Editing Recycling (section)

== Cost–benefit analysis ==
{{confusing|date=March 2019}}
{| class="wikitable" style="float:right; font-size:85%; margin-left:1em;"
|+ Environmental effects of recycling<ref>Unless otherwise indicated, this data is taken from {{cite book |last = The League of Women Voters |title = The Garbage Primer |publisher = Lyons & Burford |year = 1993 |location = New York |pages = 35–72 |isbn = 978-1-55821-250-3 }}, which attributes, "''Garbage Solutions: A Public Officials Guide to Recycling and Alternative Solid Waste Management Technologies,'' as cited in ''Energy Savings from Recycling,'' January/February 1989; and&nbsp;Worldwatch 76 ''Mining Urban Wastes: The Potential for Recycling,'' April 1987."</ref>
|-
!Material
!Energy savings vs. new production
!Air pollution savings vs. new production
|-
| [[Aluminium recycling|Aluminium]] || 95%<ref name="gar" /><ref name="economistrecycle" /> || 95%<ref name="gar" /><ref name="WasteOnline">{{cite web |title = Recycling metals&nbsp;— aluminium and steel |url = http://www.wasteonline.org.uk/resources/InformationSheets/metals.htm |access-date = 1 November 2007 |url-status = dead |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20071016051136/http://www.wasteonline.org.uk/resources/InformationSheets/metals.htm |archive-date = 16 October 2007 }}</ref>
|-
| [[Paper recycling|Cardboard]] || 24% ||&nbsp;—
|-
| [[Glass recycling|Glass]] || 5–30% || 20%
|-
| [[Paper recycling|Paper]] || 40%<ref name="economistrecycle" /> || 73%<ref>{{cite web |url = http://www.uco.edu/administration/green/recycling/ |title = UCO: Recycling |access-date = 22 October 2015 |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20160312093625/http://www.uco.edu/administration/green/recycling/ |archive-date = 12 March 2016 |url-status = dead }}</ref>
|-
| [[Plastic recycling|Plastics]] || 70%<ref name="economistrecycle" /> ||&nbsp;—
|-
| [[Ferrous metal recycling|Steel]] || 60%<ref name="economisttruth" /> ||&nbsp;—
|}

In addition to environmental impact, there is debate over whether recycling is [[Economic efficiency|economically efficient]]. According to a [[Natural Resources Defense Council]] study, waste collection and landfill disposal creates less than one job per 1,000 tons of waste material managed; in contrast, the collection, processing, and manufacturing of recycled materials creates 6–13 or more jobs per 1,000 tons.<ref>{{Cite web |url=https://www.nrdc.org/sites/default/files/green-jobs-ca-recycling-report.pdf |title=From Waste to Jobs: What Achieving 75 Percent Recycling Means for California |date=March 2014 |page=2 |access-date=4 April 2018 |archive-date=30 March 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180330012840/https://www.nrdc.org/sites/default/files/green-jobs-ca-recycling-report.pdf |url-status=live }}</ref>  According to the U.S. Recycling Economic Informational Study, there are over 50,000 recycling establishments that have created over a million jobs in the US.<ref>{{cite web |title = Recycling Benefits to the Economy |url = http://www.all-recycling-facts.com/recycling-benefits.html |publisher = all-recycling-facts.com |access-date = 1 February 2013 |archive-date = 24 February 2021 |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20210224172334/http://www.all-recycling-facts.com/recycling-benefits.html |url-status = dead }}</ref> The [[National Waste & Recycling Association]] (NWRA) reported in May 2015 that recycling and waste made a $6.7 billion economic impact in Ohio, U.S., and employed 14,000 people.<ref>{{cite web |url = http://www.recyclingtoday.com/Article.aspx?article_id=187090 |title = Recycling myths revisited |author = Daniel K. Benjamin |date = 2010 |access-date = 19 January 2021 |archive-date = 18 May 2015 |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20150518100058/http://www.recyclingtoday.com/Article.aspx?article_id=187090 |url-status = dead }}</ref> Economists{{Who|date=June 2022}} would classify this extra labor used as a cost rather than a benefit since these workers could have been employed elsewhere; the cost effectiveness of creating these additional jobs remains unclear.{{Citation needed|date=June 2022}}

