Are we recycling too much of our trash?

A recent study indicates that the costs of many recycling programs may outweigh their social benefits.

REUTERS/Kim Kyung-Hoon/File
Workers sort out plastic PET bottles at Asia's largest PET plastic recycling factory INCOM Resources Recovery in Beijing, in this May 7, 2013 file photo. Asian demand for plastic is set to defy economic slowdown in top consumer China and other nations, growing as plunging oil prices make it cheaper to churn out and as fast-expanding online markets boost appetite for items like packaging and wrapping.

Although recycling has been understood for decades to provide economic and environmental benefits to society, new research shows that it may be best to recycle in moderation. 

"It makes sense to recycle commercial cardboard and some paper, as well as selected metals and plastics," J. Winston Porter, a former official at the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), told The New York Times. "But other materials rarely make sense ... The zero-waste goal [outlined by cities like New York and Seattle] makes no sense at all – it's very expensive with almost no real environmental benefit."

According to a recent study in the journal Nature, Americans throw away twice as much trash as the EPA previously thought. And while landfills are one of the largest man-made sources of greenhouse gasses, researchers warn that too much recycling can have a negative effect on society due to the high costs associated with transporting and processing recyclable goods, and manufacturing with recycled material.

In a new study examining government-mandated recycling programs in developed countries like Japan, researchers found that the socially optimal recycling rate is actually closer to 10 percent of all disposed goods – a figure much lower than the current rate of 19 percent and 34 percent currently practiced in Japan and the United States, respectively.

The authors of that particular study, published in the Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, list several reasons for why this may be the case, chief among them the costs of managing recycling plants and manufacturing goods with recycled materials. In other words, the environmental benefits achieved through participating in nationally-imposed recycling programs may be outweighed by the cost required to run them.

As John Tierney writes in The New York Times, “Despite decades of exhortations and mandates, it’s still typically more expensive for municipalities to recycle household waste than to send it to a landfill.”

Looking at the environmental and economic costs of recycling, Mr. Tierney argues that while it may make economic sense to recycle paper and some metals, there is a much more limited benefit to recycling plastics and yard waste.

The cost of transporting goods for recycling to landfills can also offset the environmental benefits recycling is thought to achieve: in New York City, for instance, it cost approximately $300, on average, for the city to process and then dispose of one ton of recyclable goods, according to figures from 2004.

Bucknell University economics professor Thomas Kinnaman recommends a targeted recycling program, one that would focus chiefly on those goods that wreak the most environmental havoc to produce from scratch, like plastic, paper, and some metals. They also recommend taking the additional step of reducing our collective consumption, and reusing where we can.

One possible solution, according to Tierney, is a tax on trash disposed of at landfills, which municipalities could use to offset environmental costs in the most fiscally responsible way. For now, thanks to wide support among voters and special interests, politicians like New York Mayor Bill de Blasio will likely continue to push recycling further. According to the mayor, New York City will be "garbage free" by 2030, thanks in large part to an unprecedented increase in recycling. 

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

QR Code to Are we recycling too much of our trash?
Read this article in
https://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/2015/1023/Are-we-recycling-too-much-of-our-trash
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today
https://www.csmonitor.com/subscribe