Abstract
Cost of recycling can vary depending on location of dumping facility and collection facility. Additionally, cost of cleaning plastic wastes can drive the cost of recycling. This paper looks into cost effectiveness of recycling plastics as compared to manufacturing new plastic products. In addition, the paper looks into situations where recycling can be considered more expensive than dumping. Furthermore, the paper looks into the cost effectiveness of recycling plastics in the United States as compared to recycling plastics in China.
Finally, the paper compares the cost of recycling of plastic in two States in the U.S.. Statistics collected show that recycling is more cost effective than manufacturing new products. Additionally, the findings show that rising costs of petroleum and transport can make recycling more expensive than dumping. The paper also finds that recycling is cheaper in China than in the United States. This is mainly attributed to cheap labor and open regulations in China. Finally, the paper shows that State of Carolina is more cost effective in its dealing with waste management than the State of Georgia.
Introduction
Plastic industry gained dominance in the 19th century when the need for its products started surging in industrialized world. However, its need has overwhelmed the globe in the 21st century where it has become part of human life. Peoples of every kind must have used or have encountered plastic in their lives. This shows how important plastic is in human life.
Plastics are produced from petroleum. Crude oil has become the driving force of the world’s economy since it leads to production of numerous products, which range from mattresses to plastics. However, the rising cost of oil has also increased the cost of manufacturing new plastic products.
Additionally, oil prices have also worked to increase the cost of recycling of plastics since the cost of virgin plastics have also risen sharply over the past decades. The cost of resin pellets has also increased sharply in the past decade by about 25 cents per pound. In essence, the cost of manufacturing is becoming increasingly reliant on cost of oil. Moreover, the cost of dumping is also increasing, especially in densely populated areas. This gives way for recycling of plastic products as the most cost effective method.
Is the recycling of number 2 plastic more cost effective compared to the manufacturing of new products?
Plastics are significant in people’s lives. Plastics are utilized to make various products such as toys, which are used daily in homes. Moreover, application of products made from plastic increase daily. In the United States alone, plastics are estimated to make more than 13% of solid wastes from municipal waste stream. The percentage indicated above shows a tremendous increase from the records in 1960s. In the 1960s, plastic wastes represented less than one percent of the total municipal waste stream.
In essence, current records show importance of recycling plastic wastes. Statistics show that large percentages of plastic wastes are derived from a variety of items such as soft-drink bottles, among others. Additionally, durable products such as household appliances are also made from plastics. However, disposing plastic wastes has been quite challenging since they are not biodegradable. Therefore, recycling these non-biodegradable plastics remains a challenge to all the involved stakeholders. (EPA 1).
Plastics are classified according to their codes for recycling purposes. Plastic number two are also known as HDPE (high-density polyethylene). Plastic number two are widely used in manufacturing of toys and detergent bottles, among other products. Even though it is possible to recycle HDPE, the rate of recycling these plastics has been quite low.
For instance, the recycling rate of HDPE plastics is quite high. Records from EPA (1) show that more than 28% of number two plastics were recycled in 2012 alone. The information’s above show that recycling of plastic number two has increased tremendously. In fact, it should be noted that only plastic number one registered a higher recycling percentage (31%) than plastic number two in 2012. The leading deterrent in the recycle of plastics has been the high costs that are associated with this process. However, compared to the other alternatives of disposing plastics, recycling remains the most cost effective option. (EPA 1).
Table 1. An overview of the costs associated with recycling and other waste management options as of December 2012. Figures indicate marginal costs in $ per ton
Recycling has been considered an effective way of managing plastic wastes. According to Fullerton (85), recycling of plastic number two has been considered the most effective way of managing environmental wastes. However, one issue that has raised concern is whether manufacturers consider recycling of such plastic wastes to be more cost effective as compared to manufacturing new products using new raw materials or not.
Most of the manufacturers have always considered manufacturing of new plastic products to be more cost effective as compared to recycling of used materials. Unlike using the raw materials, old plastic materials will need more cleaning in order to process them into other plastic materials. This may be considered a costly way of manufacturing new products.
