There appears to be a recurring theme throughout New York City history as it relates to the management of its waste, by which its citizens respond more promptly to economic motivations than they do to environmental concerns. Thus, it seems that, at least for the time being, the city must shift the focus of its attack on this impending garbage crisis from increasing environmental awareness to imposing economic incentives that have environmentally beneficial consequences.
One such economic incentive that is already in place in other urban settings is a type of waste collection program called Pay As You Throw (PAYT) or Save as You Throw. Contrary to the system that New York City implements for residential waste collection, which is through municipal and property taxes, the aptly named PAYT fee-based system measures costs relative to how much waste a household produces. This provides a direct economic incentive for households to produce less trash and recycle more. The rationale behind this method is similar to how certain essential utilities, such as water, electricity and gas, are charged based on consumption. Utility companies give consumers an incentive to save water, turn down the heat when they leave home in the winter, and turn off any electrical appliances that they aren’t using. When applied to trash, it gives consumers an incentive to produce less waste and recycle more.
In fact, the predominant method of charging a “one-size-fits-all” waste collection fee actually encourages waste, because there is no economic incentive to reduce waste since everyone pays the same flat rate or municipal tax. Aside from being environmentally sustainable, PAYT programs also encourage economic sustainability by curbing the rapidly rising costs of municipal solid waste management expenses. According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, the cost of managing trash has risen at 2.4 times the rate of inflation for the past few decades. This means that the $307 per ton and $124 per ton that the Department of Sanitation spends on average for the collection and disposal of garbage respectively will continue to consume an ever-increasing part of the city’s municipal budget in the coming years. It is also important to note that PAYT is equitable because it avoids the free rider problem that is present in flat-fee waste collection models, because when each household is held responsible for its individual share of refuse, residents who recycle and produce less waste no longer have to subsidize their neighbors’ wastefulness.
Pay as you throw systems of trash collection finally came on the city’s radar in January 2018 when the Department of Sanitation hired Michigan-based consulting and research firm Resource Recycling Systems for a PAYT billing and collection service structure for a $1 million contract. While this is a promising start, it is still unclear which of the various methods of PAYT will be enforced and implemented, with options ranging from different sized cans, special bags or tags, or even weighing stations.
However, despite all of its merits as a sustainable method of limiting the generation of municipal solid waste while simultaneously encouraging diversion of recyclable materials, PAYT programs have received their fair share of critics who are cynical about the feasibility of implementing the program in New York City. Many opponents of the program claim that it would be inequitable, placing a disproportionate share of the cost-burden on lower-income households. They speculate that the cost of collection might be too expensive for lower-income households while having virtually no effect on more affluent households who may be able to afford maintaining wasteful habits.
Another major barrier in implementing PAYT in New York City is the challenge of employing this approach in a city with such a high percentage of high-density, multi-family housing. In fact, approximately two-thirds of New York City residents live in multifamily buildings with more than three units. Since waste generated by these residents typically is combined in a central location to await collection, it makes it particularly difficult to identify the amount of waste generated by individual residents in order to charge accordingly.
In the United States, environmental sustainability is often a politicized issue, with opinions often split along partisan lines. It is difficult to change an individual’s values and instill the emotional commitment to protecting the environment overnight. Thus, until NYC can properly educate people and instill these values into enough of the population, it must focus on economic incentives that have environmentally-friendly consequences. The city can no longer keep kicking the can down the road and engaging in short-term solutions for the sake of saving money, believing that it will deal with it later. Instead, it must look for sustainable solutions that ensure its long-term survival. The best time to act towards a solution to the impending garbage crisis was yesterday, but the second best time is today.