Rethinking - Robert B. Laughlinlarge.stanford.edu/courses/2014/ph240/burkhard1/docs/black.pdfal solid waste manager," he says, r(for example to the energysavings Xbe made by using

Rethinking

g

Americans seem to be having a love affairwith recycling. No longer do people simplylook for a refuse container to toss away aused soda can or plastic bottle. They searchfor the right recycling receptacle. All overthe United States, when it's time to takeout the garbage, millions of people takeout carefully sorted bundles of newspapersand cardboard, bags of aluminum and steelcans, and plastic containers-all destinedfor recycling.

According to Bio Cycle magazine'sannual survey, the United States had 7,265curbside recycling programs serving 108million people last year. Furthermore,every state in the union has some type ofprogram aimed at recycling. The programsrange from diverting large amounts of plas-tics, aluminum, paper, and cardboard fromlandfills to sorting facilities, which sendthem on their way to be reused in manu-facture, to simply having state govern-ments buy products containing recycledmaterials. "It's become a way of life," saysDonald Berman, director of solid wastemanagement for Allegheny County,Pennsylvania, which includes Pittsburgh.

But is it a way of life that makes eco-nomic and environmental sense? Recentlya number of economists and policy ana-lysts have questioned whether the benefitsof recycling outweigh the ease of disposingof waste materials in landfills.Critics say that what seems atfirst to make a great deal ofsense doesn't always stand upto a close examination. Forinstance, some critics arguethat collection costs makerecycling a bad bargain formany localities because thecosts often exceed the pricesthat the recyclables bring onthe open market. They also Donald Bermcharge that operating addi- has become

manau

tional trucks to pick uprecyclables increases toxicdiesel emissions, offsettingany environmental gains.

Recycling advocates arequick to respond that eco-nomics are not the only

consideration and that recyding is essentialin managing America's solid waste. Theysay that using recycled instead of virginmaterials benefits the environment by cut-ting back on a wide range of pollutants andpreserving biodiversity. And, they add,recycling may make economic sense bydelaying or lessening the need for landfillsso that land can be put to more productiveuses.

Cyde of RecyclingThough recycling may seem like a recentinnovation because of the media attentionit has received in the last decade, forms ofrecycling have been in use in the UnitedStates for almost 100 years. At the turn ofthe century, waste paper and rags wereused to make new paper when wood pulpwas scarce or too expensive. Recyclingscrap metal and other materials was anAmerican institution during World WarII. And deposits on glass soda bottles in the1950s and 1960s encouraged people torecycle and reuse them.

When the more modern version ofrecycling began, its economics were disas-trous in some cases, according to LynnScarlett, vice president for research of theReason Foundation, a Long Beach, Cali-fornia, nonprofit think tank. In somecities, it cost about $400 per ton to collect

; recyclables in 1990 and 1991.In Chicago, the cost of an ini-tial curbside recycling project

_ was $1,000 a ton, says Scarlett,_ which made it unfeasible. It8 cost around $70 per ton todump refuse into landfills atthat time.

Moreover, when recyclingbecame popular, the countrywas in an economic slump. In

i-Recycling 1991, in the middle of a reces-way of life. sion, the demand for materi-

als, whether virgin or recycled, was low.Prices for recycled materials plummeted.The aggregate value for a ton of recycledmaterials in 1988 was $60. In 1991 and1992, this same ton brought $15.

But in the last few years, Scarlett says,there has been a sea change in recyclingeconomics, with prices dramaticallyrebounding. Still, the economics of recy-cling is a mosaic of issues induding collec-tion costs, market demand, landfill costs,and recycling infrastructure and technolo-gy. Determining whether recycling makeseconomic sense involves analyzing thesecomponents to see how they fit into thetotal picture.

Collection CostsA major portion of the cost to communi-ties of recycling is the cost of collectingrecycled goods. It's these costs, argue crit-ics, that can make recycling a bad bargain.

"What happens in recycling is that col-lection costs are very high and the collec-tion is done separately from trash collec-tion, and so that's what drives the dysec-onomies of recycling," says KennethChilton, director of the Center for theStudy of American Business, a think tankin St. Louis, Missouri. Collection costs forrecyclables are approximately equal to thatof collecting trash at around $50 per ton.

