For many, where that cup ends after the sanitation worker takes it away is hardly a concern compared to life’s many trials and tribulations. However, for those that work in Maine’s processing facilities, it’s a way of life. With well over 1.5 million tons of waste generated and managed each year, it can prove a lucrative one at that. However, as highlighted in the Maine DEP – 2018 & 2019 Municipal Solid Waste & Disposal Capacity report, the entire industry and those that make a living from it are at risk. With the total amount of waste produced growing every year and several municipal landfills reaching capacity, careful cooperation is needed to navigate the issue. While the amount of waste being produced could pose as new revenue for private facilities, with the value of recycling materials on the commodities market declining, Maine will continue to see the amount and cost/ton rise, leading to increased cost, lower private investment, and the need for local taxes to be raised to subsidize the industry.
To highlight how severe this increase has been, from 2017 to 2019, Maine’s population increased by 0.4% while waste generation increased by 2.5%. During this same period, Maine saw a decrease in the Municipal Solid Waste Recycling Rate from 38.09% to 37.81% (2018 was 35.10% with an increase in 2019, no available data for 2020 though we can only imagine with the world it’s been). While a third of MSW being recycled may sound promising, it is in stark contrast with the 2.3% of Commercial Waste, where the rate is at 2.3%, highlighting the increased costs of more complicated waste such as metals and demolition debris.
With the private markets proving unwilling or unable to step in, the state has made several efforts to alleviate stresses on the industry. For instance, 38 MRS 1305 requires each municipality to provide waste disposal services for domestic and commercial solid waste generated within that municipality. This, however, causes the negative externality of forcing higher property taxes to support areas with higher waste generation. This extra cost is imposed most heavily on regions in a state of development with a high job and housing opportunities. To keep this burden on the public to a minimum, the municipalities will often cut out the more expensive costs imposed by recycling rather than landfilling.
To alleviate this issue, Maine put in place 38 MRS 2132, which imposed a state waste disposal reduction goal. This goal was to create a reduction in the amount of waste being processed by landfilling facilities to 0.55tons/capita by 2019 and to further reduce the statewide per capita disposal by an additional 5% every five years after that. This, unfortunately, has not been met. Maine statewide per capita tonnage increased from 0.54tons/capita in 2017 to 0.63tons/capita in 2019. With the massive spike in online shopping, the state is destined to see this number increase, especially after a year such as the last one.
Noting the failure to meet their previously constructed goals, Maine looked to see where this strain was on the system was developing from so rapidly. Recognizing how the low domestic production creates increased imports into the state, Maine implemented a bill in 2021 that requires manufacturers instead of citizens to bear these inflated costs. To accomplish this, this bill works by charging producers that import into the state a fee based on many factors representing pertinent externalities, most notably the tonnage of packaging they subject on the market. This program mimics those seen in the EU and other areas of the world, all of which have been a resounding success, effectively increasing recycling rates and cementing the resilience of their collection programs. Though, of course, we will have to wait for time to tell with Maine’s newly passed bill.
While increased regulation can prove effective, there is, however, another way. Developed over the last century by several economists, chemists, engineers, architects, and many more, the Circular Economy has continued to gain following over the past two decades. This theory denotes an economy that is restorative and regenerative in design rather than the linear form they take today. The process goes beyond regulation to evaluating the way we do business and understanding the impacts it has on the world around us. As has been established, our increased dependence on single-use products creates exorbitant waste imposing higher costs, as well as many health and safety risks to the public.
By adopting an economy focused on long-term efficiency, many economists believe that we will not only lead to more sustainable markets but also a more profitable future. As pointed out by the Ellen McArthur Foundation, not only would the combination of increased revenues from emerging circular activities help generate higher GDP, but lower costs of production would also arise thanks to the more efficient utilization of inputs. The effects of this dual pressure would be felt throughout the economy as supply, demand, and prices all reacted to the new and more optimal use of markets.
To highlight how this effect can arise, one can look at products such as mobile phones or washing machines. These products are considered medium-lives, meaning you will have to replace them every 3-5 years. By improving the long-term efficiency of these products (both through more efficient design and easier access to repair rather than replace services), it is estimated that the EU could save an annual net-material cost of $630Billion. For even faster-moving goods, such as cleaning products, the savings could reach $700Billion globally. These savings arise not only on the producers’ side through more efficient inputs but also in the consumers’ wallets through lower product prices and a minor municipal need to manage the ever-growing mountains of trash.
Another critical aspect of the Circular Economy is its employment benefits, especially in areas where the less efficient markets have left gaps still yet to be filled (think of the coal belt or Mill Towns in Maine). Not only would reducing generated waste lead to more efficient markets and higher pay, but the opening of new recycling/retaining services, as well as improved cost efficiency, would lead to higher overall employment nationwide. These jobs include retail as the quick linear model we have is modified to a more customer-friendly and attentive one, as well as higher-skilled jobs in the new remanufacturing markets and a stimulated entrepreneurial market.
This leads to another important concept that many prominent economists have been highlighting in the past decade. Throughout our history, markets have proven time and time again that they are the most efficient way to organize the use of goods and services. However, the strength of these markets has only been fully utilized when there is a mission that needs to be accomplished. As Marianna Mazzucato points out in her most recent book, “The Mission Economy,” the United States saw exponential growth during the ’60s as the nation rallied around the idea of landing on the moon. This brave new frontier represented not only the ambitions of humankind but foreign frontiers of brand new opportunities. Utilizing massive public organizational capabilities with private innovation, not only did we accomplish this goal but also achieved a higher quality of life as the preliminary technologies found new uses in everyday items.
In our modern-day and age, there are plenty of new challenges that represent the opportunity for an Apollo sized mission. The Circular Economy just so happens to be perfectly suited to address the most pressing of our time, climate change. In the same study that highlighted the impact on employment, adopting a Circular Economy for the 10 OECD countries could represent a 70% decrease in carbon emissions. This would be a huge step forward as the world fails to meet the goals set in global treaties such as the Paris Climate Accord. By uniting under the umbrella of fighting climate change, not only can we save our world, but we can also help to create one that is more equitable and healthy for all to live in. Less waste means fewer pollutants, more efficient systems mean no need to endure overbearing replacement costs. New technologies will offer improvements just as the Apollo mission led to memory foam and even artificial limbs.
The movement towards a Circular economy can already be felt throughout the world. Both public efforts such as expanded recycling services and a shift towards renewable energy are complemented by groups such as the Ellen McArthur Foundation and the Plastic Makers of America in developing these models without much citizen influence. However, to make the needed changes before it proves too late to accomplish our generational mission, we as a people must invest in encouraging the change. This includes both votings for leaders that share these values, as well as using our wallets to influence private markets. By supporting businesses that donate or purchase services from organizations such as those named before, we can hasten the adoption of this new, more efficient model.
We in Maine have our role to play. As our waste issues continue to grow and more people continue to move here with the adoption of remote work, our entire economy will continue to be strained. However, because of this ever-increasing domestic demand, we also find ourselves unique to help other areas meet these goals. By expanding our domestic recycling capacity through both public management and incentives to private processors, we can not only help close by partners such as New Hampshire in meeting their own waste reduction goals but present expanded professional job opportunities to those in our state. This will be incredibly important as we see existing higher-paying markets be exposed to increased competition without state competitors.
My Maine Musings 