>>>>>>>>>>>>>    DIRTY THE ENVIRONMENT BY RECYCLING
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
                           By Lynn Scarlett                (1/14/1991)
                  [Wall Street Journal, 1/14/1991)
[Ms. Scarlett, vice president of research at the Santa Monica, Calif.-
based Reason Foundation, is author of several studies oil solid-waste
management policy.]

    Some 40 states now have recycling laws.  A handful have banned
specific products, with certain plastics and disposable diapers
targeted most often.  Others have implemented deposit-refund systems.
California is even considering a special "disposal fee" on virtually
all products, to be paid at the point of purchase.
    The federal government is likely soon to begin drafting new solid-
waste regulations.   High on the list will be proposals for all states
to reach specified recycling levels.   At the same time, policies to
facilitate disposal will be ignored, or even undermined with
regulations restricting the interstate transfer of solid waste.
    Yet this regulatory fervor is ill-conceived.  Recycling is only
a second-order goal.  The more basic objective is to pursue the
efficient use of all resources.

STRAINED BUDGETS
    In my hometown of Santa Barbara, Calif., four years of drought
have left us scrambling for water.  Recycling requirements that might
induce consumers to switch to washable cloth diapers from disposable
ones would mean more local water consumption -- all with the aim of
saving on landfill space that, if not abundant, is nonetheless
reasonably available.
     Mandated recycling policies, designed to save landfill space (or
trees, or whatever), actually require, for many cities, the
expenditure of more resources at a time when municipal budgets are
already strained.  One New Jersey study showed recycling programs
sometimes cost cities $200 per ton of materials collected.  Even in
New Jersey, with the highest landfill disposal costs in the nation,
this cost exceeds the amount required to simply landfill trash.  Even
low-priced recycling programs, at $40 per ton, cost more than the
average landfill fee of $28 per ton.
    Curbside recycling programs put more collection trucks-one set to
pick up recyclables, another for the remaining waste on the road.
This means more fuel consumption, which means more air pollution.
And some recycling processes produce high volumes of water waste and
are energy intensive.  In short, what saves landfill space may use
more water or fuel.
    Recycling does sometimes make sense, of course, and the
marketplace stimulates recycling under these conditions.  The recycled
aluminum can, for example, requires less than 10% of the energy
necessary to transform bauxite into aluminum.
     These savings have given industry an incentive to purchase
recycled aluminum, which in turn gives entrepreneurs an incentive to
collect used cans.
     A few decades ago soda cans were made of heavy tinplate with
soldered lead side seams.  As manufacturers looked for way to cut
costs, they engineered lighter weight cans.  The introduction of
aluminum cans resulted in a decade-long competition between steel-can
and aluminum-can manufacturers to bring the costs of their products
down.  The three-piece steelcan gave way to the two-piece can; the
soldered side seams gave way to adhesive bonding.
    The aluminum can, too, underwent a series of changes -- all the
result of competitive processes.  In the '60s, squashing a soda can
was a sign of virility among teenage boys.  It took real muscle to
crush a can.  Try the same deed today.  A middleaged, out-of-shape man
(or woman) can crush the soda can one-handed and then, Godzilla-like,
tear it into two pieces.
    What happened in the intervening years? New processing techniques
