The Economics and Ethics of Trash; K.L. Billingsly

A case in point is the Seattle area, a densely popu lated municipality that generates over half a mil lion tons of solid waste per year. The Seattle area is also quite damp, and landfills are subject to leaching into the water table. Eastern Oregon, on the other hand, is sparsely populated and practically a desert, much more suitable conditions for the disposal of waste. Together with eastern Washington, the area boasts some 300 million tons of capacity, enough for approximately 100 years. But comparative advan tage isn't the only issue. When two parties trade anything, including trash, they do so because both believe that they Author and screenwriter K. L. Billingsley covers Cali fornia for the London Spectator. will derive an advantage from the deal. This is the principle of voluntary exchange, a pillar of the free enterprise society. As Professor Dan Siegel of the University of Washington pointed out at a conference put on by the Foundation for Research on Economics and the Environment, Seattle has worked out an arrangement with Gilliam County, Oregon, to ship its trash there.

In view of statist failures, both environmental ists and public officials are increasingly willing to try free market solutions. Seattle opened its 30 year trash proposal to bids, and the contract went to Waste Management, Inc., owner of a massive, modern site in Oregon with a capacity of 60 mil lion tons. But what about the locals in Gilliam County? This region has been economically depressed for some time, and there wasstrong support for the landfill among residents for the jobs and stability the project would bring. Waste Management opened its facilities to inspection, which helped gain favor. The dump will also be divided into sealed compartments, which will guard against leaching and maintain a record of what trash came from where. Portland, Oregon, also ships its trash to Gilliam. The stuff arrives already compacted, in closed railway cars. The only real inconvenience is noise, for which Waste Management will pay a fee to the state of Oregon, as well as a "host fee"

to local governments. While Seattle and Gilliam County seem satis40 THE FREEMAN • JANUARY 1992 Waste Management's Gilliam County facility. fied, there are objections. One hears, for example, that people should be forced to live with their own trash. This objection ignores the principle of compar ative advantage. Certainly each community should pay for its own disposal. But requiring them to store their own trash makes no more sense than demanding that they use only oil from their own wells. Others claim that the trash transfer will short change Oregonians. But this too is bogus. As Pro fessor Siegel stated, Texans don't hesitate to export oil on the grounds that there won't be enough left for them. Siegel believes that, ethically and economically, there is no problem with the regional plan. The bureaucratic dimension is another question. There have been attempts to slap fees on the waste under the rules of interstate commerce.

Proposed changes in the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act would make it more difficult to transport waste from state to state. On the posi tive side, both the EPA and even the Sierra Club support this kind of regional arrangement for trash disposal. Siegel did not use this plan as a model for inter national transfers of toxic waste. Corrupt officials of dictatorial countries have accepted payoffs and inflicted suffering on their populations. For exam ple, Guinea allowed the dumping of toxic inciner ator ash from Philadelphia without consulting the locals. This kind of abuse, according to Siegal, should be opposed. Domestically,solid waste is a local issue. There fore it is more correct to speak of "problems" rather than "the problem." Each municipality must work out its problem within an economic and ethical framework. When comparative advantage and voluntary exchange are taken into account, however, it is clear that the Seattle-Oregon arrangement works well. As America's trash continues to pile up, we need models that not only work but respect indi vidual rights, market forces, and private property.

If we disregard these, we will soon transform a problem into a crisis. D 41 First-Person Singular by Donald G. Smith Thereare two kinds ofpeople;those who divide everybodyinto two kinds ofpeople and those who do not. -ROBERT BENCHLEY A ny society is filled with conflicts. There are those who fight to keep what they have and those who fight to get it. There are citypeople and country people, old people and young people, puritans and libertines, labor and management, dog people and cat people. Anyone who has ever read a paperback western knows that any self-respecting cattleman had nothing but con tempt for the sod-busters who were fencing off the range; and whose great grandparents would have been seen in public with a Wobbly or a Copper head? These groups have never represented all of society,being but a small fraction of the whole, but their head-butting has been well worth the price of a ticket.