Fullerton investigates the repercussion of manufacturing new plastics as opposed to recycling plastics. Plastic number two are widely acceptable for recycling since they have no health risks associated with them. Additionally, high-density polyethylenes are widely accepted throughout the world for recycling. It should also be noted that products obtained from recycled plastic number two are essential in society. These products include pens, fencing, pipes as well as detergent bottles, among others.
The main reason for recycling plastic number two is that it has ability to be utilized for many applications. In addition, its use helps in reducing wastes products, which pollute the environment. However, when looking into the economic side of it, various aspects of cost measures are taken into consideration. For instance, the cost of manufacturing new plastic products, the cost of recycling and manufacturing products and the cost brought about by waste management. Once these three aspects are considered, then it becomes clear on how to deal with plastic wastes (Fullerton 66).
As has been seen above, Fullerton notes that the cost of recycling is quite high. In fact, most companies have avoided recycling such products because of the high costs associated with it. However, Ackerman (47) notes that recycling should not be viewed rigidly as a way through which companies use wastes products to produce new products. Recycling may also involve re-using of various products in other activities after serving their initial purposes.
For instance, containers used to pack laundry products can be used at home for various purposes. They can be used to store pegs used for hanging clothes and such other tasks. That is one way of recycling. The manufacturers can also use old plastic number two to manufacture other plastic products such as toys, among other materials. In essence, using alternative ways of recycling plastic number two wastes is cost effective since very little amount is spent while the products serves the same purpose.
For instance, when used plastics are used to carry pegs as opposed to manufacturing new containers. In this regard, manufacturers can mold used plastics in a form, which is required to serve other purposes without incurring very high expenses. For example, manufacturers can make pens and pegs, as well as toys from recycled plastic two products without incurring very high costs. Additionally, manufacturers need to note the fact that by minimizing pollution through plastic wastes, they would be saving the world from avoidable expenses in disposal and management of plastic wastes.
Notably, the coding system for plastics has also lessened the cost of recycling. Plastics can now be recycled in accordance with the code, which makes it easier for the polymers to mix. This has greatly reduced the cost of recycling since manufactures can just sort the plastics according to their PIC plastic identification codes before the recycling process is begun (Ackerman 41).
When looking at the cost of recycling plastics, a number of facts should be brought forward. For instance, that the basic raw materials used for plastic is natural gas and /or petroleum. One can note that plastics consume just about 4% of the world’s oil. However, it should also be noted that the world’s supplies are being depleted. This shows that supply for raw materials are also being exhausted. Additionally, it points to the fact that the cost of raw materials is dependent on cost of oil.
The cost of oil per barrel is not constant especially given the politics and wars associated with its main sources like Iran and Iraq in the Middle East. It therefore, goes without say that the cost of raw materials for plastics is slowly rising which in turn increases the cost of manufacturing new plastic products. In essence, a good number of plastic products are slowly going towards the end of their lifecycle. Moreover, they go on to form non-biodegradable mountains of wastes in the waste streams. Therefore, as the prices of petroleum increase, it is becoming increasingly viable for manufacturers to recycle polymers instead of making them from raw materials.
When considering the benefits of recycling over manufacturing, it is important to consider the relevant numbers and figures. When manufacturing plastics, most of the raw materials are sourced from petroleum products. In 2012, recycling all HDPE products would have saved the country about 1.8 million barrels of crude oil. Furthermore, opting for recycle over virgin manufacture of plastics in 2012 would have saved the country over 75 million gallons of gasoline.
The energy that could have been saved by recycling HDPE plastics was enough to power over a quarter of a million homes for the duration of one year. The instability of crude oil prices in the global market makes recycling a better option as compared to manufacturing. The cost of all the raw materials that are involved in the manufacture of plastics has been on a steady rise over the last two decades. Furthermore, the energy constraints that are associated with the manufacture of plastics are a serious cost concern.
The ratio of recycling energy needs to that of virgin manufacture energy needs is 1 to 3. Recycling plastics involves few processing stages and it saves more energy than manufacturing. Another alternative to recycling is using landfills to dispose HDPEs. This option comes with significant economic implications including land and environmental degradation costs. Furthermore, landfills lower the value of property within their adjacent neighborhoods. For instance, the cost of houses in areas that are near landfills is usually lower than average. (University of Cambridge 1-27).
