Recycling

[JOEBIALEK]

According to Wikipedia {the free encyclopedia} "recycling is the reprocessing of materials into new products. Recycling generally prevents the waste of potentially useful materials, reduces the consumption of raw materials and reduces energy usage, and hence greenhouse gas emissions, compared to virgin production." The recent discussion concerning global warming has focused primarily on alternative sources of fuel for the purpose of transportation. However, another very important pro-environment tool is recycling. The effort needs to involve more than the consumer and the government. It needs to involve those who sell {and profit} from those products that can be recycled. For example, the manufactures of bottles and cans along with the producers of what's sold inside them as well as the grocery stores that distribute them must take on a greater economic role in the process of recycling. The voluntary "blue bag at the curb" approach is a good start but it relies primarily on the altruism of the consumer.

The question is: does the consumer bear sole responsibility for what happens to a can or bottle that contains the product used? or should some of that responsibility be borne by those who profit from its' use? Are these responsibilities being borne already and are they equitable? Some time ago bottlers would charge a five-cent "deposit" on a bottle to be "refunded" when the consumer returned the bottle. It would seem that this concept could be reoperationalized for a whole host of products. The consumer could clean the bottle or can, return it to the grocery story for a "refund" and the grocery store would return it to the producer then to the manufacturer etcetera each receiving a "refund" along the way. When all parties involved have an economic incentive to participate, recycling will make a much larger contribution towards preserving the environment.

[TragicMonkey]

My cat's breath smells like cat food.

[Oliver]

The question is: does the consumer bear sole responsibility for what happens to a can or bottle that contains the product used? or should some of that responsibility be borne by those who profit from its' use? Are these responsibilities being borne already and are they equitable? Some time ago bottlers would charge a five-cent "deposit" on a bottle to be "refunded" when the consumer returned the bottle. It would seem that this concept could be reoperationalized for a whole host of products. The consumer could clean the bottle or can, return it to the grocery story for a "refund" and the grocery store would return it to the producer then to the manufacturer etcetera each receiving a "refund" along the way. When all parties involved have an economic incentive to participate, recycling will make a much larger contribution towards preserving the environment.


The Crux concerning this issue is that Humans in general are lazy and often produce trash without thinking about it any further. (See Post 2 in this thread, for example ;)).

Now I don't know if there are such systems in place in Americas several States, but at least I can tell you how it works here:

We have a broad "returnable bottle"-system in which most glass or plastic-bottles have a 0.15€ value (varies per size). So you pay +0.15 Euro per Bottle when you buy potables and you get they money back if you return the Bottles to a Shop.

The same system also works for cans as well.

Then we have separated trash cans:

One for Bio-Trash (Food, Plants)
One for Plastic, Aluminum (Or trash like Milk-Packages [Paper+Alu in one Package] )
One for Paper and carton
And one for the rest.

This system - which is working all over the country, was initiated by the Government - together with producers.

The Producers responsibility is that he has to take the trash back or pay a fee for the companies who are recycling their trash. The resulting costs are returned into the price of the product.

This way the Producer of consumer goods has an interest to keep it's products as cheap as possible and to reduce the amount of trash - or find alternative packages that are less environmentally harmful and cheaper.

And to guarantee the use of "less environmentally harmful" packages, the Producers have to use Packages that are conform with the nation-wide recycling system.

At least this is the rough explanation of the system in Germany.

[Darth Rotor]

The Crux concerning this issue is that Humans in general are lazy and often produce trash without thinking about it any further. (See Post 2 in this thread, for example ;)).

Now I don't know if there are such systems in place in Americas several States, but at least I can tell you how it works here:

We have a broad "returnable bottle"-system in which most glass or plastic-bottles have a 0.15€ value (varies per size). So you pay +0.15 Euro per Bottle when you buy potables and you get they money back if you return the Bottles to a Shop.

The same system also works for cans as well.

Then we have separated trash cans:

One for Bio-Trash (Food, Plants)
One for Plastic, Aluminum (Or trash like Milk-Packages [Paper+Alu in one Package] )
One for Paper and carton
And one for the rest.