reduced the thickness of the can.  In the '60s it took 164 pounds of
aluminum to make 1,000 cans.  It now takes only 35 pounds. Competition
resulted in conservation.
    Product bans and waste reduction engineered by government central
planners interrupt this process and force inefficient production.
Maine, for example, recently banned aseptic packages -- those little
juice boxes -- under the excuse that they are nonrecyclable.  This ban
has forced out of the marketplace a product that emerged from the
continuous search by manufacturers for less-costly packaging.
    This search for cost reduction has meant decreases in energy usage
and waste.  Filling aseptic packages requires about half the energy
needed to fill glass bottles.  Transporting the aseptic package from
its manufacturer to the bottling site also dramatically reduces
resource use, primarily fuel.  For a given beverage volume, it takes
15 times as many trucks to transport empty glass bottles than aseptic
boxes.
    Because the end-product is lightweight, small and rectangular,
the filled aseptic package can be more efficiently transported, as
well, using 35% less energy per unit than alternative glass packages.
And the aseptic container is the only one in which dairy products can
be packaged without requiring refrigeration -- again saving energy and
reducing the need for CFC using refrigerants.
    Several cities -- for example, Portland, Ore., and Newark, N.J. --
have essentially banned polystyrene food packages, yet a Franklin
Associates comparison of polystyrene packaging and its alternative,
paperboard containers, showed that the polystyrene hamburger clamshell
uses 30% less energy than paperboard.  Its manufacturing results in
46% less air pollution, and 42% less water pollution.
     Much of the so-called excess packaging condemned by the current
environmental movement conserves resources by reducing breakage or
spoilage.  The U.S. produces less food waste than anywhere else in
the world except parts of Africa, where the threat of starvation
means even rotten food is consumed.
     Recycling has symbolic appeal -- it makes us feel virtuous and
frugal.  Product bans and waste-reduction mandates seem to put the
environment first, efficiency second.  But the two-environmental
protection and economic efficiency -- aren't really competitors.  In a
market economy, prices contain information about the relative
scarcities of resources-all resources, including labor, land,
materials, capital and energy.  The search for cost-effectiveness thus
drives us toward, not away from, environmental conservation.
    In the real world, there are, of course, all sorts of impediments
to competition. And some "scarce resources -- like air basins -- don't
figure into the process well, hence the drive for regulatory
standards. But the processes of producing, using and disposing of
consumer goods that are now the target of solid-waste regulations have
none of the hallmarks of public goods. Competition exists.  And
regulations are already in place that incorporate the costs of
protecting health and safety in disposal.
    If there is a problem in this picture, it is that too many local
governments have failed to charge anything -- or anything like the
actual costs -- for collecting and disposing of garbage.  Cities such
as Baltimore, Denver and Los Angeles do not directly charge households
for garbage collection.   In fact, a study of more than 200 U.S.
cities found that 3907 charge no direct fees at all for garbage
service, giving consumers little incentive to "conserve" on their
waste production.  Instituting pricing for collection and disposal
will remedy that.  Seattle's introduction of per-can charges a few
years ago encouraged more than 70% of all residents to recycle and
reduce waste.