One example of this problem is the cityof San Jose, California, which reports itcosts $28 per ton to landfill waste com-pared with $147 a ton to recycle.According to Lindsey Wolf, the city's man-ager of government relations, the $147 perton is an "incentive fee" paid to the privatecompanies that collect the recyclables andmarket them. "They take all the risk andget all the reward," she says, noting thatthe city gets no money for the recycledmaterial collected. But the city does getsome rewards, she says. As a result of recy-cling, the city has extended the life of itslandfill by four years, says Wolf.

In Atlantic County, New Jersey, for thefirst six months of 1995, recycling broughtin $2.45 million, says James Rutala, vicepresident of the county's public utilitiesauthority. But the cost of collecting the

Volume 103, Number 11, November 1995 * Environmental Health Perspectives1006

Focus - Rethinking Recycling

recycled goods came to $1.6 million, andsorting the recycled materials cost $1.1million plus the $325,000 in interest pay-

ment on the recycling facility. Con-sequently, recycling actually cost the coun-

ty over half a million dollars.But Rutala doesn't think this proves

there are no benefits from recycling. "Ithink it's definitely worth it," he says,

because approximately 20% of the coun-

ty's waste stream is recycled.

Limiting LandfilisAlthough collection costs may be on thelist of cons for recycling, adding the cost oflandfills swings the balance back towardthe pros. Rutala says that the cost per ton

of landfill space, added to collection costs,

can average as much as $88 per ton. "Youpay $88 a ton to put that material in theground," he says. "There are no positivesthat are being derived from that." Rutalaadds that recycling lengthens the life of theexisting landfill. Siting a landfill can cost

millions of dollars. Recycling, Rutala says,

has taken the issue of landfill siting "off thelocal agenda."

In Madison, Wisconsin, recycling hasmeant notable savings, according to

research done by John Reindl, the recy-

cling manager for Dane County. Madisonrecycles about 50% of its householdwastes. Reindl found that in the past year

recycling has saved the city over $500,000in landfill charges and has earned$475,000 for the city from the recycledproducts. "They saved over a million bucksby going to recycling," he says. Other citiescan make similar savings, but it requiresattention to operations and looking forways to become more efficient.

Berman notes that landfill prices havedecreased over the past several years. Onereason is simple supply and demand. Landfill

Generation of municipal solid waste

es in the Alleghany CountyLGfimbed in the late 1980s.number of companies got

>the business. There's more

dfill space than we hadre, but there isn't that muchre material than we hadore, so prices have gone

vn," he says.

Nevertheless, Berman argues

t recycling is worthwhile.e cheaper the landfill, the Lynn Sider it is to make a profit ationsh recycling, no question drum.aut it," he says. "No one isng to balance budgets with recycling,a very affordable teaching tool."Local situations have to be taken)unt when figuring the cost of recyc

sus landfill disposal, argues Rolvins, associate professor of public pc

the JFK School of Governmenrvard University. "If we're talking atvada, which has low costs for sitiudfill, it's a relatively cheap alternativIre talking abut Rhode Island, itapletely different story. So it's imp(in my opinion to generalize nation)ut whether recycling is a desir;roach. It's going to vary from com

(to community."But Richard Dennison, a senior sc

with the Environmental Defense Ftues that direct economic benefialities is not the only way to mea

economic benefits of recycling. "Tenormous economic savings elsew]the system that may not accrue to

al solid waste manager," he says, r(

for example to the energy savings

Xbe made by using recycled insteaigin materials. One step that car

en, Dennison says, is simply bargaiibetter prices for recycled goods-ta]

250

I|_ ~~~~~~~200 _

cariett-irecycling

advantage of the higher pricesthat industries now are pay-

,° ing for many recycled com-

0 modities.

Recycling Market"The majority of materialprices [for recyclables] are

noticeably better than threeor four years ago," says MaryKohrell, a recycling markets

In many situ- specialist for the University ofis a conun- Wisconsin Extension. Sales of

recycled goods can dramati-cally offset the costs of recy-

cling, but the market for such goods varieswidely depending on the availability of vir-gin goods, environmental regulations, andthe costs of using such materials.

"Paper in 1995 has been astronomical.Prices have been higher than ever," Kohrellsays, citing prices of $100-$200 per ton.

