Recycling Lies

Such a pity that the whole debate over recycling is conducted in lies at present:

The LGA, which represents more than 400 councils in
England and Wales, warned that council tax bills could rise without
urgent action to cut waste and increase recycling.

Councils
that fail to meet recycling targets set under the EU landfill directive
currently face penalties of up to £150 per ton of rubbish dumped into
landfill sites.

The warning came as the association named Britain
"the dustbin of Europe", sending 27 million tons of rubbish to landfill
every year, the equivalent of almost half a ton for every home in the
country.

Germany, which has a population 25 per cent higher than the UK, disposes of only 10 million tons of rubbish.

An
area the size of Warwick, which covers 109 square miles, is currently
taken up by landfill, and Britain could run out of landfill space by
2016 if current trends continued, the LGA warned.

The only reason we are short of landfill sites is EU regulation which just closed, in the long term, most of our sites. The only reason why councils have to pay fines for landfilling is EU regulation which states that they must. However, if we looked at the actual costs of doing these things, without these instructions from the gauleiters of Brussels, we would find that landfill is actually the appropriate action for us to be taking.

For example, a well run landfill site collects the methane from the rotting of the contents and uses it to power nearby homes or factories, cutting global warming emissions. The process of collecting and the distributing materials for recycling uses vast amounts of energy, thus increasing greenhouse emissions. It is also true that if each household spends just 15 minutes a week sorting for the recycling, then this costs more than the entire landfilling process itself.

Someone, somewhere, has got it into their heads that recycling saves some vital natural resource, that in some manner we as a society make a profit from recycling. But if recycling costs us more to collect, costs us more to sort, then it might be difficult for this to be true….well, unless that resource really is terribly valuable. Now there are resources which make it worth it. Used Ferraris don’t end up in landfill, used steel does not, copper and so on. Indeed, people will pay you for the right to come and pick them up. The value of the resource is such that it covers those extra costs.

So we can actually come up with a very simple metric to judge the value or not of recycling. As and when the local council starts to pay you for the right to mine your waste for this precious natural resource then recycling is an economically efficient thing to do. While they are charging you to cover the losses they make on recycling, then it isn’t, and we should stop doing it.

12 responses

  1. How many of the UK’s landfill sites utilise methane in this way?

  2. Quite a few use the methane to produce energy – it’s a substantial business.
    But Tim fails to make the counter point. If we had fewer landfills containing a higher proportion of material which decays producing methane (and less non-degradable material) then energy production would require less equipment and be more efficient.
    I don’t have the figures to quantify this, but neither does Tim.
    The argument for recycling may not always be clear cut, but the argument against isn’t as clear cut as Tim makes out either.

  3. Katherine Avatar
    Katherine

    Good point. Thanks. It’s odd how once you were made to feel guilty about not recycling, and now the move seems to be towards making you feel guilty for being careful about doing it. Damned either way.

  4. Don Lloyd Avatar
    Don Lloyd

    Katherine,
    “Good point. Thanks. It’s odd how once you were made to feel guilty about not recycling, and now the move seems to be towards making you feel guilty for being careful about doing it. Damned either way.”
    The prime purpose, and reason for being, of all authority, is to prevent people from doing what they want and making them do what they don’t want to do. So, in any particular case, the problem must lie with the people themselves and their preferences. If people wanted to spend hours sorting their waste, they not only wouldn’t be forced to do it, but they would likely be prohibited from doing it.
    Regards, Don

  5. EDF Energy informs me that 30% of renewable energy comes from landfill. So stop building windmills and fill those landfills.
    HJHJ makes a good point but is wrong. Landfills require non-degradable material to provide stability – carrier bags are particularly good!

  6. The Penn and Teller’s Bullshit! episode that covered recycling made a particularly cogent point about the economics of recycling: if plastic bottles had the same value as recyclable material as aluminium cans, then homeless people would collect them too.

  7. Bruce G Charlton Avatar
    Bruce G Charlton

    What exactly is wrong with landfill? – it was used near where I live to reclaim bogland and build some homes. Isn’t that the kind of thing which made the Netherlands the paradise on earth it is today?

  8. Kit,
    I didn’t suggest that there should be no non-degradable material in landfills, just a lower proportion.
    I recycle much of my rubbish, for the simple reason that it saves money on the council tax. My local authority has no landfill sites available and has to pay exorbitant fees to surrounding councils. It has actually worked out that more recycling saves it money (Tim, of course, will point out that this doesn’t necessarily make recycling cost-effective overall, but in the circumstances my council faces, it does to us council taxpayers). But my point is that what I do throw out consists largely of food items that can’t be composted (I compost because I have an allotment) such as meat and – you guessed it – carrier bags.

  9. “The prime purpose, and reason for being, of all authority, is to prevent people from doing what they want and making them do what they don’t want to do.”
    I didn’t say “authority” was making me feel guilty about anything. At the moment, it’s Tim.

  10. Oh, and I don’t spend hours sorting my recycling, or even 15 minutes. One black bin – done in seconds.

  11. Done in seconds, for each individual item, which may work out to 30 items per person per week. Most people don’t have the recycling bin in the most convenient spot, the way the trash bin is. If that is 10 seconds to clean and bin the recyclable, and you have 3 members in your household, that is 900 seconds, or 15 minutes, right there. Plus a couple of minutes to carry it out to the curb separately from the rest of the trash, and another couple to bring it back. Plus cost of the water to rinse the thing, and the recyclables themselves (don’t want ants). You can add up to 15 minutes of time or equivalent real costs without much difficulty.

  12. “I am not ready to become Amish ….. but you are!

    This topic has undoubtedly been covered by other individuals more efficiently and in a more coherent fashion but Haute Monde is willing to have a go as well.

Leave a Reply

Discover more from Tim Worstall

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading