How to throw things away

By popular demand, governments are ordering more and more recycling of rubbish. That is not always the best way of dealing with the stuff.

Of all environmental virtures, the reuse of rubbish is the easiest to win people's enthusiasm for. Perhaps taking bottles to bottles bank, or separiting tins from the rest of the rubbish, is a way for the middle classes to calm thier guilt about consuming too much. Certainly, people are amazingly willing to spend time sorting out thier rubbish and taking it to the right place.

Splendid though such public-spirtednes is, it may soon pass the point where it makes sense. At the present , most recycling is done on a modest scale, and the benefit it brings to the environment is less than the economic cost of turning waste back into something useful. But in some countries that may soon change, as goverments compete to set ambitious recycling targets for thier industries, without clear-headed arguments for the cost those targets impose.

In the past, companies have recycled of thier own accord, because the oackaging they put things in was more valuable than the cost of collecting it. Britain's milk still comes in bottles picked up from the doorstep by the milkman who delivers the next day's pint. But Britain's biscuit makers no longer refill biscuit tins. As manufacturer becomes cheaper and less local, transport and labour caost have risen, and recycling has beacome less economic.

So why do it?
The presuure that now drive recycling come not from companies, but from governments and voters. They have two motives, frequently confused. One is to save raw materials. Schemesto encourage paper recycling, for insynace, claim to reduce the number of trees destroed; recycling aluminium cans saves bauxte and energy.

A second argument is the need to reduce the amount of rubbish. The cost of disposing has been rising. In America in particular the cost of burying the stuff in the ground-putting it in a "landfill"-has soared, especially on the east and west coasts. This is partly because the cost of running a landfill have risen as the waste-managers face tougher legal obligations. Tipping rubbish can cost a city in Califonia or New York state up to $100  ton. That cannot easly be passed dircectly on to households, for fear of encouraging illegal dumping.

In some European countries, disposal costs are not much lower. In Germany, Holland and Italy, getting rid of rubbish can cost $80-$100 a ton. Here, shortages of landfill space has been compounded by the difficulty of installing new incinerators, which local voters loathe. Britain is one of the few industrail countreis where waste-disposal is cheap. the cost in Britain ranges from around £3-4($5-7) a ton to £30-40. Britain's extractive industries have left plenty of old lay pits with naturally inpermeable soil. The sloppy British approach to waste-regulation has also kept down costs.

A logical policy would be to decide what priority to give to the two favourite goals of recycling-saving raw materials and having less rubbish-and then ask whether recycling was the ebst way to achieve either. The answer would sometimes be no. The best way to reduce the consumption of raw materials would be to price them at levels that reflcet the nevironmantal harm done by thier extraction and consumption. Left to itself, the market would generally prefer virgin to reycled materials., if only because they are generally better. IN fact, much raw extraction is subsidied-through special tax treatment to encourage exploration and developement, for instance. Ending such subsidies would be the cheapest way to reduce consumption of raw materails.

Recycling makes better economic sense as a way to reduce rubbish. But what can be reused most easily is not necessarily the stuff that is hardest to dispose of. Aluminium, much cheaper to recycle than t make from raw bauxite, accounts for only 1% of the weight of America's household solid waste.  Paper, perhaps 40% by weight of what American households throw out (for thier British counterparts,33%) is much less economic to recycle; indeed, some grades of paper currently have no second hand valueat all.

In several countries public pressure for recycling plastics is greater than the pressure to reuse paper. Yet in Ameruca and in Britain plasics account for only 7% of the weight if household rubbish. An archaeologist made his name by excavating rubbish dumps, has discovered that, in the airless conditions of a well-run landfill, aper does not rot. Why then prefer it to plastic?

The difficulty of making it pay
THe cost of recycling scheme is decided by two main factors. One is the cost collection.IN most American schemes the household separates its rubbish into sepcial bins that are left at the kerbside for collectors to remove. IN Europe these "collect" schemes are rare. "Bring" schemes are more common. People take thier sorted rubbish to collection points, such as bottled banks, from which it is picked up, often by specialist contractors.  afew experiments with "collect" schemes are under wai in Europe, including one in Sheffeild and one in Dunkirk.

"Collect" schemes inevitably cost more than th e"bring" type: in old cities, with lots of flats and narrow streets, they are a lot more effctive. One study, by Britain's Warren Spring Laboratory, has estimated that "bring" schemes might eventually cut Britain's household refuse by up to 20%. "Collect" schemes have already cut household watse in america, gernmany and Denmark by 20-25% and might manage 30%.

THe other big factor in the economics of recycling is the market for wha is collected. A valuable product such as aliminium is worth paying for, as every boy scouts knows. But no company wants second-hand newsprint. Yet, wiothout a market for resued materials, recycling is pointless. Identically, the sencond hand shold replace the new: recycled glass should make bottles that would otherwise be made of new glass. That is the "closed loop" as the environmentalist call it. It ensures a market : the demand for beer means more bottles thrown away, but also an outlet for recycled glass.

