What is the market for all recyclables?

When we bury or burn resources, we destroy materials that must be replaced by virgin material. The amount of energy waste-to-energy incinerators produce is far less than the amount of energy that could be saved by recycling and resource conservation. Less energy use translates to less cost.

According to Resources Up in Flames: The Economic Pitfalls of Incineration versus a Zero Waste Approach for the Global South, "On the whole, three to five times more energy can be saved by recycling materials than by burning. For every ton of material destroyed by incineration, many more tons of raw materials must be mined, extracted, processed or distributed to manufacture new product to take its place. More trees must be cut down to make paper. More ore must be mined for metal production. More petroleum must be processed into plastics. The environmental costs of landfilling and incineration become magnified when the environmental costs of extracting virgin materials and producing goods in the first place are taken into account."

"One man's trash is another man's treasure" is still relevant in the disposable age. Global Recycling Network is an electronic information exchange that specializes in the trade of recyclables reclaimed in municipal solid waste streams. It supports the Green Exchange, a member-based worldwide information exchange for companies and individuals who buy, sell and trade goods and commodities (Global Recycling Network).

The National Recycling Economic Information Study reports that nationwide more than 56,000 recycling and reuse establishments employ 1.1 million people, have an annual payroll of $37 billion and have annual revenues of $236 billion (EPA: Results of the National REI Study).

When materials are diverted from the waste stream, reclaimed for reuse, they offer a double benefit: they save municipalities money by staying out of landfills (it costs money to dump recyclable material in the landfill) and they earn municipalities money when sold.

King County, Washington, estimates that each year, businesses there send more than 800,000 tons of recyclable materials to the landfill, with an estimated value of $40 million.

More than 35 percent of the waste collected from single-family residences in King County is composed of food scraps and soiled paper. That's over 256,000 tons of material that could be made into compost. Both can be recycled with yard waste in some areas of King County.

In contrast, Norcal Waste Systems, an employee-owned company in San Francisco, collects the area's organic wastes, grinds them up and leaves them to cure for three months. The "Four Course Compost" sells for $8 to $10 per cubic yard and makes its way to farmers' fields, thus completing the nutrient cycle as nature intended (CNN: The end of garbage).

According to the Institute for Local Self Reliance: "An analysis of data using a market characterization of the discard stream based on an estimate of 1 million tons[1] of resources disposed of at landfills in Delaware per year indicate that as many as 1,574 jobs can be created and $40 million in annual gross revenue could be gained from sale of materials at the 50% recycling and composting (including mulching) level, and 2,360 jobs and $60 million could be gained for the State's economy at the 75% recycling and composting level. At the same time, households, local government and businesses could avoid $25 million annually in disposal fees if 50% recycling composting levels can be reached; and, avoid $35.5 million in disposal fees if the State reached a 75% level of recycling and composting.

"ILSR concludes that a $36 million investment over a six-year period can provide the necessary infrastructures for recycling and composting to reach the 50% and 75% levels. This investment should focus on public awareness and education, management training, financial incentives for public and private haulers and processors, and a phased in requirement to separate materials, at the source of generation. A $6 per ton surcharge on generation of materials would provide funding for infrastructure programs. The surcharge would sunset after the sixth year.

"In addition to financial savings, high levels of recycling and composting would extend the State's landfill capacity for additional decades. Further such high levels of recycling and composting would reduce green house gas (GHG) emissions entering the atmosphere (directly from landfills and indirectly by more efficient production), reduce energy, water, and raw material usage" (Delaware Resource Management Study)

The State of Delaware paid $50,000 for the report referenced above. Frederick County could get a similar report for $15,000.

Frederick County paid $150,000 for its R.W. Beck Solid Waste Options report; Carroll County paid $48,000 for its report; and both counties have paid a combined $392,000 to hire HDR Engineering Inc., another firm active in the waste-to-energy industry, to review requests for proposals for WTE facilities.

So, what's another $15,000 for a study that could be completed in two months' time and would help analyze the true costs of an incinerator?

County officials are always touting the need for economic development to help relieve the tax burden on homeowners. We may not need an incinerator paid for by taxpayers, if we attracted companies that turned residents' discards into useful products, such as the tire processing company that produces high quality rubber for shoe manufacturers. Or the company that turns food scraps into high quality compost. Or the company that manages construction and demolition waste, keeping materials out of landfills and putting them into the hands of builders for reuse.

Materials offer economic opportunities. It would be fiscally irresponsible to send our resources up in flames. But that's exactly what we'll be doing if we fail to increase both counties' paltry recycling rates before building an incinerator.

References: