Annegrete Bruvoll The Costs of Alternative Policies for ... · The Costs of Alternative Policies for Paper and Plastic Waste Reports 98/2 • Statistics Norway 1998 After decades

98/2 Rapporter Reports

Annegrete Bruvoll

The Costs of Alternative Policiesfor Paper and Plastic Waste

Statistisk sentralbyrå • Statistics NorwayOslo-Kongsvinger

Rapporter

Reports

I denne serien publiseres statistiske analyser, metode- og modellbeskrivelser fra deenkelte forsknings- og statistikkområder. Også resultater av ulike enkeltunder-søkelser publiseres her, oftest med utfyllende kommentarer og analyser.

This series contains statistical analyses and method and model descriptions from thedifferent research and statistics areas. Results of various single surveys are alsopublished here, usually with supplementary comments and analyses.

© Statistics Norway, January 1998When using material from this publication,please give Statistics Norway as your source

ISBN 82-537-4478-1ISSN 0806-2056

Emnegruppe01.05 Avfall

EmneordAvfallsavgifterAvfallsgjennvinningAvfallshåndteringForbrenningDeponeringPapiravfallPlastavfall

Design: Enzo Finger DesignTrykk: Statistisk sentralbyrå

Standardtegn i tabeller Symbols in tables SymbolTall kan ikke forekomme Category not applicable

Oppgave mangler Data not available

Oppgave mangler foreløpig Data not yet available

Tall kan ikke offentliggjøres Not for publication

Null Nil

Mindre enn 0,5

av den brukte enheten

Less than 0.5 of unit

employed

Mindre enn 0,05

av den brukte enheten

Less than 0.05 of unit

employed 0,0

Foreløpige tall Provisional or preliminary figure

Brudd i den loddrette serien Break in the homogeneity of a vertical series

Brudd i den vannrette serien Break in the homogeneity of a horizontal series

Rettet siden forrige utgave Revised since the previous issue

Abstract

Annegrete Bruvoll

The Costs of Alternative Policies for Paper and Plastic Waste

Reports 98/2 • Statistics Norway 1998

After decades with landfill and incineration as the most common waste treatment methods, the current main wastepolicy strategy has changed toward recycling. Also, most governments declare that source reduction, to reduce thegeneration of waste, is the best choice, while in practice few steps have been taken in this direction. In order toimprove the understanding of optimal policies for paper and plastic waste reductions we compare the costs of thefour alternatives recycling, incineration, landfill based on a combination of US and Norwegian data, and sourcereduction implemented by a tax on material inputs.

This study supports the ranking of source reduction as the most efficient alternative. Price incentives directedtowards reducing material use and waste is more efficient than rectifying the damages of already generated waste.While a tax on waste generating materials actually involves net benefits, all the other alternatives involve net costs.

Furthermore, in an environmental as well as economic perspective the heavy emphasis on recycling may well bemisleading, as the environmental and the economic costs exceed the costs of incineration and landfill in most cases.Higher environmental and economic transport costs from recycling more than outweigh the emission costs andconventional costs from incineration and landfill plants in our analysis. Recycling is the least costly alternative forcommercial paper waste, due to relatively low pickup costs and high commercial value of recycled paper.

Keywords: Incineration, landfill, paper waste, plastic waste, recycling, waste taxes.

Acknowledgement: Funded by The Research Council of Norway.

Reports 98/2 Alternative Waste Policies

Contents1. Introduction 7

2. Main results 82.1. Source reduction 82.2. Residential paper waste 92.3. Commercial paper waste 92.4. Plastic waste 102.5. Factors not accounted for 10

3. Source reduction 123.1. The model 123.2. Results of the tax reform 133.3. Other studies 14

4. Recycling 154.1. Households' collection costs 154.2. Conventional collection costs 154.3. Collection air emissions costs 154.4. Processing conventional costs 154.5. Environmental extraction and processing costs 154.6. Other studies 16

5. Incineration 175.1. Conventional collection costs 175.2. Collection air emissions costs 175.3. Processing conventional costs 175.4. Processing emissions costs 17

~6. Landfi l l 186.1. Collection costs 186.2. Processing conventional costs 186.3. Area costs 186.4. Processing emissions costs 18

7. Conclusions

References

Appendix: Underlying data

Previously issued on the subject

Recent publications in the series Reports

20

21

24

29

30


1. Introduction

The «waste hierarchy» ranges waste minimization asthe best waste treatment alternative, then recycling,incineration and landfill as the last-ranking alternative.This hierarchy is the generally accepted golden rulewithin waste policy making. The stated main strategyin Norway and EU is source reduction, based on thehypothesis that it is better to prevent the generation ofwaste than to rectify damages. However, the inpractice dominating policy is mandated recycling,while waste minimization and source reduction,strictly defined as reductions in the amount ofmaterials used, are less subject to political priority (seee.g. Bernstein 1993, Brisson 1993 or Bruvoll andIbenholt 1995a and 1995b).

The stated Norwegian policy also claims that thechoices between treatment alternatives must be costefficient. The implicit argument in the currentdominating political trend is that for all private andsocial costs, recycling is initially less costly thanincineration, and incineration less costly than landfill.This might be correct for many materials, but theliterature offers no evidence for this general ranking(Goddard, 1995). Rather, the general basis for evaluat-ing the cost efficient choices is deficient. Particularly,judging whether the emphasis on recycling programs iscost efficient is frequently pointed out to be hamperedby poor, incomplete or inconsistent data. Despite thelack of supporting analyses, the politically set recyclingtargets on packaging waste in Europe are generallyabove 60 per cent (Brisson 1993).

To contribute to a better understanding of the costsand benefits of different treatment options, weendeavor in this paper to get a comprehensive pictureby integrating results from different cost studies. Westudy plastic and paper waste specifically. First weanalyze the marginal economic and environmentalconsequences for source reduction implemented by atax on packaging waste raw materials, and then therecycling, incineration and landfill costs.

Due to the lack of relevant Norwegian data, theanalysis relies heavily on American data. The costlevels might differ from Norwegian costs. However, we

are concerned with the relative ranking in the hier-archy. The relative difference between recycling,incineration and landfill costs in US and Norway mightdiffer. We have not studied the detailed differencesbetween Tellus' data and Norwegian conditions toargue for a certain bias, but hopefully this paper canlead to a discussion of the data and improvedestimates in the second hand.

The main source of data is Tellus' disposal cost feestudy, Tellus (1991), which provides data on conven-tional collection and processing costs and air emissionsfrom transport. The air emissions are further evaluatedaccording to a range of different sources of damageestimates. The main source of air emissions fromincinerators and landfills is ECON (1995).

The estimates on environmental costs of collection andtreatment of emissions vary highly between differentstudies and estimation methods. To reveal the uncer-tainty, we have estimated intervals based on the lowestand the highest cost estimates, in addition to chosenbest estimates (for explanation of the chosen values,see Bruvoll and Wiig 1996). Also, it is generally notpossible to measure the value of environmental exter-nalities objectively. In lack of morally sound and objec-tively reliable prices on environmental commodities,the decision-makers should be provided with physicalmeasures describing the consequences of alternativepolicies. Therefore, in case new and better estimatesare developed or if the reader is critical to the valuesused, we also present all the underlying physicalmeasures. Then the estimates in this analysis can becritically evaluated and adjusted according to newinformation and diverging preferences.

We start out with summarizing the results in section 2.In the sections 3 to 6 we discuss the details behind thecost estimates for source reduction, recycling, incinera-tion and landfill respectively. Section 7 concludes. InAppendix the underlying data is presented.

Alternative Waste Policies Reports 98/2

2. Main results

This study shows that the ranking of source reductionon the top of waste hierarchy is efficient for paper andplastic waste. The overall conclusion is that the taxalternative offers net benefits, while the other policyforms recycling, incineration and landfill involve netcosts. Thus price incentives directed towards reducingmaterial use and waste is more efficient than rectifyingthe damages of already generated waste. However, thethumb rule of ranking of recycling over incinerationand landfill has not proven to be efficient.

Recycling is the best alternative after source reductionfor commercial paper. Due to the high conventional andenvironmental collection costs, our data shows thatrecycling of household paper and plastic waste is morecostly than landfill and incineration. This conclusion issupported by several general waste cost studies. Arecent analysis by Bystrøm and Lønnstedt (1997) onpaper waste uses a life cycle approach to compare thewaste treatment options. They conclude that there isno evidence that increased recycling based on pulp isenvironmental friendly, compared to e.g. energyrecovery as a substitute for fossil fuels. REFORSK(1993) evaluates particularly the aspect of whether theincinerated material substitutes other energy sources,and concludes that if incineration competes with fossilfuels, incineration can be a better alternative thanrecycling.

