recycling may actually have the opposite effect on the environment. When Britain's waste has been collected, it is sent abroad – to Europe or even longer distances to China – for processing. The cost to the environment of transporting the waste around the world is considerable. But there are alternatives. Firstly, simply using less would help. Secondly, the waste could be buried again in landfill sites around the UK. According to Tim Worstall, in Britain we 'dig up some 110 million cubic metres (mcm) of sand, gravel and clay every year; and each year we produce some 100 mcm of waste'. Unfortunately, the European Union is discouraging landfill by fining countries in the EU who landfill too much. The next alternative is incineration – burning the waste to produce energy. Naturally, incineration is controversial, but burning plastic bottles in power stations to generate electricity saves using fossil fuels like gas, oil and coal. Waste heat produced by the process can be distributed to local public buildings and nearby homes. The question is, which is better environmentally: transporting the waste across the world, or using it locally to produce energy?
Recycling is not a new concept: we have done it for years. We have recycled old cars, scrap metal and paper for a long time now. However, the difference between then and now is that we used to recycle when it made economic sense. Today, it is part of our law and it has somehow become a belief that recycling is the only right thing to do whereas there may be better and more environmentally friendly alternatives. Recycling is not the only answer and the discussion should continue.
Questions
Questions 14–17 Multiple Choice (One Answer)
Choose the correct letter, A, B or C.
Questions 18–25 Summary Completion
Complete the summary below.
Choose NO MORE THAN THREE WORDS from the passage for each answer.
Recycling is widely regarded as the 18 for dealing with waste. However, seeing it as the only option ignores the amount of effort it requires and other, possibly better alternatives. It seems that there is no 19 for waste disposal. Furthermore, sorting our recyclable waste has a hidden cost. In one US state, waste is sorted in 20 waste plants, but in the UK a(n) 21 is used to force people to recycle. One method is to make 22 less frequent; another is to 23 people who place the wrong waste in bins. Alternative ways of dealing with waste could include burying it in 24 to replace materials taken out. Another would be 25 it for energy.
Questions 26–26 Multiple Choice (One Answer)
Choose the correct letter, A, B or C.
Answers & Explanations Summary
| # | Answer | Evidence | Explanation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Q14 | A | At the moment recycling means ordinary people sorting out their own waste when it could be dealt with more economically, more efficiently and in a more environmentally friendly way. In the past 20 years in the UK, people have accepted their work as unpaid labourers for councils and waste recycling companies | Excerpt/Passage Explanation: The passage explains that current recycling rules require regular people to divide their own trash. It notes that for the last 20 years, people in the UK have been acting like workers who do not get a salary from the local government or recycling businesses for this task. Answer Explanation: The answer means that people who pay taxes are doing the job of organizing their trash for free instead of being paid for their labor. Reason For Correctness: The correct answer is A because the passage describes citizens as 'unpaid labourers' who sort through their waste every week. The phrase 'unpaid' matches the idea of working 'voluntarily' (without receiving a wage), and 'households' or 'ordinary people' refers to the taxpayers who live in the community and pay for local services. The text mentions that people have 'accepted' this role, which involves separating items like plastic, glass, and paper for the local councils. |
| Q15 | B | This may seem like a small matter, but it does point to the lack of a coherent strategy for waste disposal. The Chartered Institution of Wastes Management certainly thinks that Britain doesn't have a national strategy | Excerpt/Passage Explanation: The passage explains that the differences in recycling rules are not a small problem; they prove that the country does not have one organized plan (a "national strategy") for dealing with waste. Answer Explanation: The answer means that there is no single, well-organized, or clear plan for the entire country to handle garbage and recycling. Reason For Correctness: The correct answer is B because the passage explains that recycling rules change depending on where you live. For example, some areas allow certain materials while others do not. The text explicitly says this shows a "lack of a coherent strategy" and that experts believe Britain does not have a "national strategy." In this context, "no national strategy" and "lack of a coherent strategy" are synonyms for having no overall plan. |
