Imágenes de página
PDF
ePub

Situation One (Figure 23) represents a hypothetical condition today where total need or demand for a product is 100 units. After the 100 units are discarded, the manufacturing sector recovers 10 units for recycling while 90 units are added to the municipal disposal inventory. Manufacturing withdraws 90 units from the virgin material inventory for manufacture and distribution to customers of 100 new units for use and discard: the cycle repeats.

In Situation Two (Figure 24), the municipal waste sector invests sufficient capital in technology to recover 5 units from its 90 units of waste steam in order to effect "resource recovery" and reduce solid waste disposal quantities. Since demand for recycled units remains at a grand total of 10 units, the traditional secondary materials handling System loses markets for 5 units, that can no longer be sold to industry. Thus, the 5 units no longer economically recoverable by industry are instead diverted into the waste stream. The waste system then must really process a total of 95 units (instead of 90) of which it disposes of 90 just as before and recovers 5 units, which it sells to industry. The net result is that the waste system must handle 5 more units of waste and must still dispose of the same quantity as before. The secondary materials industry loses its ability to collect and process 5

units.

The point of Situation Two is that the expenditure of capital and the development of waste processing technology do not necessarily lead to greater recovery of secondary materials and may lead to greater quantities handled by the waste system while the supply of recovered secondary materials remains unchanged in the whole system. Simply making a supply of material available does not assure its consumption. Demand for this material must increase in concert with or in advance of the actual recovery or the system does not change the total waste disposal quantities.

In Situation Three (Figure 25) demand for recycled units is increased to 20 units while total product demand remains at 100 units. A new situation now arises.

In this case, the manufacturing sector has a demand for 20 recycled units. The effects are as profound as in Situation Two. Assume the traditional secondary materials industry sector can recover economically an additional 5 units bringing its recovery to 15 units. The waste system's load is then reduced to 85 units collected instead of 90 units. In addition, assume the waste system invests capital in technology to recovery 5 units so that it then disposes of 80 units and can sell 5 units to industry. If the system is to stay in balance, the virgin materials sector of manufacturing gives up 10 units and now supplies 80 units compared to 90 previously.

Obviously, in Situation Three, the burden on solid waste systems is reduced substantially, and both the solid waste and traditional secondary materials sectors recover more materials. The virgin materials producers are penalized because they must give up 10 units of output but the system still supplies the 100 units of demand. The recovered materials consumed for a complete cycle reduce the waste disposal inventory by 10 units over the original condition while 10 virgin material units need not be taken from the virgin material inventory. Both disposal

capacity and virgin resources are "conserved" by increasing the nun ber of recycled units.

At present, it appears that far too few people recognize the in portance of the demand parameter and far too many place blind fait. in technology and capital to increase the supplies of secondary mate rials not needed or demanded by the materials processing sector: under current economic relationships and industry structures. Recog nition of demand as an unforgiving system element in the whole recycling question is simply not present to the degree necessary in the current rush to "recycle resources." What looms then is a potential imbalance of supply and a shift or dislocation of supply of secondary materials from traditional" systems to waste management systems and an even greater burden on solid waste management systems as a whole. Simplistic assumptions about demand "taking care of itself” or being simple to change are not realistic. This "supply push" approach is analogous to "pushing on a string" when, in fact, it appears that "demand pull" would more effectively bring about the desired increase of secondary materials consumption.

To bring about a desirable change (Situation Three) requires that virgin material use be displaced. In a situation of increasing consumption, this means that waste recycling must grow faster than virgin materials use. Today the reverse is the case. Since the proportions of waste to primary materials are ultimately determined by the relative cost of each as set in the market, creation of demand necessarily dictates that the cost structure of virgin and secondary materials be changed in relation to each other.

The role of waste processing technology in meeting increased demand depends on the manner in which demand is increased. If virgin resources are made more costly or scare, by whatever means, manufacturers will seek secondary raw materials and will develop the technology, if needed, for processing and upgrading such wastes to increase the secondary materials supply. If demand is increased by making secondary materials available at a cost below that of virgin materials and of a quality equivalent to that of virgin materials, then the waste commodity sellers and possibly the solid waste management establishment will have to develop and use the processing technology for materials upgrading. In any case, waste processing technology is a vitally important part of increased recycling.

The key point about waste processing technology deployment is that its use will not of and in itself bring about an increase in demand but must be accompanied by actions that will bring about a change in the relative consumption ratios of virgin and secondary materials-in favor of waste commodities.

OTHER ASPECTS OF LEGISLATION/POLICY

The foregoing discussion leaves out of account some aspects of reeveling policy that are implicit in the above but that we wish to identify explicitly.

Intermaterials Competition. Legislation to bring about recycling in one material category must take into account the relative competitive position of that material with respect to other materials. Perhaps the

590

[ocr errors]

th

st important single trend in materials used today is the penetration of synthetic materials based on hydrocarbons into markets, domiated by traditional substances-cotton, wool, paper, wood, glass, steel. Unilateral legislation aimed, for instance, at paper alone may well simply intensify the competition between paper and plastics, aking the latter materials, which are not now recycled in any significant quantity, more competitive in paper markets.

The complexity of relationships between materials, especially the substitutability of the amazing plastics for virtually any other material, suggests that recycling legislation must be comprehensive and must be based on a material policy that can be effectively enforced. Labor Force Displacement. In a situation where a high percentage of materials consumption is satisfied by secondary materials, the materials “mine” would become the city where a large number of people live in close proximity to each other and thus make waste collection for recycling practical. In today's situation, the labor forces engaged in the mining and harvesting of raw materials are predominantly in rural areas, and such activities are the only economic magnet of many regions. Recycling legislation may well intensify urbanization by shifting labor requirements for mining and harvesting from rural areas to cities.