The conclusions are highly generalized «on averageresults», based on aggregated data. For disaggregatedwaste fractions, individual results may deviate fromour main conclusions. The collection costs, e.g.,amount to about half the costs for recycled paper and80-90 per cent for recycled plastics. These costs areclearly higher than in less populated areas and lowerin cities or localities nearby treatment facilities. Also,the total net costs vary between different paper andplastic products. If the distance to a recycling facility islow compared to the alternative incinerator or landfill,recycling can be the most efficient treatmentalternative for other wastes than commercial paperwaste. Accordingly, recycling of commercial paperwaste is not always preferable to the other treatmentmethods. The assumptions of recycling collection

methods and incineration and landfill rinsingtechnology are also crucial to the conclusions.

2.1. Source reductionThe immediate result of a waste reducing material taxis a reduction in packaging waste. However, thisreduction is small compared to the reductions in paperand plastic material inputs and other material inputs,which inevitably end up as waste and emissions at alater point. Furthermore, the macroeconomic modelused reveals that air emissions from economic activitydecrease. The estimated environmental benefits fromreductions in air emissions are considerable and largerthan the gain from reduced waste amounts. Thisconfirms the importance of studying waste policyinstruments in a broadest possible framework, as thewaste problems are entangled with other environ-mental problems and waste policies have importantimplications on markets outside the waste field.

Ideally the tax should be set at a level where themarginal costs of a tax equal the marginal treatmentcosts. The optimal taxes can only contribute to reduc-tions, not elimination, of the waste amounts. For theremaining wastes spread on a mixture of recycling,incineration and landfill, the marginal costs should beequal for each alternative.

The tables 1-4 display the cost efficient policyhierarchy for residential and commercial paper andplastic waste. These conclusions concern the marginalcosts (as opposed to average costs) including bothshort term and long term marginal costs fromtransportation of waste, and construction and use ofnew disposal facilities. The cost notion concerns netcosts, as revenues from i.e. sale of recycled products,energy from incineration are included. Before lookinginto the numbers in the tables, keep in mind that thesources and assumptions behind the tables areexplained in the chapters 3 to 6.

8


Table 1. Ranking of the waste policy options for residential paper waste. Marginal costs based on chosen estimates and cost interval inparenthesis, NKr per tonne

1Source reduction

Cost components:

Households' collection costs

Conventional collection costs

Collection air emissions costs

Processing conventional costs

Area costs

Processing emissions costs

Total

Cost interval

2Incineration

531

73

235

479(247-482)

1319

(1 200-1 300)

New landfill

531

73

235

100(-5-100)

1319(247-1 941)

2258

(1 100-2 900)

3Recycling

1 003(290- 1 716)

904

408

95

2410

(1 700-3 100)

4Old landfill

531

73

119

100(-5-100)

2 433(294-3 676)

3255

(1 000-4 500)

Table 2. Ranking of the waste policy options for commercial paper waste. Marginal costs based on chosen estimates and cost interval inparenthesis, NKr per tonne

1Source reduction

Cost components:




Area costs


Total

Cost interval

2Recycling

573

408

-150

831

3Incineration

667

73

235

479(247-482)

1 455

(1 300-1 500)

4New landfill

667

73

235

100(-5-100)

1 319(247-1 941)

2 394

(1 200-3 000)

5Old landfill

667

73

119

100(-5-100)

2 433(294-3 676)

3 392

(1 100-4 600)

2.2. Residential paper wasteAfter source reduction on the top of our hierarchy,incineration is the second most efficient alternative forresidential paper waste (paper waste from house-holds), see table 1. Recycling and new landfills rankabout equal. The cost of landfills are mainly due tolarge methane emissions (labeled as processingemission costs in table 1). In new landfills, 50 per centof the methane emissions are collected, which reducesthe costs by 30 per cent, and the seepage is reduced byimproved liners.

The largest cost component for recycling is the meanhouseholds' time costs. Compared to the net hourlywages in Norway, the chosen time cost estimate isconservative (NKr 53 per hour). Using the lowest costestimate (NKr 35 per hour), does not change theranking. Also the conventional collection costs and airemissions from transport are higher than for incinera-tion and landfill.

Disposal of residential paper waste on old landfills,without gas collection systems, is the most costlyalternative.

2.3. Commercial paper wasteFor commercial paper waste (paper waste frombusinesses) we have not included extra sorting timecosts, see table 2. Also, collection costs are lower forrecycled commercial waste than for residential wasteand the sale of processed commercial paper wasteinvolves net profit due to high prices on recycled highquality paper. Thus, the costs of recycling is relativelylow, and after source reduction the preferablealternative is recycling. Incineration ranks afterrecycling. Landfill is more costly due to the methaneemissions, which are largest for old landfill without gascollection.


Table 3. Ranking of the waste policy options for residential plastic waste. Marginal costs based on chosen estimates and cost interval inparenthesis, NKr per tonne

1Source reduction

Cost components.

Households' collection costs




Area costs


Total

Cost interval

New landfill

1 254

171

479

100(-5-100)

583(225-888)

2 587

(2 100-2 900)

2Old landfill

1 254

171

242

100(-5-100)

895(242-1 338)

2 662

(1 900-3 100)

Incineration

1 254

171

-166

1400(334-3 224)

2 660

(1 700-4 500)

3Recycling

1 003(290-1 716)

3 763

1 700

235

6 702

(6 000-7 400)

Table 4. Ranking of the waste policy options for commercial plastic waste. Marginal costs based on chosen estimates and cost interval inparenthesis, NKr per tonne

1Source reduction

Cost components.




Area costs


Total

Cost interval

New landfill

1 461

171

479

100(-5-100)

583(225-888)

2 794

(2 300-3 100)

2Old landfill

1 461

171

242

100(-5-100)

895(242-1 338)

2 869

(2 100-3 300)

Incineration

1 461

171

-166

1 400(334-3 224)

2 867

(1 900-4 700)

3Recycling

2 965

1 700

337

5 003

2.4. Plastic wasteFor plastic waste, the conventional incineration costsare negative due to high energy value, see tables 3 and4. The environmental processing costs are higher thanfor landfill, while the collection costs are assumed thesame, and landfill and incineration are about equallycostly. The emissions costs from incineration are thehighest cost components. The reason why new and oldlandfills are ranked about equal, is that while conven-tional landfill costs are higher in new landfills, theseoutweigh the effect of reduced methane emissions.

Recycling is the most costly alternative for plastic,mainly due to high conventional collection costs, butalso because of high air emissions costs from transport.

2.5. Factors not accounted for

2.5.1. Recycled versus virgin materialsWe have not calculated the difference in costs fromusing virgin versus recycled material inputs. On one

hand the use of recycled paper and plastic saves trees,oil reserves and extraction costs, while on the otherthere are costs from transforming the recyclables fromwaste to material inputs. REFORSK (1993) studies theenvironmental effects of different treatments methodsbased on Swedish data, and evaluates particularly theaspect of whether the incinerated material substitutesother energy sources. The environmental outcome isambiguous, as it depends on what heat sourcecompetes with waste incineration. If incinerationcompetes with fossil fuels, incineration can be a betteralternative than recycling. In their life cycle studiesSchall (1993) and Breslow (1993) conclude that thesocial costs of virgin materials are higher than ofrecycled materials. However, these results are disputedby leading experts in the solid waste field1.

1 See e.g. the comments by Alter and Scarlett in MSW Management(1993) and Goddard (1995).

10


It is frequently argued that the virgin materials pricesare too low, since important external costs are notincluded, and that these price failures are a majorreason behind the costs associated with waste (see e.g.Miedema 1983, Repetto 1994, or Bruvoll 1998). If thevirgin material prices are too low, the prices should becorrected for the externality costs rather than dealingwith the emission problems with recycling. Our sourcereduction alternative is an analysis of the consequencesof correcting virgin material prices.

Also, the quality of the products is also usually lower,such that the weight on the product based on recycledmaterials is higher (Ministry of Environment 1993).

2.5.2. Environmental recycling processingcosts

As also can bee seen from the tables, theenvironmental recycling processing costs are notaccounted for. In the process of de-inking paper newwastes are generated. A de-inking mill processing atonne of paper disposes 40 kilos of solid waste andbetween 2 and 5 kilos of waste sludge in dry weight(DeLong 1994b). De-inking also uses about 60 000liters of water per tonne of paper processed, whichbecome contaminated and require significanttreatment before discharge.

Another important additional cost of recycling is that ashare of the recycled materials can not be used in theproduct, about 15 per cent of the input factor collectedcardboard waste end up as waste that must be incine-rated or landfilled (Ministry of Environment 1993).These double treatment costs are not accounted for,due to lack of detailed information on paper andplastics waste.

2.5.3. Lack of marketA problem frequently debated is the lack of market forrecycled products. Due to high prices on recycledrelative to virgin materials, large amounts of wasteaccumulate. In many cases collected paper has finallybeen burned or landfilled, or transported abroad.

Mandatory regulations designed to force up thedemand for recyclables will artificially raise the priceson recylable materials. The US federal government, theworld's largest buyer of paper, requires that the paperit purchases has 20 per cent recycled content, whichguarantees a huge market for recycled paper withoutsecuring a least cost waste treatment. Lately theAmerican recycling market has extensive problems inthe recycling market due to high recycling expensesrelative to virgin material prices (The Economist1997). Scarlett (1993a) points at major legislativeendeavors which have been proposed to stimulate orforce the use of recyclables, with the result that thesupplies of recyclables have outstripped the growth indemand.

