Trash for Cash: The Cost of Recycling Mandates
Human beings have disposed of waste unperturbed by government for thousands of years. Yet Recycling Mandates have grown to become an enormous burden on the taxpayer; observable through nearly a half-century of data. Starting in March 1987, America began its crusade to recycle to resolve a misperceived nationwide crisis of garbage disposal, (Miller, R., et al., p. 197). Since then, the total number of landfills has reduced by 90 percent; while “America’s landfill capacity has jumped 25 percent,” (Miller, R., et al., p. 197). Authors Roger L. Miller, Daniel K Benjamin, and Douglass North note that “trash takes up remarkably little space,” (Miller, R., et al., p. 197). To quantify this statement, Miller, et al. add that “all of America’s trash for the next century would fit in a single landfill, no more than ten miles on a side,” (Miller, R., et al., p.197). Despite the narrative of modern propaganda; “our everyday trash, plastic and glass bottles and steel and aluminum cans pretty much do nothing once they are in a landfill,” (Miller, R., et al., p. 198). Yet the object of recycling remains polarized to the extent that people are punished by the government for choosing not to recycle—despite the data. The New York City Department of Sanitation makes the mandate clear: “ALL NYC residents and businesses are required to recycle. We provide free curbside recycling collection for NYC residents and schools,” (Sanitation). But the result of recycling mandates has produced an inverse effect: the abundance of waste. This amassed waste includes its costs to enforce its own regulations.
While morally driven advocates of recycling aim to achieve environmental justice, benefitting the common good; environmental policies are actualized through profit-seeking centralized planning—not civic representation. Rent seeking behavior like recycling mandates exploit the liberty of citizens through binary intervention; thus, forcing the purchase of services by coercion. Similarly, Thomas Sowell writes that “[s]uch terms as ‘social justice’ or ‘the common good’ may be invoked by those with the prevailing vision, but it is not the common people who are to determine what is ‘common good,’” (Sowell, T., p. 214). The Apostle Paul reiterates the Old Testament’s warning against partiality, (Deuteronomy 16:19); writing “[f]or God shows no partiality,” (Romans 2:11; ESV). Christians thus bear an obligation to correct economic disparities through objective logic and reasoning; in a testament of their faith.
How Recycling Increases Taxes
The government has developed a regulatory scheme to turn trash into cash. But instead of addressing primary issue of waste disposal, the government’s recycling mandates have produced a host of secondary problems beyond the scope of waste disposal. Yet the visible costs of these regulations continues to ascend annually. The EPA reported in their Budget Overview that “FY 2024 President’s Budget for EPA totals $12.083 billion, $1.9 billion or 19 percent higher than the FY 2023 enacted level,” (EPA).
The Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) acclaimed Solid Waste Infrastructure for Recycling Grant Program utilizes a $275 million dollar grant to coerce the compliance of recycling facilities. With these funds, facilities can cover the costs of “recycling equipment, including but not limited to sorting equipment, waste metering, trucks, processing facilities” and upgrades over time, (EPA). As the government does not generate income; it must redistribute the national wealth in favor of compliant entities. Every applicant receiving a grant from the EPA’s program “must demonstrate compliance with applicable regulatory requirements,” (EPA). The EPA clearly notes that any “[f]ailure to demonstrate compliance with these requirements in the application will result in rejection of the application,” (EPA).
Imposed Costs
Recyclables Handling and Recovery Facilities (RHRF) “often serve as a processing link for many municipalities and businesses to allow them to get these waste materials into the recycling stream,” (DEC). The New York Department of Environmental Conservation defines the term Source-Separated Recyclables as “solid waste that exhibits the potential to be used repeatedly,” (DEC). These source-separated materials can include “newspapers, cardboard boxes, office papers, fluorescent light bulbs, metal paint cans, rechargeable batteries, aluminum soda cans, many plastic food and drink containers, and container glass (jars, bottles),” (DEC). Roger Miller, et al. note that “recycling uses far more resources to collect, sort, and transport than landfilling does,” (Miller, R., et al., p. 198). To handle the collection, separation, and transportation of recyclables from waste, New York State created the term Recyclables Handling and Recovery Facilities (RHRF) to define compliant waste management facilities.
The Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) reports “[a]s of September 2022, there are approximately 358 RHRFs in New York State, of which 45 are permitted and 313 are registered facilities,” (DEC). Any facility classified as a “Recyclables Handling and Recovery Facility (RHRF)” in New York State must be “authorized through a registration or a permit. The type of authorization includes the regulatory requirements the facility must follow,” (DEC). These regulatory requirements require the creation of more government jobs to fulfill permit registrations, document filings, annual maintenance and relevance of data, and other duties—imposing a higher cost to the taxpayer. Regulations are created to bar government competition; the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) notes “[f]acilities that do not meet the [government] criteria for exempt status or registration must obtain a permit,” to operate (DEC). But New York State asserts that some facilities are exempt from these government requirements. These three specific exemptions include (1) government owned sites; (2) salvage sites; or (3) any facility with “less than 20 cubic yards of recyclables per day,” (DEC). Therefore, any fully operational non-government owned facility that handles recycling is obligated to comply with these regulations, or risk fines for violations.
