Recycling: Costs and Benefits

It is true that we live in a throw-away society. So, protecting the environment is essential for the quality of life of current and future generations. The challenge is to combine this with continuing economic growth in a way which is sustainable over the long term. Interest in determining costs and benefits is increasing in the environmental field. The possibilities for performing cost-benefit analyses in the waste area depend, however, on what is known about the actual emissions or discharges associated with waste disposal methods and their effects on the environment and health. On the other hand, the benefits and disadvantages of recycling are more complex. Development of a recycling program can be expensive, and recycling generates pollution. Thus, several questions arise: Is recycling really well for the environment? How does it affect the economy? Does it save or cost money? Political decisions are rarely implemented on the basis of original investigations of the costs and benefits of various measures. Environment policy is based on the belief that high environmental standards stimulate innovation and business opportunities. Economic, social and environment policies are closely integrated.
Each ton of solid waste diverted from disposal, whether reused, recycled or composted, is one less ton of solid waste requiring disposal. The value of reusing, recycling and composting solid waste is clear when you consider the amount of disposal space required to accept that material. By implementing other waste- management strategies (as well as resource-management strategies), we reduce our dependence on incinerators and landfills. And when using recycled materials in place of trees, metal ores and minerals, there is less pressure to expand forestry and mining production.
Recycling is more than a waste-management strategy; it is also an important strategy for reducing the environmental effects of industrial production. Supplying industry with recycled materials, instead of "virgin" resources extracted from forests and mines, is preferable because it saves energy, reduces dangerous air and water pollutants, such as greenhouse-gas emissions, and because it conserves scarce natural resources.
Saving energy is an important environmental benefit of recycling, because using energy usually requires fossil-fuel consumption and involves air-and-water pollutant emissions. The energy required to manufacture paper, plastics, glass and metal from recycled materials is generally less than the energy required to produce them from virgin materials. Additionally, providing recycled materials to industry (including collection, processing and transportation) typically uses less energy than supplying virgin materials to industry (including extraction, refinement, transportation and processing).
A great amount of energy used in industrial processes and in transportation involves burning fossil fuels. Recycling helps stem global climate-change dangers by reducing the amount of energy used by industry, thus reducing greenhouse-gas emissions.
Recycling can significantly reduce the amount of pollution entering the air and water. There is more benefit because less fossil fuel is used and because recycling keeps materials out of landfills, where they can introduce contaminants into groundwater systems. Recycling also keeps materials out of incinerators, which can pollute the air and create ash residue. Twenty-seven different types of air and water pollutants are reduced when companies recycle instead of use virgin resources in manufacturing and disposing of the waste products. The table below shows which damage costs we have to avoid and starting to gain benefits from recycling.
Costs and benefits of waste recycling.
A cost-benefit analysis of recycling requires significantly more information than information about the direct emissions and residues associated with waste recycling . Many of the benefits gained from waste recycling consist in avoiding the damage costs of having to landfill or incinerate the waste, and the damage costs of having to extract virgin materials. A description of the effects of recycling should therefore as a minimum include:
I. Damage costs incurred from recycling: from separation, collection, and transport from reprocessing/treatment
II. Damage costs avoided due to alternative treatment: from collection and transport from land filling and incineration, including final land filling of residues (slag and fly ash)
III. Damage costs avoided due to the manufacture of new raw materials : from extraction and manufacturing Transport

( www.mst.dk/publica/projects/2003/87-7972-502-3.htm )
Here are some benefits of recycling...

• Improves economic health, creating jobs in basic industries that pump resources back into the economy instead of down the drain.
• Conserves natural resources by substituting "secondary resources" such as glass, metal, and paper for raw materials extracted from nature.
• Saves energy by providing manufacturers with materials that have already gone through energy-intensive processes such as wood pulping and ore refining
• Reduces air and water pollution, many recycling processes create less than half the pollution caused by traditional raw materials processing.
• Recycling conserves natural resources, saves energy,

The U.S. National Recycling Coalition has completed a groundbreaking study of the recycling and reuse industry. The table below provides the information and tools we will need to understand the importance of the recycling and reuse industry to our economy.
Material Energy Savings with Recycled vs. Virgin Environmental Impact with Recycled vs. Virgin Natural Resource Savings with Recycled vs. Virgin Miscellaneous Information

