Headline news out of Saline City Council earlier this week was that Waste Management reported something close to a 1500% increase in its cost for recycling. [1,2]
Big numbers not only skew stories, they can too often define those stories. Really big numbers surely mean there’s a story here. And the fact that those numbers are attached to “recycling” must mean that it’s a recycling story. Residents and community stakeholders immediately relate: This is an issue related to those big green recepticals with the yellow lids, regularly rolled out for curbside pickup and ubiquitous across city-owned properties. Wherever those contents go, it is surely all good.
Naturally, then, when a hiccup is felt the discussion becomes one of brainstorming options in support of maintaining the status quo: Same volume, collected on same schedule. Can items in this stream be redirected to other destinations at a lower price? Is it acceptable to redirect recyclables to garbage routes where they’d ultimately end up in landfills? [3]
Here are the questions that all of that fail to consider.
Is recycling the right priority for Saline today? If the real goal is to reduce our environmental footprint, what are the other — even more impactful — options? To what degree does a government bet on recycling as the horse to win actually harm the planet?
Emphasis on “recycling” presupposes two things. First, there is not need (perhaps even no ability) to reduce output; the acquisition of products and packaging that will ultimately become refuse is a given. Second, the best anyone can do in the face of this sunk-cost proposition is to further exaccerbate the problem by expending even more energy, that is: Producing even more polution through reverse distribution (collection) and processing infrastructures.
Deciphering objective hierarchies can be difficult in the face of well-financed interests control over messaging clearly in evidence here. Add to that still other groups bent on tweaking the issue beyond any reasonable hope of understanding, and it’s no wonder so many gravitate toward simple, singular answers. Much easier to think “recycling” than to keep track of the seemingly ever increasing number of “R” words, from “reduce” and “reuse,” to “rethink,” “refuse,” and “repurpose.” [4,5]
But it’s through addressing higher priority R’s that the greatest value to the environment can be found.
For starters, Zero Waste Home suggests taking a moment to think about everything that comes into your home. “Turn down freebies from conferences, fairs, and parties.” Be pro-active in fighting what comes into your home or business. Last December 26, Saline Journal suggested ways in which this could be applied to receipts of Christmas gifts. [6,7,8]
In 1960, the average U.S. resident produced less than 3 lbs. of garbage per day. By 2008, that figure had risen to 4.5 lbs or about 250 million tons of trash per year …. About 31 percent of all garbage produced consists of containers and packaging. [9]
At the same time, highly visible, convenient, and satisfying options for recycling can mask new challenges to society — and create blindspots to potential setbacks. “I recycle” may be leading to cases of increased harm, made possible through new temptations as well as failure to appreciate the ground that will be lost by regressing to old habits today rendered truly unnecessary.
For example, the growing popularity of bottled water consumption in lieu of drinking from the tap has increased the number of plastic containers that need to be addressed. Ubiquitous recycling bins for paper leads some to forget that printed meeting agendas, newspapers, and catalogues are much more responsibly (let alone conveniently) read on electronic devices. And how much more per-unit waste is necessary to support one-off home delivery of any given online purchase versus choosing local shopping alternatives? [10]
Earlier this month, concerns were raised by one local business about the implications of changes to the tax code on making physical gifts to resale shops. But the reintroduction of such goods into the marketplace also helps reduce demand and thus production of new consumables. Shopping at such retailers does as well. This only scratches the surface of what’s possible. [11,12,13]
That discussion is the headline.
Viewed strictly by the numbers, anticipated recycling cost increases per Waste Management disclosures work out to $188.68 per Saline household at current volumes. But that’s only the case if nothing is done to reduce contributions to municipal waste streams in the first place.
References
- Waste Management (home page).
- “Recycling Basics” Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
- “Is It Time to Rethink Recycling?” Amy Westervelt (February 8, 2016) Ensia.
- “Commentary: The ‘Crying Indian’ ad that fooled the environmental movement” Finis Dunaway (November 21, 2017) Chicago Tribune.
- “The 6 Rs” BBC.
- “Reducing and Reusing Basics” EPA.
- “How To Get Started” Zero Waste Home.
- “Consider These Answers for Any of Your Christmas Mis-Givings” Janet Deaton (December 26, 2017) Saline Journal.
- “Facts About Reducing, Reusing & Recycling” Layne Wood (January 28, 2015) Living Strong.
- “Preventing waste is a better solution than recycling it” Matt Stern (March 28, 2016) The Seattle Times.
- “There Are Concerns That Tax Reform May Change The Way Families Approach ‘Spring Cleaning’ And Giving” Dell Deaton (July 9, 2018) Saline Journal.
- “National Thrift Shop Day Highlights Expanded Giving, Shopping Options” Janet Deaton (August 17, 2017) Saline Journal.
- “The Ultimate List of Zero Waste Swaps” (October 23, 2017) Going Zero Waste.
