Recycling can do more for the environment than previously known, according to a new U.S. study which compared carbon mitigation strategies, such as a transition to electric vehicles and the use of clean energy, to more traditional environmental-protection approaches.
Researchers assessed the economic and environmental value of community recycling practices, and found recycling provides a return on investment similar to or better than more expensive environmental measures.
“Eliminating recycling squanders one of the easiest opportunities for communities and citizens to help lessen the impact of climate change and reduce our demands on natural resources,” said Timothy Townsend, a professor of environmental engineering sciences at the University of Florida and one of the study’s authors, in a press release. “Recycling won’t solve the problem alone, but it is part of the puzzle.”
According to the study, which was published Monday in the journal Nature Sustainability, jurisdictions across the U.S. have either canceled or scaled back recycling programs as a result of increasing costs. The findings concluded that recent restrictions on recyclable material, previously gathered by international markets, largely contributed to the rise of costs.
The research team aimed to determine how expensive recycling programs are compared to general garbage collection. They also calculated the resale value of recyclable items to learn whether the recycling programs could pay for themselves with the right resold material. Aside from this economic assessment, the study also looks at the benefits of residential recycling systems in reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
According to the findings, recycling markets were most lucrative back in 2011, with an average American household toll of US$3, but the financial burden of maintaining programs rose in 2018 – following tighter restrictions – and continued to become more expensive through 2020, ranging from US$34 to US$42 per household.
Despite these higher costs, the study argues that investment in recycling effectively offsets the greenhouse gas emissions of non-recycled waste accumulating in landfills.
Based on the research, a solution is suggested by Townsend and fellow researcher Malak Anshassi, of Florida Polytechnic University, which can help communities reap the benefits of recycling without feeling the toll of financial pressures: If local governments restructure their recycling programs to target materials with the greatest market value and the highest potential for carbon offset, recycling can simultaneously pay for itself and reduce green house gas emissions, Townsend explained in the release.
The study identifies “higher-value” materials – meaning items that are profitable in the recycling market and also can reduce emissions if sold – as HDPE and PET plastic bottles, aluminum and steel cans, cardboard, and newspaper.
“Recycling is a public service provided by local governments to their residents, just like providing water, sewer, roads,” Townsend said. “It is a service that does have an expense, but it always has. I would argue that it does not cost much when you compare it to other services we pay for, and when markets are good, you hardly pay anything.”
The study also encourages municipalities to implement policies that help relieve the cost burden of recycling by distributing some of the responsibility to manufacturers. This could include a minimum amount of recyclable materials that manufacturers must include in packaging products.
“If we learn collectively to recycle better, we can reduce the costs to pretty much break even,” Townsend says. “From an environmental perspective, that’s a good return on your investment.”
