Municipal Solid Waste : Effect of State-Level Programs on Waste Reduction and Increased Recycling

T study examines the effectiveness of state waste management policies in reducing municipal solid waste and increasing recycling. None of the general programs currently in practice effect the amount of waste generated. However, programs such as bottle bills and curbside pickup, and factors such as landfill and incinerator tipping fees and population density show a strong relationship to increased recycling. Introduction Municipal solid waste, or MSW, consists of most non-industrial, non-hazardous solid wastes. In general, those components of MSW that are not recycled are either landfilled or burned. Over the past ten years, the nationwide average has well exceeded a ton of MSW generated annually per person. Though recycling rates have risen slightly, the national population, as well as the per capita rate of waste production, has also risen. Many programs, such as bottle bills, tonnage taxes, backyard composting, and environmentally preferred purchasing, exist on the state level to reduce waste and encourage recycling. The purpose of this study is to determine which of the current practices are most effective and which are not worth further pursuit. Topic Background and Literature The two general methods that exist to reduce the amount of solid waste requiring disposal are recovery and source reduction. Over the past few decades the focus has been on basic recovery, or recycling. Abert, Alter, & Bernheisel lay out the early economic basis of waste recovery in the 1974 paper “The Economics of Resource Recovery. ” The paper separates recoverable waste into the categories of pure raw materials and organic materials. “Front end” recovery, which involves mechanical extraction of usable elements, results in new raw materials. This method corresponds to the modern view of recycling. The paper also refers to “back end” recovery, which consists of composting or burning organic material in order to recover usable material or energy. Composting remains an important component of recycling while incineration has recently raised air pollution concerns. Many observers have argued that disposal costs can provide a strong driver for increased recycling. A 1983 Worldwatch paper claims that recycling reduces the need for raw materials, lowers energy use, and reduces the costs of waste disposal. Market distortions, Chandler argues, are what prevent recycling from being more pervasive. The lack of accounting for externalities, subsidized energy, and tax incentives for production eliminates the economic advantages of recycling. In addition, solid waste disposal costs can often come out of general taxes, reducing individual incentives to cut waste. In Recycling Solid Waste, Duston makes similar claims about the ability of cost to drive increased recycling. He argues that the avoided costs of disposal provide 75 percent of the benefits of recycling. He also points to rising disposal costs and increasing scarcity of landfill area as potential future drivers for recycling. In this model there are significant economic gains to be made by recycling. The model predicts that rises in the cost of alternative methods of disposal should increase the incidence of recycling. However, the idea that increased cost of disposal leads directly to recycling is not unanimous. In a 1996 study entitled “Household Responses to Pricing Garbage by the Bag,” Fullerton and Kinnaman observed the household response to implementation of a per-bag fee on garbage. By measuring the weight of garbage at pickup both four weeks prior to and four weeks after the implementation of the fee, the study determined that the drop in the weight of garbage was rather small. Through subsequent surveys, the study estimated that at most one third, and possibly none, of the modest weight drop was attributable to a reduction in waste production. Increased recycling accounted for slightly over a third of the weight drop, with illegal dumping comprising the remaining amount. The conclusion of the Fullerton and Kinnaman study is that direct unit pricing of garbage does not represent an efficient method of reducing garbage weight and increasing recycling. Overall, the administrative costs, as well as the social costs incurred by illegal dumping, outweighed the marginal increase in recycling. However, the study addresses the effects of unit costs at the individual level. It leaves open the question of whether increased costs can provide a significant driver for towns or cities to reduce the amount of waste they must dispose. Previous research has also addressed factors other than direct costs that contribute to waste reduction and recycling rates. In 1991, Dobbs conducted a study of disposal taxes and user charges; consumers were required to pay a fee for the eventual disposal of the item and those who dispose of the item must pay. He found that the optimal solution was a disposal tax coupled with Volume 12, Spring 2005 37 MURJ Reports a negative user charge. This is the deposit-refund system that many states now have on aluminum cans and various other products. In theory, the disposal tax reduces the incentive to generate waste, while the negative user charge, or refund, increases the incentive to properly deal with waste. Sigman compares lead recovery policies and finds virgin materials taxes and deposit-refund systems to be the most efficient at increasing recycling. Recycled content standards and subsidies for recycled material production were less effective. Palmer, Sigman, & Walls agree in a study entitled “Reducing Municipal Solid Waste,” which examines the relative efficacy of deposit-refund systems, advance disposal fees, and recycling subsidies. The study finds deposit-refund to be less costly to implement than the alternatives. Despite the strong support for deposit-refund systems, there is no consensus on which programs provide the best incentives to increase recycling. In a more recent study, Kulshreshthra & Sarangi analyze the theoretical model behind deposit-refund and claim that the practice can lead to underrecycling. Ekvall is also pessimistic about recycling initiatives, and argues that setting minimum recycling standards can also result in under-recycling. In an attempt to add fuel to the debate, this study empirically examines a large range of programs designed to stimulate recycling and reduce the amount of waste placed in landfills and incinerators. Research Design In this study, I analyze the relative effects of different approaches to controlling solid waste and increasing recycling. I examine the following policies, some of which have been pursued by many states over the past 10 years: