Wonky Wednesday: Let’s Get Recycling Done This Week

Filed in Uncategorized by on June 27, 2007

The General Assembly has before it a bill, House Substitute 1 to House Bill 146, that would create a meaningful statewide recycling program in Delaware. A competing bill, HB 159, while not as far reaching, would still go a long way to creating the infrastructure for statewide recycling. While either would be good for Delaware, the more comprehensive bill would create the greater environmental and economic benefits.

Here’s why:

First, landfills are expensive. As I pointed out in this analysis last year, the modest capital cost of a single stream recycling facility creates savings by postponing the need for siting and building an expensive new landfill down the road. I have calculated the present value savings to be at least three dollars for each dollar invested in a recycling facility.

As for the cost of a new landfill, the Delaware Solid Waste Authority (DSWA) has put the cost of raising the Cherry Island landfill by 23 feet at $86 million. For those keeping score, that’s $3.7 million for each additional foot of capacity. Now do I have your attention?

Second, successful recycling depends on economies of scale in capital investment and in collecting. As more material goes through a recycling facility, the facility become more cost effective; increasing the throughput in a fixed cost facility improves its operating efficiency.

As for collecting, consider the relative costs of Wilmington’s city-wide program versus the DSWA’s voluntary program. The city now collects recyclables from 28,000 households, at a maximum cost to the city of $150,000 which comes to roughly $6 per household per year (which is not charged to residents by the way). In contrast, the DWSA offers curbside recycling, requiring residents to sort their material, for $3 a month.

Why such a difference? Economies of scale. The DSWA has tried incremental recycling, with incremental benefits at best. Wilmington has tried single stream recycling, and achieved a 37 percent diversion rate in less than a year.

The way to create greatest statewide benefits from recycling is to mandate the most comprehensive practicable program, which the General Assembly can do, not next year, but this week. But if you agree, you need to say so and now.

The General Assembly provides phone numbers and e-mail addresses for all senators and representatives. If you don’t know who represents you, you can call to find out. Your call or e-mail doesn’t have to be complicated; all you have to say is that you want the General Assembly to adopt comprehensive statewide recycling in Delaware this week, and not next year.

I will be following the issue during the week over at TommyWonk.

Tags: ,

About the Author ()

Comments (7)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. G Rex says:

    “In contrast, the DSWA offers curbside recycling, requiring residents to sort their material, for $3 a month.”

    Okay Tommy, but I already sort my recyclables and bin them where I do my grocery shopping. For free! DSWA has been getting my recyclables for free, also, and I’m pretty sure they make money selling the stuff. If I have to pay for the privilege of giving them raw material to sell for profit, don’t expect me to sort it for them too.

  2. tommywonk says:

    You shouldn’t have to sort and pay for pickup. I used to sort my recyclables and make the trip to the igloos where I would meet other like-minded good citizens.

    The DSWA’s curbside program just doesn’t have enough participation to be efficient.

    The DWSA collectors might pick up one or two small bins on any given block in a neighborhood. Each time they do, the workers have to handle several different kinds of materials. They perform more work and collect less material than the city’s trash crews do. This is why the cost per household is six times higher for the DSWA than it is for the city.

  3. donviti says:

    not sure why $3 is such a big deal G, the economy is booming, who cares about money?

  4. G Rex says:

    It’s not the amount, it’s the principle. I’d pay them to pick it up and sort it themselves, or sort it for them if they pick it up for free. Besides, I’ll probably need that $3 to buy smokes when the tax goes up.

    “I used to sort my recyclables and make the trip to the igloos where I would meet other like-minded good citizens.”

    Yep, but then there are the inevitable raised eyebrows when they see how many wine and liquor bottles I’m tossing.

  5. tommywonk says:

    Another reason to like just taking it to the curb.

  6. tommywonk says:

    Again, the point with the $3 is that if we had a comprehensive system, we wouldn’t need to charge people to sort their materials.

  7. donviti says:

    the great thing is that people would complain if it was $1, but they had the chance to do it themselves and don’t, so suck it up and pay.

    It’s a matter of principle!