Manufacturing of new products requires use of raw materials, which are becoming expensive day by day. For instance, the cost of oil, which is the most essential source of raw material used in making plastics, is highly unstable. The table below shows information regarding the price of crude oil as reflected by NASDAQ. From the table, it can be noted that the price of oil is quite volatile (NASDAQ 1). Moreover, the price reflected below reflects changes within the past three months only. This alone shows how unstable the prices of raw material for manufacturing plastic number two is. The cost of manufacturing new plastics can be considered more expensive than recycling plastics because the cost of crude oil that is the prime source of materials for production of plastic products is volatile.
As mentioned above, production of plastic products begin with crude oil. It is estimated that plastic materials can constitute a mixture of about 17000 constituents. It is also estimated that about five percent of world oil sources go into making plastics. Plastics have a wide spectrum of applications. Plastics are produced from hydrocarbon chains that come from carbon and hydrogen. When the hydrocarbons are broken, several substances are got which include toluene and ethylene, among others. The substances, which are utilized to produce plastics, include benzene and propylene, among others. In essence, the process of producing plastics is as high as it is complex (Bayer MaterialScience 1).
Steps involved in producing plastics are quite expensive and complex. Additionally, they involve high pressures and temperatures, which are usually maintained to achieve the desired monomer. This is quite expensive and can only be carried out is large scale in order to reduce the cost of production per item. These steps include preparation of monomers from materials, polymerization, processing of polymers into resins and production of finished products. It can be noted that the price of plastics manufactured relies on the cost of petroleum.
Interestingly, the cost of petroleum is increasing at an alarming rate. In fact, scientists believed that exhaustion of oil deposits is soon catching up with the world. Moreover, tensions in the Middle East, which produces much of the worlds’, oil only works to raise oil prices. This means that the cost of manufacturing plastic number two as well as other plastics is increasing. Other options of producing plastic products such as recycling should therefore be explored to reduce its cost further.
On the other hand, the cost of recycling plastics depends mainly on the cost of producing virgin plastics, which again relies on the cost of natural gas or petroleum although to a lower extent than in manufacturing plastic. A study by the University of California as well as Berkeley estimated that San Francisco and Los Angeles alone could gain in the tune of $200 per ton if they went for recycling as opposed to dumping.
In other words, manufacturing plastics costs more than recycling since it encourages dumping, which increases expenditure on finished products. For instance, in the case of Los Angeles and San Francisco, by recycling alone, they would save $200 from each ton of plastic wastes as compared to dumping. In essence, dumping would be more expensive than recycling. Therefore, recycling will not only save one from the cost of manufacturing but also from the cost of dumping. Recycling is therefore more cost effective than manufacturing new plastic products.
When can recycling of plastic number two be considered costly as a way of managing wastes?
Plastic recycling is quite complex since it involves a range of processes. For instance, the term plastic recycling can be used to refer to primary recycling, secondary recycling, tertiary recycling and quaternary recycling. Primary recycling involves numerous processes, as it requires the mechanical reprocessing of a product with equivalent properties. This is quite expensive and extensive. On the other hand, secondary recycling requires mechanical reprocessing of products with lower properties.
This is also quite extensive although it is relatively inexpensive as compared to primary recycling. Tertiary recycling is mostly referred to as chemical recycling. Tertiary recycling requires that the polymer be de-polymerized back to its chemical composition. This is extensive yet again it is not as expensive as the first two. Finally, there is quaternary recycling which deals with recovery of energy. Quaternary deals mainly with recovery of energy from plastic wastes (Fisher 563-627).
Consequently, depending on the kind of recycling opted for, it can sometimes be costly as a way of managing wastes. For instance, if primary recycling is chosen using plastic number two, then the processes involved in reprocessing wastes to achieve quality products that would otherwise be manufactured originally is quite tasking and expensive.
That is, the kind of plastic recycling technique is central to the cost of recycling in managing wastes. For example, if products of lower quality are required then it is less costly than when products of original quality are required. Moreover, if recycling of plastic two is done to recover the chemical composition or recover the energy, then this is slightly cheaper as compared to the recovery of original quality of products. In essence, recycling of plastics can be costly when all the ingredients of original product are required (Fisher 563-627).