This system - which is working all over the country, was initiated by the Government - together with producers.

The Producers responsibility is that he has to take the trash back or pay a fee for the companies who are recycling their trash. The resulting costs are returned into the price of the product.

This way the Producer of consumer goods has an interest to keep it's products as cheap as possible and to reduce the amount of trash - or find alternative packages that are less environmentally harmful and cheaper.

And to guarantee the use of "less environmentally harmful" packages, the Producers have to use Packages that are conform with the nation-wide recycling system.

At least this is the rough explanation of the system in Germany.
My sister lived in Germany for a few years, and she praised the system in place there.

In America, the rules vary by state, with California having a far more robust sytem than in any other state where I have lived. San Diego County made it easy for me to recycle plastics, metals, and glass. There was the charge at the front end, and a well resourced pick up method, complete with separate bins for separate materials. Newspapers as well.

Where I live now in Texas, it is not was well supported, and as a result, I think a lot of folks who might recycle find it more work to do so. If the time and trouble investment is too great, the marginal recycler will stop doing so.

My wife and I are recyclers, and my biggest complaint is that the pick up schedules are too few in frequency, which means we have to hold recyclables for two to four weeks. We have a garage, fine. For folks in apartments, this is a significant disincentive.

DR

[balrog666]

Recycling costs significantly more than simply dumping the trash into landfills or burning it. There are no real markets for any "recycled" material except aluminum and certain grades of paper; if there were, people would cash in on it or be offered payment for their waste products.

In fact, in most places in the US, you will find that the various individual recycling boxes are simply dumped together in the recycling truck or discarded (or burned) at the waste station. At 3-5 times the cost of normal waste disposal.

Politically speaking, it's nothing more than a scam and the waste companies are happy to participate, as long as you pay them enough.

[Esperdome]

My cat's breath smells like cat food.

I read somewhere that a guy in Germany is making biodiesel out of deceased cats. That's the kind of recycling you don't hear about very often.

Myself, I recycle aluminum but other household waste is more difficult to recycle around these parts.

[Flo]

Recycling costs significantly more than simply dumping the trash into landfills or burning it. There are no real markets for any "recycled" material except aluminum and certain grades of paper; if there were, people would cash in on it or be offered payment for their waste products.

In fact, in most places in the US, you will find that the various individual recycling boxes are simply dumped together in the recycling truck or discarded (or burned) at the waste station. At 3-5 times the cost of normal waste disposal.

Politically speaking, it's nothing more than a scam and the waste companies are happy to participate, as long as you pay them enough.


It hasn't to be a scam, and recycling can be extremely profitable, since there are markets for a surprising number of materials, from food leftover to old computers. In France and Switzerland, many cities do get a significant revenue from selling waste to recycling companies and sometimes to individuals (compost/potting soil, ...), in addition to lowering the costs and nuisances associated with landfills and burning stations. This has led to lower waste management taxes = people cashing in/being offered payment on it.

[frank462]

Here is a very interesting article.


Recycling Is Garbage (http://www.williams.edu/HistSci/curriculum/101/garbage.html)


Rinsing out tuna cans and tying up newspapers may make you feel virtuous, but recycling could be America's most wasteful activity.

[Darth Rotor]

Here is a very interesting article.


Recycling Is Garbage (http://www.williams.edu/HistSci/curriculum/101/garbage.html)
Each time you pee in the sink, or in the back yard, you save one to two gallons of water. You can use a few cups of that to rinse out a tuna can and be ahead of the e-curve.

Water your lawn, mark your territory: it's the green thing to do! :D

DR

[balrog666]

It hasn't to be a scam, and recycling can be extremely profitable, since there are markets for a surprising number of materials, from food leftover to old computers. In France and Switzerland, many cities do get a significant revenue from selling waste to recycling companies and sometimes to individuals (compost/potting soil, ...), in addition to lowering the costs and nuisances associated with landfills and burning stations. This has led to lower waste management taxes = people cashing in/being offered payment on it.


