You are on page 1of 5

Heidi Jorgensen Econ 2010 Term Paper Cost vs. Benefit of Recycling Is it worth it to recycle?

There are many considerations that are taken into account when the decision to recycle or not recycle is made. rom the time it takes to decide to put the recycla!le materials in a di""erent !in# to the a""ect on the Earth the cost and !ene"it o" recycling has to !e considered. The $uestion is do the costs outweigh the !ene"its o" recycling? %osts to consider when recycling are& trucks to haul materials' workers to dri(e the trucks' "acilities to recycle materials including !uilding# maintaining# and operating' personal costs' "uture costs' e)ternal costs like en(ironmental "actors' and cost o" !uilding something "rom recycled material (ersus using (irgin materials. *ost studies ha(e "ound that when only the present costs o" recycling are "actored into the e$uation to determine i" recycling is more cost e""ecti(e than disposing o" items that recycling is not cost e""ecti(e +Ton,es-. .enerally# disposing o" recycla!le materials to a land/ "ill is less e)pensi(e than recycling the material. Howe(er# cost e""ecti(eness should not !e the only measure considered when determining i" people should recycle or not. actors such as the social and en(ironmental !ene"it o" recycling need to play a ma,or roll in determining the cost o" recycling or disposing o" materials as well. 0egular cur!side recycling pickup is the most common method that most indi(iduals use to recycle their goods. This method o" recycling helps increase the amount o" people who participate in recycling simply !ecause it makes recycling more con(enient. %ur!side pickup "or recycling also increases the amount o" material that is recycled# again due to the "act that more people are recycling and it is con(enient. 1lthough it is easy to ,ump to the conclusion that increased participation can reduce the marginal costs o" recycling# that is not always the case. In the article# 2%ost E""ecti(eness o" 0ecycling& 1 3ystems *odel#4 it was "ound that

recycling was most cost e""ecti(e when only a!out 506 o" the population participated in recycling. The marginal cost o" recycling increased signi"icantly a"ter a!out 506 o" participants were recycling due to increase costs in transportation and processing costs like paying more employees while dealing with a stagnant price in resale (alue o" the !roken down recycled materials. I" increasing the amount o" recycled materials results in partial loads the marginal cost to pick up the material increases signi"icantly. 7hen considering the cost to operate the pickup and processing o" recycla!le materials many options are a(aila!le to "ind the most cost e""ecti(e method "or recycling. Each community will ha(e di""erent costs and needs when recycling and the "actors need to !e considered' howe(er# in the study# 2%ost E""ecti(eness o" 0ecycling& 1 3ystems *odel#4 researchers "ound that through a range o" di""erent conditions# cur!side recycling pickup programs could !e cost e""ecti(e. 1ssuming the item would !e thrown away anyway# the marginal cost to pick up a recycla!le item is only the additional time it would take to sort the item since it would !e picked up regardless o" !eing a disposa!le item or a recycla!le item. The processing o" the recycla!le item +the sorting o" the item- i" it is sel"/sorted will increase at the same rate "or each additional item. En(ironmental costs need to !e considered when determining the cost (erse !ene"its o" recycling as well. 0ecycling has !oth !ene"its and costs to the en(ironment to add to the e$uation. 0ecycling plants create their own waste and costs to operate. 0oad congestion# litter# and air pollution "rom the added trucks also need to !e considered in determining whether recycling is economically sound. 1nother cost o" recycling would !e the handling o" to)ic materials "rom the recycla!les and also the cost o" re/creating items "rom the recycled material +Ettehadieh-. The en(ironmental !ene"its o" recycling include conser(ation o" natural resources# pre(ention o" glo!al climate change# sa(ing energy# and a(oiding pollution +0amayah-. The

