03/29/22

Recycling. A necessary use of tax dollars or just another tax grab?

I strongly believe in recycling. I often drop off materials at our local dumpsite and am dismayed at the amount of “recyclable” material that eventually ends up being buried.

Worldwide, the average numbers relating to percentage of recycled plastics is depressing; Only 9% of material is actually recycled. Of this material, much can be reused and some sits unused. Whether the 9% reflect market-driven capacity (limit recycling certain materials to what the market for those recycled materials will support), or, whether the 9% reflects the actual amount of material that can be recycled, due to the nature of the material, I am not certain. 19% of plastics are incinerated. Whether that percentage consists of only non-recycled plastics or also includes recycled but non-marketable material is unclear. I make no assumptions as to the efficiency of the incinerators. 22% of the gathered plastics are dumped and 50% is sent to landfills.

If you estimate the actual cost of collecting this material, 50% seems to be wasted as putting the material in your garbage would bring similar results. Most of the cost of collecting and recycling these materials are tax-driven and some is consumer-driven (paying a few cents for a grocery bag). Governments are quick to tout “number of jobs created” but as these jobs are tax-driven, are they not government jobs?

I believe that it would make more economic sense and better environmental policy to incinerate all non-recyclable plastics, with the caveat that the incinerators are world-class, efficient models that produce little pollutants. I am not talking about out-of date incinerators or open pit burning, the pollutants of those pits have been linked to increases in brain cancer among area residents (many Studies if open pit burning: Research “Open pit burning links to Cancer”)

Some will argue that incinerating will introduce pollutants into water and air but I argue that burying the non-recyclable materials are already releasing much greater volume of pollutants into the environment.

Another added benefit is that these incinerators can be used to produce heat energy, to heat local structures or generate some hydro, the likes of which can be used in more remote locations, where the energy produced can be used to heat greenhouses, homes. Any excess hydro generated can be fed back into the hydro grid. 

A tire, for example, can generate around 250,000 BTU (California numbers. This will vary with tire weight and other materials, such as: steel braiding. The average BTU output is 12,000-16,000 per pound of material) and an “average, 1500 sq. ft.” home may require 50,000 BTU per hour in the winter months.

And the final benefit of using non-recyclable plastics to generate heat and energy is that these materials will not end up in a landfill. Collecting materials can be incentivized by paying home-owners an amount for the materials.

This is likely more complicated that I believe but it’s a start.

Do you think plastics should be used as fuel? If not, what would you suggest?