Utter nonsense. The amount collected never covers the extra cost (over and above normal trash collection and disposal costs) to collect, sort, clean, repackage, and deliver the "recyclables" in the first place. Which is why governments pay for it instead of granting a private company a franchise (and collecting a fee) for it.

A slight exception can be made for aluminum, although why consumers donate such readily marketable items to the "public good" through recycling, where they cost three times more to get to market, is questionable at best.

Some localities around here also "compost" yard waste which they then sell and claim to generate income that lowers taxes. Of course, they don't count the costs of the operators and heavy equipment required to support the operation. Like all politicians and bureaucrats, if the costs are borne by some other department or someone else's budget, it's all profit! And, as long as they are being paid, the waste management companies don't care what lies the local politicians spout.

Oh, and most incinerators here are used to generate electricity which does provide power and/or income, at least for the disposal company. And all of them are subject to the usual pollution control laws.

[balrog666]

Here is a very interesting article.


Recycling Is Garbage (http://www.williams.edu/HistSci/curriculum/101/garbage.html)


Excellent article.

Just think about it. If recycling actually paid off, companies would be bidding for the rights to dig up and recycle old landfills. Funny, I must have missed that public auction announcement.

[ktesibios]

Recycling costs significantly more than simply dumping the trash into landfills or burning it. There are no real markets for any "recycled" material except aluminum and certain grades of paper; if there were, people would cash in on it or be offered payment for their waste products.


Not just aluminum- aren't you forgetting metals in general? Junkyards are a recycling business that's been profitable since long before the term "recycling" was coined. Or you could ask a plumber what happens to copper and iron piping that they rip out of jobs.

Incidentally, aluminum has also been recycled for much longer than we might think. It was the explosion of aluminum cans in the last few decades that made the recycling of it visible to the general public. In that sense, soda and cat food cans don't depart from the general rule of thumb about metals- mining them, extracting them from their ores and refining them are enough of a PITA and an expense that re-using scrap is economically attractive.

[balrog666]

Not just aluminum- aren't you forgetting metals in general? Junkyards are a recycling business that's been profitable since long before the term "recycling" was coined. Or you could ask a plumber what happens to copper and iron piping that they rip out of jobs.

Incidentally, aluminum has also been recycled for much longer than we might think. It was the explosion of aluminum cans in the last few decades that made the recycling of it visible to the general public. In that sense, soda and cat food cans don't depart from the general rule of thumb about metals- mining them, extracting them from their ores and refining them are enough of a PITA and an expense that re-using scrap is economically attractive.


Yes there is a market for almost all metals, but especially aluminum, copper, brass, and lead. But as a consumer, other than aluminum, you don't regularly accumulate significant quantities of such metals. And even in small towns here there is usually an aluminum buyer that pays cash for aluminum (and other metals) and so there is no need to have a recycling program for them at all.

In a larger town or city, you might want to recycle steel and iron for some reason, but I doubt there would any realistic expectation that it would be at all useful or profitable.

Certainly, as a consumer, you wouldn't want to be hauling around 10-lb or 100-lb pieces of steel for the $.25 it might bring (when you deliver it to a metals recycling plant).

[Flo]

Utter nonsense. The amount collected never covers the extra cost (over and above normal trash collection and disposal costs) to collect, sort, clean, repackage, and deliver the "recyclables" in the first place. Which is why governments pay for it instead of granting a private company a franchise (and collecting a fee) for it.


I don't know the situation in the USA, however experience here in Europe is obviously different.

[Oliver]

I don't know the situation in the USA, however experience here in Europe is obviously different.


How does the system work in France and Switzerland? - If you're familiar with both systems.

[Flo]

How does the system work in France and Switzerland? - If you're familiar with both systems.