Sometimes cities have found recycling saves resources compared to other methods of disposal of waste. Two years after New York City declared that implementing recycling programs would be "a drain on the city", New York City leaders realized that an efficient recycling system could save the city over $20 million.<ref>{{cite web |title = A Recycling Revolution |url = http://www.recycling-revolution.com/recycling-benefits.html |publisher = recycling-revolution.com |access-date = 1 February 2013 |archive-date = 15 November 2020 |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20201115174450/https://recycling-revolution.com/recycling-benefits.html |url-status = live }}</ref> Municipalities often see [[finance|fiscal]] benefits from implementing recycling programs, largely due to the reduced [[landfill]] costs.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Lavee |first1=Doron |title=Is Municipal Solid Waste Recycling Economically Efficient? |journal=Environmental Management |date=26 November 2007 |volume=40 |issue=6 |pages=926–943 |doi=10.1007/s00267-007-9000-7 |pmid=17687596 |bibcode=2007EnMan..40..926L |s2cid=40085245 }}</ref> A study conducted by the [[Technical University of Denmark]] according to the Economist found that in 83 percent of cases, recycling is the most efficient method to dispose of household waste.<ref name="economisttruth">{{cite news |title = The truth about recycling |date = 7 June 2007 |url = http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9249262 |newspaper = The Economist |access-date = 8 September 2008 |archive-date = 25 January 2009 |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20090125110105/http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9249262 |url-status = live }}</ref><ref name="economistrecycle">{{cite news |title = The price of virtue |date = 7 June 2007 |url = http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9302727 |newspaper = The Economist |access-date = 8 September 2008 |archive-date = 16 September 2009 |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20090916062527/http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9302727 |url-status = live }}</ref> However, a 2004 assessment by the Danish Environmental Assessment Institute concluded that incineration was the most effective method for disposing of drink containers, even aluminium ones.<ref name=Vigso2004>{{cite journal |last = Vigso |first = Dorte |year = 2004 |title = Deposits on single use containers&nbsp;— a social cost–benefit analysis of the Danish deposit system for single use drink containers |journal = Waste Management & Research |volume = 22 |issue = 6 |pages = 477–87 |doi = 10.1177/0734242X04049252 |pmid = 15666450 |bibcode = 2004WMR....22..477V |s2cid = 13596709 }}</ref>

Fiscal efficiency is separate from economic efficiency. Economic analysis of recycling does not include what economists call [[externality|externalities]]: unpriced costs and benefits that accrue to individuals outside of private transactions{{fact|date=September 2024}}. Examples include less air pollution and greenhouse gases from incineration and less waste leaching from landfills.  Without mechanisms such as taxes or subsidies, businesses and consumers following their private benefit would ignore externalities despite the costs imposed on society. If landfills and incinerator pollution is inadequately regulated, these methods of waste disposal appear cheaper than they really are, because part of their cost is the pollution imposed on people nearby. Thus, advocates have pushed for legislation to increase demand for recycled materials.<ref name="gar" />  The [[United States Environmental Protection Agency]] (EPA) has concluded in favor of recycling, saying that recycling efforts reduced the country's [[carbon emissions]] by a net 49 million [[metric tonnes]] in 2005.<ref name="economisttruth" /> In the United Kingdom, the [[Waste and Resources Action Programme]] stated that Great Britain's recycling efforts reduce [[Greenhouse gas|CO<sub>2</sub> emissions]] by 10–15 million tonnes a year.<ref name="economisttruth" /> The question for economic efficiency is whether this reduction is worth the extra cost of recycling and thus makes the artificial demand creates by legislation worthwhile.