THE BIG PICTURE
    Product bans and the mandated use of certain materials not only reduce
competition and undermine the drive toward resource conservation and
efficiency, but they also neglect the big environmental picture.  They
treat one resource, landfills, as the most important, while failing
to consider the whole set of resources that any product uses from its
initial production, through its consumption, and then on to its
disposal.  The result? We get bans of aseptic packages because they
are not recyclable, although they conserve other resources, especially
energy.
    The goal of efficiency doesn't have the same emotional ring as "saving
the planet." But this seemingly mundane goal, sought in the context of
competition, yields resource conservation.  That, not recycling, is
the fundamental goal.

                           *       *       *


>>>>>>>>      DUMPING: LESS WASTEFUL THAN RECYCLING       <<<<<<<<
                        By Clark Wiseman               (7/19/1991)

[``Mr. Wiseman, a professor of economics at Gonzaga University in
Spokane, Wash. is a visiting  fellow at Resources for the Future,
in Washington, D.C.'']
      [From THE WALL STREET JOURNAL, 18 July 1991, p. A10:3.]


    The proposal by the hard-pressed  government of New York City
to suspend its recycling program for a year is a direct result of
the high cost of recycling.  At around $300 per ton, the cost has
proven to be  well in excess of  the $65 per  ton figure that was
originally  estimated.  True,  the  program has  been  plagued by
labor problems and  a low level of  citizen participation, but it
is wishful thinking to believe  that either more cooperation from
sanitation unions or the achievement of greater civic support and
a higher recycling rate will bring the costs of recycling down to
an acceptable level.
    Curbside recycling  programs across  the U.S.  typically cost
far more  than landfilling, frequently  twice as  much, even when
sales revenues and  avoided waste disposal  costs are included in
the  calculation.   On  a  strictly  economic  basis, large-scale
recycling is simply wasteful, leaving  taxpayers and end users of
solid waste disposal services paying a larger bill.  The frenzied
national  push for  recycling is  largely  the result  of grossly
mistaken  beliefs  about  landfilling and  the  magnitude  of the
disposal  problem,  together with  a  seriously  flawed decision-
making process in the siting of landfills.
    What  most people  don't know  about  landfills could  fill a
landfill.  At the  current rate, if all  the nation's solid waste
for the next 500 years were  piled or buried in a single landfill
to a  depth of  100 yards  -- about  half the  eventual height of
Staten  Island's   Fresh  Kills   landfill  --   this  ``national
landfill'' would require  a square site  less than 20  miles on a
side.  With compaction, even this volume could be halved.
    Most people  also don't know  that the amount  of solid waste
generated nationally has grown at only a 2% average rate over the
past  30 years,  considerably less  than the  growth of  the GNP.
This means that  our ``throw away  society'' is actually throwing
out  a  progressively smaller  share  of its  output.   There are
indications that this rate of  growth is declining as the economy
becomes more service-oriented.
    The view is widely held  that landfilling should be minimized
because  of the  great  environmental risks.   But  landfills are
constantly  becoming  less  obnoxious.   New  federal  and  state
performance  standards  are  comprehensive  and  stringent,  with
environmental considerations  entering into  all relevant aspects
of  landfill  construction  and  operation,  including  location;
fencing; groundwater and gas monitoring and control; frequency of
earth covering for  rodent, bird, and  odor control; closure; and
post-closure  gas  and  groundwater  monitoring.   Many landfills
designed and operated  with this degree  of environmental control
already exist; some have already  filled and closed, and the land
has been converted to other (often recreational) uses.
    If our landfills are to be environmental Cadillacs, the issue
then becomes  one of sticker  price.  As might  be expected, this
will  vary  according  to  differences  in  land  prices.   A new
landfill can  cost up to  five times  as much as  a standard 1975
landfill.   Even so,  landfill costs  account  for only  about 25
cents  of the  cost of  disposing  of the  garbage in  a standard
32-gallon can.
    The remainder of what one pays is the relatively high cost of
collection, hauling and perhaps  hidden and explicit taxes.  Even
where land is expensive  it is seldom more  than a small fraction
of the landfilling portion of  waste disposal charges.  Even with
the sky-high land prices and the long hauls that are necessary in
most metropolitan areas, landfilling is a bargain.
    The solid waste problem is not  one of space, ecology or even
cost.   The problem  is a  political  one --  that of  siting new
landfills.   Anticipating  the  loss  of  amenities  or  property
values, potentially affected  property owners unite  into a group
capable of bending government to  its will.  The special interest
nature of the resulting policies  is not different in nature from
farm  subsidies,  protective  tariffs  and  unnecessary  military
instillations, all of which confer losses upon citizens at large.
    The landfill siting problem is directly related to population
densities.  In some  of the more sparsely  populated areas of the
Western states  there are  virtually no  siting difficulties.  By
contrast,  in the  East,  permitting new  landfills  is political
suicide.
    Fortunately,  a decision-making  procedure is  available that
helps  the  creation  of new  landfills,  while  still preserving
control over  the environmental  consequences of  landfills.  The
state of Wisconsin has since  1982 legally required municipal and
county governments  to establish local  negotiating committees in
response  to applications  for the  creation of  a landfill  by a
private  landowner.    The  committees,  which   must  include  a
prescribed  number  of  private   citizens  as  well  as  elected
officials,  are empowered  to negotiate  the financial  and other
contractual  relations  between  the  landfill  owner  and  local
governments.   Environmental   and  technical   matters  are  not
negotiable but  are handled  by a  separate process  at the state
level.  Although  -- or  perhaps because  -- failure  to reach an
agreement   can  result   in   outside  mediation   and  possibly
arbitration by a state agency, agreements have been negotiated by
committee in almost all cases.
    The workability  of a system  along these  lines results from
the explicit recognition of a  prescribed set of rules.  Although
such rules constrain their powers, local elected officials do not
complain, since their longevity in office can only be enhanced by
the inability to make ``unpopular'' decisions.
    The choking  off of  a viable  alternative like  low cost and
environmentally   sound  landfills   is  wasteful   of  society's
resources.  Before continuing to  run headlong toward politically
popular but  costlier alternatives  -- including  recycling -- it
would be wise  to give increased  attention to the  real cause of
the so-called solid waste ``crisis.''