Just three years ago, she says, paper was sell-ing for $10-$15 per ton.

Kohrell points out other prices indicat-ing a healthy market for recycled materials.Plastics, she says, are selling for between$200 and $300 per ton as of July. Twoyears ago prices were less than half of that.Aluminum is selling for between $840 and$1,060 a ton. Only a couple of years ago,

she says, the price was between $640 and$740 per ton.

But the high prices for recycled materialsdon't impress Lester Lave, professor of eco-

nomics at the Graduate School of IndustrialAdministration at Carnegie MellonUniversity, who questions the economicworth of recycling. "Ifone takes a look at thepast record [of prices], the notion that it'salways upward from here is kind of crazy,"he says. "I think the one thing that I feel rea-

sonably certain about is that the prices wesee now are not going to prevail in the

Recovery and discards of residential and commercialmunicipal solid waste

200

co

._

E

150

100

toc&

E

150

100

_E_____

_mE_

o

_ -

-C

_co

50

1992

| Recovered commercial Recovered residential

| Unrecovered commercial Unrecovered residential

Environmental Health Perspectives * Volume 103, Number 11, November 1995

Recyclable products Other compostable/combustibles_ Yard trimmings Other materials

ILL

ICIO

1 007

Focus - Rethinking Recycling

future, that we're going to see cyclic pricesgoing up and down. . . An overwhelmingbet is that the long-term trend is going to bedownward, not upward."

But others see a different picture. WhileKohrell and Scarlett acknowledge thatprices aren't going to stay high forever (forinstance, prices for recycled paper havestarted to fall), they see steady markets formany recycled commodities in the future.Scarlett says, "I do not think prices willdrop to the real doldrums. Why? We'veseen an enormous investment in infrastruc-ture to use this stuff." Industries havebegun to invest great amounts of money inequipment and plants to use recycled mate-rials, realizing that there will be a steadystream of it in the future.

Between 1988 and 1994 the paperindustry spent $7.5 billion in technologyand capital investments to recycle paper, saysRichard Storat, vice president of economicsand materials of the American Forest andPaper Association. "The industry, between1994 and the year 2000, expects to spendsomewhere around $10 billion on additionalrecycling capacity," Storat says. The goal isto recycle approximately half the paper usedin the United States.

Paper is not the only industry that hasgeared up for recycling. "The infrastructurethat assures that plastics get recycled hasreally matured over the past five years interms of the actual capacity to processmaterials," says Kohrell. Makers of plasticcontainers are putting increasing amountsof recycled materials in containers, saysScarlett. For example, Procter & Gamble,which makes a multitude of householdproducts, uses from 25% to 100% recycledplastic to make its containers. "When youhave a Procter & Gamble with millionsand millions of bottles produced each year,it means an enormous and continuousdemand," Scarlett says.

But it's almost certain there will beswings in demand and consequent swingsin prices. For example, earlier this year acotton crop failure in China boosted plasticprices because recycled plastic can beturned into polyester fiber toreplace cotton fabric. "TheAsian markets began massivelyimporting recycled plastics,"Scarlett says. But in June, alarge number of Asian virginplastic plants began operating."So the Asian market [for recy-cled plastics] kind of wentbust. The prices started todrop," she says.

Lave says that such exam- Mary Kohriples support the need for cau- structure fotion: "There are firms that go matured.

MaterialsRecovery Residue Avoided

Recyclables Facility Landfill Transportation Energy andCollection Process Disposal to Market Emissionsa Total

NotErgUsgo 8. 8. 42. 21. A18,36.) (16,00.0)

Atmospheric EmissionsAldehydes 0.035 0.02 0015 0am1 (0.5583) (0.5134)Ammonia 0.0002 0.0002 0.0000 0.0000 (0.0080) (00076)Carbo dioxide 1i5"7 31.7V 8 34.E:2 (2.72U46 (24942)Carbon monoxide 1.8300 0.0413 0.0781 0.2640 (27.4) (25.2) c

