This is the cookie-cutter flaw of equivocation, where the author uses the same term in different ways throughout the argument. The columnist doesn’t make this mistake; she uses the same meaning of “environment” in her premise and in her conclusion.

The columnist doesn’t address any effects of environmental damage, nor does she treat one of these effects as if it were a cause of environmental damage. She just says that using recycled materials for certain products is as environmentally damaging as using new materials.

The columnist doesn’t make any claims about recycled products in general. She says that “making some types of products from recycled materials” is just as damaging because “the recycling process for those products” uses just as much energy.

The columnist bases her conclusion on one cost of using recycled materials— energy production— without considering any of the benefits. If using recycled materials does have other environmental benefits, then it might actually be less environmentally harmful overall.

This is the cookie-cutter flaw of assuming that correlation proves causation. The columnist doesn’t make this mistake. Instead, she assumes that using recycled materials causes just as much environmental damage as new materials, simply because they use the same amount of energy.