HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0434.003 2004-2006 Synopsis of Key Solid Waste Management Issues:
Waste Hierarchy and Economics of Recycling
A. Waste Hierarchv and Priorities
Jurisdictions around the world have adopted an internationally recognized waste
hierarchy as a policy guide (Figure 1.). This hierarchy, originating in Western Europe,
consists of, in descending order of preference,
1. source reduction [most preferable]
2. reuse
3. recycling from source separated materials
4. composting of source separated organics -
5. processing mixed waste for recovery of materials
6. conversion of selected non-recoverable combustible fractions for fuel products or
energy
7. landfilling and incineration [least preferable]
Levels of such an hierarchy are also described as follows: '
1. Prevention: The prevention of waste created is seen as the most beneficial, as
this avoids the use of natural resources to make the waste, as well as the need
to dispose of the waste.
2. Minimization: Where waste production is inevitable, it is considered best to
reduce the amount of waste created, limiting the use of natural resources and
waste to be disposed of.
3. Re-use: Where waste is produced, methods to re-use the waste products without
further treatment are seen as attractive, as these avoid the use of resources for
re-processing. Examples of re-use are using plastic bags more than once, or
sending textiles and furniture to charity shops.
4. Recycling/Composting: Where possible, waste should be recycled into similar or
alternative products. Biodegradable waste can be composted.
5. Energy_Recovery: If recycling is not seen as viable, some value can be
recovered from the waste by converting it into useful energy, such as electricity
or heat. In this manner, waste displaces the requirement for fossil fuel energy
sources, conserving natural resources and reducing the greenhouse effect.
6. Disposal: Where no other waste treatment method is considered possible, simple
disposal of the waste will be necessary. In practice this generally means the
tipping of waste into landfills.
Prepared by: 1 Comm. hio- 3
James Weathertord, Legislative Assistant
Environmental Management Committee Ref. Toi rcuie~
Hawaii County Council Ref. Uate ~FP.-
September 20, 2005
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA has ranked the most environmentally
sound strategies for municipal solid waste (MSW), as follows:
1. source reduction (including reuse) is the most preferred method
2. recycling and composting
3. disposal in combustion facilities and landfills is the least preferred method
The State of Hawaii, in HRS 342G-2, has legislated that:
"each county shall consider the following solid waste management practices and
processing methods in their order of priority:
1. Source reduction;
2. Recycling and bio-conversion, including composting; and
3. Landfilling and incineration.
The respective roles of Landfilling and incineration shall be left to each county's
discretion.
(c) In implementing this chapter, the department and each county shall consider the
minimization of litter and illegal dumping as a design factor in the development of
integrated solid waste management programs."
Figure 1. Internationally Accepted Waste Hierarchy.
• ' ' ' ' ' ' ' • Prevention
Minimisation
Public Involvement Reuse
Needed
Recycling/Compost
Energy Recovery
WASTE Disposal
HIERARCHY
Prepared by: 2
James Weathertord, Legislative Assistant
Environmental Management Committee
Hawaii County Council
September 20, 2005
B. Economics of Recycling
In terms of benefit to the local economy, research in several states over the past 10
years has consistently shown that:
1. Net recycling costs are less than net collection and disposal costs.
2. Compared with waste disposal, waste diversion activities result in a larger
increase in economic impacts and job creation.
3. Waste diversion, had a op sitive impact, relative to waste disposal, in:
? Sales
? Output
? Income
? Value added
? Jobs
This economic advantage for diversion -principally recycling -includes not only the
direct monetary consequence for individuals, business firms, and local government
operations, but also the indirect and non-monetary impacts for the local economy as a
whole.
While the private sector has a growing and vital role in recycling, there are still
"externalities", or, costs and benefits that are not captured by market transactions. It is
essential to take into account both market enterprises and non-market externalities
when assessing the economics of solid waste diversion and disposal.
Individual economic incentives to recycle are important, and these incentives improve
with positive marginal cost of disposal. For example, the following typical solid waste
charges have been examined with regard to the marginal cost of disposal:
? A flat fee for disposal has a marginal cost of zero, and there is nil
economic incentive for less waste disposal in, and more diversion from,
landfills.
? Charging solid waste fees on billings for real property tax provides nil
economic incentive to divert waste from landfills.
? A charge per volume has a marginal cost greater than zero, because the
payment is made according to the amount of what is disposed of in a
landfill. In this case, there is some economic incentive to divert waste from
landfills, as long as volume increments encourage diversion on a more or
less continuous basis from small through to large volumes.
A "pay as you throw" approach to solid waste increases the economic incentive to divert
waste from landfills. Extending this to an approach of "pay for each time and/or for each
pound you throw" enhances the incentive.
Prepared by: 3
James Weatherford, Legislative Assistant
Environmental Management Committee
Hawaii County Council
September 20, 2005
C. Informed policy decision making regarding solid waste management
The sources of information listed below provide the core of information for this synopsis.
There is a much wider body of knowledge in the area of municipal solid waste
management in general and the economics of recycling in particular. There is extensive
information available on what has and has not worked for local government jurisdictions
in this and other countries.
This information is highly relevant to policy decisions now being made by the Hawaii
County Council. However, the larger part of this information appears to have been
absent from Council discussions County over the years, including up to most recently,
regarding solid waste in Hawaii.
Better use of available information could be expected to transform basic assumptions
regarding what can and can not be achieved in terms of diversion from landfills, as well
as re-ordering of policy priorities in terms of diversion versus disposal.
It is anticipated that a more in-depth review of the experiences of other municipalities,
along with recent developments in technologies, will be undertaken over the one to two
months, so as to provide the Council with better information for making policy decisions
regarding solid waste management.
D. Key Sources
1. Denison, Richard and John F. Ruston, "Recycling is Not Garbage." 1997.
2. State of Hawaii, Hawaii Revised Statutes. 2005.
3. National Recycling Coalition, "U.S. Recycling Economic Information Study."
2001.
4. University of California, Berkeley, Department of Agricultural and Resource
Economics, "The Economic Impact of Waste Disposal and Diversion in
California: A Report to the California Integrated Waste Management Board."
2001.
5. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Municipal Solid Waste: Basic Facts."
2005.
6. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Decision Makers' Guide to Solid Waste
Management." 1995.
Prepared by: 4
James Weathertord, Legislative Assistant
Environmental Management Committee
Hawaii County Council
September 20, 2005