Chlorine 0.0000 0.0000 0000 0.000 (0.0452) (0 0452)Hydrocarbons 0.7260 0.0726 0.0310 0.1438 (7.7) (6.8)Hydrogen fluorde X 00 0 0 00000 00 (0.1788) (0.1768)Lead 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 (0.0062) (0.0062MethaXneio s it0.00041w;Xt00;00000; 0 31J,S000029 ;;X0.0000 W;0000X4.2!000j0004 (0.0106tZ) (.0.0100)Nitrogen oxides 1.9152 0.1746 0.0817 0.2898 (11.9) (9.4)Oter organicls 1.1178 0.0002 0.0477 0.1336 (1.5721) (0.2730)Particulates 0.4256 0.1060 0.0182 0.0482 (11.9) (11.3)Sulfur oxides 0.2700 0.2861 0.01U15 0.0582 (11.5) (10.9)

Sdw astes 0.4944 1563.8 0.01 40.100510 (996.2) (831.8)

Waterborne Wvases -: 0: ;0:CXi:fX ; :- ;---: 4: :Acid 0.0000 0.0228 0.0000 0.0000 (0.4644) (0.4416)Ammonia 0.0000 0.000 0.0000 0.000 (0.0944) (0.0944)Biological 02 demand 0.0006 0.0002 0.0000 0.0002 (0.5386) (0.5376)Chemical O2demand 0MM0 M0.0005 00001 0 0006 (1.4900) (1.4858)Cyanide 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 (0.0038) (0.0038)Dissled solids WI, 120 0. 0 .0261 0.1320 (6.2) (5.4)Fluorides 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 (0.1040) (0.1040)Iron 0.004 000 0 .0000 00000Metal ion 0.0010 0.0058 0.0000 0.0002Oil M0.07 . 000 00003 0.0018Phenol 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

M- .-

(0.0952) (0.0778)(0.2124) (0.2054)(0.0530) (0.0436)(0.0024) (0.0024)

Sufuic aci'd 00018 0.0005 0.0001 000I04 (00042) (0.0014)

ell-)r re

Suspended solids 0.0006 0.0000 0.0000

bankrupt all the time, just because theyhave overly optimistic expectations aboutwhat prices will be," he says.

Environmental Gains° The economic issues sur-

t rounding recycling may seemC complex, but they are at leastsomewhat quantifiable. Thehealth and environmentalbenefits of recycling, includ-ing energy conservation, toxicemissions reductions, andpreservation of resources, arefar more difficult to quantify.

-The infra- Health and environmentalcycling has benefits are somewhat indi-

rect and are valued differently

0.0002 (2.5) (2.5)sins voided due to increased use of

m 50% pper, 32% glass 8% steel, 4%

from individual to individual. Still, advo-cates of recycling argue that the moreintangible benefits offer the most com-pelling case for recycling.

Cutting down on energy used to manu-facture with virgin materials means cuttingdown on pollutants like carbon monoxide,nitrogen and sulfur oxides, and volatileorganics, according to a report publishedby Keep America Beautiful, Inc. Recyclingadvocates argue that recycling cuts downon the amount of dioxin released into theenvironment from bleaching of virgin pulp,for example.

Recycling paper also saves trees. Treesreduce the amount of carbon dioxide pre-sent in the environment that contributes toglobal warming. According to Kenneth

Volume 103, Number 11, November 1995 * Environmental Health Perspectives

7 1-. -. 7 -. 7

1 008

Focus - Rethinking Recycling

Skog, a researcher at the U.S. Forest Pro-ducts Laboratory in Madison, Wisconsin,"The cumulative effect is noticeable."Skog estimates that recycling paper insteadof cutting down trees can add an additional12-13 million metric tons tothe 100-200 million metrictons of carbon dioxide stored inforests each year, depending onthe amount of paper recycled."It's a notable addition to thebenefits of recycling," he says.

The federal government'sClimate Change Action Planincludes paper recycling as oneway to cut down on greenhouse 3gases, but the issue may be more Linda Gaicomplex than it first appears. may notRecycling newsprint is a good answer.idea, says Linda Gaines, a sys-tems analyst at Argonne National Labora-tory. "Newsprint is a clear winner. It doestake more fossil fuels to make newsprintfrom trees than from recycled paper. It'sharder to crunch up a tree than an oldnewspaper, she says.

