LEVEL THE PLAYING FIELD
- SUBSIDIZE RECOVERY NOT WASTING
Draft, May 16th, 1996
For discussion at Grassroots Recycling Agenda Meeting, June 16th
A. THE FOUR HORSEMEN OF WASTE SUBSIDIES [Bill Sheehan]
B. GET MONEY OUT OF POLITICS [Dave Kirkpatrick]
C. PROPOSED POLICY [Rick Anthony]
We advocate ending, or drastically reducing, all subsidies that promote
wasting - and investing instead in activities that conserve resources
and create more local jobs: waste prevention, reuse and recycling.
A. THE FOUR HORSEMEN OF WASTE SUBSIDIES [Bill Sheehan]
Wasting depends on subsidies at four major points along a linear, dead
end path -- from extracting raw materials, through manufacturing and
retailing, through transport, and on to final burial or incineration.
These are the Four Horsemen of Waste Subsidies. We must address
the full sequence of waste subsidies, from cradle to grave, if we are to
move to a sustainable materials economy.
1. Raw Material Extraction Subsidies We support ending subsidies
for oil, gas, timber and mining activities, and investing in recycling
infrastructure instead. Many of the existing subsidies and tax write-
offs were created when America was a developing agrarian country.
These tax laws promoted exploitation of the nation's natural resources
to create an industrial infrastructure capable of supplying feed-stock
for new developing industries. Now tax policy needs to be
reexamined to account for proliferation of waste and dwindling
supplies of natural resources. These antiquated laws and regulations
impede development of a recycling-based economy.
2. Manufacturing and Retail Subsidies We support increasing
manufacturer responsibility for disposal costs of all products, and
especially for over-packaged, flimsy, and single-use products.
Currently, disposal costs for these products are borne (that is,
subsidized) by local governments and tax payers. Manufacturers and
retailers must be required to use recycled feedstocks, to build the costs
of disposal into product pricing, and to take back used durable goods
and refurbish or recycle them.
3. Waste Facility Subsidies We support ending local, state and
federal subsidies for waste facilities, including landfills and
incinerators. Incinerators are very expensive facilities that compete
with recycling for material and limited funds, and captures far less
energy than recycling saves. Significant progress has been made
requiring incinerators to internalize environmental costs. In the case of
landfills, however, most environmental costs are subsidized by future
generations. We must recognize that the federally mandated 'dry
tomb' design (RCRA Subtitle D) is flawed: it postpones environmental
contamination in most locations unless perpetual care -- and cash
infusions - are applied to keep the tomb dry. We need to expose the
myth that dry tomb landfills represent a safe and cheap solution to
discard management. And we must change federal landfill regulations
(RCRA Subtitle D) to require payment of full environmental costs up
front. If waste facilities are starved of subsidies and are required to
pay their full share, then total recycling facilities will simply out-
compete them.
4. Waste Transport Subsidies We support the right of states and
communities to say "no" to out-of-state waste. By forcing communities
to accept imported waste in ever larger private landfills and
incinerators, current law forces local taxpayers to assume perpetual
responsibility for others' trash. That is a forced subsidy. Furthermore,
as events in Wisconsin and other states have demonstrated, forcing
communities to accept imported waste means that taxpayers who
make an effort to recycle and reduce waste are merely freeing up
landfill space for -- and thus subsidizing -- cheap disposal for others'
garbage. The waste hauling industry has stymied attempts in
Congress to pass Right to Say No legislation for five years, despite
broad bipartisan support. We will expose their true agenda and work
to pass state and community rights legislation that allows local control
of waste disposal decisions.
B. GET MONEY OUT OF POLITICS [Dave Kirkpatrick]
Each of the Four Horseman of Waste Subsidies have formidable
lobbying and political action budgets that will try to stymie and
reverse any legislative initiatives we promote to end the subsidies.
Many studies have documented the high correlation between industry
political contributions and the voting records of recipient politicians.
Progress on laws to promote recycling and sustainability may not be
possible without fundamental campaign finance reform.
Corporate contributions are helping to keep in place billions of dollars
in federal, state and local subsidies for the timber, mining, petroleum,
and waste disposal industries. Indeed, total federal tax breaks and
subsidies for corporations in these industries have been estimated at
$104 billion dollars -- much of which goes to preserve unsustainable
virgin materials extraction and waste disposal industries. In 1992, the
amounts contributed to congressional campaigns and national parties
by industry PACs and affiliated individuals, and the related federal
subsidies for those industries for a few selected sectors, were as
follows:
Waste Management Industry $2.7 million in contributions, $300
million in subsidies
Mining Industry $1 million in contributions, $2 billion in subsidies
Oil Industry $23 million in contributions, $8.8 billion in subsidies
[?? Timber Industry (received specific benefits from the tax code
which amounted to $459 million in 1988)]
In the recycling arena, specifically, the plastics, paper, packaging,
consumer products, retail, and waste management industries have all
lined up, at one time or another, against recycling, environmental, and
community development advocates to defeat:
. * new or expanded bottle bills, deposit laws, or advance disposal fees
. * initiatives to require recycled content in manufactured products
. * laws to set recycling and waste reduction targets for local and state
governments
. * efforts to stop waste incinerators and to increase waste reduction
and recycling programs
. * initiatives to shift taxes onto waste, pollution, and fossil fuel usage
C. PROPOSED POLICY [Rick Anthony]
We propose to shift the taxes and subsidies, gradually, to accomplish a
transition to total recycling. New priorities that encourage the use of
recovered resources are needed now.
* -Maintain and increase national goals to promote recycling and waste
reduction.
* -Eliminate virgin material subsidies for extracting virgin materials,
including below-cost timber sales, ....... because these adversely impact
demand for recycled materials.
* -Establish minimum content standards and other demand side
policies if voluntary utilization goals are not met.
* -Establish time-limited price preferences for recycled content
products.
* -Establish national guidelines and standards for recycled content
products.
* -Create federal and state financing tools, such as grants and low
interest loans, for targeted recycling investments.
* -Create federal and state investment tax credits and tax exempt
financing for. targeted recycling investments.
In this, we affirm consensus positions developed by ___ (21?) state
recycling organizations affiliated with the National Recycling Coalition
and promulgated in its draft Advocacy Message.
Seize the Opportunity
Conversion to a society where waste is reduced and resources are
reused, repaired and recycled has been artificially impeded by a tax
policy that needs to be reformed. The promotion of the general
welfare for ourselves and our posterity is what is at stake. Our elected
officials need to know our feelings on the Governments role in
promoting economic sustainability. The time to act is now. GreenYes!