Recycling of plastic materials is very important in managing waste appropriately without subjecting the environment to any form of pollution. However, there are instances when it can be considered as an ineffective way of managing plastic wastes given the associated costs. For instance, plastic materials that are used to wrap products in the supermarket are very dangerous to the environment. Environmental agencies have been recommending recycling of these materials as the most cost-effective way of managing them.
However, there are instances when manufacturers would consider recycling of plastic number two more costly than manufacturing new products using the raw materials. One such case may arise when plastic materials have been subjected to dirt. In order to recycle them, many processes will have to be undertaken, a fact that can make the cost of reprocessing to be very high. In such circumstances, the waste is best-managed using landfills (Porter 58).
In essence, the process of bringing back used products into a recyclable plastic tends to be expensive. This is likely to increase the overall cost of recycling and hence making it costly as a way of managing wastes. The process of collecting, sorting and recycling plastic number two is sometimes quite cumbersome. According to Porter (58), these processes can be complex especially when the required type of plastic is scarce as compared to the available ones. For instance, it can be quite unwieldy to find enough units of type two plastics as compared to type one plastics. This gives recyclers additionally task of sorting and waiting for the units to be adequate for cost effective recycling within the area of production.
Recycling of plastics also depends on the location from which recyclable plastics are collected. For instance, most companies tend to collect used plastic number two and then send them to China from recycling. Most companies do this to save on cost of recycling. It therefore, means that when recycling is done in the United States then it becomes more expensive given the channels involved from collection to manufacturing of new products. The location within which recycling is done is therefore central to the cost of recycling. For instance, when recycling is done in the United States, labor costs, which range from collecting the materials as well as reprocessing costs, are quite high as compared to labor costs in developing countries or countries like china and India (Chanda and Roy 27).
Collection of recyclable plastic wastes poses great challenge to the industry in terms of cost effectiveness, technology and social behavioral aspects. For instance, collecting of plastic wastes is usually done by one of the poorest group of individuals in the world. Additionally, these individuals are usually illiterate. This makes it difficult for them to perform preliminary sorting of plastics according to their types.
Moreover, this makes reprocessing quite costly since plastic number two has to be sorted out from other plastic types before it is recycled. Waste management involves several aspects, which involves disposal of utilized materials. Unfortunately, plastic number two cannot be disposed in landfills since it is not biodegradable. Moreover, collection and sorting provides obstacles since it is quite costly. In this respect, plastic number two can be considered costly to recycle as a way of managing wastes (Chanda and Roy 27).
One of the most common challenges which recyclers of plastic number two face include the cost of producing recycled resins from the wastes. This is usually difficult because at the molecular level, there is inherent immiscibility of the wastes. At times, this process requires blending with virgin resin, which is again expensive given the cost of collecting and reprocessing wastes.
Moreover, purity of recycled plastic wastes is also an important factor in blending. Again this requires sorting of the highest order which is quite expensive. Additionally, expenses involved in purifying plastic wastes are quite high. This makes it expensive to recycle plastic number two as a way of waste management. In fact, it makes it cost effective to use biodegradable alternatives to products made from plastic number (Thompson, Moore, vom Saal, and Swan 2153-2166).
As shown in the paragraph above, when recycling of plastic number two requires pure resins, then recycling of plastic number two can become quite expensive. Additionally, when the place of recycling is far from the area of collection, then a lot of expenses can be incurred in recycling plastic number two. Recycling of plastic number two, as well as other types consist of many significant steps, which incur costs.
These include collection of the plastic wastes from waste streams, sorting them out, cleaning, sizing, separation and compatibilization, among others. All the processes named above incur costs, which effectively makes recycling of plastic number two costly. In essence, achieving desired results requires close monitoring of the processes. Moreover, the process of collection, cleaning, transportation and separation can be quite expensive if the plastics are not sorted according to PIC codes or purity (Thompson, Moore, vom Saal, and Swan 2153-2166).
