Many readers have asked me to explain why more people don't know about the services offered by TRP and other profit and nonprofit organizations that promote building materials reuse. If I were a conspiracy freak (which I'm not), I'd say "they" (politicos, pundits) simply don't want people to know.
 Case in point: The venerable news magazine The Economist recently devoted an entire 116-page issue to "A Special Report on Waste." The report is composed of eight separate articles on municipal solid waste or MSW. A chart accompanying the first article shows that construction and demolition debris (C&D) comprises 36 percent of all MSW. Other contributors include mining and quarrying at 28 percent, commercial at 13, household at 11, industrial at 10, and agriculture and sewage at 1 each (The Economist, Feb 28). These figures are consistent with other studies I've seen.
Only one sentence discusses reuse, and it refers to the practice of wearing hand-me-down clothing. C&D represents the largest percentage of MSW and yet the authors don't even mention the reuse of building materials, an economic and environmental practice that was going on for thousands of years before the EPA was dreamed of or green became a building standard! The issue devotes a photo and several paragraphs to rag pickers in Mumbai, many paragraphs to recycling components from computers and automobiles, and many more pages to a review of recycling initiatives requiring extremely large infusions of capital. Ok, out of three -- reduce, recycle, reuse -- they cover two, but what the heck happened to reuse?
This lack of attention to reuse is reflected in the laws of every municipality in California that has legislation regulating landfill diversion, and within the green building industry itself. Both assign the same value to recycling as they do to reuse. Yet reuse consumes less than one-quarter the energy required for recycling, and is cleaner. Many green initiatives reward the same number of points for grinding wood waste to produce ground covers and fuel for cogeneration facilities as they do for salvaging and reusing lumber. You tell me which is the more environmentally friendly and cost effective.
Let's take a look at the entire spectrum of recycling (as distinguished from reuse) for a moment. I recently read an article on high-density polyethylene (HDPE) that reported a swing back to using virgin materials because of the higher cost of using recycled materials, or regrind. Many commodities have experienced similar swings because of the high fixed and variable costs of reprocessing the recycled materials. Recycling almost always entails higher fixed costs than reuse because of the capital plant, plant equipment and rolling stock required. Variable costs are generally higher due to fuel and transportation costs and equipment maintenance.
In a January 30, 2009 feature, PBS News Hour economics correspondent Paul Solman interviewed managers and employees at the Port of Long Beach. According to a port manager, until recently about 300,000 tons per month of paper and cardboard were exported from the port, with one-third destined for recycling markets in China and Asia. Most of those materials were later shipped back to the U.S. as packaging (boxes, envelopes) for products sold in America. However, last fall, due to a lack of worldwide demand, shipments from Long Beach fell nearly 70 percent. One port employee termed it "a cliff, not a downturn." Last November the yard did virtually no business and in December only one ship was loaded. I checked with my friend Russ Moilov, a longshoreman at Long Beach, who told me that ships are arriving on schedule, but they come in "with their red mark above the waterline." Translation: empty or near empty.
Reuse is always economical. Recycling is economical when high levels of economic activity increase demand, drive up prices and put recycled materials in a more competitive position. In periods of modest growth or, worse, recessions and falling prices, the economics turn drastically against recycling. This is where we are today. Cardboard and paper that were recycled a year ago are building up in warehouses throughout the developed world. The same is true of plastics and glass. Metals, while their prices are severely depressed still have markets, but worldwide demand (read China) has fallen considerably this past year.
So if reuse is such a good thing in both good and bad times, and better for the environment than recycling, why does recycling get all the attention? I think there are several reasons. First, reuse has generally been localized and practiced primarily by lower-income families, farmers and anti-materialist subcultures. Second, it isn't sexy. There are no big machines munching and crushing things into smaller pieces to be used in the manufacture of new products. Third, because the big munching and crushing machines require big investment dollars, recycling companies can generally purchase significant media exposure. TRP is one of the larger deconstruction and building-materials reuse organizations in the country and its total marketing and advertising budget is $25,000 -- not quite enough for a 30-second commercial or a spread in Time magazine.
Okay, I've ranted long enough. Here's my call to action: Go out and talk up reuse -- building-materials reuse in particular.
Reuse Contest
Our 2008 reuse contest was so successful that we've decided to sponsor the competition annually. Win TRP gift certificates redeemable for up to $225 worth of building materials at TRP and partner warehouses in Oakland, Pacoima, Chicago and Kansas City. All 2009 entries must be received by August 1. Click here for contest rules: thereusepeople.org/ReUse_Contest. |
