Waste Management Should be Driven by the Market Pricing
Americans like to recycle, and recycling is indeed an important part of our integrated waste management system. This system recognizes that some portions of our waste are most efficiently recycled, some are most efficiently placed in landfills, and some can be burned in incinerators. The key is finding the mix of options that conserves the most resources, while protecting the environment. Market-driven competition is the best way to achieve this goal. The price of each option represents its costs to society: the value of the water, energy, land, labor, and other resources that the disposal option requires. Hence, by allowing competition between disposal options, we enable the most resource-efficient (the least expensive) option to win in any given case. Yet state and local governments do not follow this advice. They try to manage their waste with plans similar to the economic plans of the former socialist nations, creating a host of economic and environmental problems.
Local governments often develop 30-year waste management plans, an approach that presents serious problems. Public officials cannot possibly estimate future waste generation, nor can they envision future disposal technology. As a result, they often make poor decisions, invest in the wrong technologies, and choose less efficient disposal options. For example, many states and localities have invested in oversized waste disposal facilities—primarily waste-to-energy incinerators—only to find that they did not have enough waste to keep them running because there were other, more affordable options. As a result, states and localities went so far as to ban competition with these plants.
With government involvement, waste management increasingly serves politically popular goals at the expense of safe and efficient disposal. In particular, the EPA’s system of politically preferred waste disposal options, called the waste management hierarchy, governs most state and local waste management plans. According to the hierarchy, waste policy should first focus on reducing the amount of trash that people make—so-called source reduction. Second, it should emphasize recycling. And wastes that we cannot reduce or recycle should go to the politically unpopular options: to the landfill (third on the list) or to an incinerator (fourth on the list). By relying on this political formula, bureaucrats often work to promote source reduction and recycling at any cost to the environment and consumers.

You're putting the fate of our environment and ultimately all of our lives in the hands of businessmen. That's never a good idea.
You're saying you trust the government over the market at delivering such a service correct?
I think the best people to trust this to are the people themselves, not men in offices. As for myself, we turn all organic goods into compost, try to reuse any plastic or paper, and recycle whatever's left (though usually very little is). However, seeing as how people in our country often seem incapable of getting up and doing anything themselves, the government processing recycling seems the next best option. The worst option, however, is turning control of these things over to those whose concern is money and not what's best for the environment or the people. Nothing is stopping them from tossing it while no one's looking--something companies have been doing in China for example, after taking recycled goods from the U.S.
I agree the people get things done better than bureaucrats.
"The worst option, however, is turning control of these things over to those whose concern is money and not what's best for the environment or the people. Nothing is stopping them from tossing it while no one's looking--something companies have been doing in China for example, after taking recycled goods from the U.S."
Market-based incentives can already exist in order for businesses not to pollute:
http://cei.org/issue/52
http://cei.org/gencon/005 ,04527.cfm
http://cei.org/gencon/019 ,02897.cfm
http://mises.org/story/2855
Also government is currently our biggest polluter (we both may agree on that):
http://www.adti.net/environment/bndunlop_kasten_1000.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akaTQxCKiAI
What happened in China though when companies tried to do the same thing?
Here's the best link I can find right now, though was just with a very quick search, should have some information in it.
http://blog.wired.com/gadgets/2008/11/video-chinas-ho.html
All I can see from the video is the fact that China cannot manage all the e-waste it receives from all over the world. Not much about businesses who aren't under government control deciding to pollute the environment.
You must have missed it. They don't talk about it much but where all that waste is coming from is U.S. companies trying to save money. And that's a huge problem for me: when businesses put profit over things like consumer and environmental safety, like with the melamine tainted milk. Business just shouldn't be trusted with such things, because profit is NOT more valuable than human life. And while as an ancap I'm sure you'd love for there to be no restrictions on these companies, so they are free to dump the recycling waste while no one's looking, that's not what our environment needs.
Another reason for leaving it to the government instead of businesses (though, again, at-home recycling is best) is very few people are going to want to pay to get their recycling done when they can get away with not doing it. Government doing the recycling is more convenient because we just put it out and don't have to worry about it. And as the environment's health is crucial to our survival as a race (I suggest you take a look at the latest WWF report, by the way), this isn't really something we can do half-ass.
There is no question that recycling makes good sense. It is also good sense that government take a hands-off approach. Allowing freedom of choice in the market place is the only sane approach. Government interference in the past and present has created far more expense to the consumer and to business than it avoids. Reducing and eliminating government intrusion in a free market, however, is a much more complex problem to solve than dwindling natural resources and mounting garbage.
If anything, government ought to aid the consumer to watch and determine which businesses are acting responsibly with natural resources and which are not. It ought also aid the consumer in making smart purchase decisions. Where we ought to draw the line is in allowing government to make our decisions for us. That is not a proper role for government of the people, for the people, by the people.