The cost of recycling can always vary depending on numerous factors. For instance, plastic wastes must be cleaned before processing. Cleaning process may include factors such as collection, transportation, sorting and processing. Earth policy institute estimates that more than 29 billion plastic bottles are manufactures. It should also be noted that more than 17 million barrels of oil (crude oil) is required to make those numbers of bottles. With the rising cost of oil, cost of acquiring virgin plastic has exuberated.
That is, cost of recycling has also increased. According to Plastics news, the cost of resin pellets have rises sharply by between 20 cents to 25 cents per pound. Another factor that may increase the cost of recycling as a method of dumping is the cost of transportation in cases where the location of recycling plant is far away from the collection point. For instance, most used plastics are usually transported to China for recycling purposes. The cost of transport from United States to China is quite high; this may increase the cost of recycling over dumping, no wonder, statistics show that most plastic wastes go into landfills. It is worth noting that in the United States alone, over 80 percent of plastic wastes went into landfills in 2006 (Intagliata 1).
Even though the cost of making plastics continues to escalate, its need has also increased sharply. It is estimated that demand for plastic products has reached more than 21 times its need in 1976. United States government data has also shown that more than 7.5 billion gallons of water are bottled each year in the country alone. This shows how important plastic has become in everyday life. Nonetheless, it is necessary to consider its effect in landfills to the environment as opposed to recycling.
The bottom line is, even recycling plastics may be expensive since petroleum used to make the virgin plastic is also expensive. For instance, in 2006 alone, NAPCOR estimates that raw materials for making PET bottles could cost more than $4.5 billion. This amount does not include the cost of running the plant for production of the bottle. To recycle plastics, first they go into a collection facility in which they are inspected for contaminants. Contaminants can include rocks or glass, among others. Additionally, they are washed thoroughly to ensure they are clear of any contaminations and dirt. The next step involves chopping them into flakes (Intagliata 1).
This increases the surface area for melting. After which, the flakes made out of clean plastics are dried and then melted. The next step involves filtration of plastic lava, which is got from the melted flakes. After filtration of the flakes and impurities removed, the substance is made into strands, which are then cooled and again made into pellets for sale. This can be quite expensive. Factors that are likely to increase this amount include the space available in a city.
For instance, areas of dense populations charge hefty fees for dumping of plastic wastes. On the other hand, areas of scarce population charge lower rates. These fees range between $10 and $100 per ton of plastic wastes in places such as Florida. In essence, recycling of plastics can be considered costly when the factors that increase its recycling cost like transportation, processing and the cost of petroleum increase (NAPCOR 1).
Compare the cost effectiveness of recycling plastic number two in the United States and China
United States exports over 50% of its plastics for recycling purposes. The main recipient of plastics from the United States is China where recycling of plastics are done in small companies, some of which owned by private individuals. China has few resources; this means that imports are their main source of raw materials. In this regard, even scrap plastics, metals and paper are welcomed in China.
The United States has numerous laws that guide reprocessing of plastic wastes. These laws have made it quite expensive to recycle plastics in a cost effective manner. Moreover, a number of companies in the United States have established companies in china to help in recycling of plastic wastes. This means that it is much more cost effective to recycle plastic number two in China than in the United States (Teutenet al. 43).
There have been increased efforts in managing plastic wastes through recycling in China and the United States. However, the approach taken by the United States in recycling plastic wastes is different from the approach taken by China. China’s fast growing industry depends heavily on wastes products from other countries like the United States. For instance, China reprocesses plastic sodas into fabrics, among other items. However, it should be noted that much of the plastic wastes imported from the United States are reprocessed in primitive workshops in china, which makes it cheaper than in the United States.
Moreover, the poor environmental regulations in china have also increased mushrooming of home based workshops for recycling plastic wastes. In addition, the poor regulations have also enabled low cost of reprocessing of plastic wastes in China as compared to the United States, which has tight environmental regulations. However, it should be noted that as of 2013, China increased its focus on environmental protection, which has worked to reduce import of poorly sorted plastic wastes (Teutenet al. 43).
Another aspect that has driven the cost of recycling of plastic number two in the United States is the cost of reprocessing these materials. Usually, plastics are collected in very bad conditions, additionally; they are packed and transported in poor conditions since parking is done by unskilled people.
