|
<br />~'')S. "lD ..~ Jt-.,..
<br />P eo V!))8) ,BV Nl.J(;e, ~fJ1b.,.... !... '..'. ..1.".... .
<br />, ;~pplnlons,
<br />
<br />
<br />oy David Morris
<br />
<br />Ciry sanitalion chiefs rarely talk to city
<br />economic developers. They should. We
<br />must stop treating garbage only as a dis-
<br />posal problem and begin to see it as an
<br />economic development opportunity.
<br />
<br />Waste handling is this nation's faslest
<br />growing industry. A S 1 00 billion rtllIrket
<br />mav exist. Twin Citians will invest more
<br />tha~ S400 million from 1985 to 1990 to
<br />develop new garbage handling sYStems.
<br />Yet this enormous sum will not be.
<br />judged by the same criteria as would
<br />smaller investments in a convention cen-
<br />ler or an industrial park or in downlown .
<br />office buildings.
<br />
<br />We should demand the ~reatest benefit
<br />for our local economy f~om such an in.
<br />Vestment. We need to consider the num.
<br />ber and qualiry of jobs created. the num-
<br />ber of businesses developed. the amount
<br />of innovations spurred and the value of
<br />expons generated per ton of garbage
<br />han<!ied. No Minnesota agency has ever
<br />undcnaken suc~ an analysis.
<br />
<br />C"n,ider employment. ,s. Canadian
<br />""Jy found that recycling creates six
<br />times as many jobs as landrilling. If a
<br />similar ratio holds lOr incineration, the
<br />Twin Cities would create 0000 more
<br />jobs by invesling in recycling than by in-
<br />vesting in incineration. That is a signi-
<br />ficant number. especially if we consider
<br />that most of these would likely be enrry.
<br />level jobs. suiled .for those age and skill
<br />groups with the highest unemployment
<br />rates.
<br />
<br />Our goal should be to create as milch
<br />value as possible from our "raw materi.
<br />als.' The worst policy is to put them in
<br />the ground. The second worst is to burn
<br />them.
<br />
<br />Why is incineration inherently uneco-
<br />nomical? Because il is inefficient. It
<br />recaptures only the direct energy of
<br />Wastes. nO! the energy and expense that
<br />transformc.~ raw materials into /lnished
<br />products in the firs! place. All the ex-
<br />pense of making a tree into paper is lost.
<br />Only the blu value of the paper itself is
<br />recovered.
<br />
<br />Materials recovery is only the first step
<br />in a development process. We receive
<br />relatively little benefit if we merely ex-
<br />port the scrap we recover. We become
<br />like a developing country that ex pons
<br />raw materials and imports more expen.
<br />sive tinal products.
<br />
<br />The real benefit 10 the local economy
<br />comes from converting scrap into useful
<br />products: processing aluminum into in-
<br />gots and paper inro pulp. then making
<br />
<br />ingots into bicycles .and pulp bl!ck into"
<br />paper. How far a city can mov. in this,
<br />direction is ~ function of its sit. and: .
<br />density. industriili mix and !lOlllie,1 will.
<br />The Twin C;ties and Minnesouf equid c
<br />eapture a great deal of the potelti~l val-
<br />ue added. in the economists'jhfBO;After
<br />all. Minnesota has a larger inte,mal
<br />economy than more than 50 in*~ndenct
<br />nations. -
<br />
<br />Consider how we might apply lljva'l~\I'
<br />.added approach to a small but tU~le-
<br />some waste item-scrap tires. U.n ;(ver-,
<br />age, each Minnesollln disposes gf ~!x>ut
<br />one 20-pound tire a year-50 mDli,qn .'
<br />pounds in the Twin Cities alonef When
<br />Minnesolll banned land/lllingof~ir.s in
<br />1986. the cost of disposal was a601i1 10
<br />cents a pound. So we in the r", i.n Cities.
<br />were paying about S5 million m,relY to
<br />dump the tires into the ground. "xclud- 0
<br />ing the COSt of transportation.
<br />
<br />Tires can be recycled in several !,Vays.
<br />They can be shredded and bume4 a~
<br />fuel. But competition from todayls
<br />depressed oil prices would keep te
<br />price at about 1-2 cents a pound:; T1\is
<br />method only creates another $5ot.~tai
<br />Slmillion in value for the co",mpniJY. ,.
<br />Tires shredded into finer pieces @n pc
<br />added to road asphalt and are moie valu.
<br />able.'
<br />
<br />But the real benellt to the local eCpn~my
<br />, comes when the scrap can be contened '.'
<br />into a high.value /lnal material. tI1i(has',
<br />been done by a Minneapolis base4llflno,. ..
<br />Rubber Research Elastomerics(RRE). A
<br />patented liquid polymer is added ~ pld-
<br />
<br />;:~~d~;ee~~i~t~n:~~i~ l~b~t.t.~:~1
<br />
<br />with plastics. RRE's primary cust~~rs
<br />are thermoplastic molders. For, th~ pjJr_
<br />pose the material can be sold fOr a1>6\it
<br />50 cents a pound. Y
<br />
<br />.{~' 'fn\~
<br />
<br />V"I"TGlt
<br />
<br />," .
<br />;i' ,
<br />
<br />t"H ~:..,
<br />J~'; ~
<br />:..--
<br />ii I Ij~J
<br />. " I, ..,:.-0 .
<br />. .. I .
<br />.~qk ' ~..
<br />If, 1;, I_"J'-:"'~':' .. ~. "...:- '" -I\.. ~:....
<br />Z Jl ~.I
<br />... , - 0;:;.--- . 0 \::
<br />---~ .' '..:.. - -..
