Recycling and the Market

Something occurred to me the other day when I was discussing the merits of recycling (and why I had stored an aluminum can I was drinking a beverage out of in my pants pocket rather than throwing it out in the garbage can a few feet away) with a friend at a picnic, and that was the dually-beneficial nature of recycling for both the environment and for the free market.

Now, I recycle, first and foremost, because I wish to reduce my impact on the environment by promoting a sustainable growth situation for our culture and our industry. However, when one recycles, one is also encouraging greater ownership potential and lower costs for items in the same swoop! Here's how it works:

We only have a limited amount of certain resources, be they trees, aluminum, water, or petroleum (turned into plastics), even those that are renewable. The problem with renewable resources is that they require a greater period of time to make up for the resources removed during that timeframe than it takes to introduce the brand new materials into the market. So in essence, were we to theoretically suddenly remove all trees on the planet for paper needs, and not recycle during the time period between the next time a tree had grown to appropriate paper harvesting age, we would be experiencing a diminishing stock of that resource, something that still happens even though we don't log every tree in the world.

Here's where recycling comes into play; Company A wants X number of Y resource, which is available either by harvesting deposits that reduce the total (Z) amount of Y resource, or by reclaiming that resource through recycling, which would otherwise go to waste. Simplifying this as a zero-sum game, they can choose one path or the other.

If they choose the harvesting deposits option, X number of Y resource is now lost, no longer able to be used, and thereby reducing the total amount of Y by X due to whatever originally drove A's desire.

However, were A to reclaim the amount of resource needed through recycling, Z would stay constant, or with little loss, thereby allowing for greater usage of that resource. This would allow for increased competition in the marketplace, as due to the higher availability of that resource, overall costs of initially purchasing that resource would be lower than through regular deposit harvesting, thereby allowing for lower-priced goods on the market (or higher wages for employees, or whatever the company wishes to spend its greater profit on) for the consumer, which means that more consumers can purchase more of that product, allowing for more widespread purchasing potential, which means even higher revenue for that company.

So while the cost of recycling may deter some companies from using that route, it overall is beneficial for all groups involved, from the community who no longer has to deal with large amounts of waste (and can then create jobs to help sort the recycling), the business that can more effectively spread around its purchases, and the consumer who will have more options available at more affordable prices.

Communitarianism and capitalism, combined. Who could have thought?