Recycling Mandates Can be Counter-Productive and Expensive
Similarly, because recycling is so politically popular, public officials developed goals as part of their waste management plans to recycle a specific percentage of household waste. To meet these goals, local governments have used mandated recycling programs and required that certain products contain a percentage of recycled content. As a result, local governments expend enormous resources to promote recycling, even when that means using more resources than recycling saves. Despite conventional wisdom, recycling has environmental tradeoffs. In many cases it can be the less environmentally sound option, because recycling can use more energy and water and can emit more air pollution than other alternatives?
As a result, research shows that states have spent $322 million annually to subsidize recycling, according to one study. Recycling costs are passed to the consumer through trash bills or taxes. One study found that the average cost per household with curbside recycling was $144 annually; without recycling, the cost of trash disposal was $119. These costs can consume a considerable amount of a city’s budget. For example, Sanford, Maine, spent $90,990 to recycle waste that it could have safely placed in landfills for $13,365.
As citizens sort their trash for recycling, most assume that those materials then go to a recycling facility. But many times, local governments cannot find markets for all the goods they collect, and much of the material ends up in a landfill. It is very difficult to determine how much governments actually recycle.
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
OV Social
Mandating recycling when it is the least efficient to the market makes little sense, however, ultimately, the problem of highly expensive recycling is the fault of the manufacturer - not of the consumer or of government. If a manufacturer is irresponsible in creating a product from which its raw materials cannot be recovered easily and cheaply, it is they who are careless creating the overexpense to recycle such a product. It is they who are filling the dumps with unrecoverable materials.
I highly agree - if the consumer is free to make good purchase decisions AND are well informed as to the responsible manufacture of the products they purchase, irresponsible manufacturers will be drummed out of the marketplace in short work. Nevertheless, consumers are not always free as they ought to be to make wise purchase decisions nor are they nearly as informed as they ought to be on the responsibility built into the products they purchase or on responsible use of those products.
All in all, the issue of recycling must become a species-wide change in behavior. I have no doubt it will, however, there are many irresponsible individuals, institutions and organizations who must gain in maturity for it to happen.