1. Zero Waste Economics – Ending Subsidies for Wasting Dr. Jeffrey Morris Sound Resource Management - Seattle jeff.morris@zerowaste.com 206-599-6734 ZW Network Action Conference August 28, 2004

2. Purpose of presentation Discuss the many forms of wasting Discuss the many forms of wasting Discuss why it matters Discuss why it matters Outline life cycle analysis results to show pollution prevention/resource conservation benefits of recycling Outline life cycle analysis results to show pollution prevention/resource conservation benefits of recycling Consider possible solutions Consider possible solutions

3. Types of subsidies for wasting 1. Direct - subsidies (local, national and international) 2. Direct - tax breaks 3. Direct - security, military and insurance services at low or no cost 4. Indirect - cheaper energy due to subsidies/tax breaks for energy production 5. Indirect – free disposal of pollutants to air, land and water

4. Why subsidies matter: Net costs of curbside recycling

5. Curbside recycling vs. avoided disposal costs in four WA regions

6. Curbside recycling costs & revenues in four WA regions Curbside recycling costs = $173 to $265/ton Curbside recycling costs = $173 to $265/ton Recycling market revenues averaged $70 to $80/ton over past five years Recycling market revenues averaged $70 to $80/ton over past five years Avoided disposal costs = $32 to $77/ton Avoided disposal costs = $32 to $77/ton Curbside costs = $25 to $70/ton, net of market revenues and net of avoided disposal costs, for programs collecting all recyclable materials. Curbside costs = $25 to $70/ton, net of market revenues and net of avoided disposal costs, for programs collecting all recyclable materials. Curbside costs = $65 to $140 for programs not collecting all materials. Curbside costs = $65 to $140 for programs not collecting all materials.

7. Average value per ton for curbside recyclables

8. Life cycle analysis of recycling vs. Disposal with energy recovery

9. Three or four stages in a product’s life cycle 1. Resource extraction, resource refining & product manufacturing - upstream stage 2. Distribution of product to market 3. Use of product by consumers (& businesses) – use stage 4. Management of product’s end-of-life discards – end-of-life (downstream) stage

10. Comparison of environmental impacts for the recycling life cycle (RLC) vs. the trash life cycle (TLC) TLC – virgin resources extraction/refining TLC – virgin resources extraction/refining Product manufacturing – RLC recycled content vs. TLC virgin content Product manufacturing – RLC recycled content vs. TLC virgin content Product distribution and use – impacts typically same whether recycled- or virgin-content Product distribution and use – impacts typically same whether recycled- or virgin-content Discards management – collection (both), processing (RLC) or transfer (TLC), & shipment to manufacturing (RLC) or disposal (TLC) Discards management – collection (both), processing (RLC) or transfer (TLC), & shipment to manufacturing (RLC) or disposal (TLC) Energy generation (TLC) Energy generation (TLC)

11. Environmental impacts of recycling in San Luis Obispo County compared to landfill disposal with landfill gas (LFG) collection and energy generation

12. Energy use -- resource extraction, re- source refining & product manufacturing

13. Energy usage: SLO RLC vs. TLC

15. Greenhouse Gas: SLO RLC vs. TLC

16. Acidification: SLO RLC vs. TLC

17. Eutrophication: SLO RLC vs. TLC

18. DALYs: SLO RLC vs. TLC

19. Human toxicity: SLO RLC vs. TLC

20. Ecotoxicity: SLO RLC vs. TLC

21. Environmental impacts of recycling in San Luis Obispo County compared to hypothetical WTE Incineration

22. Energy usage: SLO RLC vs. TLC

23. Greenhouse Gas: SLO RLC vs. TLC

24. Acidification: SLO RLC vs. TLC

25. Eutrophication: SLO RLC vs. TLC

26. DALYs: SLO RLC vs. TLC

27. Human toxicity: SLO RLC vs. TLC

28. Ecotoxicity: SLO RLC vs. TLC

29. Environmental impacts of recycling in four regions of Washington compared to landfill disposal with LFG flaring and to waste-to-energy (WTE) incineration

30. Disposal methods in WA regions Urban East – 90% waste-to-energy incineration Urban East – 90% waste-to-energy incineration All Other Regions – 100% landfill All Other Regions – 100% landfill Landfill energy/environmental impact calculations assume 75% methane gas capture and flaring; in fact smaller, older landfills in WA do not have landfill gas capture systems. Also, 75% may be too high for actual landfill lifetime methane capture rate at most landfills. Landfill energy/environmental impact calculations assume 75% methane gas capture and flaring; in fact smaller, older landfills in WA do not have landfill gas capture systems. Also, 75% may be too high for actual landfill lifetime methane capture rate at most landfills.

31. Net energy use reductions from curbside recycling in WA

32. Net greenhouse gas reductions from curbside recycling in WA

33. Net acid gas reductions from curbside recycling in WA

34. Net eutrophication reductions from curbside recycling in WA

35. Net human toxicity potential reduc- tions from curbside recycling in WA

36. Potential solutions Bundle recycling costs into garbage fees (e.g., no additional charge curbside recycling for garbage collection customers) Bundle recycling costs into garbage fees (e.g., no additional charge curbside recycling for garbage collection customers) Bundle recycling costs into product prices (e.g., EPR) Bundle recycling costs into product prices (e.g., EPR) Internalize pollution costs in either garbage costs or virgin materials costs (e.g., greenhouse gas reduction credits for recycling or organics diversion programs) Internalize pollution costs in either garbage costs or virgin materials costs (e.g., greenhouse gas reduction credits for recycling or organics diversion programs)

37. Economic value of pollution prevention and resource conservation benefits of recycling

38. Economic value of pollution reductions from recycling

39. SO2 emissions allowances Average monthly spot market prices