Aluminum 95% energy savings; recycling of one aluminium can saves enough energy to run a TV for 3 hours (Reynolds Metal Company) Reduces pollution by 95%, (Reynolds Metal Co.) 4 lbs. of bauxite saved for every pound of aluminium recycled (Reynolds Metal Co.) Enough aluminium is thrown away to rebuild our commercial air fleet 4 times every year
Glass

50% energy savings (Center for Ecological Technology); recycling of one glass container saves enough energy to light a 100-watt bulb for 4 hours (EPA) 20% less air pollution; 50% less water pollution (NASA) 1 ton of glass made from 50% recycled materials saves 250 lbs. of mining waste (EPA) Glass can be reused an infinite number of times; over 41 billion glass containers are made each year (EPA)
Paper

60% energy savings (Center for Ecological Technology) 95% less air pollution; each ton saves 60 lbs. of air pollution (Center for Ecological Technology) Recycling of one ton of paper saves 17 trees and 7000 gallons of water (EPA) Every year enough paper is thrown away to make a 12' wall from New York to California
Plastic

Plastic milk containers are now only half the weight that they were in 1960 (EPA) If we recycled every plastic bottle we used, we would keep 2 billion tons of plastic out of landfills (Penn State) We use enough plastic wrap all of Texas every year (EPA)
Steel