Price increases may also deter entrepreneurs outsidethe mandated end uses from exploring ways of usingthese materials in other products.

2.5.4. Other factorsTellus' data on transport emissions does not includeemissions of climate gases. Since transport emissionsare highest for recycling, implementation of climategases would increase the relative recycling costs.

Mandated recycling implies costs for privatebusinesses. One study estimated that New Yorkbusinesses would spend up to $1 billion per year tocomply with proposed recycling laws (DeLong 1994b).The political recycling goals are usually implementedas recycling mandates, and the administrative costs,the control costs and the costs of motivating andeducating the households can be of significant size.

The products based on recycled materials often createnew markets, which not necessarily substitute theproducts based on virgin materials. Fletcher andMackay (1990) show that when recycled plasticreplace virgin material, plastic waste is reduced by thesame amount, while under new markets there is noeffect on the amount of generated plastic waste. Inthese cases, the benefits of recycled vs. virgin materialsare highly reduced.

Finally, the loss in property values nearby landfills arenot accounted for. Several studies reveal that thehousing values rise with the distance from a landfill,one study shows that the values rise by an average of6.2 per cent a mile (1 600 meters) within a two-mileradius of the landfill (Beede and Blom 1995).

Despite the lack of some data, the largest componentsshould be included in the cost estimates. Based on thesignificant differences in the costs, we conclude thatour study provides important guidelines on how toimplement the least costly waste policy for paper andplastic waste, and that a general acceptance ofrecycling as the preferable alternative is misleading.We now turn to describing the methods and data usedin estimating the costs of the different policyalternatives.

11


3. Source reduction

While recycling, incineration and landfill are methodsof treating already generated waste, another focus ison reducing waste generation. As argued by Goddard(1995), there are very good theoretical reasons tobelieve that significant levels of source reduction canbe attained at a lower cost than that of all the othersolid waste management alternatives. Waste manage-ment services are usually paid over constant rates,independent of delivered volumes. Thus the prices perunit facing the waste generators are by large very lowor zero. The marginal cost of source reduction(marginal abatement cost) is equally low. Thereforethere exists a yet unknown range over which a chargefor waste management services will create a cost to theconsumer and the community necessarily less than thecost of increased recycling, incineration or landfill.

A source reducing tax will influence the economy inmany respects, both positively, e.g. via less emissioncosts from all sectors facing increased production costs,and negatively, as less consumption due to a slowdownin economic growth. To trace the total net effects ofsuch a tax, a macroeconomic model is required.Actually, as we mentioned under the main results,other environmental benefits due to the macro-economic functioning appear to be larger than thedirect benefits of reduced waste.

We have levied a tax of 15 per cent on the materialinputs used to produce paper and plastic products;paper and plastics raw materials within the generalequilibrium model MSG2. The aim is to reduce theproduction of waste generating products and the costsassociated with treatment of these wastes. Accordingto available cost figures this tax is far below both theestimated treatment and environmental costs of theuse of paper/plastic virgin materials. In this paper wewill summarize the main features of the model and the

2 The model applied specifies material inputs as one commodity withno possibilities of substitution between the various material inputs,and the taxed virgin materials are part of the commodity aggregate.We have calculated a sector-specific tax which corresponds to theshare of paper/plastic raw materials in relation to total materialinputs within each sector.

main results. A full documentation of the tax reformcan be found in Bruvoll (1998).

3.1. The modelMSG models the Norwegian economy (see Holmøy,Norden and Strøm 1994 and Alfsen, Bye and Holmøy1996). Total production growth is largely determined bygrowth in the supply of primary resources as real capital,labor, virgin materials and natural resources and bytechnological change. The base year on our study is1988, and the model is simulated over the period 1988-2030. The model specifies 33 production sectors and 48goods (of which 10 are non-competing imported goodsand 4 are public goods), reflecting a compromisebetween the ambition of applying detailed sectorinformation, and the need for a manageable model.MSG describes a general equilibrium, where demandequals supply in all markets, and domestic producerprices equal sectoral unit costs in most sectors.

In most sectors the firms are assumed to behavecompetitively on both output and input markets. Thedemand for inputs follows a recursive budgetingprocedure involving several stages. At the top levelthere are five input factors: labor, capital, energy,transport services and materials. These factors areoptimally combined to minimize costs, according toconstant returns to scale technology. The input factorsenergy and transport are then further divided. Themodel assumes exogenous technological and organi-zational progress.

Prices of imports including energy and the interestcomponent in the price of capital are determined in theworld market, i.e. treated as exogenous in the model.The capital goods and material input prices are ulti-mately, through the input-output structure, functionsof the wage rate, productivity, import prices, the inte-rest rate, indirect tax rates, exogenous prices and thefixed exchange rate. Technological progress reducesthe prices of produced factors, and thus the prices ofmaterial inputs and capital goods decrease relative tothe labor price, which causes a substitution from laborinput to more use of material inputs over time.

12


MSG models 8 polluting air emissions by fixed compo-nents to the emission sources transport, intermediatedeliveries and fuel oil for heating.

In the baseline scenario, net domestic product3 growsby a good 50 per cent and private consumption bymore than 100 per cent in the period 1997 to 2030.Total material inputs rise by nearly 50 per cent in thesame period. The baseline waste growth projectionsrun to 2010 only, and indicate a growth of 74 per centin generated plastic, paper and cardboard waste from1993 (Bruvoll and Ibenholt 1997).

Higher material input prices result in substitution frommaterial inputs to labor, capital and energy4. At thesame time, higher costs reduce production, whichamplifies the reduction in the use of material inputsand also contributes to a general reduction in the useof other factor inputs. Higher product prices also havesecondary effects on the material input prices, asmaterial inputs are produced commodities. Theseeffects are most significant in the sectors with thehighest taxes. This is ascribable to improved relativecompetitiveness and shifts in production from sectorswith the greatest cost increase.

Material inputs are important input factors in the pro-duction of capital. The tax on material inputs in thesector for intermediate inputs and capital goods spreadsin the form of higher capital prices and a reduced use ofcapital and a lower total activity level. Material inputsare relatively large in relation to the gross value ofproduction, thus changes in the gross value of pro-duction correlate closely to the material inputs changes.

3.2. Results of the tax reformA material tax encourages reduced use of virginmaterials and thereby reduced generation of waste.The tax also increases the product prices, reduces thedemand for and production of products based on thesevirgin materials and further stimulates source reduc-tion. Plastic, paper and cardboard wastes amount toabout 640 000 tonnes annually in Norway (Bruvolland Wiig, 1996), and increase to 1500 000 tonnes in2030 according to the baseline scenario.

Compared with the projections, the tax results in areduction in total generated quantities of about 168000 tonnes in 2030. The treatment costs vary highlybetween treatment method and waste, from NKr 800at recycling commercial paper waste to NKr 6 700 atrecycling residential plastic waste (recall tables 1 to 4).With unchanged damages per tonne of packagingwaste and an interval of collection and treatment costsof NKr 800-6 700, this implies reduced total costs ofbetween NKr 140-1 130 million in 2030.

Table 5. Changes in key variables in 2030 as a result of 15 per centtax on paper/plastic raw materials, per tonne reductions inpaper/plastic raw materials.

Best guessestimates

Interval, lowest andhighest estimates

Reduced packaging waste

Reduced waste treatment costs

Reduced air emission costs

Reduced consumption

Reduced net domestic product

Reduced material input

54

NKr

NKr

NKr 1

NKr 4

kilos

361

204

023

763

NKr

NKr

45-364

219-745

3 Gross domestic product less capital consumption.4 These may be complementary to material inputs in some sectors.

Increased material input prices rise the overall costlevel for the producers. These higher costs reduceproduction. Net domestic product is reduced by totallyNKr 3.2 billion. Due to less production, consumption isalso reduced. The consumption loss is a more directmeasure of the welfare loss from increased overallcosts, and amounts to NKr 600 million.

On the other hand reduced production leads to less airemissions. The environmental gains from reduced airemissions are even larger than the gain from reducedwaste amounts. The environmental gain associatedwith changes in emissions to air is between NKr 680million and NKr 2.3 billion, according to highest andlowest estimates of environmental costs. According toour chosen cost estimates (see table Al), the gainamounts to NKr 1 100 million. CO2 emissions declinethe most, by 3.2 per cent, and amounts together withparticulate matter to the largest environmental benefit.Totally, the environmental changes which are takeninto account above provide a gain of between NKr 820million and NKr 3.4 billion, depending on thevaluation study applied.

