A large majority of residents are willing to do something to stop pollution and to keep our land and streets clear of garbage.
That fact underpins recycling programs operated in cities, towns, and villages across North America.
Recycling programs have mushroomed over the years from pure financial recovery through recycling of aluminum cans and bottles to cardboard and more exotic materials.
Moose Jaw’s first experience with modern recycling came when the province set up SARCAN to collect and pay for pop cans and bottles as well as the liquor containers that had been returned to the brewers. The program has been successful and has expanded.
The next step in local recycling was the compost collection plan that ended when there was no market for the costly compost. Composting was more expensive than expected due to labour costs separating unusable materials from the manure-grass-leaves mixture.
City introduction of collection bins for newsprint and cardboard was popular, so popular that city council three years ago implemented the current curbside recycling program.
Council had another motive: to increase the life span of the sanitary landfill. The dump is near full and any reduction of wastes would delay the expensive decision to build a new one, or expand this one.
An October 15 report to council indicates mixed success with curbside recycling. Waste removal to the landfill has declined 6.9 per cent this year alone as part of a three year trend.
No one knows why the landfill deposits decreased. Was it the economy? Or did people just throw out less stuff?
But the volume of recycled materials with the curbside program has increased a mere .2 per cent over three years.
In other words taxpayers ponied up an average $800,000 a year in recycling fees to increase the amount of recycled material by less than one per cent.
That seems like a colossal waste of money — especially when considering this city is strapped for cash.
The city recycling report notes another part of the recycling equation has become unfavourable; the cost of recycling a kilogram of waste has increased to 74 cents. Householder fees increased from $5.83 a month to $7.09 – 21 per cent in three years. Tax costs would be higher except for a $340,000 grant from senior government.
Yet the much vaunted cost recovery from sales of recycled matter is a meagre 14 cents a kilogram.
Based on the cost and recovery, this program doesn’t make much financial sense. As a matter of civic pride and feel-good-about-doing-our-part the program is awesome.
Council needs to answer one question in reaching the decision to renew the curbside contract, re-tender or revert to voluntary recycling: How much can we afford for a feel-good program that reduces waste so little?
Council needs to review the global picture. China and other Asian countries have chosen to stop being garbage/recycling dumps for North America. The result: lower prices for salvaged material and mountains of unsold material across the country.
Just how much saving of the planet happened when our waste was shipped abroad?
Ron Walter can be reached at ronjoy@sasktel.net
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author, and do not necessarily reflect the position of this publication.
