A Trimmer Waste Means Less Garbage
Staff at the Kingston Area Recycling Centre recently mused on ways to reduce curbside garbage and one of the suggestions made was to require that garbage be put out at the curb in clear plastic bags so that any recyclables and compostables in the bag that were being sent to landfill could be seen and the bag rejected for pickup. This suggestion has resulted in so many emails in my inbox, and numerous critical and indignant letters to various newspaper editors, that it made the subject of this month’s article very easy for me.
As background, last year in Kingston 18,976 tonnes of garbage were picked up at the curb at a total cost of $3,225,900 for the collection, transfer and disposal of it, with about 90 percent being sent to landfills in municipalities outside Kingston.
In contrast, 11,000 tonnes of recyclables, organics and household hazardous waste (HHW) were collected and disposed of for a total cost of $2,261,200 – this at a time when the market value of recyclables is low. The recyclables are made into new products and the organics are composted into a natural and useful soil enrichment product. The HHW is either re-refined for reuse, as is the case with oils and paints, or disposed of in a landfill specially constructed to prevent environmental contamination.
From an examination of the garbage stream it is very evident that we still have far too much recyclable and compostable material going to landfill, so how do we cut down on that waste and the misuse of valuable landfill space and encourage people to recycle and ‘green bin’ all they can?
Educating the public on the benefits of waste diversion is important and Kingston has an ongoing education program. Education is effective at the outset of a recycling program and as a continuing reminder to residents. But while it has an effect in maintaining a level of resident participation, it has little effect in actually increasing the diversion rate.
One approach that has been found to be effective in other municipalities is the mandatory use of a clear plastic garbage bag for household waste. To allow some privacy in the waste, a single small opaque plastic bag is allowed in the clear bag. Several problems are evident. For example, a single small opaque bag may not be large enough for the disposal of some personal hygiene items. Every bag has to be checked at the end of the driveway and a decision made whether or not the bag contains too large an opaque bag, or too many opaque bags, or whether it contains recyclables, how many recyclables, and do any contraventions warrant a decision to leave the bag behind? City workers, the city, and public relations are going to face considerable strain.
A second option (and the one that I favour) that has been shown to be most effective is the user-pay system, whereby there is a charge levied through a bag tag for every black garbage bag placed at the curb. The common protest against this system is that garbage is already paid for on the tax bill. To answer this fair and reasonable point, I support the current tax for garbage being taken off the tax bill i.e., there is no charge for garbage on the annual tax bill, and the charge for the disposal of the garbage is made through the bag tag. The cost for the bag tag is determined by the costs involved in the garbage disposal, which includes collection, transfer station, transportation and landfill charges.
I have had many people contact me to say that if they have very little garbage each week because of their recycling and composting efforts, so why should their taxes subsidize a neighbour who just doesn’t bother? User-pay would eliminate this unfairness. Such a system encourages recycling and payment for garbage disposal is totally dependent on how much you use the service. What it also eliminates are the problems and potential conflicts associated with using a clear plastic bag and the unfairness of paying for the disposal of garbage based on home assessment where the higher the value of your home, the more you pay for garbage disposal quite independently of the amount you put out. I would still see recycling, organics collection and HHW completely funded through the tax bill as these methods of diversion are a common “public and environmental good” and should be funded by all.
Finally, it is often said that charging for garbage leads to more dumping. Our municipal neighbour, Loyalist Township, introduced user-pay for garbage in 2002. For the first few months, they hired extra by-law control officers, expecting an increase in dumping – which did not occur. Loyalist staff tells me they have had very few problems with user-pay and their recycling rates have increased. To do even better, they may also introduce a green bin program like Kingston’s, and they are also considering the clear plastic garbage bag in addition to the bag tag. For both Kingston and Loyalist that idea is definitely unclear at the moment.
Until the next time. Cheers—–Leonore
For more information on recycling: http://www.cityofkingston.ca/residents/waste/index.asp
If you want to be on my email list: LFoster@cityofkingston.ca
I must say initially that I find it very disconcerting that there have been no other comments on this article that is now 3 weeks old. I only read it today as my household does not receive this publication and I read it at the barber shop.
Regarding the issues presented, it is indisputable that there is a problem with the amount of recycling reaching landfills. The problem I have with this article is with the options considered and some of the facts and opinions that are missing.
Firstly, when considering environmental impacts, it is the residents of any jurisdiction that always seem to bear the brunt of the criticism. The simple fact is that many Kingston families have one or both parents working during the daytime. Therefore, the governmental departments and the businesses in Kingston must also be active participants in improving recycling statistics.
For one, CFB Kingston is one of the largest Kingston employers, with about 8000 military and civilian personnel, and they do not adequately recycle or compost. Paper is recycled. However, despite having separate bins in office spaces for metal and plastic, these products are not recycled and go out with the garbage. As well, compost programs are voluntary, inconsistent, and unavailable in many office spaces. With so many people spending half their waking weekday hours in such an environment, I think it is entirely unfair that the residents are being so criticised, while employers are not.
