Solid and Hazardous Waste - Environmental Science - page 398

for cheap or plentiful resources such as glass from sil-
ica and most plastics.
Critics of recycling also argue that this process
should pay for itself. Proponents of recycling counter
that conventional garbage disposal systems are
funded by charges to households and businesses. Why
should recycling be held to a different standard and
forced to compete on an uneven playing field?
Recycling advocates also note that reducing the
use of landfills and incinerators is not as important as
the other benefits of recycling (Figure 17-8). They point
to studies showing that the net economic, health, and
environmental benefits of recycling far outweigh the
costs.
Cities that make money by recycling and have
higher recycling rates tend to use a single-pickup sys-
tem, collecting both materials to be recycled and
garbage that cannot be recycled at the same time, in-
stead of a more expensive dual-pickup system. In sin-
gle-pickup systems, dealing with recyclables costs
about half as much per metric ton as disposing of the
same amount of waste in most modern landfills.
Successful systems also tend to use a pay-as-you-
throw system. San Francisco, California, uses such a
system to recycle almost half of its MSW.

How can we encourage recycling and reuse? Pro-
ponents say that leveling the economic playing field is
the best way to start. Governments can increase subsi-
dies and tax breaks for reuse and recycling materials
(the carrot) and decrease subsidies and tax breaks for
making items from virgin resources (the stick).
Other strategies are to greatly increase use of the
pay-as-you-throw system and to encourage or require
government purchases of recycled products to help
increase demand and lower prices. Governments
can also pass laws requiring companies to take back and
recycle or reuse packaging discarded by consumers. In
the Netherlands, all packaging waste is banned from
landfills. By 2008, EU countries must recycle 55-80% of
all packaging waste. The EU also requires companies to
take back electronic products from consumers without
charge and bans e-waste in MSW. These product steward-
ship policies create a strong economic incentive for com-
panies to redesign products for safer and easier recy-
cling, reuse, and remanufacturing.

x

H OW W OULD Y OU V OTE ? Should governments pass laws
requiring manufacturers to take back and reuse or recycle all
packaging waste, appliances, electronic equipment, and
motor vehicles at the end of their useful lives? Cast your vote
online at http://biology.brookscole.com/miller11.

x

H OW W OULD Y OU V OTE ? Should we place much greater
emphasis on recycling with the goal of recycling at least 60%
of the municipal solid waste that we produce? Cast your vote
online at http://biology.brookscole.com/miller11.

17-6 BURNING AND BURYING
SOLID WASTE

Economics, Politics, and Stewardship:
Encouraging Reuse and Recycling
Reuse and recycling are hindered by prices
of goods that do not reflect the ecological truth,
too few government subsidies and tax breaks,
low landfill dumping costs, and price
fluctuations.
Four factors hinder reuse and recycling. First, there is a
faulty accounting system. The market price of a prod-
uct does not include the harmful environmental health
costs associated with the product during its life cycle
from production to discarding or recycling.
Second, there is an uneven economic playing field.
In most countries, resource-extracting industries re-
ceive more government tax breaks and subsidies than
recycling and reuse industries. We get more of what we
reward.
Third, charges for depositing wastes in landfills
(called tipping fees) in the United States are lower than
those in most of Europe.
Fourth, the demand and thus the price paid for re-
cycled materials fluctuate, mostly because buying
goods made with recycled materials is not a priority
for most governments, businesses, and individuals.

Science: Burning Solid Waste
Japan and a few European countries incinerate most
of their municipal waste, but this practice has fallen
out of favor in the United States and most European
countries.
Globally, municipal solid waste is burned in more than
1,000 large waste-to-energy incinerators, which boil wa-
ter to make steam for heating water or space, or for
producing electricity. Trace the flow of materials
through this process as diagrammed in Figure 17-9.
Japan and Switzerland burn more than half of their
MSW in incinerators, as compared to 16% in the
United States and about 8% in Canada. Figure 17-10
lists the advantages and disadvantages of using incin-
erators to burn solid and hazardous wastes.
Since 1985, more than 280 new incinerator projects
have been delayed or canceled in the United States be-
cause of high costs, concern over air pollution, and in-
tense citizen opposition.

x

H OW W OULD Y OU V OTE ? Do the advantages of incinerat-
ing solid waste outweigh the disadvantages? Cast your vote
online at http://biology.brookscole.com/miller11.