In Switzerland, recycling by individuals is widespread, and in some cantons mandatory, people are provided with convenient means to sort and dispose of their waste close or even withing their house or workplace. There's a tax on all kinds of (bulky) appliances that pays for their disposal. In some cantons, there's a tax on garbage bags, as an incitement to limit one's waste. Waste management is usually a state-operated service, with recyclables being sold, transformed, or burnt (in Geneva for example, busses and tramway operate on electricity generated by burning waste, and you can get - free up to a certain amout - excellent compost/soil). In addition to minimizing costs and generating revenue, the goals are to eliminate all landfill and pollution from waste (which make sense given the exiguity of Swiss territory).

In France, it varies from region to region, but we tend towards a system pretty much like Switzerland.

[Corpse Cruncher]

Recycling can only work if it is encouraged and everything recyclable is collected. Many do not have the time or the transport to take items that are not already collected by the refuse department.

Our area does not collect plastics or cardboard. Neither do they take shredded paper or any other glass other than clear. I find that a waste as my bin would be halved if not more of the waste in it. The nearest centre for me to take this items too would enlarge my carbon footprint more. That is if you can get in to recycle, the recyable point if often closed.

Shouldn't the emphasis be placed on manufacturers and suppliers to use recyclable materials only in the first place?

[Big Les]

We have glass, paper and plastics all collected from our door in specific containers for recycling. The once a fortnight (rather than weekly as it used to be) collections of non-recyclables are a PITA though. I presume it's to encourage you to use the recycling containers, but as you can't put composite or food-soiled packaging in those, I don't know how families cope (just the two of us manage OK).

[WildCat]

In Switzerland, recycling by individuals is widespread, and in some cantons mandatory, people are provided with convenient means to sort and dispose of their waste close or even withing their house or workplace. There's a tax on all kinds of (bulky) appliances that pays for their disposal. In some cantons, there's a tax on garbage bags, as an incitement to limit one's waste. Waste management is usually a state-operated service, with recyclables being sold, transformed, or burnt (in Geneva for example, busses and tramway operate on electricity generated by burning waste, and you can get - free up to a certain amout - excellent compost/soil). In addition to minimizing costs and generating revenue, the goals are to eliminate all landfill and pollution from waste (which make sense given the exiguity of Swiss territory).
If recycling was truly a profitable enterprise companies would pay you for your trash or at least pick it up for free, instead of there having to be a tax to subsidize it. That's the way it works for metals - put an old wash machine out in the alley, and it will be gone within half an hour at no cost to you!

[Flo]

Recycling can only work if it is encouraged and everything recyclable is collected. Many do not have the time or the transport to take items that are not already collected by the refuse department.

Our area does not collect plastics or cardboard. Neither do they take shredded paper or any other glass other than clear. I find that a waste as my bin would be halved if not more of the waste in it. The nearest centre for me to take this items too would enlarge my carbon footprint more. That is if you can get in to recycle, the recyable point if often closed.

True. I can see the difference between where I live, where I have to drive to the collecting point for everything except glass, paper, and metal, and other areas of France, where collection points are more numerous and close enough to housings, not to mention heavenly places like Geneva where you can call waste management and have them remove bulky items for free.


Shouldn't the emphasis be placed on manufacturers and suppliers to use recyclable materials only in the first place?

Sure, but the usual excuse is that it would force them to increase prices ... Note that more and more supermarkets in France have stopped giving free plastic bags and are selling reusable grocery bags at cost, which IMO is a good step (and provides for a lot of amusement when American tourists suddenly realise they will have to bag their groceries themselves ;)) .

[Flo]

If recycling was truly a profitable enterprise companies would pay you for your trash or at least pick it up for free, instead of there having to be a tax to subsidize it. That's the way it works for metals - put an old wash machine out in the alley, and it will be gone within half an hour at no cost to you!


There are companies that pay me, the taxpayer, through the waste collection department that sells them the recyclable part of my waste ... and we don't put old washing machines out in alleys, because littering is illegal ;)

I agree that recycling (outside of certain matters - metals, glass, paper) may not be a truly profitable enterprise, but it at least alleviate some of the cost of waste management, and most of the costs induced by pollution.