The main benefit and cost components from thisanalysis are summarized in table 5. To compare withthe costs of recycling, incineration and landfill, wehave normalized the numbers in terms of per tonneuse of paper/plastic raw materials. When measuringthe outcome of waste policies, the current use of virginmaterials can be argued to be a more relevant measurethan the change in current waste amounts. By the basicrule of mass balance, all materials entering theeconomic system from nature as virgin materialseventually are disposed in the nature, either to air,land or water. This implies that the current extractionof virgin materials equals the future amounts of wasteand emissions. Since the study of source reductionreveals the effect on material inputs, we present theresults from this analysis per tonne paper/plastic rawmaterials.

As we see from table 5, the benefits of reduced wastetreatment costs on between NKr 50-360 per tonnepaper/plastic raw material alone are in line with thecosts of the tax reform measured as reduced consump-tion on NKr 200 per tonne. If we alternatively look at

13


the costs in terms of reduced net domestic product,which is a broader indicator of the reduction in theoverall activity level, the costs are significantly higherthan in terms of consumption.

However, adding the benefits of the reduced airemission costs to the reduced waste treatment costs, theenvironmental gains amount to NKr 300-1 100 pertonne paper/plastic raw material, which is in line withthe reduction in net domestic product on NKr 1 000per tonne.

Additional to these environmental benefits are someconsiderable benefit factors which are more difficult toquantify, but which strengthens our conclusion of a netbenefit outcome. First, we have not evaluated the totalreduction in paper/plastic raw materials, but only thereduction in packaging waste. For many productsbased on the same material inputs, as packagingproducts, the time lag from when materials enter theproduction process to the products end up as waste isprobably within one year, while e.g. for buildingproducts it takes considerably longer time. Thereduction in the total use of paper/plastic rawmaterials in 2030 is estimated to be 18 times greaterthan the reduction in packaging waste.

We have no data indicating the average life time ofthese materials, thus it is not possible to trace a timeprofile and discount the effects. To illustrate thepossible extent of this environmental benefit, if theaverage life time of paper/plastic products are 5 yearsand given a social discount rate of 7 per cent, thefuture gain due to reduced treatment costs amounts tobetween NKr 2 and 15 billion (between NKr 600 and4800 per tonne reduction in paper and plastic rawmaterials). In the more extreme case of zero discoun-ting5, the gain increases by 40 per cent. Despite itsuncertainty, this illustration clearly shows that theenvironmental benefits from less use of paper/plasticmaterial input contribute to a positive net outcome ofthe tax reform.

The second and probably even more importantenvironmental consequence not accounted for isrelated to the rest of material inputs, other thanpaper/plastic raw materials. It is reasonable to assumethat a general reduction in the use of material inputsresults in reduced environmental damages. Materialinputs decline by 1.5 per cent, equivalent to totally NKr

5 Despite the standard approach, discounting is subject to anextensive ethical debate. Discounting implicitly accounts for ourdescendants' possibility of non-existence, or we evaluate their well-being lower than our own. Vennemo (1996) shows that under weakassumptions, environmental goods should be discounted at a lowerrate compared to market goods, or maybe not at all. Also Cline(1992) and Broome (1992) have argued for the use of a zerodiscount rate in the context of global warming. Rawls (1972)represents an even more critical view, as he argues that a negativediscount rate is as morally sound as today's discounting of the future.

15 billion (NKr 4 800 per tonne reduction in paper andplastic raw materials). The reduction in the value ofmaterial inputs additional to paper/plastic rawmaterials in sectors with a tax is 14 times greater thanthe reduction in paper/plastic raw materials6. Due tolack of relevant estimates on damages we can notcomment on the magnitude of these environmentalgains. Also, improved environmental quality willincrease productivity, and in turn, as shown in Bruvoll,Glomsrød and Vennemo (1998), curbs the decline inproduction and consumption. The model used does notimplement such feedback mechanisms from theenvironment to the economy.

Another environmental factor is the waste-reducingeffects of packaging waste. As stated in Alter (1991),there is no generally accepted ways to measure wastereduction. One reason is that steps to decrease theamount of one waste may increase the amount ofanother. Correlation analyses show that the decreasedamounts of plastic packaging correspond to an increasein food waste residues. US data show that a tonne lessof plastic packaging was associated with a 1.65 tonneincrease in food waste, and 1.41 tonne in the case ofpaper and cardboard (Alter 1991). Thus less packagingwaste can correspond to increased amounts of foodwastes.

3.3. Other studiesSeveral other studies confirm the net gain of materialtaxes. Statistics Norway has earlier carried out ananalysis of a general tax on all types of material use, ina model where improved environmental quality haspositive feedback on the productive economy (Bruvolland Ibenholt 1998). This analysis shows a clear,positive environmental effect in the form of reducedair emissions and waste quantities, although the totalwelfare effect is uncertain due to reductions inproduction and material consumption.

Pearce and Turner (1993) conclude in their analysis ofthe comparative merits and limitations of politicalapproaches to waste management that either virginmaterials taxes or product charges could be imposed tocorrect for market failures. Also, these market basedinstruments offer more cost-effective solutions to theproblems of packaging waste and litter than regulatorylegislation.

We now turn to describing the different treatmentoptions and the underlying data in the tables 1 to 4.

6 Due to the model specification, the tax is levied on all materialinputs. The reduction in paper/plastic raw materials is probablyunderestimated and thus the reduction in other material inputsoverestimated compared to if there were substitution betweenpaper/plastic raw materials and other material inputs.

14


4. Recycling

The current level of recycling is not a result of optimaleconomic behavior, but a result of politically deter-mined recycling targets. Some level of recycling hasalways been profitable, while mandated recyclingcreates artificial markets, and opens for misallocationof resources. In our data, the marginal costs ofrecycling exceed the marginal costs of all othertreatments. Despite the relatively high recycling costs,the recycling targets on packaging waste in Europe aregenerally above 60 per cent (Brisson 1993). TheNorwegian policy is in line with the EU's directive onpackaging waste, which requires that between 50 and65 per cent of the total packaging waste shall berecycled. Specifically, the target for brown paper is 65percent, and for plastics 30 percent.

4.1. Households'collection costsOne major reason for the popularity of recycling, isthat recycling makes people feel that they contribute tosolving environmental problems in their daily lives. Asthis study shows, this understanding can bemisleading. In any case, the private time use has analternative value. Based on time costs between NKr 35to 70 per hour, DeLong (1994b) estimates the UShouseholds' time costs of sorting waste to between NKr310 to 1 850 per tonne, even when households spendless than 15 minutes a week on the task. This is also aconservative estimate compared with hourly net wagesin Norway. We have used the average from DeLong aschosen estimate.

4.2. Conventional collection costsThe estimates for conventional collection costs arebased on Tellus' (1991) American estimates overresidential and commercial collection of recyclablematerials, see table A2. Vehicles that collect materialsfill up by volume. Also, compared with unsorted andcompressed waste recycled paper requires 2-4 timesthe space, and 4-11 times the space for plastics7.

The Ministry of Environment (1995) estimates theconventional collection costs from retail businesses inNorway. About half the plastics can be collected at a

cost of NKr 1130 per tonne, while the marginal costsincrease rapidly for additional amounts, up toNKr 5 770 per tonne. Tellus' (1991) marginal costestimate for commercial plastic is NKr 3 000 per tonneand fits nicely within this interval.

The collection costs decrease with increasing size ofthe programs (Glenn 1992). Also, the amounts andthus the costs per tonne are highly dependent oneducation and motivation for recycling.

4.3. Collection air emissions costsThe collection emissions are estimated in Tellus(1991), see table A3. These numbers are also based onAmerican assumptions, as e.g. truck collectiondistance. Compared with other recycled materials,plastics are among the materials with the highest costsper tonne, because of the low material density. Theemission cost estimates in table A4 are based on thecost estimates in table Al. Emissions of particulatematter contribute to about 50 per cent of the totalcosts, while benzene emissions account for 36 per cent.

4.4. Processing conventional costsProcessing may involve separation of the material fromother materials or mixed waste, contaminant removaland volume reduction. The variety of processingmethods complicate generalizations of cost estimates.The estimates for conventional processing costs arefound in Tellus (1991), and are based on models thatassume a mix of several processing methods. Themethods are different for residential and commercialwastes. For further details on the estimates, see tableA5.

4.5. Environmental extraction and processingcosts

In lack of current data, the environmental extractionand processing costs from recycling are not accountedfor in this analysis. Among these components areenvironmentally damaging emissions from the proces-sing of recycled materials and the saved costs ofextracting virgin materials, see chapter 2.5.

7 Tellus (1991), tables 6.3 and 6.4.

15


4.6. Other studiesThe recycling cost studies offer a great spread inestimates, as they include different variables.Generally, they do not include the environmentalconsequences. We will briefly refer to some relevantstudies.

