| Front page | | Contents | | Previous | | Next |
Gevinster ved genanvendelse
In this report some major international studies of the environmental and health effects
of recycling of waste are described. The report covers the social effects of waste
disposal, characterized as ‘negative externalities’ in the literature of
environmental economics, i.e. the damage costs on the environment and human health, that
are not reflected in the waste disposal prices. As it is the case in the identified
studies, the report does not include the social effects of the choice of waste disposal on
e.g. the employment. The main conclusion in a recent study conducted for the European
Commission is that waste management measures are likely to have only a small effect on
employment (Vernon and George, 2001: vi).
Most studies on the effects of waste disposal pertain to incineration or landfilling of
waste. Thus it has only been possible to identify few, but on the other hand rather
comprehensive studies, where an economic valuation of the social benefits of recycling has
been conducted, as in many of the studies on benefits of recycling only include
descriptions of benefits or a specification of emissions and residues in physical units.
The results of the studies of effects of landfilling or incineration of waste is obviously
important in connection with an assessment of the total social benefits and costs of
recycling since one of the benefits of recycling of waste is the avoided social damage
costs from the alternatives i.e. landfill or incineration of the waste. This, however,
also applies for the avoided damage costs of recycling of the waste compared with the
extraction of virgin materials, because the energy savings related to recycling are
normally large. An analysis of costs and benefits of recycling of waste therefore requests
more than just knowledge of the immediate emissions and residues.
The many different emissions of harmful substances and residues related to waste
disposal makes it difficult to quantify their total effects on the environment and human
health. Moreover, it is associated with a noticeable uncertainty to conduct an economic
valuation of the effects because of the inadequate quantification of emissions and
residues from waste disposal, and the uncertainty related to the unveiling of peoples
willingness-to-pay for a reduction in the social damage costs from the emissions and
residues.
Even though it is difficult to assess the many different effects on the environment and
human health related to waste disposal, it is nevertheless a too narrow basis for
comparison in connection with selection of waste disposal method. This is due to the fact
that there are different functions related to the different forms of waste disposal. For
the assessment of the total effects of waste incineration it is e.g. of great importance,
how the production of energy is alternatively assumed. A comparison of the effects of
recycling, incineration and landfilling of waste is thus only possible, if a system
analysis of these functions related to the different forms of waste disposal is conducted.
It is particularly difficult to compare recycling with the incineration of waste,
because the benefits of recycling, partly shows up in the form of reduced environmental
impact in connection with the extraction of virgin materials and partly depends on how the
production of energy from incineration is alternatively assumed. The choice of collection
system can also be decisive for the total assessment of the social benefits and costs of
recycling of waste.
Especially two actors have been major in connection with economic valuation studies of
the effects of waste disposal at the international level. The European Commission has
initiated several studies (Coopers & Lybrand and CSERGE (1997), ETSU, AEA Technology
(1997), COWI (2000) and Pearce and Howarth (2000)) and several research projects has been
carried out at the Centre for Social and Economic Research on the Global Environment
(CSERGE) at the University of East Anglia, Norwich and University College London3 (Craighill and Powell (1995; 1996) and
Brisson (1997)). In many of the studies the unit damage costs applied for the social
damage costs of the emissions of greenhouse gases originate from Fankhauser (1994a;
1994b), who has been affiliated to CSERGE.
The conclusion in the present report states that it is not possible to generate a set
of Danish unit damage costs for recycling of different fractions of waste on the basis of
the identified international studies. To be able to calculate the social effects of
recycling of waste in Denmark more precisely, it is necessary to conduct an economic
valuation of the effects of waste disposal in Denmark on the basis of life-cycle analyses
of the different forms of waste disposal. The combination of life-cycle analyses of the
effects of recycling processes and economic valuation of the effects is referred to as
‘The Multiple Pathway Method’ (MPM). To increase the precision of the
calculations it is necessary in the long term to generate Danish unit damage costs for the
purpose of economic analyses on the environment.
This is first of all due to an increase in the requirements to emissions from waste
disposal. All other things being equal this implies a reduction in the emissions of
harmful substances per treated ton of waste that has taken place compared with the
emissions used for the calculations in the studies. Secondly, many of the studies are
using unit damage costs for improvements in environmental quality from the beginning of
the 1990’s, which presumes, that the unveiled preferences have been unchanged in the
intervened period. Thirdly, a transfer of unit damage costs from foreign studies to Danish
circumstances presumes that corrections for differences in e.g. income and a number of
other socio-economic and demographic factors are made.
Even though the international studies do not seem to be particular suitable to generate
precise unit damage costs for the effects of recycling of solid waste in Denmark right
now, both the results of the studies and the methodological considerations can prove to be
useful in connection with the generation of a set of unit damage costs in a future project
in co-operation with the Danish Ministry of the Environment.4