Commercialization of Sanitation. Unless practical means can be found to induce consumers to separate materials into many different categories at the household level, collection and processing of wastes for recycling will necessarily become the job of sanitation departments and private refuse haulers that now collect the waste in mixed form. Recycling legislation may thus impose on city, township, and county governments a commercial activity that they are not by tradition equipped to handle. Our urban areas are governed by a large number of independent jurisdictions that are only now beginning to learn to plan jointly. Recycling legislation must bring about changes in local government waste management practices if recycling is to succeed. Private sector waste collection practitioners would also be an important factor in any move to bring about further recycling.

Obsolescence. One way to reduce solid waste generation is to use materials for longer periods of time. If a refrigerator is used for 15 years, instead of 10, its continuation in use represents reduction of waste at the source, a form of recycling-without any materials collection, scrap processing, materials reprocessing, fabrication, or redistribution having taken place. Efforts to increase the life-in-use of products would thus result in "resource recovery." The classic example of a long-lived and short-lived product in an identical application is the use of returnable and nonreturnable containers in soft drink and beer packaging. New design criteria for products (such as modular components) that make repair rather than replacement more attractive would have the same effects.

Energy Recovery. Combustible materials need not be recovered as materials; their resource value may be extracted in the form of heat energy. This is a particularly appropriate way to use materials whose recycling in more conventional ways is impractical, such as plastics, wood, and paper products contaminated by laminants, coatings, and adhesives. In this type of recovery, combustible materials would dis

place fuels coal, gas, and oil. Because energy demand is large a growing and low-sulfur fuels are in short supply, the impact of ener recovery from waste would have little effect on traditional energy dustry alignments; the alternative of recycling such materials as m terials would have a far greater impact on present industry structure Secondary Recycling. Materials produced by one industry need n necessarily reenter the same industry. Waste rubber and waste gla: could be used in road construction, for instance, displacing aspha and concrete. Organics like rubber can be converted to crude oil b pyrolysis and could displace well oil. Organics can be composted and used to displace a portion of soil conditioners used. The key is tha a product is created from waste that competes with or displaces an other product used in other applications. To bring about secondary recycling of materials will be equally as difficult as effecting their primary recycling, but such programs are nevertheless a distinct legislative option.

CONCLUSIONS

To develop an effective solid waste recycling mechanism it is necessary to view the problem in the broad context of resource conservation in which all costs and benefits are expressed. We, therefore, conclude that the following are relevant to any public policy considerations in

this field.

(1) Resource conservation is a concept entirely separate from materials conservation and recycling. To effect true resource conservation a comprehensive systems analysis must be developed in which all the costs and benefits-tangible and intangible- are measured in traditional materials consumption practice.

(2) The supply of secondary materials is not now limited by technological inaccessibility but by relative cost constraints. The demand does not exist for large quantities of materials that could be made readily available on a cost competitive basis from municipal waste streams. Institutionalized practices in exploitation of virgin raw materials assign greater value to virgin materials than secondary materials. The basic relations must be changed through the demand mechanism to achieve a significant reversal of recycling trends in force today.

(3) More attention needs to be given to developing demand for secondary materials within the industrial, governmental, and private sectors. Primary recycling is only one option. Other important options are: secondary recycling and reuse applications for waste materials; energy recovery; design criteria to reduce obsolescence and obsoleting of products and to increase their life cycle; and development of new products from waste materials that might substitute for other materials in commercial markets.

(4) The development of technology to recover secondary materials from waste is moving forward under the impetus of Federal and private efforts. The social, political, and economic capabilities of institutional establishments (solid waste management, secondary material suppliers, and industrial consumers) are lagging behind the technological competence to supply secondary materials. These factors need

[merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors]

zore attention before any substantial new resource recovery can be complished.

It is within this broad context that public policy considerations should take place to avoid undesirable displacements and side effects and to develop positive workable resource conservation. This, we believe, is the most important point at which the conclusions of this study can be directed.

F. Council of State Governments, "The States' Role in Solid Waste Management: A Task Force Report" (1973), pp. ix-x:

Evaluations of the problems outlined in this report illustrate the extent of the national concern associated with the need to improve solid waste management practices in the United States. The findings of the Task Force should be recognized as descriptions of basic needs that must be considered to develop workable solutions in each State. The priorities and detailed options to be considered for accomplishing these ends could not be developed. These will vary in each State according to the character of local problems and public concern for their solutions. Therefore, this report will be most useful as a guideline. document for identifying the fundamental problem areas affecting the delivery of solid waste services by local governments.

The findings in this report indicate the need to reevaluate current state solid waste management policies. As one of the members of the Task Force noted, the group was called together because the system is not working very well. Local governments are unable to cope with the magnitude of problems facing them, and state governments seem to lack the capability of providing necessary assistance. At the same time, solid waste management is emerging as one of the most vexing problems facing local governments during this decade.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROBLEMS

The more than 20,000 municipal corporations and over 3,000 counties represent, in most States, the local governments which are normally obligated to provide solid waste collection and disposal services for inhabitants of their jurisdictions. The level and quality of services presently provided and the inability to improve these services primarily rest with the administrative and fiscal capabilities of these governments.

Various studies have shown that adequate collection or disposal services can be directly provided by government at reasonable cost when the local solid waste service area includes a population approximating 30,000 inhabitants. We must recognize that in 1970 roughly 90 percent of all municipal corporations and about 60 percent of all counties had populations of fewer than 25,000 inhabitants. Most municipal corporations in the United States, about 66 percent had populations of fewer than 2,500 inhabitants in 1970.

Most local governments serve very small populations, have lay administrations, and have limited professional assistance to develop and operate effective solid waste service systems. Their limited fiscal capa

29-925-74-9

« AnteriorContinuar »