In a recent episode of the 10 Blocks podcast, host Brian Anderson engaged with John Tierney, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, to delve into the contentious issues surrounding composting and recycling.
Tierney has long been a vocal critic of municipal recycling programs, particularly composting, which he describes as the most nonsensical aspect of these initiatives.
He argues that composting not only incurs substantial costs, but also offers minimal environmental benefits while imposing significant downsides on urban residents.
This is particularly relevant in New York City, where authorities have begun enforcing regulations that require residents to separate organic waste, including food scraps and yard waste, into designated bins for collection.
These separated materials are transported to composting facilities, while some are converted into natural gas.
Tierney highlights that, amongst all forms of recycling, composting is the most expensive to collect and yields the least benefits.
He points out that traditional recycling options, such as cardboard and metals, are more cost-effective than composting.
Moreover, he argues that when factoring in the time people spend sorting waste, the costs skyrocket, making composting seem even less sensible.
Defenders of composting might concede that there are drawbacks to the policy, yet argue that it serves a fundamental environmental purpose.
Tierney challenges this notion, claiming recycling is a solution in search of a problem, largely built on flawed intuitions.
Historically, the recycling movement emerged during a perceived crisis characterized by limited landfill space and dwindling natural resources.
Yet, Tierney asserts that such concerns are unfounded; there remains ample landfill space and an abundance of natural resources.
Commodity prices are trending downward as advancements allow for better supply acquisition.
As the original justifications for recycling have dissipated, cities have struggled to find new rationales to continue these initiatives.
The current justification has shifted towards a narrative suggesting that recycling helps reduce energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions.
However, Tierney argues these savings are negligible and that much less costly alternatives to reducing carbon emissions exist.
Interestingly, he cites Environmental Protection Agency findings indicating that most greenhouse savings from recycling come from metals and cardboard, with composting contributing even less to emissions reduction.
Indeed, the greenhouse gas savings from composting can sometimes result in increased emissions due to inefficiencies in the process, such as the energy required to store organic waste.
For residents of congested urban settings like New York, composting becomes an added burden, particularly for those in apartment buildings with limited space.
Amid ongoing policy changes, the issue of composting presents challenges for those who may now be forced to manage a variety of waste types in already cramped living environments.
Additionally, city regulations have historically restricted the use of garbage disposals, compounding the inconvenience of separating food waste for composting.
Tierney suggests that many ecological initiatives prioritize image and virtue signaling over practical effectiveness, noting that this trend is observable across various environmental policies.
Despite the apparent drawbacks and evidence against these efforts, interest groups continue to push for composting and similar initiatives driven by a mix of political pressure and financial gain.
The convergence of activist groups, waste handling industries, and green technology firms has cultivated an ‘environmental industrial complex’ that thrives on government subsidies and mandates.
In fact, recent legislation, including the Inflation Reduction Act, earmarks substantial funds for recycling and environmental initiatives, perpetuating the cycle of dependency on government support within these industries.
Tierney points out the incongruity of cities pursuing costly and inefficient recycling schemes while facing budget shortfalls and cuts to essential services.
He cites a Manhattan Institute report estimating that New York City could save $340 million annually by eliminating its recycling program, a figure that resonates given the city’s fiscal challenges.
As the composting mandate stirs public discontent, there are signs of potential political pushback against these policies, particularly as the forthcoming mayoral race highlights the need for practical governance.
Recent enforcement actions regarding the composting regulations drew significant backlash, prompting the city to rethink its approach amid frustrations from residents.
This public opposition may create an opportunity for candidates to advocate for more rational waste management policies that better balance environmental goals with the realities faced by urban residents.
In conclusion, the debate over composting and recycling highlights broader themes of practicality versus idealism in environmental policy.
As more citizens recognize the burdens and inefficiencies associated with current policies, the potential for reform continues to grow.
In his recent article, “New York City’s Composting Delusion,” Tierney sheds light on the mismatched priorities that characterize these initiatives, inviting readers to reconsider the effectiveness and feasibility of such approaches moving forward.
image source from：https://www.city-journal.org/multimedia/new-yorks-composting-delusion