      [The following is not part of the original article.]

In  places  of  the  country  where  land  is  expensive, garbage
incinerators are a practical alternative to dumping.  The City of
New York saw  the practicalness of incinerators  long ago, but it
did not act on its insight.  The City's tale is instructive:

June 1980: the New York State Senate approved a bill allowing New
    York City to  Build a solid-waste recovery  plant at the site
    of the old Brooklyn Navy Yard.
By 1982: the plan for a recovery  plant is replaced by a plan for
    an incinerator.
December 1984:  the New  York City  Board of  Estimate approves a
    resolution calling  on the  Sanitation Department  to proceed
    immediately  with plans  for  incinerators in  five boroughs.
    The plants are to begin operating in 1991.
August  1985:  the Board  of  Estimate gives  final  approval for
    construction  of  a garbage-burning  incinerator  at  the old
    Brooklyn Navy Yard.
September  1985  to  April  1989:  The  Naderite  NYPIRG  (Public
    Interest  Research  Group)  begins  its  campaign  of  suits,
    lobbying, and disinformation.
June 1989: NYPIRG, EDF, NRDC,  the Interstate Sanitary Commission
    and the United Jewish  Organization (representing Jews in the
    Williamsburg section of Brooklyn  where the incinerator would
    be located) file suit to bar construction of the incinerator.
January  1990:  David   Dinkins,  who  as   candidate  pledged  a
    two-to-three year  moratorium on the  incinerator, is elected
    mayor of New York City.

                          MORE READING

Hang, Walter  Liong-Ting.  A  CITIZEN  GUIDE TO  ANTI-INCINERATOR
    PRO-RECYCLING CAMPAIGNS.  New York: NYPIRG, 1987.
         The Naderites  are masters  of using  the media  and the
    judicial  system  to block  progress.   Here's how  to  do it
    straight from the horse's mouth.

Inhaber, Herbert.   ``Resolving the NIMBY  Problem'', CATO POLICY
    REPORT 13(3):8-9.
    Inhaber  suggests that  a  ``reverse Dutch  auction''  is the
    solution NIMBY.  Offer a bonus to the community which accepts
    the facilities  no one  wants.  If  no community  in the U.S.
    accepts, keep raising the bonus.  Communities vote on whether
    to  accept  the   facilities,  following  regular  democratic
    procedures.

Osterberg, Charles.  ``Deep Ocean: The Safest Dump'' [Op-Ed], THE
    NEW YORK TIMES, 14 June 1989, I, p. 27:2.]

Postrel,  Virgina  I.  and  Scarlett,  Lynn.   ``Talking Trash'',
    REASON 23(4):22-31 (August/September 1991).

Rathje,  William L.  and  Ritenbaugh, Cheryl  K.,  eds.  AMERICAN
    BEHAVIORAL SCIENTIST 28(1)  (September/October 1984), special
    issue devoted to `Household  Refuse Analysis: Theory, Method,
    and Applications in Social Science'.

Rathje, William  L.  ``Rubbish!'',  THE ATLANTIC,  December 1989,
   pp. 99-106, 108-109.

Scarlett, Lynn.  ``Dirty the Environment by Recycling'', THE WALL
    STREET JOURNAL, 14 Jan 1991, p. A12:3.

Simon, Julian L.  ``Dump  on Us, Baby, We  Need It'' in Julian L.
    Simon,  POPULATION  MATTERS (New  Brunswick,  NJ: Transaction
    Publishers,  1990),  pp.   458-460.   This  piece  originally
    appeared as  ``Humanity Doesn't  Waste the  Benefits Found in
    Trash'', CHICAGO TRIBUNE, 27 February 1990, p. 11.

                     *       *       *