In a study from Pennsylvania, estimates of theeconomics of recycling varied from a profit of $43 to aloss of $723 per tonne (DeLong 1994b). The result ofeconomic losses is highly subsidized recycled products,or landfill of materials which are segregated by con-sumers. Brisson (1993) calculates the revised pertonne cost in the German green dot program to about$266, while the average collection and landfill costsrange from $59 to $89 per tonne. Scarlett (1993a)reports that recycling programs are often moreexpensive than other waste treatment options, and inMassachusetts recycling programs have increased totalwaste management costs. Based on 7 recyclingprograms the net costs of recycling range from 5 to 7times the national average landfill costs (Goddard1995 and Scarlett 1993b).

Some cost studies find that recycling can be economi-cally profitable. A study on costs and benefits ofrecycling in Taiwan shows a positive net income ofrecycled products. Yu et al. (1996) conclude that therecycling programs derive almost sufficient incomefrom the sale of recyclable materials to cover allexpenses. When subtracting the saved landfill costs of$58 per tonne, recycling gives a net benefit,environmental costs excluded.

16


5. Incineration

Compared to recycling, incineration represents a moretraditional solution to waste treatment. Incineration isonly partly a waste disposal method. Some of thematerials are disposed of as air emissions, while for therest of the waste, incineration represents rather awaste processing technology reducing the volume.Damaging air emissions from waste incinerationinclude several toxic and acid gases and to some extentclimate gases. Incineration greatly increases themobility of toxic materials in a form that is more easilyabsorbed by living organisms than the same materialsin unburned waste. However, new technology offerssolutions to prevent most of the environmentallydamaging emissions. Incinerated waste can also beused for energy production, which is reflected in lowerconventional incineration costs.

5.1. Conventional collection costsThe collection costs for waste to incineration (andlandfill) are significantly lower than for recycling,especially for plastics waste, since the materials can bemore compacted. The chosen estimates are based onTellus (1991) garbage collection costs for differentmaterials, see table A6. The collection costs for com-mercial waste are higher than the collection costs forresidential waste.

5.2. Collection air emissions costsAs for recycling, the emissions per tonne collectedwaste are estimated in Tellus (1991), and the princi-ples for evaluating the damages are also the same asdescribed under recycling. The environmental costs ofgarbage collection are mainly due to fuel emissions ofcollection and transport trucks. See table A7 and A8for further details.

5.3. Processing conventional costsThe cost estimates are found in Tellus (1991), basedon the costs of one planned and three old facilities inCalifornia. See table A9 for further details. The netmarginal costs include capital and operating costs,

residue disposal costs and revenue from the sale ofelectricity8.

5.4. Processing emissions costsCadmium is evaluated to be the most environmentaldamaging component of the incineration of paper,followed by particulate matter, dioxins and NOX, whileCO2-emissions are clearly most costly when burningplastic, see table A10 for more details.

Incinerators reduce the mass from 10 to 25 per cent ofthe original waste volume (Chilton 1993), and mustafter burning be treated as hazardous waste. Damagingair emissions from waste incineration include severaltoxic and acid gases and climate gases from plasticwaste. Incineration greatly increases the mobility oftoxic materials in a form that is more easily absorbedby living organisms than the same materials inunburned waste. However, new technology offerssolutions to collecting most of the toxic substances,modern incinerators remove most of the air pollutantsthrough high temperature and filtering. New waste toenergy facilities in US are estimated to pose a 1 in onemillion cancer risk (Chilton 1993).

The incineration costs per tonne waste are estimated inECON (1995), which is based on a extensive com-parison of different studies on national and inter-national data, among them Tellus (1991, 1992) andDet Norske Veritas (1995). We have used otherestimates for particulate matter, based on a morerecent study. The low and high estimates in table A10are computed on the basis on the relative differencesin table Al.

8 For mixed wastes, the capital and operating costs amount to aboutNKr 650 per tonne, residue disposal costs to NKr 25 per tonne andand revenues to NKr 40 per tonne. In Norway, plastics are burnedmixed with other materials, and the fuel value is between NKr 400and 750 per tonne (Bruvoll and Wiig 1996).

17


6. Landfill

Landfill represents the final end of a material's lifecycle. Landfills are traditionally known to be sources ofground water contamination and other leakage, smellproblems from anaerobic degradation and emissions ofclimate and other damaging gases.

The latest years stricter regulations have reduced theenvironmental damages also from new landfills. Theexternal costs are reduced with systems which prevent,collect and process leaking, collect and vent or burnmethane gas, and procedures secure safe managementor exclusion of hazardous waste disposal. On the otherhand, the long term consequences are uncertain as allstructures, as liners, leakage collection systems andcover systems have finite lifetimes, whereas the wastesand their toxic emissions will continue to exist forgenerations. The trend has been towards larger fewerlandfills, which has given a sharp fall in the averagetreatment costs.

6.1. Collection costsAs for incineration, the estimates on conventionalgarbage collection costs are based on Tellus (1991).The air emissions from collection of waste for inciner-ation and landfill are assumed equal. For furtherdetails, see table A6 and A8.

6.2. Processing conventional costsThe conventional landfill costs are estimated in Tellus(1991), including capital, operating, closure and post-closure costs, see table All . New landfills are assumedto be lined and to have a gas collection system, whilethe existing are unlined and without gas collection.

The average treatment costs fall sharply with the sizeof the landfills. Evidence from US suggests that theaverage cost of operating sanitary landfills declines byabout 70 per cent as their capacity increases from 227to 2 700 tonnes a day (DeLong 1994a). The trend isalso towards larger and fewer landfills, in Norway thenumber of landfills were reduced from about 400 atthe end of the 70's to 208 in 1995 (Statistics Norway1997). On the other hand, larger landfills entail largerenvironmental and economic transport costs.

6.3. Area costsThe landfill area costs in the Tellus study only amountto 2.6 per cent of the total costs, equaling NKr 5 pertonne. The average landfill height is assumed to bebetween 24 and 40 meters, which is considerablyhigher than the Norwegian average of about 6 meters9.We have estimated the landfill area costs based onNorwegian data, which are higher, partly due to thelandfill height. It is assumed that the same amount ofarea actually landfilled is bound up in roads, buildingsand safety area. The estimated area costs amount toNKr 105 per tonne waste, an additional NKr 100 pertonne compared to Tellus' numbers, see 8.4 inAppendix. The low estimate is on NKr 0 per tonne.

6.4. Processing emissions costsLandfills are traditionally known to be sources ofground water contamination and other environ-mentally damaging leakage, smell problems fromanaerobic degradation and air emissions. Methaneemissions from landfills dominate the environmentalcosts due to landfills and incineration of waste inNorway (Bruvoll and Wiig 1996), 12 per cent of thetotal Norwegian climate gas emissions stem fromanaerobic decomposition of organic waste at landfills(Statistics Norway 1997). Globally, about 6 per cent oftotal methane emissions origin from landfills (Beedeand Blom 1995).

The landfill emission costs per tonne waste areestimated in ECON (1995), based on different studieson national and international data, see table A12. Thelow and high estimates are computed on the basis ofthe relative differences in table Al. The dominatingcost factor in the chosen estimate is methaneemissions, which amount to 85-90 per cent of the costsof landfilled paper, and 55-70 per cent of the costs oflandfilled plastics. Due to the high relative damage ofmethane emissions, the emission costs of landfill arealmost halved when 50 per cent of the climate gasesare collected.

9 The world largest landfill on Staten Island is planned to reach aheight of more than 130 meters.

18


The cost estimates of climate gases are very uncertain,both since the emissions are spread over time, andsince the long term effect depend upon the discountrate. Thus there is a great spread in damage estimates.The low cost estimate in table A12 is based on StatensForurensningstilsyn (1995a), while the high costestimate reflects the tax necessary to stabilizeNorwegian emissions on 1989-level. The chosenestimate accords to the current carbon taxes inNorway.

2-Butanon is the second dominating factor among theleakages. The other toxic leakages contribute torelatively small damages. A computer model of 6 000landfills in US estimates virtually no risk in 60 per centof the facilities, only 6 per cent pose a cancer risklower than 1 in 10 000 (Chilton 1993). Estimatedaggregate risk from existing landfills in US is onecancer death every 13 years. On the other hand,specific for landfill is that the long term consequencesare uncertain as all structures, as liners, leakagecollection systems and cover systems, have finitelifetimes, whereas the wastes and their toxic emissionswill continue to exist for generations.

19


7. Conclusions

This study supports that on the margin sourcereduction carried out as a tax on material inputs ispreferable to the waste treatment alternativesrecycling, incineration and landfill. Ideally the taxshould be set at a level where marginal costs of a taxequal the marginal treatment costs. For the remainingwastes spread on a mixture of recycling, incinerationand landfill, the marginal costs should be equal foreach alternative.

Despite the standard understanding that recycling isthe environmentally best alternative, our data showsthat incineration and landfill are more costly only forcommercial paper waste. As the underlying level ofrecycling is set too high, the marginal costs of recyclingare higher than of the alternative treatments. In fact,for plastic waste, recycling is the most costlyalternative for both residential and commercial waste.The main recycling costs are the collection costs, whichvary between the localities. However, given equalcollection costs for recycling, incineration and landfill,recycling of residential waste is not less costly than theother alternatives. These conclusions are supported byother cost studies and studies on the use of priceincentives.

