Why is it assumed the cost of dumping trash is less than the cost of processing it into useful raw material?

Question

It has never been determined what the real cost and benifit would be if landfills were replaced by a new process that transforms the trash now being dumped in landfills into useful raw material. The value of the raw material is unknown as is the process so why is it assumed by everyone a landfill is a required evil?

Answer 1

This question leads to ECONOMICS, and the costs that are called "externalities".

Nobody tracks life-cycle costs, because they're only responsible for a part of the cycle.

For Coca-Cola, which matufactures carbonated sugar water in cans, the cost of the can is INTERNAL to their accounting, but the cost of disposal for that can is EXTERNAL. Economists call this an externality. But the cost to society of having tons of cans to dispose of (and having many of them turn into litter) is a real cost. To reflect the "external" costs to consumers, some states charge a 5-cent or 10-cent refundable deposit on top of the cost of each can. This helps bring the externality into society's accounting system.

And of course, Coke doesn't like this more inclusive accounting, so they fight against container-deposit laws in the states that don't have them. (STOOO-PID)

So to answer your question, municipalites assume that landfilling is less expensive than recycling because the cost of raw materials is external to THEIR accounting. Except for those towns and cities that do source separation and count the value of recycled cans as part of their income stream.

Answer 2

the point is not the cost it is saving resources for the future - it always cost more to recycle if all cost are considered

you are confusing the overall cost with the production cost - since someone else pays for the collection then a company can produce a product from recycled material cheaper than raw material ( sometimes ) so society is actually bankrolling the company ( but we do this with all companies in so many ways they are beyond counting - and put all together and you have the nebulous thing we call the economy )

just as one example - who pays to raise and train the workers ( DuPont doesn't run a single nursery and they don't pay for basic schooling - at least not directly )

Answer 3

Recycling constantly is clever. the undeniable fact that we've got larger expenses for plenty of the products that we use ought to make a contribution to a urgency to recycle, although the sorrowful reality of the concern is that no longer adequate human beings do it to make it fesable to your general shopper to do. maximum individuals ought to pay greater to have a waste business enterprise %. up recyclables seprately from common refuse. From an economic viewpoint the only individual who will without a doubt make the main of our recycling is the producer no longer the customer. We get it coming and going. It does although make experience to do and we ought to constantly detect a thank you to get law exceeded that makes it a criminal offense to value a individual two times for a product (as quickly as to purchase the object and as quickly as to recycle the field.) so as that greater human beings will recycle.