Today, waste is no longer something that simply goes in a can, is dragged to the curb and mysteriously disappears. Our household waste is a topic of great discussion and debate — and business potential.
A controversy over the costs and the effectiveness of methods used to reuse and recycle, both financially to residents and communities and to the environment, festers nationwide. University of Rochester economist Steven Landsburg calls our obsession with trash and recycling “naive environmentalism” that consists of “a force-fed potpourri of myth, superstition and ritual that has much in common with the least reputable varieties of religious Fundamentalism.” The antidote to this naive environmentalism is, in Landsburg’s view, economics.
Many environmentalists view municipal solid waste as a pollutant. Indeed, most people are accustomed to thinking of it in this way, and waste reduction efforts that require community members pay for disposal based on the amount of trash they produce are built on the environmental principle that polluters should pay for their pollution.
This explains, in part, the basis of policies promoting the so-called waste management hierarchy — reduce, reuse, recycle, energy recovery, disposal. Enacted in 1976 at the federal level as part of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, it also establishes controls on the management of hazardous wastes; the Maine Legislature enacted a version of the hierarchy in the 1980s. The hierarchy remains the golden fleece of many local, state and national organizations that continue to promote policy proposals based on this assumption, despite the emerging technologies and market realities that treat trash as a resource — and a prosperous one at that.
Energy recovery, or waste-to-energy, has been with us for quite some time. Twenty-first century technology, however, has taken it a giant step forward. Companies such as Fiberight and Wastaway in the U.S. and Enerkem in Canada use technologies that turn trash into energy, bio-fuels and building products. They turn the whole hierarchy on its head — because these technologies mean that trash management is in itself a way to recycle and reuse a resource. With these technologies, residents no longer have to go through the ordeal of separating recyclables from other household trash because it is done at recovery and energy production facilities. And it is done based on the market value of the recyclables.
Technologies such as these also meet the environmental principle of “BAT” — best available technology — long the mantra of the environmental community in pollution abatement. They also demonstrate the fallacies of an approach that treats recycling of household trash by consumers as a necessary evil — or moral obligation — regardless of market realities, additional consumer costs and inefficiencies and ignores the increased production of packaging that drives the amounts of household materials recycling.
It is clear recycling is becoming more and more expensive — the markets for plastics, metals and paper continue to fall — and, according to sources in the recycling industry, 20 percent or more of recyclables end up in a landfill anyway. This number will increase as the market for recycled materials heads downward. So while a large increase in recycling may be the goal, the market may prevent this.
Should this trend continue, municipalities in Maine are likely to pay as much or almost as much in tipping fees (tax dollars) to haul away household recyclables. In addition, many residents must pay bag fees for trash, which is meant to encourage recycling. In the end, it could all contribute to increased consumer costs for disposal.
This, coupled with the lack of state and local requirements for re-use of construction materials, food waste and similar items in the business sector, places the undue burden of recycling on residents who produce less waste than businesses. Also important to remember is that a sustainable, recycling-reliant business sector will create jobs and put people to work in Maine.
We have a long way to go to improve how we dispose of trash in Maine. Treating it as a pollutant and promoting policies that denigrate the best available technologies, however, are not the optimal paths, economically and practically speaking.
The old waste hierarchy is dead. Let’s revise it for the 21st century and pay less for municipal solid waste disposal.
Ron Deprez is president of the Public Health Research Institute based in Deer Isle and an associate research professor at the University of New England. He has 35 years of experience conducting policy studies for governments and foundations in Maine, across the nation and internationally. Luisa S. Deprez is professor emerita of sociology at the University of Southern Maine. She is co-director of the Maine chapter of the Scholars Strategy Network, which brings together scholars across the country to address public challenges and their policy implications.