Recycling mandates require the acceptance of additional “necessary” standards, like the measurement of emissions regulations. The Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) notes that “[r]egistered RHRFs must generate no more than 15 percent residue (non-recyclable material) based on their intake for a full year of operation,” (DEC). This requires costly annual testing to be conducted at every RHRF, in addition to the expenses of testing equipment; and consistent investigation of facilities to ensure their continued compliance. One example of mandated testing equipment are vehicle scales, as New York State requires that “[f]acilities receiving more than five tons per day [to] have a vehicle scale or other means to weigh incoming and outgoing materials,” (DEC). Non-compliant facilities may face fines and excessive costs. These costs include imposed fees for violations of compliance—up to $400 can be issued. Violations range from failure to “clean recyclables” to failure to comply with “mandated use of clear plastic bags for disposal” alongside numerous other infractions. Compliant facilities must aptly acclimate to ad interim government recycling regulations, and relevant updates.
The Net Effect of Recycling
As Roger Miller, et al. note “[t]he process of recycling everyday rubbish actually uses more resources than are expended when we send our trash to the landfill. In fact, on average we waste about $60 to $75 worth of resources for every ton of household trash that is recycled rather than sent to a landfill,” (Miller, R., et al., p. 198). Some data appears more significant when isolated in limited context. While the New York City Department of Sanitation (DSNY) reveals its disposal costs “[i]n fiscal year 2021, refuse [waste] disposal cost the City $203 per ton, while recycling processing cost $53 per ton;” the DSNY further collection data actually reveals that “[r]ecycling collection cost $615 per ton in fiscal year 2021, 80 percent more than the $342 per ton cost of collecting refuse [waste]” (CBCNY). Similarly, the EPA assures that costs will “[d]ecrease as more materials are collected by the program;” its current burden is costly. The EPA cannot predict the marginal costs as more materials are collected; and greater facilities are required. Participation is required; the EPA warns that “[i]f few households participate in the program and the program does not collect many commodities, the per household cost soars,” (EPA). Worse, “it is costly to drive a recycling truck past household after household that has not set out recyclables,” (EPA). The DSNY reports that “[c]ollection costs per ton are high because the average recycling truck fills just half of its capacity per shift,” (CBCNY). This negligence has required more costs, forcing the EPA to fund its own reduction of carbon emissions. The Inflation Reduction Act thus allocated the EPA provisions “that [invested] $1 billion to replace existing Class 6 and Class 7 non-zero-emission heavy-duty vehicles with zero-emission models” (EPA). Recycling trucks are considered “heavy duty;” as “[m]edium-duty vehicles are Classes 4 to 6,” (BigTruckRental). And these trucks do not drive themselves—requiring drivers and workers to be hired for collection. Overall, the cost-benefit analysis does not support a viable economic defense for its continued operation.
The Solution is Unanimity
In sum, the solution for the removal of recycling mandates requires a three-pronged approach: the first, (1) remove coercive mandates, deeming recycling to be voluntary; second, (2) charge households per bag, funding the costs of voluntary recycling; third, (3) “have the states that produce the most trash ship it to states where it can be most efficiently disposed of—for a price of course;” to mitigate the cost of waste disposal, (Miller, R., et al., p. 195).
The bottom line—recycling mandates omit the doctrine of public unanimity, requiring the claimed remedy of more government intervention; thereby imposing further coercive rent-seeking behavior upon its citizenry. Recycling mandates relies on binary intervention to coerce organizations opposed to recycling, and triangular intervention to limit the behavior of privately owned recycling facilities. And the government’s intervention in the disposal of waste by recycling mandate remains costly; despite the weight of data against it.
Bibliography
BigTruckRental. (Accessed on December 4th, 2024). Understanding Heavy-duty Truck Classifications – Big Truck Rental. https://bigtruckrental.com/garbage-truck-rental-service/understanding-heavy-duty-truck-classifications/.
DEC. (Accessed on December 4th, 2024). Recyclables Handling And Recovery Facilities - NYSDEC. https://dec.ny.gov/environmental-protection/waste-management/solid-waste-management-facilities/recyclables-handling-recovery.
EPA. (Accessed on December 4th, 2024). Collection Costs. Improving Recycling's Economic Profile | Tools for Local Government Recycling Programs. US EPA. https://archive.epa.gov/wastes/conserve/tools/localgov/web/html/collection.html.
EPA. (Accessed on December 4th, 2024). Solid Waste Infrastructure for Recycling Grants for Communities | US EPA. https://www.epa.gov/infrastructure/solid-waste-infrastructure-recycling-grants-communities.
Miller, R., et al. (2017). The Economics of Public Issues, 20th Edition. [VitalSource Bookshelf 10.3.1]. Retrieved from vbk://9780134532035
Rothbard, M. (1974). The Anatomy of the State (LvMI). Ludwig von Mises Institute. Kindle Edition.
Rules. (Accessed on December 6th, 2024). Fees for the Disposal of Yard Waste and Organic Waste – NYC Rules. https://rules.cityofnewyork.us/rule/proposed-fees-for-the-disposal-of-yard-waste-and-organic-waste/
NYC. (Accessed on December 6th, 2024). Recycling. DSNY. https://www.nyc.gov/site/dsny/collection/residents/recycling.page.