| Q16 | D | When Britain's waste has been collected, it is sent abroad – to Europe or even longer distances to China – for processing But there are alternatives. Firstly, simply using less would help. Secondly, the waste could be buried again in landfill sites around the UK The next alternative is incineration – burning the waste to produce energy |
Excerpt/Passage Explanation: The passage explains that when items are recycled, they are often sent to other countries to be handled. It then introduces different choices (alternatives) like using fewer items, putting waste deep in the ground, or burning it to make power. Answer Explanation: The answer is D (transporting the waste overseas). This action is what happens during the recycling process, so it is not a different choice or a replacement for it. Reason For Correctness: The correct answer is D because the writer lists three specific options as alternatives to recycling: using less (conserving), burying the waste in the ground (landfill), and burning the waste (incineration). In the passage, sending waste to other countries is described as a part of the current recycling system in Britain, which creates its own environmental problems. Since the question asks for something that is NOT an alternative, and transporting waste is part of the recycling process itself, D is the right choice. |
| Q17 | D | Waste heat produced by the process can be distributed to local public buildings and nearby homes | Excerpt/Passage Explanation: The passage states that the extra heat from burning trash can be sent to nearby houses and public buildings for people to use. Answer Explanation: The answer means that the extra heat created by burning trash can be sent to houses to keep them warm. Reason For Correctness: The correct answer is D because the text explains that burning waste (incineration) produces heat. This heat can then be shared with buildings and homes in the local area. Keywords like 'distributed' and 'homes' show that the energy from the process is useful for people living nearby. |
| Q18 | best environmental option / best option | WRAP's independent research, carried out by internationally recognised experts, has shown that across the board recycling is the best environmental option | Excerpt/Passage Explanation: The passage explains that studies done by famous experts show that recycling is generally the most positive choice we can make for nature. Answer Explanation: The answer means that most people think recycling is the most helpful choice for the planet compared to other methods. Reason For Correctness: The correct answer is supported by the text where a recycling expert (Dr. Liz Goodwin) explains that research confirms recycling is the top choice for the environment. In the summary, the phrase 'widely regarded as' matches the idea in the passage that experts and research have shown it to be the 'best environmental option'. |
| Q19 | coherent strategy | This may seem like a small matter, but it does point to the lack of a coherent strategy for waste disposal | Excerpt/Passage Explanation: The passage says that small differences in recycling rules show that there is no organized or clear plan for how to handle trash. Answer Explanation: The answer means a clear and organized plan that is the same for everyone. Reason For Correctness: The correct answer is 'coherent strategy' because the text mentions that different parts of the country have different recycling rules, which shows there is no single, well-organized plan. The passage specifically uses the phrase 'lack of a coherent strategy' to describe this situation. The phrase 'lack of' means 'no,' which matches the sentence in the summary that says 'there is no coherent strategy.' |
| Q20 | high-tech | In Maryland, USA, a high-tech system for sorting out waste in a plant and recycling it afterwards increased recycling use by 30 per cent, probably because people did not need to spend three quarters of an hour every week sorting out the waste | Excerpt/Passage Explanation: The passage explains that in Maryland, a state in the US, a system using advanced technology sorts trash in a factory. Because a machine does it, people do not have to spend time sorting it themselves. Answer Explanation: The answer "high-tech" refers to using advanced or modern electronic and mechanical machines to perform a specific job. Reason For Correctness: The correct answer is supported by the third paragraph, which discusses how Maryland (a state in the USA) managed waste differently than the UK. It mentions that instead of individual households sorting their trash, they used a system involving advanced technology within a factory (a plant) to do the work. The text specifically uses the term "high-tech system" to describe how the sorting happens in that location. |
| Q21 | range of punishments | Because most people generally do not want to do this, local authorities have introduced a range of punishments to deal with them | Excerpt/Passage Explanation: The passage explains that since most people do not enjoy sorting their trash, the local government has started using several different types of penalties to make them do it. Answer Explanation: The answer means a group of different penalties or ways that people get in trouble if they do not follow the recycling rules. Reason For Correctness: The correct answer is found in the third paragraph. It discusses how local governments in the UK deal with people who do not want to spend their free time sorting trash. Unlike the high-tech systems elsewhere, the UK uses various penalties. The passage specifically uses the phrase 'range of punishments' to describe these methods used to make sure people recycle. |
