Recycling Ethos and Ethic
Human beings,
from time immemorial, have been recycling materials. What was recycled depended
on scarcity of materials, economic value and utility. The law of supply and
demand has always prevailed. Over several millennia the system worked quite
well, and a steady state prevailed.
The 20th
century ushered in a flood of new and mostly useful man-made materials that
improved the quality of life and public health. The industrial revolution
induced mass production and human productivity. Simultaneously, waste discards
also increased, and the ability to make good use of waste discards did not
follow. The post–World War II era saw a significant jump in the standard of
living of Americans, accompanied by a jump in the waste discard rate. Increased
commerce resulting from America’s generous Marshall Plan initiated globalization
of industrial production. Materials recycling became a useful part of industrial
production, and the steady state started becoming wobbly. In 1976, the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act raised the local problem of garbage disposal to
the federal government level. Many progressive states started closing open
dumps.
On April 1,
1987, the wayward barge MOBRO 4000 changed the steady state of recycling. The
worldwide TV coverage showed that garbage disposal was a ubiquitous problem. At
a meeting of the Northeastern states in New York City that year, the deputy
administrator of the EPA proclaimed a 25% goal for recycling materials discarded
in residential garbage. That evening, the State of Vermont proclaimed that its
goal was 35%! These goals were set without looking at the impact on the supply
and demand of materials in the industrial sector.
A recycling
ethos emerged over the next decade and has now morphed into a sort of
faith-based program. One new thought emerged that the total cost of recycling
materials would be offset by revenues to approach zero cost. The states compete
to show that their recycling rates are increasing and jostle to claim to be
Number 1. Mandatory recycling laws were enacted in many states with the hope
that the amount of solid waste discards could be reduced to zero. The law of
unintended consequences was ignored in this grand effort. It became apparent
quickly that the supply of recyclable materials exceeded demand.
Rather than
letting the market place adjust to the new situation, the states continue to set
higher goals.
Absent
globalization, the situation could reach steady-state stability. However,
production of paper fibers, metals, and plastics has now become a major global
activity. The use of recycled materials for remanufacturing within North America
has declined as labor and environmental costs have increased. China benefited by
stepping in as the leader in manufacturing of steel and paperboard. In addition
internal demand in China for plastic beverage bottles and nonferrous metals also
created a market opportunity for export from North America.
Shipping
recyclable materials to China, India, and other countries, it is assumed, will
lead to considerable improvement in global environmental quality. After all, the
EPA could claim that national recycling goals (or is it diversion?) are being
met, and, therefore, all is well.
Yet, exporting
recyclable materials could actually reduce global environmental quality if the
recycling and remanufacturing activities in China and India spew out pollutants
with impunity. Because of global air circulation, pollutants cross oceans and
national boundaries. In addition, without good controls, many plastics end up
adversely affecting marine life in the open seas. Is our collective behavior
ethical if we knowingly support polluting activities offshore in the guise of
increasing our claims of recycling?
Advertisement
So, what should
we do? It is perhaps best for the US to redevelop its industrial capacity in
utilizing recyclable materials diverted from our stream of solid waste. Society
would benefit if we gradually gave up faith-based recycling and replaced it with
one that offers real long-term sustainability. It will also create manufacturing
jobs and new investment.
Is
that too much to ask?
Author's Bio: N.C. Vasuki is the former CEO of the Delaware Solid Waste Authority
January-February 2009
Recycling Ethos and Ethic
Human beings,
from time immemorial, have been recycling materials. What was recycled depended
on scarcity of materials, economic value and utility. The law of supply and
demand has always prevailed. Over several millennia the system worked quite
well, and a steady state prevailed.
The 20th
century ushered in a flood of new and mostly useful man-made materials that
improved the quality of life and public health. The industrial revolution
induced mass production and human productivity. Simultaneously, waste discards
also increased, and the ability to make good use of waste discards did not
follow. The post–World War II era saw a significant jump in the standard of
living of Americans, accompanied by a jump in the waste discard rate. Increased
commerce resulting from America’s generous Marshall Plan initiated globalization
of industrial production. Materials recycling became a useful part of industrial
production, and the steady state started becoming wobbly. In 1976, the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act raised the local problem of garbage disposal to
the federal government level. Many progressive states started closing open
dumps.
On April 1,
1987, the wayward barge MOBRO 4000 changed the steady state of recycling. The
worldwide TV coverage showed that garbage disposal was a ubiquitous problem. At
a meeting of the Northeastern states in New York City that year, the deputy
administrator of the EPA proclaimed a 25% goal for recycling materials discarded
in residential garbage. That evening, the State of Vermont proclaimed that its
goal was 35%! These goals were set without looking at the impact on the supply
and demand of materials in the industrial sector.
A recycling
ethos emerged over the next decade and has now morphed into a sort of
faith-based program. One new thought emerged that the total cost of recycling
materials would be offset by revenues to approach zero cost. The states compete
to show that their recycling rates are increasing and jostle to claim to be
Number 1. Mandatory recycling laws were enacted in many states with the hope
that the amount of solid waste discards could be reduced to zero. The law of
unintended consequences was ignored in this grand effort. It became apparent
quickly that the supply of recyclable materials exceeded demand.
Rather than
letting the market place adjust to the new situation, the states continue to set
higher goals.
Absent
globalization, the situation could reach steady-state stability. However,
production of paper fibers, metals, and plastics has now become a major global
activity. The use of recycled materials for remanufacturing within North America
has declined as labor and environmental costs have increased. China benefited by
stepping in as the leader in manufacturing of steel and paperboard. In addition
internal demand in China for plastic beverage bottles and nonferrous metals also
created a market opportunity for export from North America.
Shipping
recyclable materials to China, India, and other countries, it is assumed, will
lead to considerable improvement in global environmental quality. After all, the
EPA could claim that national recycling goals (or is it diversion?) are being
met, and, therefore, all is well.
Yet, exporting
recyclable materials could actually reduce global environmental quality if the
recycling and remanufacturing activities in China and India spew out pollutants
with impunity. Because of global air circulation, pollutants cross oceans and
national boundaries. In addition, without good controls, many plastics end up
adversely affecting marine life in the open seas. Is our collective behavior
ethical if we knowingly support polluting activities offshore in the guise of
increasing our claims of recycling?
So, what should
we do? It is perhaps best for the US to redevelop its industrial capacity in
utilizing recyclable materials diverted from our stream of solid waste. Society
would benefit if we gradually gave up faith-based recycling and replaced it with
one that offers real long-term sustainability. It will also create manufacturing
jobs and new investment.
Is
that too much to ask?