[[File:PILE OF WRECKED AUTOS AT KLEAN STEEL CO - NARA - 542660.jpg|thumb|upright|Wrecked automobiles gathered for smelting]]

Certain requirements must be met for recycling to be economically feasible and environmentally effective. These include an adequate source of recyclates, a system to extract those recyclates from the [[waste stream]], a nearby factory capable of reprocessing the recyclates, and a potential demand for the recycled products. These last two requirements are often overlooked—without both an industrial market for production using the collected materials and a consumer market for the manufactured goods, recycling is incomplete and in fact only "collection".<ref name="gar" />

Free-market economist [[Julian Simon]] remarked "There are three ways society can organize waste disposal: (a) commanding, (b) guiding by tax and subsidy, and (c) leaving it to the individual and the market". These principles appear to divide economic thinkers today.<ref name=":0">{{Cite journal |title = Do Economists Reach a Conclusion on Household and Municipal Recycling? |url = http://econpapers.repec.org/article/ejwjournl/v_3a4_3ay_3a2007_3ai_3a1_3ap_3a83-111.htm |journal = Econ Journal Watch |date = 1 January 2007 |pages = 83–111 |volume = 4 |issue = 1 |first = Matthew |last = Gunter |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20151211203746/http://econpapers.repec.org/article/ejwjournl/v_3a4_3ay_3a2007_3ai_3a1_3ap_3a83-111.htm |archive-date = 11 December 2015 }} [http://www.viewdocsonline.com/document/6eyfmh Alt URL] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190515041218/http://www.viewdocsonline.com/document/6eyfmh |date=15 May 2019 }}</ref>

[[Frank Ackerman]] favours a high level of government intervention to provide recycling services. He believes that recycling's benefit cannot be effectively quantified by traditional ''laissez-faire'' economics. [[Allen Hershkowitz]] supports intervention, saying that it is a public service equal to education and policing. He argues that manufacturers should shoulder more of the burden of waste disposal.<ref name=":0" />

Paul Calcott and Margaret Walls advocate the second option. A deposit refund scheme and a small refuse charge would encourage recycling but not at the expense of [[illegal dumping]]. Thomas C. Kinnaman concludes that a landfill tax would force consumers, companies and councils to recycle more.<ref name=":0" />

Most free-market thinkers detest subsidy and intervention, arguing that they waste resources. The general argument is that if cities charge the full cost of garbage collection, private companies can profitably recycle any materials for which the benefit of recycling exceeds the cost (e.g. aluminum<ref name="Howard Husock">{{cite web |url = https://www.manhattan-institute.org/recycling-cost-benefit-analysis |title = The Declining Case for Municipal Recycling |website = Foundation for Economic Education |author = Howard Husock |date = June 23, 2020 |access-date = 11 December 2020 |archive-date = 2 December 2020 |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20201202223851/https://www.manhattan-institute.org/recycling-cost-benefit-analysis |url-status = live }}</ref>) and do not recycle other materials for which the benefit is less than the cost (e.g. glass<ref>{{cite web |url = https://www.wsj.com/articles/waste-management-swings-to-loss-1430309519/Article.aspx?article_id=187090 |title = Unprofitable Recycling Weighs On Waste Management |website = Wall Street Journal |author = Serena Ng and Angela Chen |date = April 29, 2015 }}{{Dead link|date=January 2022 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }}</ref>). Cities, on the other hand, often recycle even when they  not only do not receive enough for the paper or plastic to pay for its collection, but must actually pay private recycling companies to take it off of their hands.<ref name="Howard Husock"/>   [[Terry L. Anderson|Terry Anderson]] and Donald Leal think that all recycling programmes should be privately operated, and therefore would only operate if the money saved by recycling exceeds its costs. [[Daniel Benjamin|Daniel K. Benjamin]] argues that it wastes people's resources and lowers the wealth of a population.<ref name=":0" /> He notes that recycling can cost a city more than twice as much as landfills, that in the United States landfills are so heavily regulated that their pollution effects are negligible, and that the recycling process also generates pollution and uses energy, which may or may not be less than from virgin production.<ref>{{cite web |url = https://www.perc.org/wp-content/uploads/old/ps47.pdf |title = Recycling and waste have $6.7 billion economic impact in Ohio |author = Daniel K. Benjamin |date = 2010 |access-date = 11 December 2020 |archive-date = 15 February 2017 |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20170215040737/http://www.perc.org/sites/default/files/ps47.pdf |url-status = live }}</ref>