trick to calculating the marginal cost o" recycling (s. disposing o" materials when it comes to the en(ironment is "inding a (alue to place on conser(ation# glo!al climate change# and pollution and "iguring out how recycling decreases those "uture costs. 3ince these items are generally intangi!le and seen as "uture costs# some people do not gi(e them as much (alue as the immediate economic costs o" recycling. It is estimated that recycling has diminished the need "or hundreds o" e)tra land"ills each year in the 8nited 3tates causing less reason to take (alua!le land and con(ert it to land"ills. The reduction in land"ills lea(es more land "or natural ha!itats "or the organisms that populate the earth including plants and animals. 0ecycling can reduce the pressure mine "or minerals and oil and to de"orest regions "or the natural resources a(aila!le. 8sing products that are already around in recycla!le items helps sa(e natural resources "or "uture generations. 0ecycling has also !een pro,ected to help a(oid green house gas emissions which has a direct "actor on glo!al climate change. It is important to consider that the en(ironment costs to ship !roken down recycled material also comes into play when considering costs (s. !ene"its. The recycled material is o"ten shipped internationally to !e reprocessed which uses "uel and resources as well +Ettehadieh#5-. The additional trucks on the road collecting the recycla!les also uses "uel and adds pollutants to the air. 3ocial !ene"its o" recycling include ,o! production# ranging "rom unskilled la!or to manu"acturing to science and engineering. Howe(er# it can !e argued that the money spent on recycling could also !e used to create ,o!s in other sectors like health and education that the go(ernment "unds. *any people also "eel recycling is the 2right thing4 to do and place a (alue on doing the socially right thing +9enne# 15-. 3ocial costs and !ene"its play a small roll in the cost (s. !ene"it analysis o" recycling. In most studies the item !eing recycled weighed hea(ily on whether it was more

!ene"icial or more costly to recycle each item. Paper and some plastics were cost e""ecti(e to recycle at any (alue' howe(er# as the tonnage o" paper and some plastics increased the !ene"it o" recycling the items slowly approached :ero. .lass and steel were cost e""ecti(e only up to a certain amount# until the marginal cost outweighed the !ene"its and !ene"its !ecame negati(e.. 1luminum was (ery cost e""ecti(e to recycle at all tonnages +9enne# ;;/ ;<-. It is estimated at this time that recycling most items is more economically costly than ,ust disposing o" the materials in a land"ill. 1s technologies increase and communities gain e)perience in handling recycla!les# the cost to recycle should decrease. There will continue to !e e)ternal pressures to recycle and 2sa(e the planet#4 so companies will e)plore new ways to handle the recycla!le products and marginal costs will decrease. There are many "actors to consider !e"ore making a !lanket statement that more recycling is !etter. The market price o" the commodity will a""ect i" the e""orts to recycle the material will pay o"". The cost to transport materials to a "acility and the cost to transport the processed recycled material to a purchaser need to !e considered as well. inally# en(ironmental costs like processing plants not handling to)ins properly or !urning re,ected items should !e considered when deciding whether or not to recycle. 1lthough the economic cost o" recycling seems to outweigh the !ene"its o" recycling materials# when social and en(ironmental "actors are considered# recycling !ecomes a practice that each indi(idual can economically ,usti"y i" the en(ironmental "actors are gi(en a high enough (alue. Howe(er# the !est practice economically and en(ironmentally would !e to reduce and reuse items "irst# then consider recycling or disposing o" items to a land"ill.

Bibliography Bohm R., et el., The costs of municipal waste and recycling programs, Resources, Conservation and Recycling, Volume 54, Issue , !eptem"er #$ $, %ages &'4(&) , I!!* $+# (,44+, http-..d/.doi.org. $. $ '.0.resconrec.#$ $.$ .$$5. 1enne T., et el., Recycling- Cost Benefit 2nalysis. 2pril #$$). 1ecem"er , Retrieved fromhttp-..www.mfe.govt.n3.pu"lications.waste.recycling(cost("enefit(analysis(apr$).recycling(cost( "enefit(analysis(apr$).pdf 4ttehadieh, 1. Cost(Benefit 2nalysis of Recycling in the 5nited !tates- Is Recycling 6orth it7 5niversity of 8aryland. #$ . 6e" .#$ *ov #$ ,. T. Ramayah, et el., !ustaining the environment through recycling- 2n empirical study, 9ournal of 4nvironmental 8anagement, Volume $#, 5 9uly #$ #, %ages 4 ( 4), I!!* $,$ (4)+), http-..d/.doi.org. $. $ '.0.0envman.#$ #.$#.$#5. Ton0es 1., 8alli:ar0un !., Cost effectiveness of recycling- 2 systems model, 6aste 8anagement, Volume ,,, Issue , *ovem"er #$ ,, %ages #54&(#55', I!!* $+5'($5,;, http-..d/.doi.org. $. $ '.0.wasman.#$ ,.$'.$ #.

You might also like