|
|
WASTING
AWAY: Mismanaging Municipal Solid Waste
(Competitive Enterprise Institute Monograph, May 1994)
James
V. DeLong
Executive
Summary
Everyone
knows that the United States faces a Municipal Solid
Waste (MSW) crisis. The nation is throwing away too
much and landfill space is running out. Everyone also
knows that the nation is responding with laudable efforts
to convert waste into energy, to recycle, and to reduce
the volume of trash.
Unfortunately,
what "what everyone knows" turns out to be
wrong. The reality is that:
- MSW
presents a minor national housekeeping problem, not
a crisis.
- The
responses are for the most part pointless, wasteful
and both environmentally and economically destructive.
In
1990, the U.S. produced about 195 million tons of MSW.
This may sound like a lot, but the practical import
is small. Compressed to the average 30-pounds-per-cubic-foot
density that exists in a landfill, a year's worth of
MSW could be placed on one square mile of land, in a
pile less than 500 feet high. Given that the nation
has 3 million square miles of territory, and that landfills
can be covered over and used for other purposes, finding
sufficient space for MSW disposal is simply not a serious
problem. Already, the combination of improved transportation
combined with the construction of "megafills"
that can handle massive volumes of trash is putting
many problems well on the way to solution.
One
response to the assumption that space is at a premium
has been the construction of 170 incinerators to burn
waste and produce energy. Incineration does not appear
to be a particularly efficient method of either waste
disposal or energy production, however, and combining
the two functions does not solve the problems of either.
Perhaps
the most prevalent response to the we-are-running-out-of-space
argument is recycling. As of 1993, 39 states and the
District of Columbia had some form of recycling law.
Over 5,000 curbside pickup programs were in operation.
Most
substances in MSW are at least potentially recyclable,
and proponents tend to equate possibility with practicality.
Much recycling makes no economic sense because the effort
uses up resources-capital, energy, labor-that are worth
more than the value of the recycled product.
Recycling
raises complicated technical and economic issues that
do not yield easily to arbitrary policies cut from ideological
cloth. Three points are crucial:
- Recycling
is itself a manufacturing process. It uses resources
of energy, capital and labor, and produces wastes. Recycling
is not automatically superior, as a matter of either
economics or morality, to the process of manufacturing
a product from original raw material.
- It
is very difficult to generalize about recycling, and
careful attention must be paid to the particular characteristics
of individual industries and products. Steel, aluminum,
glass, paper, plastic, and yard waste each presents
a different set of issues.
- Recycling
requirements have a potential to undermine the quality
of industrial products and processes.
Most
of the substances that are commonly recycled-aluminum,
steel, glass, and some paper and plastic-have some value
when delivered in pure form to a manufacturing plant.
The problem is that for most substances this value is
not great because the ordinary raw materials used to
make these substances are plentiful and cheap. Collecting,
sorting and processing trash is expensive, and the costs
far exceed the value of the materials recovered. The
reality is that municipalities that expand recycling
must cut other programs to subsidize the effort.
Recycling
is sometimes justified by the arguments that there is
a need to conserve such non-renewable resources as iron
ore and petroleum and that recycling paper saves trees:
neither argument is valid. Most paper is made from trash
wood or from small trees produced on tree farms. Thus,
recycling paper has little relevance to preserving majestic
trees or old forests. Proven reserves of most resources
are expanding and commodity prices are declining.
Despite
the defects in the arguments underlying MSW policies,
governments are developing a whole new generation of
misguided policies. These include:
- Requirements
that products contain an arbitrary percentage of recycled
material.
- Compulsory
source reduction efforts.
- Efforts
to hold manufacturers responsible for ultimate disposition,
as exemplified by Germany's Green Dot program, and Advanced
Disposal Fees.
All
of these policies have serious flaws. Recycled content
mandates represent arbitrary quotas imposed without
regard to technical or economic realities. Yet imposing
arbitrary quotas is a silly way to run anything. The
system is also creating a growing administrative apparatus
that will burden both industry and consumers.
Source
reduction diverts attention from the positive benefits
of packaging and can be harmful. Reduced packaging can
increase spoilage waste, for example, and mandatory
source reduction prevents consumers from making choices
about preferred characteristics. As with other responses
to the MSW crisis, the result is actually destructive.
Manufacturers'
responsibility programs combine the worst features of
all the other policies and are based on faulty premises.
An examination of the German program leads to the conclusion
that if has few, if any, benefits. As with other misguided
MSW policies, it diverts investment into uneconomic
uses and undermines the quality and efficiency of important
industries.
The
solution to the MSW non-crisis is to recognize that
trash disposal is a commodity, like coal or asparagus,
and to treat it accordingly. The government could establish
a few rules to avoid externalities and cost shifting,
and then let the free market work. Operating within
this framework, waste disposal companies, truckers,
railroads, municipal officials, recyclers, waste generators
and others could all perform their receptive functions.
The result would be a complex amalgam of regional landfills,
short- and long-haul transportation by truck and rail,
incineration, recycling, and source reduction. In a
few years people would wonder what all the shouting
was about.
You
can order the full printed version of this essay for
$5.00
|
|