This makes it difficult for companies to perform the needed sorting and reprocessing as required. Moreover, there are only a few people in the United States ready to sort out dirt. On the other hand, China has many jobless people who would readily work in plastic dumpsites. In addition, many skilled people with households are ready to sort plastic wastes in order to fend for their families (Shaxson 2141-2151)
Concisely, labor costs in China are cheap as compared to the United States. Another reason for low labor costs is that until recently, the government has not been following closely on environmental impacts of imported plastic wastes. This has encouraged importation of poorly sorted plastic wastes in numerous containers to China. Similarly, recycling of plastic wastes has been left to sole proprietors who own workshops within China. This has also reduced regulation of recycling processes in China and hence low labor costs. With all these factors in consideration, it is only wise to state that recycling of plastic number two is more cost effective in China than in the United States (Shaxson 2141-2151).
HDPE forms one of the most common plastic types that can be readily recycled after PET. Type two plastics have been recycled in the United States for more than a century. However, most recycling plants have revamped their processes only recently. An example of these include Iowa falls plastic recycling plant in Iowa, among others. However, it should be noted that the cost of recycling has been increasing tremendously in the United States.
For instance, labor costs have soared as workers push for higher pay to keep with the high standards of living in the country. According to Harvey black, it costs 4147 to recycle one ton of plastic as opposed to 428 it would cost if the same amount of plastic waste were disposed in landfills. Additionally, Harvey claims that the county of Atlantic in New jersey utilizes over $3 million to recycle plastic wastes. This amount is much higher than the $2.45 million the county receives from selling recyclable plastic products.
This data gives a perspective of the cost of recycling in the United States, which is quite high because of the high overhead costs. This also shows that even though some States like South Carolina records profits in recycling plastic products, other States like new Jersey find it difficult on their economy. However, proponents of recycling plastics argue that the environmental factors associated with recycling of plastics are more beneficial than the extra costs incurred by the States that make losses in their bid to encourage recycling in the United States (Ettehadieh 1)
China on the other hand has recorded increased participation in recycling of plastic products, which is usually done in sole proprietorships. Most Chinese firms are family owned and the families enjoy cheap labor costs, which further reduces the cost of recycling. The only worry in China is the cost of transporting plastic wastes from western countries to the Eastern nation. China is considered a processing center for the world’s plastic wastes because of cheap labor.
Additionally, Chinese labor are well conversant with the requirements of plastic recycling as opposed to other markets, which may have cheap labor. It should also be noted that until recently, Chinese government have put in place policies, which allow import of wastes into the country without strict regulations. These have also worked to reduce the cost of recycling in china (Cooper 265-280).
However, things are expected to change as China pursues its green fence policy aimed at cracking down on improperly mixed plastic wastes. Millions of containers have been turned back during this crackdown. This has increased the cost of recycling. In fact, the prices of resin pellets have risen sharply because of this. Nonetheless, China is still recycling plastics at a lower cost than in the United States.
It is estimated that more than 7 million tones of plastic wastes were exported too China form Western countries in 2008. This trend has continued with expectations showing a rise in export of plastic wastes to China. This trend alone shows how China has advanced as a hub for recycling plastic wastes. The statistics shows above would not work if recycling were cheaper in the united States than in China. It therefore follows that recycling in China is more cost effective than recycling in the United States (Jefferson 1-25).
Compare the cost effectiveness of recycling plastic number two in two states in the United States of America
It is estimated by REI that United States’ gross in recycling industries amounts to over $236 billion yearly. This makes it comparable to other industries in the country. This shows that although the country exports much of its plastic to China, it does enough to show its ability to recycle its own plastic wastes. Different states have varying regulations on recycling of plastic number two. This can bring differences in cost effectiveness. However, it should be noted that all the states try to apply the federal government’s policies on recycling of plastic number two.
For instance, the State of South Carolina has made tremendous steps in recycling of plastic number two, among other wastes. In fact, The State of South Carolina is categorized ahead of the State of Georgia concerning recycling of plastics. For instance, the State of Georgia approximates that they squander more than 100 million dollars to dispose recyclable wastes worth more than 300 million dollars. This shows how far they lag behind in recycling of wastes within their streams. In fact, more fact-findings in the state of Georgia found that more than 36% of constituents of their municipal wastes are recyclable and can be used to manufacture new products (Rebeiz and Craft 245–257)
These are waste products, which can be recycled and hence reduce on the need for raw materials to produce new or alternative plastic products. However, this is quite different from the State of South Carolina where advance steps have been made to recycle not only plastic number two but also other wastes from the municipal waste stream. Further records from EPA show that more than 160 000 tons of plastic bottles, which are recyclable, are disposed in the State of Georgia yearly.
