7 Result(s) found

Economic Impacts

In recent years, the European Commission has continuously developed the tool of cost-benefit analysis to better inform decision-makers in the process of settling on new directives and regulations concerning the environment. However, according to the Terms of Reference of this assignment “most studies in the field of waste have been restricted to an analysis of costs and, at best, a relatively superficial description of benefits”.


Region: Europe
Year of publication : 2000
Document Type: Report&Data

1. Depending on the system, container deposit-return (CDR) systems create 11 to 38 times more jobs than curbside recycling. 2. On average, states with deposit-return systems recover roughly three times more beverage containers than non-CDR states. 3. Jobs gained from recycling far exceed any jobs lost in virgin extraction, landfilling or domestic manufacturing. 4. U.S. PET reclaimers currently operate at less than 60% capacity due to a lack of quality source materials. 5. The U.S. loses 800 jobs per year to overseas markets due to the export of PET.


Document Type: Factsheet

Despite progress in recent years countries across the European Union (EU), including the United Kingdom (UK), are continuing to dispose of significant amounts of valuable recyclable materials to landfill or incineration. This analysis examines this disposal in more depth, in an attempt to provide a reasonable estimate of the amount of different recyclable materials that is lost through landfilling or incineration. The study then estimates the value of these lost materials, and the climate change benefits that could have been gained by recycling these materials.


Region: Europe
Year of publication : 2009
Document Type: Report&Data

While major waste companies promote landfill gas to energy (LFGTE) projects that purport to capture methane released from landfills and convert it to electricity, a better solution lies in organics recycling.


Region: North America
Document Type: Report&Data

This report is based on a study of 103 waste recyclers. It shows that the sector has been impacted by the crash in prices of scrap which happened from April to December 2008. 70% of those interviewed stated that their work was bad or very bad. Of these, 14% identified the drop in share prices as a cause of the price crash. The study revealed that wastepickers were being forced to liquidate their assets, including those kept aside for emergencies. Many wastepickers stored the copper they found instead of selling it immediately.


Region: Asia-Pacific
Year of publication : 2009
Document Type: Report&Data

Extracts from “Resources up in Flames: The Economic Pitfalls of Incineration versus a Zero Waste Approach in the Global South” by Brenda A. Platt, Institute for Local Self-Reliance.
1. Incineration is the most costly solid waste management option
2. Incineration increases the indebtedness of host countries
3. Incineration is capital-intensive v. labor-intensive
4. Waste composition affects incinerator operation and finances
5. Incineration will adversely impact the informal sector and the informal sector will adversely impact incineration


Document Type: Factsheet

American taxpayers and ratepayers are subsidizing a form of “renewable” energy—biomass electricity- that causes short and long-term harm to the public health and the environment. There are 234 of these so-called “clean and green” biomass electricity projects proposed for the U.S. The scale of these plants ranges from 25 to more than 100 megawatts (MW), often dwarfing the 255 existing biomass power facilities, which generally range from 2 to 5 MW capacity. This polluting form of electricity production currently accounts for over 50% of the so-called “renewable” energy in the U.S.


Region: North America
Year of publication : 2011
Document Type: Report&Data