The Economics of Recycling
Aluminum has always played a large role in the recycling game. If we were
to recover 75 percent of the aluminum cans we throw away, recycling them
instead, we would save 11.8 million metric tons of carbon generated to
produce new cans.
Though steel and iron were recycled before aluminum, this infinitely
recyclable metal, was the source of a 1968 Reynolds pilot can-recycling
program which was a significant step in starting the consumer recycling
movement.
Since this initial program, recycling has certainly spread. We now have
bins in our offices and pick up at our homes. At the same time, across
America, a significant percentage of waste that can be recycled is still
being thrown away. Is it the cost of recycling that is pushing this waste to
landfills?
Tax Hike?
On the surface, it appears to most people that their communities are paying
more for recycling programs than for trash disposal. This makes many wonder
if recycling is economically viable. Why is a city paying more to collect
materials than it is eventually going to sell off? Some local governments
pay waste disposal fees out of local tax revenue, lowering the direct cost
of trash pick-up to residents. Often recycling programs are not as
subsidized as trash collection. Residents can be put in the position to
directly cover a significant percentage of recycling costs.
Trash Bin vs. Recycle Bin
While recycling collection does cost more than trash pickup, the difference
is not as significant as it appears. Some cities pay more for recycling on
the front end; crews generally have to travel further and spend more time
picking up recycling than trash. There are also the costs of cleaning and
sorting materials before selling them off to a market that buys only
in-demand materials. Trash, though, costs more on the back end.
While crews can pick it up more efficiently, landfills cost cities a pretty
penny. Not only do some states have to pay large fees to ship waste to
out-of-state landfills, but these landfills are getting packed. As landfills
reach capacity, new ones must be created that are generally more costly to
operate in light of stricter environmental regulations, more expensive land
and maintenance costs. New landfills are also often further away from the
city, thus increasing transportation costs.
Dollars and Cents
Some may argue that people are not economically driven to recycle. For
example, the amount one could get for a pound of aluminum cans may not have
changed significantly over the past 20 years, but the weight of each can
has. According to CRI Research Director, Jenny Gitlitz, it took 25 aluminum
cans to make a pound in 1980, and 33.5 cans in 2004 to do the same.
In addition, though you may get less cash for your recyclables today, you
also don’t have to pay extra cash if you just throw it away. Residents in
the U.S. don’t pay a penalty for filling multiple bins of waste each week
and we aren’t rewarded for recycling a larger percentage of our waste.
When Seattle experimented with charging residents for each trash can that
had to be picked up, 70 percent of residents cut down on their waste. What
would happen if local governments across the nation began to fine residents
for disposing of waste that exceeds a certain amount? Maybe the line at the
aluminum recycling plant would get a bit longer, maybe not.
Sources:
Depalma, Anthony. “In Economic Terms, Recycling Almost Pays.”� New York
Times 29 May 2008.
Lyall, Sarah. “Take Out the Trash Precisely, Now. It’s the Law.”� New York
Times 27 June 2008: A27.
Missouri Department of Natural Resources. “Recycling Economics: Higher Costs
Are An Illusion.”�
Zeller, Tom. “Why Recycle?”� National Geographic. January 2008.
Toto, DeAnne. “Buried Treasure”� Recycling Today. August 2004.
Alexandra Smith is a
freelance writer
To subscribe or visit go to:
http://earth911.com/ |