Additionally, more than 220,000 tons of recyclable glass is also disposed yearly. In essence, based on the cost incurred in disposing these recyclable materials, the state of Georgia is not making cost effective measures concerning management of wastes. Studies have also shown that Georgian landfills are full of recyclable plastics. Nonetheless, it should be noted that Georgia has one of the best recycling infrastructure in the United States.
For instance, plastic industry in Georgia has been found to account for more than $9 Billion in yearly sales. Additionally, it accounts for the employment of more than 75000 workers in the plastic recycling industry. Additionally, it should also be noted that Georgia spends more than 1.8 Billion dollars annually to pay salaries and wages in recycling and reprocessing related jobs. On the other hand, recycling industry in South Carolina is estimated to cost the State more than 6.5 Billion dollars in economic expenditure.
Furthermore, the state had engaged more than 37000 people in the industry by 2005. Additionally, recycling industry alone is estimated to have contributed tax revenues of about 69 million dollars. This industry is also estimated to be growing at a rate of 12% yearly. It is also estimated that South Carolina would save more than 30 Million dollars if they could recycle all the recyclable materials in the municipal waste stream. The estimations also showed that South Carolina would reach economic impact of 11 Billion dollars by 2010 based on its growth in recycling industry.
The two states can be seen to be doing enough to show that they value recycling of municipal solid wastes. However, based on amount of solid wastes the State of Georgia disposes, the State of Carolina can be considered more cost effective in dealing with waste management than the State of Georgia (Gregory 2013-2025)
States within the United states have increased their focus on recycling plastics wastes. This is notable in States of South Carolina and Georgia among others. It should also be noted that the county of Atlanta in New jersey has pushed on with recycling of plastics despite the challenges involves such as overspending. Despite the challenges facing plastic recycling industry, it remains the best practice aimed at conserving the planet earth.
Recycling reduces the number of incinerators and landfills, which have the propensity of polluting ground water, an important source of water for the US population. Reducing the number of landfills through recycling is therefore essential despite the challenges seen by economists and doctors. In fact, its ability to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is also essential in conserving nature.
In this regard, doctors should appreciate the importance of recycling even as they explore its challenges. Moreover, recycling affirms the will of people to conserve nature for future generations. This is important since nature dictates that people prepare the world for coming generations. The will to conserve nature through recycling is therefore very essential because it shows concern for nature and the need for its conservation(Kraft 15).
Clearly, recycling wastes proves more beneficial than disposal. It is also necessary to explore the consequences of increased greenhouse gasses because of poor disposal of wastes. This would bring about depletion of the ozone layer thereby exposing living organisms to dangerous rays of the sun. It would also lead to increased health-related consequences since people are already experiencing the dire repercussions of global warming. Doctors who believe that there could be better ways of disposing wastes other than through recycling should also reflect on the above-mentioned consequences. Moreover, they should also outline ways of avoiding such eventualities.
In addition, economists who pose questions on the expenses to be incurred in recycling should also consider the cost of other methods of wastes disposal. For instance, rampant landfills could be responsible for pollution of both air and water. This would have greater repercussions (in terms of the cost of treatment) than that of recycling. In essence, economists who prefer to explore the challenges of recycling should also explore the repercussions other alternatives. This would give them a better view of what is best for environmental conservation.
Moreover, they should consider the dire consequences that would be experienced should the ozone layer be depleted. One would be tempted should ask if economists have the capability of conducting analysis on the cost that could be incurred if such calamities (exposure to the sun’s dangerous rays and pollution of ground water, among others) occurred. In addition, it is necessary to consider the amount of healthcare facilities that would be required to react to pollution of ground water across the US. This would create a disaster (The Kindred Association 10-23).
