The benefits of recycling

Recycling offers many benefits in many different contexts for communities, and one interesting and yet pragmatic example of the diversity of applications is the recycling of waste materials for use in paving and pavement engineering / construction. According to an article in the Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering there is increased pressure for construction companies to use recycled materials in pavement construction. That pressure is "…due to a rapid depletion of high-quality natural/traditional aggregates," to the increasingly high costs of materials, and also due to the "large quantities of waste materials stockpiled around the world" (Tao, et al., 2008, p. 718).

Since the recycling of waste materials into pavement construction has been successful in Europe, Tao believes that the feasibility of "sustainable transportation infrastructure" has been proven effective and now it is time for the more widespread use of these materials. The benefits that will accrue from this strategy are several, Tao explains: a) the cost of energy will be reduced by using recycled materials; b) a lowering of the costs associated with the extraction of the virgin materials; and c) a reduction of the demand for "primary aggregates" can be expected as well.

Tao and colleagues present some complicated, algebra-heavy testing procedures in this article in order to show the economic benefits of using recycled materials for pavement, since they claim that there is currently a dearth of data in the literature showing those benefits. Hence, they tested the benefits of using Louisiana Class II crushed limestone, foamed-asphalt-treated recycled asphalt concrete, fly-ash-stabilized blended calcium sulfate (BCS), and BCS stabilized with the 120-grade ground granulated blast furnace-slag (GGBFS) (Tao, 718). The researchers actually built a "full-scale accelerated pavement test section" in order to check out the performance and stability of the above-mentioned materials. The bottom line: applying their data and measuring their test section strength indicated that for a "typical four-lane, 5-mile long road section, the use of a BCS-GGBFS base plus a lime treated sub-base in lieu of the Class II stone base and the foamed-asphalt-treated base can result in savings in the PWC up to $2.8 and $11.2 million, respectively" (Tao, 724).

While it is important for researchers to locate those wastes that can be used again, as Tao has done, and prove the value of those materials, when it comes to curbside pickups of recycled household materials, there are a number of positives and negatives that need to be discussed.

Richard C. Porter writes in his book, The Economics of Waste, that on the basic level recycling has three "major" benefits: a) the reuse, and recovery of materials that have been used or discarded; b) the "reduced use of a landfill (or incinerator); and c) the reduced need for solid waste collection (Porter, 2002, p. 133). The author attempts in this article to figure out what the dollar benefits are to recycling; but because market prices fluctuate so dramatically, it is difficult, he reminds readers, to precisely put the financial value on some recycling efforts.

Still, Porter has used some numbers to show how expensive it is to recycle. For example, he points out that collecting recyclables generally costs "two to three times as much as collecting trash." Normally it costs about $50 a ton to collect trash and "well over $100 a ton for recyclables" and so people "should be shocked" to learn that collecting recyclables costs "two to three times as much as collecting trash" (135). In fairness, this discrepancy is due to the fact that the trash truck compacts its load to "a third of its original size" and the recycle truck doesn't compact at all in most cases (135). All that said, Porter -- whose data is 9 years old -- understands that in the future "…the [financial] benefits of recycling will grow, and its costs will fall" (139). However, once the technology is in place to separate recycle materials, and the costs of purchasing those machines comes down -- which it has since this book was published -- a far more profitable situation will come into play.

Meanwhile Porter points out that in Ann Arbor, Michigan, in 2002, the city was collecting 11,586 tons of recyclables materials a year (roughly two-thirds of a pound per person per day) and those numbers added up to an impressive benefit: a savings to the city of $324,000 a year (143). Not only that, but costs of solid wastes are avoided, and Ann Arbor no longer operates its own landfill; instead it pays $28 a ton for non-recyclables to be hauled to a private landfill, Porter explains.

Like Porter, author Don Fullerton is not shy about exposing the fiscal reality of recycling from the market perspective; he even suggests that cities perhaps have launched curbside recycling programs with "incomplete information" (Fullerton, 2002, p. 161). Once local and state policy makers discover how expensive it is for a municipality to put a curbside recycling program in place, Fullerton suggests some city recycling programs will be eliminated. Indeed he reports (161) that in 1997, eleven states reported "…a decrease in the number of curbside recycling programs."

But Fullerton doesn't throw cold water over all curbside programs; he references Ohio as an example where curbside recycling is booming. Eighty-six new curbside programs were launched in Ohio in 1997, and three other states (he doesn't name) have added programs. When an author sees that there are 9,000 curbside programs operating he can see they haven't all "miscalculated the market benefits and costs of recycling" (161). Of course municipal recycling programs are expected to "produce environmental benefits" beyond any bottom line dollars and cents issues, Fullerton argues.

Increases in recycling are fully expected to reduce costs associated with landfill disposals, with incineration, and there should be an accompanying reduction in air and water pollution. Specifically, Fullerton explains that the use of recycled "over virgin inputs in manufacturing is estimated to reduce 10 types of air emissions and 8 types of water effluents" (161). The most dramatic reductions that Fullerton envisions as a result of curbside programs occur for: "carbon dioxide, methane, particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, and sulfur oxides" (161).