This is the first of an occasional series about "green" jobs. I think that energy is important, certainly, but reducing consumption of raw materials, or reducing the cost of reusing them, is important as well.
I would very much appreciate if an economist would review this piece, since I speak mostly from only a scientific perspective. I believe that my scientific views are sound, but I need insight as to how those suggestions work with the macroeconomic, and especially the microelectronic universes.
I do not like throwing things away. That carries the implication that those things have no use. I maintain that most, if not all, or our trash, has value. Please bear with me.
Most of the materials that we use, and then throw away, have been both produced and delivered using fairly, and sometimes, extreme, amounts, of energy. I believe that many of those materials would better serve us, and better serve the planet, if they were reused. (I tend not to use the term "recycle" because it has been demonized here and there).
"Green" jobs are all the rage now, and I have a set of suggestions that might be worth something. This would require more effort from what now are called "trash men". I think that the title should be more gender encompassing, but that is not the point.
The point is that, except in very unusual circumstances, consumers should reuse, or allow to be reused, things that are currently put into holes in the ground. Here is my sketchy vision:
The garbage companies should be required to provide the following bins:
On for glass, one for plastic, one for metal, one for paper, one for rotting foodstuffs and other organic materials, one for "other", including hazardous waste, and, for families with small children, one for soiled disposable diapers.
Here is where the green jobs part comes into focus: there should be no bags allowed for the first four bins. Rotting food probably should be bagged. Hazardous waste should be prearranged for pickup, and bagged or not depending on the hazard. The diaper one is a rich methane source, but, other than the rotting food one, stands alone.
All of this stuff has some value, even the hazardous waste. The glass can be used for new glass, at a fraction of the cost. The more old glass in a batch, the cheaper from and energy standpoint it is to produce. Modern sorting equipment can distinguish different colors, and thus segregate different kinds to their respective melting pots. For pieces too small, they could be combined in a "glassphalt" pot, to make antiskid road surfaces.
The plastics can be segregated, once again, with advanced instrumentation. Even if not, mixed plastics make good extruded wood substitutes for park benches and the like. It is too valuable to be wasted.
Metal is easy. The ferrous ones get lifted out with a magnet, detinned, and recycled as scrap. The tin, a high value material, is reused for new cans. The aluminum can be reused at about about ten per cent of the cost of virgin material.
The paper is not a high value material, but it should be. Every kilogram of previously precessed paper saves several tree trunk segments and lots of water. I think that we need to use it more.
Rotting organic materials are the source of methane from landfills, and, after they have rotted, take only about five to ten per cent of their original size. Not a bad thing to bury, along with the feces from the diapers. Those are another good source of fuel. The cleansed diapers could go to new paper, after removal of the plastic outside, the feces, the urine, and the synthetic inside layer for reuse.
The otherwise unusuable organic material could be made into high energy, low carbon fuel.
Update: I think that the waste management companies should share the benefit with the consumers by crediting them for good segregation, and punish them for poor segregation.
I always appreciate other thoughts, and as I indicated above, someone familiar with economics would be very welcome.
What say ye?
Warmest regards,
Doc