Commodity prices are always volatile.Prices for recycled materilas fluctuate even more than prices for raw materials fluctuate even more than prices for raw mterilas. Like the market for raw commodities, demand for recycled materials is affected by changes in technology, and in consumer tastes. The development of self cleaning machinery in printing and car industries destroyed the market for wiping cloths, once an important use for recycled textiles. Conversely, green consumers now clamour for recycled paper. Hardest al sll has been fining markets for recycled plastic. american regulations stop manufactuerers from using it for food-packaging. thus preventing the loop from closing. Instead, the plastic has been reworked into ark benchs and playgroun toys.

Make manufacturers empty the bins
How can recycling schemes be made to pay? Waste Managment, an American giant that runs more recycling schemes than anybosy esle, finds that the economics makes sense only where landfills cost are high. The most efficient kerside-collection schemes the company runs in America cost $70 a ton. Add to that perhaps $40 a ton for sorting and cleaning the watse, and the cost of a "collect" scheme start at $100 a ton. Of that, perhaps $30-40 can be met by selling the scrap. But the remainder has to be found through some system of shared savings, the municipality credits the recycler with come of the money saved by avoiding landfill cost. If landfill costs $100 a ton, the sums claerly works; if $20 thy do not.

Several Americanc cities now use shared savings to spread the cost of recycling. But where landfill cost are low, goverments face a choice. They can use tax revenue to bridge the gap. (as some American cities do.), ot they can make companies meet the deficit. Of cousre, such subsidies beg an obvious question: if the whole point of recycling is to save landfill cost, why do it if a well-run landfill cost less?

Increasingly, governments wants companies to make the arithmetic of recycling add up. The patteren has been repeated in several parts of North America: thraethen a ban on some products, such as disposable nappies or soft drinks bottles, unless the industry that makes them set up a recycling cheme "volutary". This sort of green blackmail  persuaded the packaging industry and its customers in Canada's Ontario province to set up a pionerring kerbside-recycling scheme. It has also ben used to try to create markets for recycled products. Newspapers in several parts of America has been used to most dramatic effect on plastics in America legislatures had led to frantic efforts by plastic manufactuerers to find ways of reusing their materials.

In Europe the pressure on companies has been intensifying ever since 1988, when the European  Court threw out a case brought againest Denmark by the European Commission. Denmark banned non-refillable drinks containers. The commisiion said that was protectionist. The court ruled that this was an area where the interests of the environment should take precedence over those of free trade.

The ruling opened the way for other EC membets to pursue thier own policies on packaging. The greener members had been frustrated by the ineffectual way the commission had, since 1974, ben trying to put together a directive on drnks containers. The directive, eventually passed in 1985, feebly told members to draw up whatever programme each thought best to minimize harm to the environment.

Germany promtly setabout protecting its market for refillable bottles-which conviently also invloved protecting myriad small bottles of beer and soft frinks. In 1989, a mandatory deposit was put on plastic bottles, which crippled the market for bottled wter from France and Belgium: community rules say that mineral wtaers must be bottled at source, and lightweight plastic graetly reduces transport costs.

When the deposit scheme for plastic bottles passed through Germany's parliament, the public demanded to know why only kind of packaging was under attack. The government obliged with stern new obligations. A proposal due to pass through parliament on Aril 19th will make retailers responsible for removing outer wrappings before offering a product for sale. and providing a bin so that customers can leave pakaging a the shop. From January 1993 retalers must accept any used packaging that courage them, a small mandatory deposit will be leveided on all contaners for drinks , household cleaners and paint.

Reeling under this propect, retailers have buillied the packging industry into drawing up a scheme of its own , the "dual watse disposal system"/ It proposes to issue each household with a separate bin for recycledable watse products, which will be marked with a claerly visible green dot. The cost-DM10billion-15million($6-million-$9 million) to set up and DM2 billion a year tonrun-will be met entirely by companies. They will get no recycling credits to help them. By the middle of 1995, the government insists , 7-42% os all packaging must be collected and recycled.The proportion then rises to 64% for plasctics, paper and board, and 72% for glass, tinplate and aluminium. No scheme has ever achived such targets before.

Now for Brussels
Other European countries are now racing after Germany. Denmark plans to increase its existing tax on packaging, and is debating a ban on PVC, a widely used plastic. Italyis threathening to introduce taxes from 1993 on materials that do not meet recycling targets that must be met for drinks bottles by 1993. Sweden wants a ban on non-refillable bottles made of PET, another common plastic. Dutch industry has been told to draw up proposals for a 10% cut in packaging by 2000.

What frightens Europe's industry most is the awful prospect that the Eurpoean Commissio, anxious to improve on its earlier directive on beverage containers, might seize on Germany's scheme as a model. The commission has yet to give its blessing to the German scheme)and  Klaus Topfer, Germany's environment minister, says he will not ask for it.) But it is drawing up a directive that will cover all packaging, rather than just drinks contaniers, The commission hopes to have a proposal ready for environment ministers to consider in September.