With respect to the pay as you go option presented as the preference in this article, I cannot see how this will work. Property owners expect a certain level of taxation. If taxes are cut, the result will not be that garbage quantities will be reduced. The result will be that taxpayers will enjoy the cut and find alternative locations to dump garbage to save money. Vacant lots and, in particular, government dumpsters with public access, will be overflowing with garbage from people looking to save some money. The $15 minimum fee to dump large garbage already promotes finding alternatives and it is not uncommon to see on Monday morning at CFB Kingston large pieces of furniture and other items that would normally have a cost to dump. A fee for use will only seek to promote this behaviour, resulting in more items reaching landfills than currently, and, alternatively, dumping on the sides of roads and in ditches. Fines for such behaviour may have some deterrent effect, but there is no advertised fine for dumping on federal property.
Another important problem is that tax breaks to property owners would benefit those owning income properties as well as residential, whereas it is the responsibility of the tenant to recycle and compost. Especially in apartment buildings where garbage is anonymous, there is no way that those people will have any incentive to recycle or compost beyond civic duty. Kingston is characterized by its universities, with many students who live in rented accomodations where they need not be concerned about these issues as no one will ever know.
Ironically, I believe fines are actually an appropriate method of enforcement, whereas fees are not. In other provinces where I have lived previously, the government underwent extensive advertising campaigns to educate citizens about what must be recycled or composted and what may not be recycled or composted. A one year adjustment period was included to allow people to learn and make mistakes, following which garbage would not be collected that did not comply with the rules and, if the behaviour continued, fines were levied against offenders. There is simply no concern for that in Kingston. If people knew that they would be fined for non-compliance and, if their garbage is not taken, they would be fined for illegal dumping, they would be much more likely to comply.
Another important step is to make composting mandatory and flexible. Having it optional is simply ridiculous after so much money has been spent equipping household with the hardware necessary for the program. I personally have observed only about 50% compliance on my street with some neighbours, after one year, still unaware that their large green bin actually contained a smaller beige bin for inside the house. As well, any organic material, including soil, is compostable. Why can we not put soil in the green bin? Is not the goal of the composting process to generate more soil? This needs to change. Also, if recycling can be sorted at waste facilities, why can’t composte? Anything that biodegrades should be permitted in the green bin. If it is too large, like branches, it should be stacked appropriately. If people knew they could throw all their leaves from their lawn in a green bin, they would certainly be pleased not to spend money on wasteful brown bags that can sit and break down on one’s lawn, destroying it, attracting vermin and creating bugs, or smelling up their inside space. For such a program to work, mulching is important, however I also believe the green bins purchased were too small and any new ones need to be larger to accomodate more yard waste.
It is also important to consider the nature of the recycling we do, particularly the plastics. It has been said that people today spend more time with their garbage than with their children. This may or may not be true, but we are needlessly sorting many recycling products that are going to be sorted twice more anyway. I sort in my house to exclude impermissible materials with obscure numbers I can hardly find that cannot be recycled. The gentlemen who picks up the recycling at my curb also checks the bins for compliance. Finally, the recycling centre must check the products while they are sorting them for further reuse and recycling. Why then, can we not put whatever plastics we want in the recycling bin? If they cannot be recycled, they will, regrettably, be sent to the landfill anyway. What is the difference if I do that or it is done at the recycling depot? At least if it were done there, more recyclables would be put out as residents would be relieved of the requirement to sort their trash, improving compliance.
Finally, costs can be saved in this program as well with more flexibility. There is no reason that the municipality has purchased and issued expensive plastic bins for recycling. Residents should be permitted to use what they have and trash collectors should accept that. For example, why cannot paper products be put in a plastic bag? Plastic bags are recycled with paper products anyway. Why is it that boxes must be flattened and tied if one has a large box into which they can put paper and other cardboard? These cost saving strategies would certainly offset additional labour costs required for more advanced sorting plans.
These proposals would seem to potentially shift employment within waste management strategies. In general, I do not believe that jobs would be lost, nor needlessly created. For example, if more personnel were shifted to composte sorting from curbside waste, less would be required at the municipal dumping station. Acceptedly, more study would be required to confirm these hypotheses.
Additionally, recycling is not the only environmental issue that needs addressing in the City of Kingston. Just today I was driving past Lasalle Secondary School at 1:30 on a sunny, weekday afternoon. Out my side window, what did I notice but that all the lights on the football field were on?! There was no sign of activity in the area in the way of testing these lights and no obvious reason why they were lit. The cost to the environment to run those lights per minute I do not know, but it has to be more significant than if the same were done in every house on my street. Someone needs to be taking action on these problems as well and leave the well-intentioned homeowner alone.
With just these few addtional options I have presented (and there are many more out there in Canada and around the world that can be found with a simple internet search), I believe I have shown that the well-intentioned efforts of this article demonstrate a lack of consideration of the variety of available options. We, the residents of Kingston, need more flexibility in our recycling and composting programs that can also assist us in complying with the rules in good faith and in the spirit of environmental improvement. We do not need more people labelling us as the problem. That breeds contempt and non-compliance. I, for one, would far rather spend time with my family than my garbage and our representatives should be working hard towards striking the balance between these seemingly conflicting social objectives and not in telling residents to shape up.
Wow! Great post Bruce. I agree with you. I get so frustrated when council tries to force strategies on constituents who are at the end of a long chain.
In addition to Bruce’s comments and on a personal note, I don’t want garbage police inspecting my garbage ( nor my tax dollars paying for them to do so). Seriously, I can think of better ways to save landfills.
Leave your response!
Calendar
Archives
Recent News
Recent Comments