It is, sadly, a well-known result that much recycling doesn't really pay for itself. Recycling takes resources beyond the recycled material itself, and often the value of these exceeds the total cost of producing without recycling. Therefore, States promote some sorts of recycling by subsidies. But, in the final analysis, that actually means that taxpayers fund waste, even as proponents generally think that waste is being reduced.

But that leaves a question to which I don't know the answer: Which sorts of recycling involve marginal waste?

Let's take it that I cannot keep the government from promoting the wasteful recycling of X. Well, given that, some of the costs of recycling are going to be paid whether I recycle X or not — plants will be built; power, labor, and expertise will be diverted. So then the question is of whether my throwing my X into the recycle bin will cause more resources to be consumed than my sending it to the land-fill.

As an economist, I have a thing for efficiency, coupled a more clear-headed notion of what is-and-is-not relevantly efficient than most people have. I'd really like to know what to do with my plastic and paper.

Tags: efficiency, recycling, waste

This entry was posted and is filed under commentary, economics, ideology, public. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.