<br />--':.- ~. ~ -:,',' --- ~
<br />
<br />-. ~";:'> ~ ~. -" . . - .
<br />--- ." ...... - , ...:-.-.. ...... .
<br />
<br />If all or the Twin Cities' tires were recy-
<br />. cled in this manner the economy would
<br />not <'uiy avoid the disposal cost but
<br />could cteatea S25 million a year busi-
<br />ness. Moreover. these sales would spur
<br />further resC;lrch and development efforts
<br />I,' improve the quality of the final mate-
<br />rial., And this knOWledge" in turn. coulli
<br />become a si,gni/l~nt eX!lOn ta other
<br />pans of the counuy facing similar dis-
<br />posal problems.
<br />
<br />Finally. having asupplYaf valuable
<br />materials may attract other firms who
<br />make the malerial inta allnal product,
<br />adding still funherolo the value captured
<br />by the local economy . One manufacturer
<br />has already moved from Ohio to Babbitt
<br />10 be near its raw material supplier.
<br />
<br />The same value-added criteria could be
<br />applied to paper. glass, organic waSle or
<br />metals.
<br />
<br />Unfonunately such a vision does not in-
<br />formourpu~lic pOlicy. In 1985 the
<br />MetrOpo111llttCOurtcil decided to bum 80
<br />percent of our gar~age and recycle less
<br />thall 20 perceill. It;never ~valuated the
<br />econamicimpact of.altemative mate-
<br />gies. City officials in the melroarea are
<br />no better.:In fact, althis point our recy-
<br />cling effons I!lg btlhind even the very
<br />modest goalsisel Dy...the council. Mean-
<br />. while we are lheadof its incineration
<br />schedule.
<br />
<br />Even those olficials who suppon inciner-
<br />ation "gr.ee thill we c;ould achieve very
<br />high recycling levels. The Japanese city
<br />of Machida. the sileof Minneapolis.
<br />recycles 7$ pe.rcentof its 10lal waste
<br />stream. Several small U.S. cities on the
<br />east coast. recyc::le more than 50 percent
<br />of Iheir hou:r~hold gl!rbage. compared to
<br />10 percent in MinnC;lpolis 'and St.Palll.
<br />
<br />o9f'" 't1f.
<br />
<br />~ C6~.
<br />?~
<br />
<br />
<br />".~'.,:..
<br />
<br />., ....
<br />::... "
<br />..;.,....., ,...:;;.
<br />
<br />
<br />'.
<br />'. .
<br />
<br />i
<br />A
<br />'"
<br />..
<br />v
<br />1
<br />j
<br />
<br />It is not too late for our communities to
<br />rethink and redirect their garbage poli.
<br />cies. Indeed. cities in Hennepin County
<br />have recently been given a marvelous
<br />opportunity to do JUSt that. The. county
<br />commissioners have agreed to pay 80 .
<br />percent of the costs of recycling pro- -
<br />grams for cities that achieve a 16 per-.
<br />cent recycling rate by 1990. For every
<br />dollar spent. 80 "ents can be recovered .
<br />from the county. Cities could undenake
<br />an accelerated. materials recovery-based
<br />economic development policy that will
<br />be almost entirely paid for by the ..
<br />County.
<br />
<br />.......
<br />
<br />This window of opportunity should spur
<br />county cities to invest quickly in materi-
<br />als recovery and processing at a level
<br />equal 10 that of investments that have al-
<br />ready been approved for incineration _.
<br />that is. S50-75 million. .
<br />
<br />Waste handling is a fast growing indus-
<br />try worldwide. Entrepreneurs in this.
<br />field often are at the CUlling edge of
<br />technological developments in both ma.
<br />terial and biological sciences. The com-
<br />munity that learns how to get the most
<br />value from its scrap materials will /lnd a
<br />ready market for its equipment and its
<br />~nowledge.
<br />
<br />It will take a great collective effort and
<br />even greater imagination for the Twin
<br />Cities and Minnesota to shift our present
<br />garbage policy: But the rewards will be
<br />equally great. Garbage is not a disposal
<br />problem. It is an economic development
<br />opponunity .
<br />
<br />.~
<br />
<br />Dsvld Morrla Is a St. P.ul realdetot. dlr.ctor
<br />of the Wsshlngton D.C.-based Institute tor
<br />Locs' Self-Rellsnee snd . regul.r columnist
<br />'or the St. Psul Pioneer Pre.. Dispstch.
<br />
<br />Reduction: state's w~..Md (I~t~~.$ztr.ategy
<br />
<br />by Bill Dunn vast majority of its waste. ~ ' . a to assessdlc il!)pac~,~fthei~ products boycolls are very difficult to execute.
<br />. . .. :" j., !1. ,and paf~a~ing",fPolI~ters must pll}' Ihe But these may be needed to do the job.
<br />WaSle reduction: the prevention of waste Meanwhile. reduction has no real Ill''" '..1.. true ~'aIFOsls for.their decisions and
<br />at ils source by redesigning products or dealing with Minnesota's solid lJYa ac:tions"i
<br />O{herwj~e changing ,"cx~ic'al producrion srre.-m. which grows al about4fpe '"I.
<br />and cnn<umpllon pancrns. a year. Minor changes will notpr
<br />th,. 'trOll'" .,t;,~ .........10. .. ,_. .1.... Il"l_,::_:;;~' "
<br />
<br />
<br />Futurc\vaste teduction measures must
<br />create an aCCOUntable method to track
<br />pro~re~c; and to rlrwll",("nr rf'o;,;1I1t<= in
<br />
|