Harvey Gershman, GBB President, responded to the column with the following letter to the editor:
In his September 19th column in the Boston Globe titled “Get excited about recycling? Not me,” Jeff Jacoby explained why he finds the launch of mandatory single stream recycling in Brookline to be both decidedly unexciting and economically irrational. Jacoby’s main contention is that residential recycling should not be mandatory since these programs cost far more than waste disposal in landfills or incinerators. Jacoby’s reductionist contention that recycling mandates should be based only on a simple financial ledger ignores such factors as the role of recycling in personal health and safety, job creation, and environmental sustainability. In my company’s three decades of experience as solid waste management consultants working with hundreds of communities nationwide, I have seen firsthand the very real economic and sustainable benefits of recycling.
According to the U.S. EPA, U.S. residents, businesses and institutions generated approximately 250 million tons of municipal solid waste with 83 million tons (33.2 percent) of that waste recovered for recycling and composting in 2008. [Ref: www.epa.gov/osw/basic-solid.htm] My firm’s data show that the average municipal cost to manage this waste ranges from $100 to $360 per ton, depending on local variables such as the municipality’s characteristics (its population density, geographic location with respect to processors and disposal locations) and its infrastructure (the method of collection, disposal cost, and number and size of the environmental programs the municipality operates).
When the cost of the waste management system is broken down, the financial ledger shows that recycling collection and processing add up to only 28 percent of the total cost while trash collection and disposal constitute 72 percent of the overall cost. With the value of recyclables set out at the curb, sorted and sold generally climbing to over $100 per ton (and in states with container deposit legislation that share those deposits with recycling facilities to over $150 per ton), these figures confirm that nationwide, recycling collection and processing do not cost more than trash collection and disposal; they actually cost less. That is why we see many companies very willing to collect and process the curbside recyclables.
And, if those processors are sharing a portion of the revenue with the communities from which they collect recyclable materials, the communities will see significant savings and financial benefits, too. Some cities are even willing to collect the recyclables themselves and own/operate their recycling facilities. Systems that have efficient collection and processing, large recycling containers, innovative education and rewards, and risk-sharing contracting make the difference. Austin, Baltimore, Baton Rouge, Fort Worth, Lexington, Nashville, Philadelphia, Plano, Seattle, and many others are examples of cities where more recycling results in lower local waste management budgets.
Jacoby’s ledger also fails to note another economic benefit of recycling: jobs. On a per-ton basis, sorting and processing recyclables alone sustain 10 times more jobs than landfilling or incineration of wastes. According to the most recent EPA data available, the United States hosts 56,061 recycling and reuse establishments that employ 1.1 million people, generate an annual payroll of $37 billion, and gross $236 billion in annual revenues. Recycling costs less to the tax payer than trash collection and creates more jobs during a time when our country needs jobs.
In addition, Jacoby’s ledger doesn’t account for the fact that recyclables are raw materials needed by a number of industries in the manufacture of a host of consumer and industrial products. Using recyclable material is less energy intensive, thereby saving energy resources and diminishing the amount of greenhouse gas emissions in the manufacturing process. Currently, industry demand for recyclable material (paper, glass, aluminum and steel) far exceeds industry supply. For example, in an effort to recover more recycled aluminum, the Aluminum Association has set a goal to achieve 75 percent recycling for aluminum cans and containers by 2015, up from the current recycling rate of 57.4 percent. Similarly, the glass industry has established its goal to increase the recycled content in glass from 34.5 percent to 50 percent by 2013. Expanding and sustaining the supply chain of recyclable materials from residential recycling programs will help provide this material, create jobs, reduce our energy demand, reduce green house gas emissions, and expand the recycling infrastructure.
Americans from the time of Samuel Adams have been rightly suspicious of mandatory acts. But such suspicions should not be examined through a one-dimensional ledger. Yet, when it comes to household trash this reductionist, knee-jerk reaction is, unfortunately, all too common. Those of us who work in the industry have seen firsthand how well conceived and executed recycling programs improve efficiency, create jobs, serve customers, save money and energy as well as protect the environment. As a nation, we can do better than the current 33.2 percent recycling rate -- and congratulations to Brookline residents for doing their part. We need to reach a national recycling rate of 50 percent, even 60 percent. As for the remainder of our solid waste, hopefully we can dispose of it in a beneficial way, such as through waste-to-energy or conversion to fuels. In this time of austerity for many local governments, now that is surely something to be excited about!
Harvey W. Gershman, President
Gershman, Bricker & Bratton, Inc.
Solid Waste Management Consultants
703-573-5800 / www.gbbinc.com