One cannot be blamed for exploring other options of waste disposal; however, it is important that everyone recognize the essence of recycling no matter how much it would cost. In fact, the country would rather spend more on conserving the environment, to avert the coming calamities, than exploring its fiscal benefits. One should ask him/herself if minimizing cost is better than conserving nature as observed in the State of New Jersey. Moreover, one should consider the greater need of preserving nature for future generations. Recycling of plastics is more cost effective in South Carolina than it is in the State of Georgia.
Conclusion
Recycling of plastics is very important since it helps to clean the environment. Additionally, other ways have come up to aid in minimizing the cost of plastic production. These include reducing the weight and size of plastic utilized in making the products. This is expected to reduce the amount of resins utilized in making plastic products, which will in turn help in reducing the cost of recycling as well as manufacturing. From the discussions above, it can be noted that recycling is more cost effective than manufacturing new products.
Additionally, it can be noted that factors such as transportation, cost of petroleum and cleaning are likely increase the cost of recycling over dumping which utilizes less expenditure. However, it should also be noted that in areas of dense population, like towns, dumping is quite expensive. Additionally, the cost of recycling in China is quite cheap as compared to recycling in the United States. The only constrain being the cost of transportation of plastic wastes to China. Finally, it should be noted that on average, recycling has enabled states in the united States to improve on their expenditure. Nonetheless, it should be noted that much is required to achieve the standards and economic benefits of recycling plastics.
Works Cited
Ackerman, Frank. Why Do We Recycle: Markets, Values, and Public Policy? Washington: Island Press, 2006. Print.
Bayer MaterialScience. Fossil raw material: the platform for making the world go round-From oil to plastic. 2013. Web.
Chanda, Manas, and Roy Salil. Plastics technology handbook. 4th ed. Boca Raton: CRC Press,2007. Print.
Cooper, Mary. “The Economics of Recycling: Is it worth the effort?” Congressional Quarterly Inc. 8.12 (1998): 265-280.
EPA. Wastes, Resource Conservation, Common Wastes & Materials: Plastics. 2004. Web.
Ettehadieh, Daniel. Cost-Benefit Analysis of Recycling in the United States: Is Recycling Worth It? 2011. Web.
Fisher, Michael. “Plastics recycling.” Plastics and the environment. Ed. Anthony Andrady. Hoboken: Wiley Interscience, 2003. 563-627. Print.
Fullerton, Don. The Economics of Household Garbage and Recycling Behavior. Cheltenham: Elgar, 2002. Print.
Gregory, Murray. “Environmental implications of plastic debris in marine settings-entanglement, ingestion, smothering, hangers-on, hitch-hiking and alien invasions.” Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B. 364 (2009): 2013–2025. Print.
Intagliata, Christopher. Scienceline, a New York University’s Science, Health and Environmental Reporting Program: Does Recycling Plastic Cost More Than Making It? 2012. Web.
Jefferson, Mike. Recycling in China. 2010. Web.
Kraft, Michael. Environmental Policy and Politics. 4th ed. New York: Longman, 2006.
NAPCOR. Recycling Rate Reports. 2013. Web.
NASDAQ. Crude oil Brent: Latest price & Chart for Crude Oil Brent. 2013. Web.
Porter, Richard. The Economics of Waste. Washington: Resources for the Future, 2002. Print.
Rebeiz, Karim, and Craft Andrew. “Plastic waste management in construction: technological and institutional issues.” Resourq. Conserv. Recycling. 15 (1995): 245–257. Print.
Shaxson, Louise. “Structuring policy problems for plastics, the environment and human health: reflections from the UK.” Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B. 364 (2009): 2141–2151. Print.
Teuten, Emma, et al. “Transport and release of chemicals from plastics to the environment and to wildlife.” Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B. 364 (2009): 2027–2045. Print.
The Kindred Association. “Financial Matters.” A Practical Recycling Handbook. New York : Thomas Telford, 1994. 10-23. Print.
Thompson, Richard, Moore Charles, vom Saal Fredrick, and Swan Shanna. “Plastics, the environment and human health: current consensus and future trends.” Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B. 364 (2009): 2153–2166. Print.
University of Cambridge. The IMPEE Project: Recycling of Plastics. 2005. Web.