A Cost-Benefit Analysis of Recycling and Composting Versus Traditional Landfilling

Economic Analysis      Environmental Analysis 

METHODOLOGY The order numbers and prices for the disposable items were obtained from the chef manager at Next House. The prices for the biodegradable items were obtained from http://store.yahoo.com/greenearthofficesupply/ (biocorp and earthshell items). Simmons uses 12 oz cups and Next uses cold and hot cups. Earthshell only has 10.5 oz and 15 oz cups. Since the 15 oz cups are designed for cold beverages we estimated what the cost of a 12 oz cup would be by scaling down the price of the 15 oz cup. We then compared this price with the price of the 12 oz cups used at Simmons and the cold cups used at Next. We compared the hot cups at Next to the 10.5 oz Earthshell, which are designed to hold hot beverages. The to-go boxes provided by Earthshell are smaller than the plastic to-go boxes that Next uses, but we compared them anyway because there was no other kind of biodegradable to-go box available. Napkins are not included in this analysis because the napkins currently used at MIT dining venues are biodegradable. The chef manager at Next House also gave us order numbers and prices for 6 inch plates, but since we could find the biodegradable equivalent for this size plate we left this out of our analysis. RESULTS From the results of this comparison we can see that some biodegradable products (plates, bowls, and to-go containers) have prices comparable to (and in some cases less than) the non-biodegradable items.

 

Note: A similar analysis of biodegradable versus resuable products could not be done for a Sodexho venue because they were unwilling to disclose the necessary information

Recycling:

According to Kevin Healy, director of recycling at MIT, the university pays $50 less per ton for waste that is recycled rather than hauled to a landfill. Despite this fact, MIT is not recycling appreciably in any of the dining venues included in this study. In the past, there have been problems with janitors not keeping the recyclable trash separate from the normal trash. To address this problem, EPTF has initiated a pilot program in which one day per week is designated as "recycling day." On this day only recyclables are collected, ensuring that all recyclable trash is kept distinct from other trash. If this program proves to be successful, MIT will increase the efficiency of current recycling efforts without incurring any additional labor costs.

 

 

An Environmental Analysis:

In order to see how composting and recycling compare to landfilling of waste in terms of environmental impacts, we looked at the life cycle assessment conducted by Friends of the Earth (click here to view the assessment), which draws heavily upon data gathered by the EPA.

While life cycle assessments are complex and never clear-cut, we believe that the arguments presented were successful in showing that recycling/composting has less of an overall lower impact on the environment than the landfill alternative.

A major part of the Friends study examines the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions released during the life cycle of various materials. (Since global climate change is one of today's foremost ecological concerns, GHG emissions are often used as a benchmark in assessing and comparing environmental impacts). Different greenhouse gases have different degrees of potency when released into the atmosphere. Methane, for example, is 21 times more potent as a GHG than is carbon dioxide. Preflurocarbons, produced during the extraction of virgin aluminum, are 1000 times more potent as GHG gases than is carbon dioxide.

When disposed of in a landfill, organic waste usually decomposes anaerobically, releasing significant amounts of methane gas in the process. A properly managed compost pile, on the other hand, is periodically mixed to encourage aeration and therefore emits very little if any methane. Aerobic breakdown of organic material does produce carbon dioxide gas, but these emissions to not appear to outweigh the GHG emissions saved in the form of methane gas.

Transportation of waste from MIT to either the landfill or recycling facility also incurs an environmental cost, primarily in the form of carbon dioxide in vehicle emissions. (We are currently awaiting information about where MIT sends its recyclables. We will then be able to include this in the Life Cycle Assessment). If we assume, however, that these facilities are roughly equidistant from campus, then this part of the life cycle assessment falls out of the equation.

Once at the recycling facility, items are first washed to remove traces of food then are sent along conveyor belts to be manually sorted. This process, like any other, uses energy and produces small amounts of greenhouse gases. Therefore, some have argued that landfills are less energy intensive since they don't require this amount of processing. This claim fails to take into account one major thing: when items are disposed of in a landfill, new ones must be manufactured to replace them. In almost all cases (glass being an exception) virgin extraction is far more energy intensive than recycling of the same material. Moreover, resource extraction is often damaging to the surrounding ecosystems, producing adverse health impacts on plants, animals, and humans in the environment.

Most of the energy involved at a composting facility goes towards keeping the mixture well-aerated. Requiring large machine-driven turnstiles or rotating bins, this can be rather energy intensive. In fact, when compared to energy-recovery incineration (with energy recovery) of organic materials, composting does not emerge as the environmentally friendly choice. However, at MIT dining hall waste is not sent to an incinerator, but goes instead to a regular landfill. And here the associated methane gas emissions still place composting ahead of landfilling in terms of lower environmental impact.

At the "tailpipe end", the fertilizer produced by the composting process goes into enriching nutrient-deficient soils. Plants grown in the soil serve as natural carbon sinks as they trap ambient CO2 during photosynthesis. Thus, the greenhouse gases released in the mixing process are more than canceled out by the long-term carbon storage capacity facilitated by compost.

Thus, at least by the standard of greenhouse gas emissions, we see that recycling and composting are better options than landfilling all along the lifespan of a product.

Consumption Habits From the Start:

The above analysis makes clear, however, that even recycling and composting require energy. Recyclables must be transported and processed; compost must be mixed and packaged for sale. In short, nothing that we consume comes entirely without a price. In all our excitement about implementing these innovative programs, we do not want to forget to emphasize the importance of reducing consumption. It may be among the more mundane aspects of environmental activism, but we don't want to ignore the first component, of the Reduce, Reuse, Recycle mantra.