These figures point to a fundamental absurdity in the present system of production and pricing ofmetals. Whatever the produc'tivity of a worker in the mines these days, there aren't many mining operations which, with two workers and almost no capital or energy investment, could generate a first-year production of 73 tons of four kinds of elemental and alloy metals that are so centrally important to so many industrial processes. It is•the kind of thing that can only happen at the dump. And yet, such is the artificially depressed price of on<;:eused metals compared to new that it is somehow more profitable to continue mining and refining n·ew elementals from oxid~s, meanwhile burying the once-used (but s~ill new, for metals last a long time) at public expense in the-landfills. Thus the difference between the scrap and new price of metals functions as a baseline indicator of the indirect, hidden subsidy extended to mining and refining operations under existing arrangements. Add to that the subsidy to bury, mix, and generally lose the great majority qLmetals in the waste stream which are not recycled because there is no design or' investment to see that recovery can happen, .and you have the beginnings of an assessment of the true costs of this peculiar method of producing and disposing of surplus production. · ' And beyond this are the environmental costs, and the costs in lost production potential, lost employ1!1ent, lost resources. Knowing the cpsts is only part of,becoming fully conscious of our situation; we also need to know much more about what ' actually could be done with volumes of high grade materials like these. • • With this in mind, we at Oregon Appropriate Technology would like .fr> ask the international appropriate technology network, through Rain, some questions, beginning with: ■ Suppose for the moment that we make a decision to use these materials locally instead of shipping them ·back to the prime producers at bargain basement prices, what end-uses are there for an annual production of, say, .16 tons ofa(uminum in a city like Eugene, Oregon? What could be done with a ton of copper? How about 54'tons of high-grade iron and steql? ■ Are there local, small-scale craft or in,dustrial proceSS§S that could use or refabricate these materials? Assuming that there are, what could be made? ■ What kinds ofmarketing or exchange mechanisms can we develop to distribute the production and volumes possible under highgrading? What arrangements could we make for the organization of labor to accomplish the ,necessary work? • A Vision ofExtending Materials Recovery Through Highgrading The people involved in the highgrading project-really just an extension of traditional recycling efforts into a new segment of the solid waste stream-have ideas about how the approach could be expanded and made more efficient. Elements in the des.ign process _involve new muting systems for cars and trucks, new labor-intensive collection and processing· techniques, new business "software" systems based on worker self-management-, and above all the incorporation of more • workers into the system. Prime candidates.for highgrading in the future are firewood, dimensional lµmber, topsoil and organics. Substantial volume reductions seem possible under highgrading, especially when November 1978 RAIN Page 7 combined with expanded and upgraded traditional recycling efforts. Universal source separation and collection combined • with source elimination or reduction of residuals could literally ·do away with the concept, and reality, of garbage. Some . jobs-would be lost, but many mot.:e would be g_ained than lost, and resources could be made available to stimulate secondary employment and production. The economics are certainly there to justify expansion of labor-intensive forms of resource recovery: at just the level of the OAT project, with only two people'working, the metals highgrading project couU:l have made about the same income as projected for the mechanized system for the first year of its operation, and all without undue risk or debt for the country . .Improvements in marketing such as selling for reuse rather than· recycling, could greatly incre<!,Se return per unit volume processed. This is because reuse markets typically pay 5-10 times scrap market value. For instance, brass and copp·er could probably be marketed for a higher price to artists and craftspeople who could then increase its value still more; or a retail store could be set up to sell reusable goods. Some Objections, and Some Answers' • . One possible objection to this line of thinking is that mechanized and labor-intensive resource recovery methods are not really comparable. The mechanized plant is designed for a 400-ton-per-day throughput; labor-intensive approaches could never keep pace with this requirement. Recycling is for idealistic college students, women and the handicapped; industrial volumes require industrial processing equipment. Labor is . unreliable and hard to train; machinery is the bottom line when it comes to the "baseline alternative." In answe~, we observe the following: 1) Mechanized systems have a lon:g, uphill struggle to prove themselves worth of our attention, given their performance so far; 2) It is labor-intensive recycling that pays, and pays consistently; 3) Highgrading systems could be designed to recover other high-density materials such as wood, agricultural wastes, topsoil and even rocks and concrete. Exclusion of these materials would cut down substantially on tonnages going through the machinery, prolo~ging the system's usefulness and,reducing maintenance and opera:ting cost~; 4) The metals recovery demonstration discussed earlier affected only a fifth or less of the total flow 'available, and still recovery volumes were significant, as was the productivity of labor. More labor, more tools, and better collection and storage could raise volumes, and revenue, considerably; 5) Reorganization and redesign of the traffic feed system could set things up so1traffic moved through the facility much faster. The addition of more people power under better working conditions could make the recycling operation faster and more pleasant than dumping. People would be encouraged to separate more and more of their , "garbage" into recyclable categories as the system became established, known and trus;ted in the community; 6) It is expected that improvements in small-scale recycle technology at the central transfer facility would soon pave the way to setting up s_mall.collection and'processing,facilities throughout the city, which would feed directly into the existing marketing channels. This would further reduce volume and trips to the central processing system, providing employment out in the neighborhood_s; and 7) As stubborn residuals became iden"tifiable through progressive elimination of good materials from the solid waste stream, action could be taken to either find markets for the residuals, or reduce or eliminate their use: Eventually, it should be possible t? have zero residuals. All tax monies, saved along the way could be diverted to other areas of need, or not collected. Income from recycling continued•
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy NTc4NTAz