Due to the nature of environmental evaluation, thecost estimates are only indicative on the actual costlevels. We have also considered intervals of costestimates, and our main conclusions are robust toalternative estimates. The analysis includes the mostrelevant factors, but we have also pointed out somefactors not accounted for which might influence theestimates. The data also relies on the underlyingtechnology and prices at the current time. This studyshows that further analyses are needed to look intolocal conditions and other materials beforedetermining ambitious recycling targets. There isnothing such as a general hierarchy for all wastes.

Recycling can not alone meet the growing wasteamounts. The latest three years the total wasteamounts have grown 3 times more than the amountsfor recycling. The last 15 years the amounts havegrown by 50 percent, and projections show the same

growth in the future, due to high growth inconsumption and material input (Bruvoll and Ibenholt1995a and 1995b).

The political implication for the future policy planningwould be to put more weight on the use of economicincentives, in line with the recommendations from theGreen Tax Commission (Ministry of Finance 1996).Today the local authorities can differentiate the priceswaste collection services according to the amountdelivered. However, only a few communities usevariable rates, and the households' possibilities toreduce the waste service costs by generating less wasteare limited. A long range of studies evaluatinginternational experiences shows that per unit pricing ofdelivered waste has positive effects on wastegeneration as well as the economics of recycling10. Anend treatment tax can meet the negative effects fromwaste treatment, as an alternative to recycling,incineration and landfill.

10 See e.g. Ackerman et al. (1992), Chilton (1993), Meissner andLeknes (1994), Project 88-11 (1991), Repetto et al. (1992),Rogalandsforskning (1996), Scarlett (1993a) and Skumatz (1993and 1996).

20


References

Ackerman, F., J. Stutz, M. Breslow and D. Samuels(1992): Feasibility of volume-based collection fees forprivate waste haulers, Tellus Institute, S2-206.

Alfsen, K. H., T. Bye and E. Holmøy (1996J: MSG-EE:An applied general equilibrium model for energy andenvironmental analyses, Social and Economic Studies96, Statistics Norway.

Alter, H. (1991): The future course of solid wastemanagement in the US, Waste Management andResearch 9, 3-20.

Beede, D. N. and D. E. Blom (1995): The economics ofmunicipal solid waste, The World Bank Observer 10, 2,113-50.

Bernstein, J.-D. (1993): Alternative approaches topollution control and waste management: Regulatoryand economic instruments, Urban management andthe environment series, no. 3. Washington D. C:World Bank for the UNDP/UNCHS/World Bank UrbanManagement Programme, 1993.

Brendemoen, A., S. Glomsrød and M. Aaserud (1992):Miljøkostnader i makroperspektiv (Environmental costsin a macro-perspective), Reports 92/17, StatisticsNorway.

Breslow, M. (1993): Regulating solid wasteexternalities through tax/free systems, Dissertation,University of Massachusetts.

Brisson, I. (1993): Packaging waste and theenvironment: Economics and policy, Resources,Conservation and Recycling 8, 183-292.

Broome, J. (1992): Counting the cost of global warming,London: White Horse Press.

Bruvoll, A. (1998): Taxing virgin materials: anapproach to waste problems, forthcoming in Resources,Conservation and Recycling.

Bruvoll, A., S. Glomsrød and H. Vennemo (1998):Environmental drag: evidence from Norway,forthcoming in Ecological Economics.

Bruvoll, A. and K. Ibenholt (1995a): Framskrivning avavfallsmengder i Norge (Projections of wastes inNorway), Økonomiske analyser 8/95, StatisticsNorway.

Bruvoll, A. and K. Ibenholt (1995b): Projections ofwaste quantities in Norway, Economic Survey 4/95,Statistics Norway.

Bruvoll, A and K. Ibenholt (1997): Future wastegeneration. Forecasts based on a macroeconomicmodel, Resources, Conservation and Recycling 19, 137-49.

Bruvoll, A. and K. Ibenholt (1998): Green throughputtaxation. Environmental and economic consequences,forthcoming in Resource and Environmental Economics.

Bruvoll, A. and H. Wiig (1996): Konsekvenser av ulikehåndteringsmåter for avfall (Consequences of differentwaste treatment methods), Notater 96/31, StatisticsNorway.

Bystrøm, S. and L. Lønnstedt (1997): Paper recycling:environmental and economic impact, Resources,Conservation and Recycling 21, 109-27.

Chilton, K. (1993): Solid waste policy should bedirected by fundamental principles, not ill-foundedfeelings. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 8, 1-20.

Cline, W. R. (1992): The economics of global warming,Institute for international economics ,Washington D.C.

DeLong, J. V. (1994a): Of mountains and molehills:The municipal solid waste "crises", Brookings Review(spring), 32-39.

DeLong, J. V. (1994b): Wasting away. Mismanagingmunicipal solid waste, Environmental studies program,Competitive Enterprise Institute, Washington D.C.

21


Det Norske Veritas (1995J: Miljømessige virkninger vedutsortering av avfall (Environmental consequences ofsorting waste), Det Norske Veritas Industri Norge ASand Statens Forurensningstilsyn, Report 95-3119.

ECON (1995): Miljøkostnader knyttet til ulike typeravfall (Environmental costs of different wastes), ECON-rapp. 338/95.

Fletcher, B. L. and M. E. Mackay (1996): A model ofplastics recycling: does recycling reduce the amount ofwaste? Resources, Conservation and Recycling 17, 141-51.

Goddard, H. C. (1995): The benefits and costs ofalternative solid waste management policies, Resources,Conservation and Recycling 13, 183-213.

Glenn, J. (1992): Efficiencies and Economics ofCurbside Recycling, Biocycle 33, 7, 30-34.

Heijungs, R. (red.) (1992): Environmental life cycleassessment of products. Guide and backgruound, Centrefor Environmental Science, Leiden Universitet, Leiden,Nederland.

Holmøy, E., G. Norden and B. Strøm (1994): MSG-5, Acomplete description of the system of equations, Reports94/19, Statistics Norway.

Holtskog, S and K. Rypdal (1997): Energibruk ogutslipp til luft fra transport i Norge (Energy use andtransport air emissions in Norway), Reports 97/7,Statistics Norway.

Meissner, R., and E. Leknes (1994): Evaluering avsystemer for differensiering av gebyr for hushold-ningsavfall (Evaluation of systems for differentiatedfees for household waste), Rogalandsforskning292/94.

Miedema, A. K. (1983): Fundamental economiccomparisons of solid waste options, Resources andEnergy 5, 21-43.

Ministry of Environment (1993): Increased collectionand recycling of brown paper in Norway (Increasedcollection and recycling of brown paper in Norway),working group initiated by the Ministry ofEnvironment.

Ministry of Environment (1995): Innsamling oggjenvinning av plastavfall - arbeidsgrupperapport medforslag til målsettinger og tiltak. (Collection andrecycling of plastic waste - report from working groupwith suggestions for goals and actions.)

Ministry of Finance (1996): Grønne skatter - en politikkfor bedre miljø og høy sysselsetting (Green taxes - apolicy for a better environment and high employment),NOU 1996:9.

MSW Management (1993): Does the Yale Universitystudy make sense? MSW Management, January/February, 34-42.

Naturmiljøet i tall 1994 (Natural environment infigures 1994), Oslo: Universitetsforlaget ,1994.

Pearce, D. W. and R. K. Turner (1993): Marketbasedapproaches to solid waste management, Resources,Conservation and Recycling 8, 63-90.

Project 88-II (1991): Incentives for action: Designingmarket-based environmental strategies. A public policystudy sponsored by Senator T. E. Wirth, Colorado andSenator J. Heinz, Pennsylvania, Washington D. C.

Rawls (1972): A theory of justice, Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press.

REFORSK (1993): Miljomessige skillnader mellanåtervinning/återanvånding och forbrånning/deponering, Stiftelsen REFORSK, FoU nr. 79.

Repetto, R. (1994): Shifting taxes from value added tomaterial inputs, World Resources Institute, paperpresented at the International Workshop on"Environmental Taxation, Revenue Recycling andUnemployment, Milan, December 16-17 1994.

Repetto, R., R. Dower, R. Jenkins, and J. Geoghegan(1992): Green fees: How a tax shift can work for theenvironment and the economy. World ResourcesInstitute, Washington, D.C.

Rogalandsforskning (1996): Differensiering avavfallsgebyrer for produksjonsavfall (Differentiatedfees for production waste), RF 96/099.

Rosendahl, K. E. (1998): Social costs of air pollutionand fossil fuel use - a macoreconomic approach, to bepublshed in Social and Economic Studies, StatisticsNorway.

Scarlett, L. (1993a): Mandates or incentives?Comparing packaging regulations with user fees fortrash collection, Policy study 158, Reason Foundation.

Scarlett, L. (1993b): Recycling costs: Clearing awaysome smoke, Solid waste & power, July/August.

Schall, J. (1993): Does the Hierarchy Make Sense?MSW Management January/February.