[mumblethrax]

If recycling was truly a profitable enterprise companies would pay you for your trash or at least pick it up for free, instead of there having to be a tax to subsidize it. That's the way it works for metals - put an old wash machine out in the alley, and it will be gone within half an hour at no cost to you!
But who said it was profitable?

The point of recycling is not to make a buck, but to manage externalities.

[balrog666]

But who said it was profitable?

The point of recycling is not to make a buck, but to manage externalities.

You mean to promote "feeling good" by pretending to doing something useful.

How much more are you willing to pay to send your trash through a recycling center instead of a landfill just because it makes you feel good? Here in the USA, the answer among the informed is usually "nothing", because we have a 5,000 year supply of landfills. Clearly, YMMV in Switzerland or France but there is still a trade off between the economics of subsidizing the process and the results (uninformed people feel good about their efforts and landfills last longer).

Recycling activists here emphasize recycling of paper, glass, plastic, and metal (really aluminum only). There is no market for any glass unless it is clear and clean, so the galss must be hand sorted and cleaned, at quite a cost. Plastic is recycled only because of government subsidies it and again it must be the right color (i.e., hand sorted) and cleaned (all at extra cost). Paper recycling too is subsidized and it ends up as lower quality paper and still retails for more than virgin paper. And, finally, the cost of collecting, sorting and delivering aluminum means our town loses money on every pound of it recycled to the metal companies, although enterprising entrepreneurs and urban outdoorsmen (lowlifes and bums for those of you in Rio Linda) tend to scour the recycling bins for the aluminum before its picked up and then sell it directly to the processing company, thereby saving the town money and earning a profit for themselves.

Tell me, where is the sense in supporting any of that? Unless you are in the waste disposal company union?

[mumblethrax]

You mean to promote "feeling good" by pretending to doing something useful.
No, if I had meant that I probably would have said it.

[balrog666]

No, if I had meant that I probably would have said it.

Fair enough.

What externalities, why do they matter, and what gives them priority over other needed government functions (i.e., how do you decide where to draw the line in terms of the added cost when a thousand other government functions also make some claim to the available funding)?

[mumblethrax]

What externalities, why do they matter, and what gives them priority over other needed government functions (i.e., how do you decide where to draw the line in terms of the added cost when a thousand other government functions also make some claim to the available funding)?
Energy consumption would be the most prominent. But there are others: pollution, social conditions created by mining operations, and displacement of indigenous people come to mind quickly. They matter because the public bears costs of production operations not included in private economic calculations. Effectively, failing to take account of negative externalities acts as a subsidy.

The question of opportunity costs is a good one. I can't think of too many candidate programs where the kind of effort invested in municipal recycling programs would yield better results, but I'm open to the possibility. One advantage that recycling has is the aforementioned 'good feeling': it's pretty easy to motivate people to participate in recycling programs.

Anyway, The Economist ran an piece taking stock of recycling recently...here's a link (http://www.economist.com/search/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9249262).

[balrog666]

Energy consumption would be the most prominent. But there are others: pollution, social conditions created by mining operations, and displacement of indigenous people come to mind quickly. They matter because the public bears costs of production operations not included in private economic calculations. Effectively, failing to take account of negative externalities acts as a subsidy.

The question of opportunity costs is a good one. I can't think of too many candidate programs where the kind of effort invested in municipal recycling programs would yield better results, but I'm open to the possibility. One advantage that recycling has is the aforementioned 'good feeling': it's pretty easy to motivate people to participate in recycling programs.

Anyway, The Economist ran an piece taking stock of recycling recently...here's a link (http://www.economist.com/search/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9249262).

I would have preferred more emphasis on the historical development of natural markets for recycled material (instead on conflating that with the ecological activism of ignorant busybodies) but on the whole, an excellent article from the Economist. Thanks for posting it.

I would also note that "it's pretty easy to motivate people" to do an d@mnfool thing. Just look at the idiots we keep electing to office.

;^)