| Q22 | waste collection | One is to decrease the regularity of waste collection | Excerpt/Passage Explanation: The passage tells us that one way to make people follow recycling rules is to reduce the number of times the trash is picked up every month or week. Answer Explanation: The answer 'waste collection' refers to the regular service where the city takes trash away from people's homes. Reason For Correctness: The correct answer is correct because the passage explains that some local governments try to force people to recycle by using punishments. One specific punishment is to decrease the regularity of the trash pickup service. In English, to decrease the regularity of an event means to make it happen less frequent. Therefore, waste collection is the service that is made less frequent. |
| Q23 | fine | One is to decrease the regularity of waste collection; another is to check people's rubbish bins and fine them if they put the wrong waste in the wrong bin | Excerpt/Passage Explanation: The passage states that local authorities use punishments to make people recycle. They might collect trash less often, or they might look inside the bins and make people pay a fine if they find the wrong kind of trash inside. Answer Explanation: The answer "fine" means to force someone to pay an amount of money as a punishment for breaking a rule or law. Reason For Correctness: The correct answer is "fine" because the text describes how local governments use different punishments to ensure people recycle correctly. One of these punishments is checking people's trash bins and making them pay money if they have put the wrong items in the wrong places. |
| Q24 | landfill sites | Secondly, the waste could be buried again in landfill sites around the UK. According to Tim Worstall, in Britain we 'dig up some 110 million cubic metres (mcm) of sand, gravel and clay every year; and each year we produce some 100 mcm of waste' | Excerpt/Passage Explanation: The passage suggests that burying trash in landfill sites is a possible choice. It says that people dig up a lot of sand and gravel from the earth, and the empty space left behind can be filled with the trash that people produce. Answer Explanation: The answer refers to large holes or areas in the ground where garbage is buried. Reason For Correctness: The correct answer is "landfill sites" because the text describes burying waste as an alternative to recycling. It explains that every year, materials like sand and gravel are dug up (taken out) from the earth, and waste can be put back into these "landfill sites" to fill the empty space left behind. |
| Q25 | burning | The next alternative is incineration – burning the waste to produce energy | Excerpt/Passage Explanation: The passage explains that another way to handle trash is incineration, which means setting the waste on fire to make electricity or heat. Answer Explanation: The answer "burning" refers to the process of setting waste on fire to create power. Reason For Correctness: The correct answer is supported by the part of the text that discusses alternatives to recycling. It mentions incineration, which is the act of burning waste to produce energy. This perfectly fits the summary sentence asking for an alternative method of dealing with waste for energy production. The text uses the word "burning" as a synonym or definition for incineration in this context. |
| Q26 | D | More importantly, if we could count the number of hours spent sorting out recyclable waste – 45 minutes each week by one estimate – and then multiply it by the number of households – 24 million – we get a massive 18 million hours spent each week on recycling The cost to the environment of transporting the waste around the world is considerable |
Excerpt/Passage Explanation: The passage shows that recycling has high 'prices.' One price is the huge amount of free time families spend every week trying to sort their trash into bins. Another price is the damage done to the environment by using ships and trucks to move that trash across the ocean to different countries. Answer Explanation: The answer means that the best name for the article is 'The real cost of recycling' because the story is about the hidden prices we pay to recycle. Reason For Correctness: The correct answer is D because the article talks about the different 'costs' of recycling that many people do not think about. It explains that people lose a lot of their own time (the 'time cost') sorting trash. It also explains that moving trash to far-away countries like China hurts the Earth (the 'environmental cost'). Finally, it mentions that recycling does not always make 'economic sense'—meaning it does not always save money—compared to other choices. Because the text looks at all these negative sides and prices, 'The real cost of recycling' is the most accurate title. |