22


Skumatz, L. A. (1993): Variable rates for municipalsolid waste: Implementation, experience, economicsand legislation, Policy study 160, Reason Foundation.

Skumatz, L. A. (1996): Nationwide diversion ratestudy. Quantitative effects of program chioces onrecycling and green waste diversion: beyond casestudies, Policy study 216, Reason Foundation.

Statens Forurensningstilsyn (1995a): Miljøkostnaderved avfallshåndtering (Environmental costs of wastetreatment), Report 95/16.

Statens Forurensningstilsyn (1995b): Kvantifisering avmiljøulemper knyttet til luftforurensning (Quantificationof environmental costs of air emissions), Report.

Statistics Norway (1997): Natural resources and theenvironment 1997, Statistical Analyses 17.

Tellus Institute (1991): Disposal fee study, Finalreport, SO-131.

Tellus Institute (1992): CSG / Tellus Packaging Study,Volume I.

The Economist (1997): America's recyclers. A funnysort of market, October 18th 1997.

Vennemo, H. (1996): The case against discounting theenvironment, Draft, ECON Centre for EconomicAnalysis.

Young, J. E. (1995): The sudden new strength ofrecycling, Word Watch, July/August 1995.

Yu, P.-H., H.-G. Leu and S. H. Lin (1996): Analysis of amunicipal recyclable material recycling program,Resources, Conservation and Recycling 17, 1, 47-56.

23


Appendix

Underlying data

This chapter documents the sources and data used to estimate the costs of air emissions, recycling, incinerationand landfill.

Emissions damage estimates

Table A 1 . Alternative air emission damage estimates, 1995-NKr per tonne emission

Chosen estimate Low estimate High estimate

~CO^ 358 38 1 230CH4 18156 760 28 279N2O 96 660 10 236 3 3 1 9 6 7NOX 49 000SO2 17 000Particulate matter 2 020 000CO 117Dioxines 5 808 000 000 000Mercury 211 200 000 1 230 000 211 200 000Cadmium 1 020 800 000 442 000 1 020 800 000Lead 282 600 000 263 000 282 600 000NMVOC 11 000PAH 29 900 000Toluene 100 000Benzene 41 533 482Ethyl benzene 72 711 288Xylenes 3 635 580

Sources: For explanation of chosen values: see Bruvoll and Wiig (1996). CO2 and CH4: Statens forurensningstilsyn (1995a) and ECON (1995). N2O: global warmingpotential in relation to CO2 = 270 (Naturmiljøet i tall 1994). NOxand SO2: ECON (1995). Particulate matter: Rosendahl (1998). CO: Brendemoen, Glomsrød and Aaserud(1992). Dioxines, PAH, toluene: Heijungs et al. (1992), see also ECON (1995). Mercury, cadmium and lead: Statens forurensningstilsyn (1995b) and Heijungs et al.(1992), see also ECON (1995). NMVOC: Statens forurensningstilsyn (1995b). Benzene, ethyl benzene and xylenes: hazard ranking, Tellus (1991), table 6.18.

Recycling

Table A2. Recycling conventional collection costs, $ per ton material collected

Costs $/tonResidentialCommercial

Tellus (1991), table 6.4

WeightTellus (1991), table 6.3

Weighed totalResidentialCommercial

News-paper

35.7628.17

8.0

Corru-gated/craft

214.5756.35

5.8

Paper

Mixedpaper

107.2884.52

8.7

12680

Highgrade

80.4631.70

1.0

Otherpaper

160.93126.78

11.8

HDPE

459.79362.23

0.7

Plastics

PET Film

536.42 643.71422.60 507.12

0.3 2.0

524413

Other

459.79362.23

3.1

24


Table A3. Recycling collection air emissions

lbs/ton material collectedCON0x

soxNMVOCTolueneBenzeneEthyl benzeneXylenesTellus (1991), table 5.40


tonne emission/ tonne materialcollected

CO

NOX

soxNMVOCTolueneBenzeneEthyl benzeneXylenesParticulate matter1

News-paper

0.36550.51710.07390.12420.00220.00220.00010.0008

8.0

Corru-gated/craft

2.19293.10280.44330.74530.01340.01330.00040.0048

5.8

Paper

Mixedpaper

1.09651.55140.22160.37260.00670.00670.00020.0024

8.7

0.0005880.0008320.0001190.0002003.60*10"'3.58*10'1.11*10"7

1.29*10"'0.000100

Highgrade

0.82241.16350.16620.27950.00500.00500.00020.0018

1.0

Otherpaper

1.64472.32710.33240.55900.01010.01000.00030.0036

11.8

HDPE

4.69926.64880.94981.59700.02870.02860.00100.0102

0.7

Plastics

PET

5.48247.75691.10811.86320.03350.03340.00110.0119

0.3

0.0024480.0036630.0004950.0008321.50*10"5

1.49*10"5

5.04* 10"7

5.32*10'0.000414

Film

6.57889.30831.32982.23580.04020.04000.00130.0143

2.0

Other

4.69926.64880.94981.59700.02870.02860.00100.0102

3.1

1 The emissions are estimated on the assumption of the same relationship between the emissions of CO and particulate matter in Norway and US. Norwegian emissionsof CO and particulate matter: Table 4.1 in Holtskog and Rypdal (1997)

Table A4. Recycling collection air emissions costs, 1995-NKr pertonne material collected

Paper Plastic

CONOX

soxNMVOCTolueneBenzeneEthyl benzeneXylenesParticulate matter

041

220

14885

201

0170

891

6193719

837

Total 408 1 700

Source: Tables A3 and A1.

Table A5. Recycling processing conventional costs, $ per ton material processed

Paper Plastics

News- Corru- Mixed Highpaper gated/craft paper grade

HDPE PET Film Other


13.7410

13.74-30 10 -60

32.71 (all plastics)30 35 50 50

Tellus (1991), table 6.15, 6.16


Weighed totalResidentialCommercial

8.0 5.8

13-21

8.7 1.0 0.7 0.3

3347

2.0 3.1

25


Incineration

Table A6. Garbage (incineration and landfill) conventional collection costs, $ per ton material collected

Paper Plastics

News- Corru- Mixed High Otherpaper gated/craft paper grade paper

HDPE PET Film Other



51.28 89.48 75.00 69.63 81.26 189.41 193.17 110.11 210.9760.78 106.06 88.89 82.53 96.32 224.50 228.96 130.51 250.05

Weight 8.0 5.8 iTellus (1991), table 6.3

Weighed totalResidential 74Commercial 93

Table A7. Garbage (incineration and landfill) collection air emissions

3.7 1.0 11.8 0.7 0.3

175203

2.0 3.1

Paper Plastics

lbs/ton material

CONOX

soxNMVOCTolueneBenzeneEthyl benzeneXylenes


Weight Tellus (1991), table 6.3

tonne emission/ tonnematerial collected

CO

NOx

SOx

NMVOCTolueneBenzeneEthyl benzeneXylenesParticulate matter1

News-paper

0.15850.22420.03200.05390.00100.00100.00000.0003

8.0

Corru-gated/craft

0.27650.39120.05590.09400.00170.00170.00010.0006

5.8

Mixedpaper

0.23180.32790.04680.07880.00140.00140.00010.0005

8.7

0.0001040.0001480.0000210.0000366.40* 10"7

6.35*10"7

2.14*10"8

2.27*10"7

0.000018

Highgrade

0.21520.30450.04350.07310.00130.00130.00000.0005

1.0

Otherpaper

0.25110.35530.05080.08530.00150.00150.00010.0006

11.8

HDPE

0.58530.82820.11830.19890.00360.00360.00010.0013

0.7

PET Film

0.5969 0.34030.8446 0.48140.1207 0.06880.2029 0.11560.0037 0.00210.0036 0.00210.0001 0.00000.0013 0.0007

0.3 2.0

0.000250.000350.00005

0.0000841.50*10"6

1.50*10"6

5.00*10"8

5.40* 10"7

0.000042

Other

0.65190.92240.13180.22160.00400.00400.00010.0014

3.1

1 The emissions are estimated on the assumption of the same relationship between the emissions of CO and particulate matter in Norway and US. Norwegianemissions of CO and particulate matter: Table 4.1 in Holtskog and Rypdal (1997).

26


Table A8. Garbage (incineration and landfill) collection air emissions costs, based onalternative emission cost estimates, 1995-NKr per tonne material incinerated

Paper Plastic

CON0x

soxNMVOCTolueneBenzeneEthyl benzeneXylenesParticulate matter

07000

2621

36

017

110

6242

84

Total 73 171

Source: Table A7 and A1.

Table A9. Incineration processing conventional costs, $ per ton material incinerated

Paper Plastics

Costs $/tonTellus (1991), table 6.11

News-paper

25.15

Corru-gated

/craft

25.53

Mixedpaper

35.00

Highgrade

32.69

Otherpaper

39.84

HDPE PET Film Other

-6.57 41.00 -6.14 -43.86


Weighed total

Table A10. Incineration

8.0 5.8 8.7 1.0 11.É

processing emission costs based on

Paper

Chosen

33

alternative emission cost estimates.

