managing municipal solid waste (msw) chapter 19 © 2007 thomson learning/south-westernthomas and...
TRANSCRIPT
Managing Municipal Solid Waste (MSW)
Chapter 19
© 2007 Thomson Learning/South-Western Thomas and Callan, Environmental Economics
2
Problem of MSW
MSW is nonhazardous waste posing no direct threat to humans or ecology
Still there are risks Excess generation Improper management, which can lead to…
bacterial contamination: unsanitary conditions toxic contamination: hazardous wastes mixed in air pollution: incineration or decomposition gases
3
MSW Trends
MSW generation is growing, both total and per capita Dependence on landfills continues
In 2001, almost 56% of MSW was landfilled in the U.S. Composition of MSW
largest proportion by product: containers & packaging largest proportion by materials: paper & paperboard
Major industrialized nations are largest generators Recycling rates vary across nations
Japan has one of the highest recycling rates, e.g., 60% of its paper/cardboard; 78% of its glass
U.S. overall recycling rate is 29.7%
4
Trend DataUS Annual MSW Generation 1970 1980 1990 2000
MSW (millions tons)
121.1 151.6 205.2 232.0
Population (thousands)
203,984 227,255 249,907 281,422
Per capita MSW (pounds/day)
3.25 3.66 4.50 4.52
Source: U.S. EPA, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (October 2003), pp. 2, 4,
table ES-1 and ES-3
5
International Ranking by Per Capita Generation
Country kilograms per capita US 760 Australia 690 Switzerland 650 Germany 540 France 510 Italy 500 Greece 430 Japan 410 Turkey 390 Canada 350 Czech Republic 330 Mexico 320 Poland 290
Sources: OECD (2002), as cited in U.S. Census Bureau (2003), Table No. 1329, p. 849; World Bank, as cited in U.S. Census Bureau (2003), Table No. 1333, p. 851.
6
Policy under RCRA (Subtitle D)
Federal responsibilities To give financial and technical assistance to states,
encourage resource conservation, set minimum criteria for land disposal, incineration facilities, etc.
States’ responsibilities To develop waste management plans
Many follow EPA’s integrated waste management system, which promotes using a combination of programs aimed at source reduction, recycling, combustion, and land disposal – in that order
To use regulatory powers to comply with RCRA e.g., recycling laws, grant programs
EPA’s Integrated Waste Management System
Land Disposal
Source Reduction
Recycling
Combustion
MSW Services Markets
Using Economics
9
Modeling the MSW Market
Supply (S), or MPC, represents the production decisions of firms providing MSW services
Demand (D), or MPB, represents the purchasing decisions of MSW generators
10
Two Sources of Resource Misallocation
Flat fee pricing of MSW services does not reflect rising MPC associated with increases in production levels.
Production of MSW services is associated with negative externalities, which means that private market equilibria, where MPB = MPC do not yield an efficient solution
11
Flat Fee Pricing System
Communities typically charge the same fixed fee regardless of amount of MSW generated Fee typically hidden in property taxes
Demanders pay a zero Marginal Price as if MPC were 0 Ignores positive and rising MPC of MSW services
Result: No incentive to reduce wastes Too many resources allocated to MSW services
12
Flat Fee Pricing System
$
Q of MSW Services
S = MPC (implied by flat fee)
Q00
Result is overallocation of resources, since Q0 > Qc where Qc would be based on a positively sloped MPCD
= MPB
S = MPC (actual rising MPC)
QC
13
Negative Externality
Production externality causes resource misallocation even if the fee reflects rising MPC
External costs (MEC) are due to air pollution from incineration, groundwater contamination, etc.
Result: Overallocation of resources to MSW services
Negative ExternalityP
rice
Q of MSW Services
D = MPB = MSB
S =MPC
MSC = MPC + MEC
PC
PE
0QE QC
overallocation, since Qc > QE
Market-Based Solutions
Waste-end Charges
Retail Disposal Charges
Deposit-Refund Systems
16
Back-end or Waste-end Charge
Imposed on waste at time of disposal Efficiency is achieved if the fee, PE, equals to MSC at QE
Known as unit pricing, or pay-as-you-throw (PAYT), programs Can be implemented as flat rate or variable rate pricing
Real-world usage Used in over 4,000 communities in 43 states
Some use bag-and-tag systems Empirical evidence $0.50 per container led toreduction of 3,650 tons/year
for a community of 100,000 people (Jenkins 1993)
Unit PricingImplemented as a Waste-end Charge
Pri
ce
Q of MSW Services
D = MPB = MSB
S = MPC
MSC = MPC + MEC
Fee = PE
0QE
18
Front-end or Retail Disposal Charge
Imposed on the product at point of sale Intended to encourage prevention through
source reduction Aimed at a consumption externality Efficiency is achieved if the front-end charge
equals the MEB at QE
Effective price of product (PR) includes fee
Retail Disposal ChargeA Front-End Charge
Pri
ce
Q of batteries
MSB
MSC = MPC
PR
0QE
D = MPB
QC
MSC + charge
Charge
Effective price, including the charge
20
Deposit/Refund System(review in Chapter 5)
Up-front fee imposed on a product at point of sale (like retail disposal charge) Fee equals MEC of improper disposal, or the
negative MEB of consumption Fee is returned if consumer takes proper action
to avoid environmental damages Real world examples
Australia, Canada, Denmark, Mexico, South Korea, Sweden, and U.S. for beverages
Greece, Norway, and Sweden on car hulks
21
Deposit-Refund Programs in U.S.STATE PRODUCT AMOUNT OF DEPOSITArizona Batteries $5.00Arkansas Batteries $10.00California Beverage $0.025 for < 24 oz.
$0.05 for > 24 oz.Connecticut Batteries $5.00
Beverage $0.05 minimum Delaware Beverage $0.05Hawaii Beverage $0.05Iowa Beverage $0.05Maine Batteries $10.00
Beverage $0.05 – $0.15Massachusetts Beverage $0.05Michigan Beverage $0.05 – $0.10New York Beverage $0.05Oregon Beverage $0.03 – $0.05Vermont Beverage $0.05 - $0.15Washington Batteries $5.00 minimum
Sources: U.S. EPA, Office of Policy, Economics, and Innovation (January 2001), pp. 57-66; BatteryCouncil International (May 23, 2002); State of Hawaii (2002).
Deposit-Refund Model$
Improper Waste Disposal (%)
MPBIW = MSBIW
MPCIW
MSCIW
0
QE QIW
MPCIW + Deposit
b
a
Deposit=MEC at QE
100Proper Waste Disposal (%)
0100
Deposit converts % of overall waste disposal, measured by (QIW - Qe), from improper to proper methods