Eraly versions of the dirrective have set recycling targets of Germanic optimisium. They talk of reducing the amount of packaging by 10% from its 1990 level(a figure nobody has measured) by 2000 and of recycling half the rest. The people who make packaging are despondent. They hope to avoid having to run recycling schemes, although they are resigned to having to pay at least part of the cost. Their lobbying body, the European Recovery and recycling assocaition, talks of a voluntery levy on virgin materials, whose proceeds would be used to pay for recycling. In theory, such a levy should differentiate amouong materials, falling more heavily on those that do most environmental damage. In practise, such distinctions might cause squabbls amoung the packagers.

The packaging industry is particularly keen that any new scheme should not collevt recycled materials faster than it can build markets for them. That is what the German plan looks certain to do. But packaging companies, and the firms whose goods they wrap, are under great pressure to develope ways to use more recycled materilas. For instance, Proctor & Gamble now insist that containers for liduid soap and bleach are made with a specified minimum of recycled materials. For instance, Proctor &Gamble now insist that conyainers for liquid soap that and bleach are made wioth a specifies minimum of recycled resins.

But the industry also argues, wih obvious logic, that recycling is not necessarily the best way to achieve green goals. Imdeed, recycling may make it harder to achieve other, greener goals. In recent years containers have become lighter(see chart for British examples._ That cuts transport costs (and fuel use), and reduces the space taken up in lanfills. On the other hand, light materilas amy be harder to collcet for recycling; and refillable bottles have to be heavy for repeated use.

If the mian aim of governments is to have less reubbish, a better way would be to apply econimic pressures. That might mean a levy on packaging, to make sure the price of products directly reflects thier cost to the environment. Or it might mean issueing permits for the amount ofmaterials that can be buried. The number of permits could reflect the harm done by each material that can be buried. The number of permits could reflect the harm done by each material to the environment. Companies would then be free to choose the best way to keep within thier permittted figures. For some, the best solution might be to recycle; for tothers, to reduce packaging to the barest lightweight minimum. Permits might be traded within Europe, so that the companies that reduced thier wtase fastest could make extra money by selling spare permits to others that fpund watse-reduction costlier.

Take back the computer
Nothing so visionary is likely tp happen. Instead, recycling fever is spreading beyond packaging to other consumer goods. Mr Topfer has announced plans to introduce compulsory deposits on cars. The german goverment will soon consider a plan to impose on manufactureres an obligation to take back used cars, if the industry meanwhile fails to think up a recycling scheme of its own. Several car makers, including Volkswagen and BMW, are experimenting with "reverse assembly", dismantling plants that aim to separate car components according to thier construction material.

Afetr cars, computers. The German association of computer manufacturers has formed a project group to think about disassembly before Mr Topfer does, so that it can put a proposal to him rather than vice versa. Another proposal on the government's drawing board would make tyre manufacturers recycle used tyres.

What Germany does, Japan thinks of doing. The Japanese Ministry of Health and Welfare has tried to persude manyfacturers to take more responsibility for the final fate of bulky electrical appliances such as old frigdes. washing machines and televeision sets, either by taking back the appliances or by sharing the disposal costs. So far, the the ministry has been fought off by employees's organization.

As the obligation for disposing of prodcuts falls increasingly on companies, it will change thier thinking in a number of ways. It will encourage them to band together, as plastics manufatueres have done in America and Europe. because they will se a common interest in joint schemes for research, recovery and recycling. New alliances iwll emerge. For example, several plastic manufactueres, in America and in Germany, have teamed up with watse managerment companies to collect and recycle plastics: Du POint with Watse Managment , Bayer and Hoechst with a number of smaller German watse collectors.

Companies are starting to take into account the final fate os a product at the moment of design. PLastic manufactueres and their customers are moving away from bonded layers of resins that weigh little but are hard to recycle towards heavier, less efficient, single resins. Mail-order companies in America pack thier goods in popcorn rather than polystyrene-foam beads. Enlightened car manufactueres are trying to use a narrower range of materilas, especially plastics. Generall electric is designing some of its appliance sto make them easier to dismantle Migros Switzerland's biggest retailer, sells toothpaste in naked tubes, with no encasing cardboard or film.

Such inventiveness is impressive,. But it would be more impressive if governments were more rigorous in their logic in encouraging companies to recycle. When in 1987, a commission set up by Australian Goverment looked at a proposal to levy deposits on glass drink bottles , it found that a sheme that would cost industry and consumers between A$200 and A$350m($154m-270m) would cut the cost oflitter collection by A$2m-4m, and reduce waste disposasl cost by about $26m. "For consumers to judge that container-deposits legislation would be worthwhile," commented the commission with masterly understatement, "they would need to place a high value on the total of those benefits which the commission could not qualify."   

Source : The Economist 13-19 April 1991

Back to Archive Page

Recycling Point Dot Com

(C) 2000 All Rights Reserved