Too many people do not recycle. It is not particularly difficult to put aside the paper or cardboard boxes in one bag, the cans in another one, and the rest of the waste in the trash can. So why do people decide not to recycle?
The reason, I believe, is that they are not given enough incentives to do so. Of course, we all want a healthy planet for our children’s children to inherit, but the fact remains that the results of our small recycling acts as individuals are hard to see. Even if I diligently recycle for years, I will not notice a tangible effect on the atmosphere. Given this problem, we need to use additional motivators beyond our love for Mother Nature to protect the environment. For example, when the price of gasoline increases, drivers turn to public transportation more often. When the price of organic food declines, shoppers are more inclined to buy these environmentally-friendly products. Similar ideas can be applied to recycling to make a positive impact on the environment.
In simplest terms, when people do not recycle, they put recyclable products (milk cartons, newspapers) in the trash where they do not belong. Most of us are guilty of participating in this overproduction of trash and, in doing so, are creating a market failure. A market failure means that there currently exists an allocation of resources, in this case, trash, on the market is not socially optimal: Real trash should be in the trash can; recyclable items should be in the recycling bin, but we lump them together and, in doing so, create much more trash than necessary.
To resolve the trash market failure, I offer two possible solutions: (1) a trash (non-recycling) tax or (2) a trash (non-recycling) system of permits. A trash tax would be put on those people who decide not to recycle. For example, each city could start picking up only one bag of trash per household each week. Recycling bins would be available free-of-charge for residents to put their recyclable items. Extra trash bags would be available at a cost (this cost represents the tax).
Another solution is to create a set of “trash permits” that people would receive from the city. Every household would be given a set amount of trash bags per month (based on the number of people in the household). These official bags would be the only ones picked up by the waste management company. People could then trade between each other to try to find the best allocation of trash bags they would need for a given week. It would create a socially-efficient allocation of trash and recycling.
A small town in Massachusetts, Hamilton, has already implemented a plan similar to the trash tax I recommended. On March 12, 2008, the residents of Hamilton implemented a plan under which they are allowed one bag of trash per household each week. Additional bags of trash must be put in a “town bag” for a price of $1.75 per 32-gallon bag; however, recycling bins are free and unlimited. According to the Hamilton-Wenham Recycling Committee that advocated for the new plan, studies of similar programs in Massachusetts and across the United States demonstrate trash reductions between 25 and 45% in the first year. Though it is too soon to release the first year results in Hamilton, when residents drive through the town these days, they can see more recycling bins at the end of driveways than trash cans. Hamilton residents have told me stories about children being scolded by their parents for putting recyclable items in the trash. A little less than $2 might sound like a small tax, but it is already having an effect.
It may be frustrating to realize (or embarrassing to admit) that people appear to be more driven by small taxes on trash bags than they are by an inherent respect and appreciation for our planet. It is important, however, to remember that it can be discouraging for one person who puts effort into recycling to watch her neighbors, local businesses, and even local government neglect to do so. Through the types of plans I outlined above, we can correct for trash market failures by aligning incentives to recycle.