Growing vegetables and fruits for fun, often called “agritainment”, has become a new leisure for rich Americans.  Overwhelmed with frantic city life and chaotic schedules, many professionals now turn to the peace and quiet of a farm for relief.  With the failing economy and the housing market plunge, there is an undeniable pleasure to see that we can still accomplish something, even if it is as simple as growing a perfect, bright red tomato.  In the wake of this trend, some people have taken the idea of agritainment beyond leisure and turned it into a lifestyle called “permaculture” with a mission to save the planet.  According to the co-founder of the so-called permaculture movement, “People and nature are both preserved and enhanced by thoughtful planning, the careful use of resources, mimicking the patterns found in nature (bio-mimicry) and a respectful approach to life.” (http://www.midwestpermaculture.com).  Permaculture communities, called transition towns, have sprouted across the country, providing a haven to those who want to live among environmentally-aware neighbors.  The name “transition town” is based on the idea that society must transition into a post-petroleum era.  The residents of the towns are coming together to prepare for the drastic, fundamental change they anticipate will jolt our global community.

It is understandable that permaculture followers may be attracted to the opportunity to have a stronger voice in support of the environment in their small community than they would if, say, they lived in Chicago or New York City.  They may appreciate seeing their friends and neighbors treat the environment with respect rather than watch garbage pile up on the streets of downtown San Francisco.  Furthermore, the anxiety rooted in the impending transition we face into a post-petroleum era is widespread and expected.

However noble the spirit of permaculture might be and however understandable their frustrations are with the current state of the environment, the question remains:  Are these communities effective?  In answering this question, a few factors need to be considered:  First, let’s recall the simple fact that the Earth itself is a limited resource.  Isolating oneself from the billions of people also sharing it does not mean he or she is suddenly living on a healthier planet.  Second, the development of environmentally-conscientious energy resources will be driven by demand for them.  If all the environmentally-conscientious people isolate themselves from domestic and global markets, the remaining aggregate voice will be less environmentally-conscientious for having lost them.  In the long run, if permaculture followers isolate themselves from the rest of us, they might actually contribute to a less healthy planet than had they stayed engaged.

I think that the “transition town” residents need to consider the driving economic forces behind oil in order to succeed in their endeavor:  Oil is a limited resource, which means that eventually we were going to run out of it.  As the remaining amounts of oil deplete, the price of it will continue to get higher and higher over time.  If we demand alternative forms of energy, inventors and scientists will, in theory, develop an energy source (or multiple energy sources) that is cheaper than the rising price of oil.  Therefore, in theory, oil should be replaced with a different source of energy before it is entirely eliminated.  I hope that calms those of you who are panicked about the depletion of oil.  The next order of business is to consider the extent to which our next energy source is environmentally-conscientious.  Whether or not we use environmentally-conscientious energy as our next energy source is based on a simple concept:  incentives.  The depletion of oil has provided the incentive for companies, inventors, and scientists to find a new source of energy.  The government can provide incentives for environmentally-conscientious energy sources with tax breaks or other rewards for new ideas.  Vitally important, however, are the incentives that consumers bring to the market.  We called for organic food products?  They now stock the aisles of the grocery stores.  We demanded hybrid cars?  You have plenty to choose from these days.  Do we want an environmentally-conscientious energy source to replace oil?  Then we need to establish the demand.  If permaculture followers disappear, the demand will be weakened because of them.

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.