With the financial crisis, every public program is vulnerable. Although dumping pork out of the barrel is necessary, the Lawrence city commission should carefully consider the importance of projects that promote causes beneficial to the common good before swinging a hatchet at the municipal budget.
One of those causes is protecting the environment, which is why the Lawrence City Commission shouldn’t set aside its plan to expand recycling.
The discussed expansion involves a city-sponsored curbside recycling program.
A prominent criticism of curbside recycling is that the city pays more for a marginal increase in recycling. This is especially true when a city already provides places to recycle, as Lawrence does.
For those who can’t make it out to recycle, mandatory recycling is the solution. Implementing a mandatory program is the most cost-efficient way to drastically increase recycling. Virtually 100 percent of the population would recycle for the same cost of a non-mandatory program.
Cities, such as New York City, Seattle, Philadelphia, San Diego and, perhaps surprisingly, Newton, Kan., have implemented mandatory recycling. It’s not new either. Connecticut has required recycling since 1991.
Enforcement would be simple and would add no extra costs. Trash collectors would inspect bags if they hear or see recyclables. If the bags have a certain amount of recyclable material — in Newton it’s seven items — a warning notice is posted on the bag and it is not picked up. Fines become involved if a household repeatedly disregards the ordinance. Randy Jackson, the street and sanitation superintendent for Newton, said citizen compliance with the law is “very good.”
The expenses of a mandatory curbside program would not be any higher than a voluntary one. When San Diego changed from voluntary to mandatory recycling, it didn’t need to hire additional staff, buy additional trucks or expand their buildings.
A feasibility report from the Lawrence Public Works Department, which is available on the city’s Web site, concluded that pickup every other week would cost each household $9.02 per month.
However, the report doesn’t factor in the amount the city would save in landfill fees and the revenue it would receive from selling recyclables.
These figures aren’t junk change, either. According to a separate report released by the city, Lawrence saved $580,513 in landfill fees last year and made $228,022 from selling recyclables it collected in receptacles already scattered throughout the city.
This makes the cost per household about $6 per month, which coincidentally is the same amount the majority of Lawrencians said they’d pay for curbside service in a survey the city commissioned.
Lawrencians need to shift the way they think about reducing waste, and a mandatory curbside recycling program will help play the role of facilitator.
The burden is small. Once a household plans out the logistics, curbside recycling will be as easy as managing trash.
It’s something that’s universally recognized as good and necessary for the preservation of future generations. It’s something the city should seriously consider.
— Ian Stanford for the editorial board
Discussion
All comments are moderated by Kansan.com staff. For our full user policy, click here.
This is a perfect example of the fundamental difference between liberals and conservatives. What is the liberal answer to increasing the level of recycling in town? Look to the city government and FORCE people to comply with a statute. What is the result? The city government gets the revenue generated by selling the recyclables it forces people to give them for free.
Here is a much better plan from a conservative. While I hasten to use Europe as a good example of anything economic, they have us beat in making recycling popular. Throughout many countries in Europe there are automated recyclable-collecting machines that take in and automatically sort the large number of plastic water bottles and glass beer bottles that Europeans generate. After you put your recyclables in the machine, it spits out a monetary refund. The way to make recycling (or anything for that matter) popular, which conservatives already know, is to make it profitable and convenient. The local recycling companies should look into this kind of technology and clean up (no pun intended).
The reason that recycling doesn't work in lawrence is because burying our trash is cheaper than recycling it. Unfortunately (or fortunately) the areas around lawrence contain soils and geology that is almost perfect for safe disposal of household wastes and trash. It is ridiculously cheap to bury our trash here.
Lawrence already determined that the majority of waste going to the landfill was yard wastes- grass clippings, branches, dirt, leaves, etc. and has instituted a program that picks these items up on a different day. Yard waste is placed in a giant compost pile, composted and offered to the community for free. Additionally, a number of private companies operate in Lawrence which recycle various materials, at an additional cost to the homeowner who wishes to recycle.
Do not forget that some materials cost more to recycle than they do to throw away. The market for recycled aluminum may be very lucrative right now, but the demand for recycled glass is nearly non-existent. Reason? Glass costs more to recycle than it does to produce new glass. Aluminum is almost the same, but the process to refine aluminum takes alot of energy, so the demand for re-used aluminum creates an incentive to recycle. Paper is very valuable in the secondary market as well.
So with no real incentives to recycle more, and limited or no funds available, the city of Lawrence should not institute mandatory recycling. There are more important issues that the city needs to deal with- such as crumbling roads and infrastructure, a public transportation system that is on the verge of financial collapse, outdated fire equipment, just to name a few.
Sam makes a good point: If it takes less energy to produce a new product rather than recycle an existing one, recycling isn't good for the environment.
This is certainly the case for glass and I'm not sure about other products.
Share your 2¢
Requires free registration.