Low High

I 0.7 0.3

-23

1995-NKr per tonne material

Plastics

Chosen Low

2.0 3.1

incinerated

High

co2

CH4

NOX

SOX

Particulate matterDioxinesMercuryCadmiumLeadNMVOCPAHOther heavy metalsHydr. fluoride/chloride

05

803

103942

128303581

21283

7485

703

103941

2943035224

790

2569

1294

3

Total 479 341 482 400 428 3 224

Sources: ECON (1995) and table A1.

27


Landfill

Table A11. Landfill processing conventional costs, $ per ton material landfilled

Costs $/tonTellus (1991), table 6.9

New landfillsExisting landfills


Weighed totalNew landfillsExisting landfills

News-paper

32.4016.37

8.0

Corru-gated/craft

34.4817.42

5.8

Paper

Mixedpaper

32.4016.37

8.7

3317

Highgrade

32.4016.37

1.0

Otherpaper

32.4016.37

11.8

HDPE

72.8436.81

0.7

Plastics

PET

72.8436.81

0.3

6734

Film

38.7719.59

2.0

Other

82.6141.75

3.1

For new landfills we chose Northern California estimates, Northern California uses greater controls than Southern California, because of higher precipitation rates.

Additional Norwegian area costs

Assumptions: Tonne waste per m3: 0,7. Landfill height: 6 meters. Including the same area for constructions and roads as landfilled area, this implies 0.48 m2 per tonnewaste. The low estimate for area cost is NKr 600 per 1000 m2, based on an observation on forest property near a landfill site in Oslo. This corresponds to NKr 0 pertonne. The chosen and high estimate NKr 220 000 per 1000 m2, based on the average price for housing properties nearby Oslo (Akershus), which corresponds to NKr105 per tonne.

Table A12. Landfill processing emission costs, 1995-NKr per tonne material landfilled

Paper Plastics

Chosen Low High Chosen Low High

CO,

50% gas collectionno gas collection

CH4

50% gas collectionno gas collection

Vinyl chloride50% gas collectionno gas collection

NOX

MercuryCadmiumLeadNMVOCBariumChromeSelenAcetone2-Butanonp-CresolTans-1,2-Diclorethyl.MethylclorideNitrogenPhosphorKOF

1 1152 229

00

31120010

41149

200004

4793

000

1 7373 472

112

5134

323646

511

31120000

41149

20000

34

54

1427

000

175117

5031 006

112

Total50% gas collectionno gas collection

13192433

247294

19413676

583895

225242 1338

Sources: ECON (1995) and table A1.

28


Tidligere utgitt på emneområdetPreviously issued on the subject

Notater96/31 Bruvoll, A. and H. Wiig (1996): Konsekvenser

av ulike håndteringsmåter for avfall(Consequences of alternative waste treatments)

Reports95/31 Bruvoll, A. and K. Ibenholt (1995): Norske

avfallsmengder etter årtusenskiftet, (Norwegianwaste after the millennium)

97/25 Hass, J. (1997): Household recycling rates andsolid waste collection fees

97/12 Skogesal, Olav (1997): Avfallsregnskap forNorge - Prinsipper og metoder. Resultater forpapir og glass, (Waste accounting for Norway -Principles and methods. Results for paper andglass)

Økonomiske analyser (0A)8/95 Bruvoll, A. and K. Ibenholt (1995):

Framskrivning av avfallsmengder i Norge

9/96 Bruvoll, A: (1996): Avfallsavgifter. Ein studie avavgifter på emballasjeråvarer (Waste taxation.A study of taxes on packaging virgin materials)

Economic survey (ES)4/95 Bruvoll, A. and K. Ibenholt (1995): Projections

of waste quantities in Norway

Statistical Analyses17 Statistics Norway (1997): Natural resources

and the environment 1997

29


De sist utgitte publikasjonene i serien RapporterRecent publications in the series ReportsMerverdiavgift på 23 prosent kommer i tillegg til prisene i denne oversikten hvis ikke annet er oppgitt

97/3 T. Skjerpen and A.R. Swensen: ForecastingManufacturing Investment Using SurveyInformation. 1997. 23s. 80 kr. ISBN 82-537-4374-2

97/4 E. Midtlyng: Arbeidsmiljø i skolen. 1997. 62s.95 kr. ISBN 82-537-4390-4

97/5 B. Bjørlo og P. Schøning: Resultatkontrolljordbruk 1997: Gjennomføring av tiltak motforurensninger. 1997. 85s. 95 kr. ISBN 82-537-4397-1

97/6 R.H. Kitterød: Leid hjelp til husarbeid? Bruk avprivat rengjøringshjelp 1980-1995. 1997. 59s.95 kr. ISBN 82-537-4399-8

97/7 S. Holtskog og K. Rypdal: Energibruk og utslipptil luft fra transport i Norge. 1997. 47s. 80 kr.ISBN 82-537-4400-5

97/8 K.O. Oftedal: Arbeidstilbudet fra sykepleiere ogleger ved endret studie- og arbeidsmøns-ter.1997. 27s. 80 kr. ISBN 82-537-4401-3

97/9 A. Bråten og K. Olsen: Ulike metoder forberegning av en indikator for underliggendeinflasjon. 1997. 36s. 100 kr inkl. mva. ISBN 82-537-4405-6

97/10 J. Monsrud: Eie og bruk av personbil: Noenutviklingstrekk 1980-1995. 1997. 56s. 115 kr.ISBN 82-537-4411-0

97/11 S.E. Førre: Er store foretak mer forsknings-intensive? En anvendelse av diagnostiskemetoder. 1997. 33s. 100 kr inkl. mva. ISBN 82-537-4413-7

97/12 O. Skogesal: Avfallsregnskap for Norge -prinsipper og metoder: Resultater for papir ogglass. 1997. 115 kr inkl. mva. ISBN 82-537-4424-2

97/13 J. Lyngstad og K.-M. Roalsø: Langtidsarbeids-lediges inntekter og økonomiske levekår. 1997.98s. 125 kr inkl. mva. ISBN 82-537-4419-6

97/14 H.M. Teigum: Holdninger til og kunnskap omnorsk u-hjelp 1996. 1997. 60s. 75 kr inkl. mva.ISBN 82-537-4425-0

97/15 M. Lund, 0. Landfald og S. Try: Register-basertevaluering av ordinære arbeids-markedstiltak:Dokumentasjon og analyse. 1997. 46s. 100 krinkl. mva. ISBN 82-537-4429-3

97/16 E. Holmøy og B. Strøm: Samfunnsøkonomiskekostnader av offentlig ressursbruk og ulikefinansieringsformer - beregninger basert på endisaggregert generell likevektsmodell. 1997.69s. 115 kr inkl. mva. ISBN 82-537-4430-7

97/17 E. Sørensen og I. Seliussen (red.): Samledoku-mentasjon av konjunkturindikatorer i Statistisksentralbyrå. 1997. 99s. 135 kr inkl. mva. ISBN82-537-4432-3

97/18 T. Fæhn and L.A. Griinfeld: Commercial Policy,Trade and Competition in the NorwegianService Industries. 1997. 34s. 100 kr inkl.mva. ISBN 82-537-4437-4

97/19 S.-E. Mamelund, H. Brunborg og T. Noack:Skilsmisser i Norge 1886-1995 for kalenderårog ekteskapskohorter. 1997. 115s. 135 kr inkl.mva. ISBN 82-537-4440-4

97/20 K. Rypdal og B. Tornsjø: Utslipp til luft franorsk luftfart. 1997. 31s. 100 kr inkl. mva. ISBN82-537-4449-8

97/21 J. Hass: Investeringer, kostnader og gebyrer iden kommunale avløpssektoren. 1996:Resultater fra undersøkelsen i 1996. 1997. 50s.115 kr inkl. mva. ISBN 82-537-4453-6

97/22 T. Nygård Evensen og K.Ø. Sørensen:Turismens økonomiske betydning for Norge:Belyst ved nasjonalregnskapets satelittregn-skapfor turisme. 1997. 92s. 115 kr inkl. mva. ISBN82-537-4455-2

97/23 B.K. Wold (ed.): Supply Response in a Gender-Perspective: The Case of Structural Adjustmentin Zambia. 1997. 77s. 115 kr inkl. mva. ISBN82-537-4458-7

97/24 I. Seliussen: Utvalsstandardawik i detalj-omsetningsindeksen. 1997. 30s. 100 kr inkl.mva. ISBN 82-537-4463-3

97/25 J.L. Hass: Household recycling rates and solidwaste collection fees. 1997. 32s. 100 kr inkl.mva. ISBN 82-537-4470-6

30

Documents

Annegrete Bruvoll The Costs of Alternative Policies for ... · The Costs of Alternative Policies for Paper and Plastic Waste Reports 98/2 • Statistics Norway 1998 After decades