Recycling

[Flo]

If recycling was truly a profitable enterprise companies would pay you for your trash or at least pick it up for free, instead of there having to be a tax to subsidize it. That's the way it works for metals - put an old wash machine out in the alley, and it will be gone within half an hour at no cost to you!

There are companies that pay me, the taxpayer, through the waste collection department that sells them the recyclable part of my waste ... and we don't put old washing machines out in alleys, because littering is illegal

I agree that recycling (outside of certain matters - metals, glass, paper) may not be a truly profitable enterprise, but it at least alleviate some of the cost of waste management, and most of the costs induced by pollution.

 

[mumblethrax]

If recycling was truly a profitable enterprise companies would pay you for your trash or at least pick it up for free, instead of there having to be a tax to subsidize it. That's the way it works for metals - put an old wash machine out in the alley, and it will be gone within half an hour at no cost to you!

But who said it was profitable?

The point of recycling is not to make a buck, but to manage externalities.

 

[balrog666]

But who said it was profitable?

The point of recycling is not to make a buck, but to manage externalities.

You mean to promote "feeling good" by pretending to doing something useful.

How much more are you willing to pay to send your trash through a recycling center instead of a landfill just because it makes you feel good? Here in the USA, the answer among the informed is usually "nothing", because we have a 5,000 year supply of landfills. Clearly, YMMV in Switzerland or France but there is still a trade off between the economics of subsidizing the process and the results (uninformed people feel good about their efforts and landfills last longer).

Recycling activists here emphasize recycling of paper, glass, plastic, and metal (really aluminum only). There is no market for any glass unless it is clear and clean, so the galss must be hand sorted and cleaned, at quite a cost. Plastic is recycled only because of government subsidies it and again it must be the right color (i.e., hand sorted) and cleaned (all at extra cost). Paper recycling too is subsidized and it ends up as lower quality paper and still retails for more than virgin paper. And, finally, the cost of collecting, sorting and delivering aluminum means our town loses money on every pound of it recycled to the metal companies, although enterprising entrepreneurs and urban outdoorsmen (lowlifes and bums for those of you in Rio Linda) tend to scour the recycling bins for the aluminum before its picked up and then sell it directly to the processing company, thereby saving the town money and earning a profit for themselves.

Tell me, where is the sense in supporting any of that? Unless you are in the waste disposal company union?

 

[mumblethrax]

You mean to promote "feeling good" by pretending to doing something useful.

No, if I had meant that I probably would have said it.

 

[balrog666]

No, if I had meant that I probably would have said it.

Fair enough.

What externalities, why do they matter, and what gives them priority over other needed government functions (i.e., how do you decide where to draw the line in terms of the added cost when a thousand other government functions also make some claim to the available funding)?

 

[mumblethrax]

What externalities, why do they matter, and what gives them priority over other needed government functions (i.e., how do you decide where to draw the line in terms of the added cost when a thousand other government functions also make some claim to the available funding)?

Energy consumption would be the most prominent. But there are others: pollution, social conditions created by mining operations, and displacement of indigenous people come to mind quickly. They matter because the public bears costs of production operations not included in private economic calculations. Effectively, failing to take account of negative externalities acts as a subsidy.

The question of opportunity costs is a good one. I can't think of too many candidate programs where the kind of effort invested in municipal recycling programs would yield better results, but I'm open to the possibility. One advantage that recycling has is the aforementioned 'good feeling': it's pretty easy to motivate people to participate in recycling programs.

Anyway, The Economist ran an piece taking stock of recycling recently...here's a link.

 

[balrog666]

Energy consumption would be the most prominent. But there are others: pollution, social conditions created by mining operations, and displacement of indigenous people come to mind quickly. They matter because the public bears costs of production operations not included in private economic calculations. Effectively, failing to take account of negative externalities acts as a subsidy.

The question of opportunity costs is a good one. I can't think of too many candidate programs where the kind of effort invested in municipal recycling programs would yield better results, but I'm open to the possibility. One advantage that recycling has is the aforementioned 'good feeling': it's pretty easy to motivate people to participate in recycling programs.

Anyway, The Economist ran an piece taking stock of recycling recently...here's a link.

I would have preferred more emphasis on the historical development of natural markets for recycled material (instead on conflating that with the ecological activism of ignorant busybodies) but on the whole, an excellent article from the Economist. Thanks for posting it.

I would also note that "it's pretty easy to motivate people" to do an d@mnfool thing. Just look at the idiots we keep electing to office.

;^)