Geoscience Reference
In-Depth Information
quantitatively and geographically and disposal on land remained widespread and
even gained ground in some countries.
82
Additional cost was one of the major constraints of these policies. It was caused
by the cost of implementing the recovery processes combined with the near absence
of markets in which to sell these value-added products
contrary to the case during
the 19th century. Recovery required not only the establishment of sorting and
conversion plants but also a complete reorganization of the collection service as it
required on-site sorting in order for it to be ef
—
cient. The intent to recover proved to
be more costly for communities than that of abandoning waste. Furthermore, sec-
ondary raw materials or energy generated in this way competed with raw materials
and classical sources of energy, whose extraction or processing sometimes proved
to be less costly than that of the by-products. This is the case, for example, for
plastic materials recycling which is more expensive than the initial production from
petroleum by-products. In other cases, knowing the origin of the products, users
were reluctant to use them, as with compost created from the fermentation of
household garbage. Some sectors had more success however: glass, as refuse glass
(cullet) has always been used to make new glass, and paper, thanks to the devel-
opment of effective recycling processes and in view of a limited supply of wood.
Nevertheless, the price of old papers has sometimes been negative in the last
decades. The arbitrage of one recovery method over another was dif
cult for
communities: utilization for energy purposes was all the more valuable because of
the elevated energy value of garbage. Pre-sorting garbage for recycling, for example
paper and plastics, proved to be ineffective for incineration of the residue as it had a
reduced energy value.
Other dif
culties were added to these. The process of separate collection
required the involvement of citizens as they had to perform the initial sort of the
recycled materials (whether collection was done curb-side or by drop-off at a
depot). In fact, the technologization of society
especially if technology is con-
sidered a medium between man and his environment
—
undeniably has had the
effect (if not the aim) of separating individuals from the chores of everyday life and
to eliminate all contact with excreta, now handled by technical devices of varying
degrees of sophistication and outsourced cleaning services. In some countries, the
participation of urbanites was successfully (re-)achieved: this was the case in
Germany, probably thanks to its past recycling policies (see above, Sect.
7.4.3
). In
some other countries however, households considered sorting a bother. At another
level, new plants were now required because of the removal of land
—
lls, and the
implementation of recovery and the expansion of urban areas were frequently in
opposition to the refusal of residents. Often attributed to the NIMBY syndrome (not
in my backyard), this attitude also related to the distance between urbanites and
their excreta (as touched on here) and the way in which these projects had been
historically implemented: without dialogue or participation from the concerned
populations.
82
OECD Workshop on Waste Prevention: Toward Performance Indicators (
2002
).