=== Trade in recyclates ===
Certain countries trade in unprocessed [[wikt:recyclate|recyclates]]. Some have complained that the ultimate fate of recyclates sold to another country is unknown and they may end up in landfills instead of being reprocessed. According to one report, in America, 50–80 percent of computers destined for recycling are actually not recycled.<ref>{{cite web |url = https://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2002/02/25/computer-waste.htm |title = Much toxic computer waste lands in Third World |website = USA Today |date = 25 February 2002 |archive-date = 13 September 2007 |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20070913003953/http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2002/02/25/computer-waste.htm |url-status = dead | agency = Associated Press }}</ref><ref>{{cite periodical
| title= Garbage In, Garbage Out
| magazine =Time Magazine | date= March 11, 2002
| first = Neil | last = Gough
| url-status=dead 
|url = http://svtc.igc.org/media/articles/2002/time_march.htm |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20031109231707/http://svtc.igc.org/media/articles/2002/time_march.htm |archive-date = 9 November 2003 }}</ref> There are reports of illegal-waste imports to China being dismantled and recycled solely for monetary gain, without consideration for workers' health or environmental damage. Although the Chinese government has banned these practices, it has not been able to eradicate them.<ref>{{cite AV media | work = CBC |url = http://www.cbc.ca/mrl3/23745/thenational/archive/ewaste-102208.wmv |title = Illegal dumping and damage to health and environment |url-status = dead |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20121109004831/http://www.cbc.ca/mrl3/23745/thenational/archive/ewaste-102208.wmv |archive-date = 9 November 2012 }}</ref> In 2008, the prices of recyclable waste plummeted before rebounding in 2009. Cardboard averaged about £53/tonne from 2004 to 2008, dropped to £19/tonne, and then went up to £59/tonne in May 2009. PET plastic averaged about £156/tonne, dropped to £75/tonne and then moved up to £195/tonne in May 2009.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Hogg |first=Max |date=2009-05-15 |title=Waste outshines gold as prices surge |url=https://www.ft.com/content/feebdb2a-419d-11de-bdb7-00144feabdc0 |access-date=2023-02-08 |website=Financial Times |archive-date=8 February 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230208010142/https://www.ft.com/content/feebdb2a-419d-11de-bdb7-00144feabdc0 |url-status=live | url-access=subscription }}</ref>

Certain regions have difficulty using or exporting as much of a material as they recycle. This problem is most prevalent with glass: both Britain and the U.S. import large quantities of wine bottled in green glass. Though much of this glass is sent to be recycled, outside the [[American Midwest]] there is not enough wine production to use all of the reprocessed material. The extra must be downcycled into building materials or re-inserted into the regular waste stream.<ref name="gar" /><ref name="economisttruth" />

Similarly, the northwestern United States has difficulty finding markets for recycled newspaper, given the large number of [[pulp mill]]s in the region as well as the proximity to Asian markets. In other areas of the U.S., however, demand for used newsprint has seen wide fluctuation.<ref name="gar" />

In some U.S. states, a program called [[RecycleBank]] pays people to recycle, receiving money from local municipalities for the reduction in landfill space that must be purchased. It uses a single stream process in which all material is automatically sorted.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Desimone |first1=Bonnie |title=Rewarding Recyclers, and Finding Gold in the Garbage |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/21/business/businessspecial2/21recycle.html |work=The New York Times |date=21 February 2006 |access-date=12 February 2017 |archive-date=28 June 2015 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150628120721/http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/21/business/businessspecial2/21recycle.html |url-status=live | url-access= subscription }}</ref>