But when it comes to recycling officepaper, the situation is different. Whenmaking office paper from trees, a renew-able resource is used; when recycling thatpaper, a fossil fuel is being depleted. Whensuch paper is made from trees, part of theprocess is fueled by wood by-products ofthe pulping process. "When you recyclethat paper there is no by-product fuel, soall of the fuel need is purchased fossil fuel,"says Gaines.

Instead of recycling office paper,Gaines says, it should be used to generateenergy in coal-fired power plants. "Thenyou burn less coal and displace some of thecoal emissions. Paper is a really good, cleanfuel," she says.

"If you're looking at greenhouse gases,"says Gaines, "if what you're doing is burn-ing biomass and replanting it, there's nonet greenhouse gas increase from thatcycle. But if you're burning fossil fuelthere's an increase in greenhouse gases."Thus, she argues, recycling hasto be done in light of the goalsthat society wants to achieve.

But Dennison argues thatGaines' analysis glosses over animportant factor. "The woodhas to be harvested from a forest A04and the forest has to be managedto produce the wood. And thatset of management practices hasimportant environmental conse-quences with regard to biodiver-sity, habitat, and so forth, that David Sobhave to be counted as debits on decisionsthe virgin side of the ledger." analysis of

nesalw

bersm

loc,

The analytical and environmental thick-et that paper presents isn't unique. Scarlettpoints to glass recycling as another instancein which "devilish details" have to be con-sidered when viewing the costs and benefits

oOf recycling. Generally, shesays, recycling glass takes less

_ energy than making virginC glass, meaning reduced_ emissions of gases such as

_ carbon monoxide. The type< of furnace used in glassmak-

ing, however, alters thatgenerality. Scarlett points tothe use of cleaner-operatingelectric furnaces to replace

;-Recycling traditional furnaces poweredvays be the by fossil fuels. Although

they use less energy and thuscreate less emissions than

natural gas-powered furnaces, electric fur-naces cannot use as much recycled glass, sothey are not as efficient. The consequence isa "conundrum," says Scarlett.

The Keep America Beautiful study alsoqualifies its conclusions about the environ-mental advantages of manufacturing withrecycled instead of virgin material. "It is pos-sible that the total energy requirements asso-ciated with increased recycling could begreater than manufacturing with virgin rawmaterials. For example, shipping recoveredmaterials extremely long distances to endmarkets may negate any energy savings real-ized in the manufacturing process."

Coupled with these issues is the prob-lem of resolving how much material shouldbe recycled. Reid Lifset, associate directorat the Yale Program on Solid Waste Policy,argues that a 50% recycling goal is eco-nomically and technically feasible. AndStorat says the paper industry's goal is torecover and recycle half of all the paperused in the United States by the year 2000.

But setting such goals has to be donecarefully, according to David Sobers, vicepresident and national practice manager forsolid waste with Woodward-Clyde, an envi-ronmental consulting firm. Taking a recy-

cling goal that is effective inone locality and trying to

: 6itmpose it on a wider area may0not work, Sobers maintains.

_ Market conditions, transporta-tion systems, even the purityof the recycled material canvary from one area to another.If goals are set without carefulanalysis of the local condi-tions, "one can overregulateand cause greater environmen-

;-Recycling tal emissions and costs" thanust include disposal in a properly engi-al conditions. neered landfill, he argues.

_ I_I.:S:~S

Arriving at a broad understanding ofthe economic and environmental impactsof recycling compared with using virginmaterials-a so-called life cycle analysis-isevolving. Susan Thornloe, a research engi-neer at the EPA, heads a three-year studyaimed at providing definitive answers."What we're in the process of doing isidentifying where information exists andwhere data gaps are," she says. Right now,Thornloe says, the picture is incomplete, ifnot misleading. "What we're trying to do issomething that is scientifically driven andis objective," she says.

The debate over recycling's economicand environmental impact is certain tocontinue. For all its superficial simplicity-for most people simply sorting recyclableitems into the proper container to be col-lected-recycling involves a host of com-plex questions. Nevertheless, recyclingseems to be here to stay, as society, includ-ing both households and manufacturers,adapts to accomodate the issues of recy-cling and looks beyond the curbside at itslasting effects.

Harvey Black

Environmental Health Perspectives * Volume 103, Number 1 1, November 1995 1 009