74% energy savings; every pound of steel recycled saves enough energy to light a 60-watt bulb for 24 hours (Penn State Every year we create 11.5 million tons of ferrous wastes (Steel Recycling Institute) One ton of recycled steel saves 2,500 lbs. of ore, 1000 lbs. coal, and 40 lbs. limestone (Center for Ecological Technology) Enough iron & steel is discarded in the US to continually supply the nation's automakers (Steel Recycling Institute) (US, NATIONAL RECYCLING COALITION) (www.umass.edu/recycle/environmental_benefits.html)
To avoid the costs of recycling which, as we said above, are the following:
• Collection, transportation and processing costs
• Capital investments such as equipment and container costs and labor fees
• Recycling market fees may be charged to cover the costs of processing certain materials
Many countries introduced the concept of the ¨5 Rs¨ which are:
1. REDUCE: the amount of waste we produce. When we send less trash to landfills and incinerators, we help protect our environment.
2. REUSE: as much as possible. Avoid disposable products whenever possible. Purchase products that can be used over and over again. Start using sturdy canvas shopping bags, reuse plastic bags, coffee tins, margarine containers and glass jars. Eliminate the use of products such as paper plates and disposable razors, too.
3. RECYCLE: everything that is recyclable. It is important to know what is collected for recycling in your community. In order to make recycling really work, we have to promote the whole recycling loop by buying products with post-consumer recycled content.
4. REJECT: products with packaging that is excessive or not recyclable. You can refuse to purchase products that are harmful to the environment.
5. REACT: by talking to store managers and writing letters to manufacturers and legislators. Call the 800 numbers listed on product labels and voice your opinion about their products' sensitivity to the environment. Reacting gives more impact to the other Rs. (www.passaiccountynj.org ) On the other hand, there is a good reason to believe that the labor and capital we devote to recycling could be used more efficiently in other ways in order to help improve the environment. Some new evidence suggests that sometimes simply throwing garbage away is more environmentally friendly, financially prudent and safer for human health than following the fashion of recycling. Actually, recycling might be wasteful. An article by John Tierny, "Recycling is Garbage," which appeared in the New York Times Magazine, challenges the current recycling wisdom. While recycling occasionally makes economic sense (aluminum cans, automobile tires), it is more often a pointless and costly exercise.
• Tierny calculates that it costs more than $3,000 to recycle one ton of scrap metal, glass and plastic in New York City.
• And one would have to use a ceramic coffee cup 1,000 times before it would be less environmentally expensive than a throw-away polystyrene cup.
• Today, about 25 percent of solid waste is recycled compared to about 10 percent 10 years ago, and far below the 50 percent to 70 percent goals originally set in many communities.
• At today's prices, curbside recycling programs typically add 15 percent to the cost of waste disposal.
Critics charge that legislated mandates for the use and purchase of recycled products have wasted taxpayers' money, cost consumers more, both at the point of purchase and by limiting product options, dampened the development of resource-saving technological innovations and on occasion harmed the environment. Technology, they contend, has made it possible to use resources without danger of exhausting them. And as for the space necessary to dispose of solid waste by traditional methods, garbage generated at current rates for the next 1,000 years could be contained in a landfill just 100 yards deep and 35 miles square. (Washington Times, July 20, 1996)
Furthermore, it seems to appear a question of how local authorities can afford it. It is obvious that they need more money to provide a high quality recycling and composting service to every doorstep. It is important to make sure that when assessing the cost of recycling all the costs are considered, for example:
The cost of collecting recycling and providing householders with recycling containers, as well as the cost of specially designed vehicles for collecting recyclables and the cost of any sorting facilities (for materials).
Also, any savings need to be taken into account, for example:
The reduced cost of waste going to landfill or incineration, money raised by selling recyclable materials to re-processors (the steel industry) and the need for fewer refuse collection vehicles for collecting the reduced amount of rubbish going to landfill/incineration.
It is clearly that the costs and savings will differ between different recycling schemes, for example some schemes will have negotiated better prices than others for the recyclables they collect. Also prices change, for example the price of waste disposal is increasing because of increased waste taxes and tighter regulation, whilst revenues from recyclable materials are expected to increase as markets develop. In addition to this, recycling creates a large number of jobs which will save the government money in unemployment benefit. (www.foe.co.uk)
Whether or not recycling is efficient depends on the market prices of the materials picked up to be re-processed and the cost of capital and labor necessary to run the recycling programs. For example, when the price of new aluminum falls, it is unavoidable for the price of recycle cans to remain stable. This makes it difficult for cities having benefits by selling the recycle materials.
Recycling costs vary over time, depending on scrap values as well as on a learning curve in providing recycling services. They also vary significantly depending on demographics, program design, whether service is publicly or privately provided, and what materials are collected. If anything conclusive can be said in response to the question" what does recycling cost," it is that "it all depends." Recycling costs depend on time, place, and circumstance. (www.rppi.org )
Lot of reasons appears showing that recycling is un-economical, but also is economical because costs associated with future disposal are avoided. One of these avoided costs is for landfill depletion. Landfills have limited space, and so can receive a limited amount of trash. When it is full, it must be replaced by another landfill that is generally more expensive to operate and maintain. This is due to higher costs of complying with environmental regulations, higher expenses in sitting a new location, buying or allocating land, constructing the landfill, operational expenses, and long-term maintenance costs after the landfill is closed. Additionally, the new landfill may be further away than the old landfill, increasing transportation costs. Generally, a new landfill costs more than an older one. Paying the higher cost at a new landfill is avoided by keeping the older landfill open longer. Recycling and other waste-reducing methods keep the older landfill open longer.
Recycling is economical in several ways related to manufacturing processes. Recycling cuts down on waste produced by processing raw materials into usable forms. Recycling usually requires less refining than raw materials. With any product, the costs of cleaning up wastes and limiting emissions usually are passed on to consumers who purchase the product. But sometimes damage to the environment is not realized for years, is difficult to attribute to certain industries, or is caused by a combination of many industries. Acid rain is one example of this type of environmental damage. The costs of dealing with this pollution are hard to assess, but are paid for by everyone in efforts to improve the environment.
Manufacturing products from recycled material also can save energy. While recycling saves energy, which does not always, mean that industries save money by using recycled materials. Labor costs for recycled products are often higher than those used in processing virgin material. Making a product from recycled material may require new equipment and other capital expenditures while virgin material supplies and equipment needed to produce most goods already exist. But since recycling saves energy, it also cuts down on pollution emitted by utilities and the companies themselves. When energy is used, the price of the resulting pollution is passed on to all energy consumers in their utility bills. Due to the new clean air law, utility companies must comply with tougher standards in reducing pollutants they release while producing energy. The cost of compliance is usually passed on to each energy consumer. If energy use is reduced by methods such as recycling, less pollution is produced. That reduces everyone's cost in terms of paying to reduce pollution and in limiting damage to natural resources. Once the long-term costs and advantages are weighed, recycling does make economic sense. Using resources wisely is always beneficial.