distances. High cost of transport and unpredictable markets increase the marginal nature of recycling. Some materials could be reprocessed locally: either at new plants using new technologies (such as enzymatic hydrolysis of scrap paper into alcohol) or by retro-fittng plants originally built to produce goods from virgjn resources so that they could use recycled materials. In many places the native resources are dwindling to the point of forcing the shut-down of local,mills, devastating the towns and the people associated with mills. With minimal retooling such plants could use recycled stock, reducing the need for relocation and ret~aining of workers. In Oregon, for example, the wood products industry has been suffering a steady decline, a result of poor.forest practices if\ the past, exacerbated by a depressed housing market. Many small mills have closed down, the management citing onerous government regulations that have threatened their pulp-wood supply. Whatever the merits of these arguments, they could be largely irrelevant if plants were converted to use a greater proportion of recycled rather than virgin materials for paper production. There are processes which at present are too capital and resource intensive to be viable in any but centralized form. A prime example is the glass industry. In such industries the problem must be dealt with differently, by changes in transportation methods and improvements in handling through mechanizations. As virgin resources increase in scarcity and in cost of extraction, using materials a second, third, and fourth time will become increasingly desirable and economically attractive, hopefully creating and stabilizing markets and assuring a perman'ent place.for recycling in our lives, In our homes and towns the barriers to recycling are both institutional and attitudinal. One major problem is the reluctance of local governments to support home recycling programs as a component of their: solid waste disposal systems. The insistence that such programs "pay their way" ignores the huge subsidies which are sunk, literally, underground in landfills. Recycling currently relies strongly on the extra commitment and effort of the individual who must deliver recyclables to dispersed depots. In most cities these are all th~t are available to the interested person, resulting in a low rate of participation (along with a certain sense of pride). Drop-off recyclingx:enters are inefficient and, for most people, inconvenient. Many autos hauling smal(volumes of material is plain wasteful. Eventually, recyclable material will have to be picked up at the home, along with (and as routinely as) the other as-yet-unrecyclable'consumer wastes. Home collection already works in many cities, with varying levels of participation and enthusiasm. As of May 1978 there were 218 municipalities with separate collection programs nationwide. Most of these collect only newspapers (another case of high-grading). Others, like Modesto, CA, and An- ---- - --- ~ ---------- Recycling Access: August/September 1981 RAIN Page 9 Emphasizing the busi_nessprofessionalism of recycling has led to a fascination with numbers and a blind urge to increase and defend the "throughput" af a program. dover, MA, collect a longer list including those unnecessary but low money-return materials'such as glass. To ensure high participation levels it has proved helpful to enact anti-scavenging and mandatory participation ordinances. These are enforced sporadically but are effective when used. In addition to in~reasing participation they also dramatically increase the amount of material diver:ted from landfilling. Another advantage of legislating recycling collection is the opportunity of creating a stable market through contracting arrangements with users of the materfal. This protects "recycling" from the economic swings that forced severe restrictions on small, undercapitalized recyclers in the past. For such changes to take place his important that consumers, politicians, trash collectors, city engin,eers, and others be informed of the nature and necessity of recycling. The trend has been to emphasize the business-professionalism of recycling, in an attempt to pull away from the grayness of do-goodism into economic credibility. This has led to a fascination with numbers and a blind urge to increase and defend the "throughput" of a program. Such thinking has pitted some recyclers with "buy-back" programs (where cash is paid for returned bottles, etc.) against Bottle Bill advocates in some states, such as Washington and Montana. There, the "buy-back" centers fought the beverage container deposit referendum. They wished to include an amendment which would have had people returning their bottles and cans to local redempti~n centers (run by guess who?) instead of to the place of purchase. Supporters of this ballot measure said "no" to this and lost the support of this group. Those concerned with recycling shouldn't place themselves in the position of promoting wasteful practices and poor consumer habits to protect their business interests. Recycling began as art ethical reaction to the wastefulness of industrial consumerism-let's not forget its roots.DD Rex Burkholder worksiwith Cloudburst Recycling Collection Service in Portland, Oregon. • Before You Recycle ... The Organic Wastes Research Project: An Examination of Composting Alternatives to Landfilling of Organic Wastes, by Cloudburst Environmental I_nstitute, 1978, 64pp., $5.75. • • Don't buy anything that you can use only once, because you can't throw it away. Buy products built to last. When you are through using them, they can be passed on through thrift stores, garage sales or the be recycled for the aluminym and they contaminate the de-tinning process.) Amazingly, the plastic returnable milk bottle is less energy intensive than the glass type. -And lighter! An Experiment in Source-Separated Home Collection: Cloudburst Recycling, by Dave McMahon, Jack Miller and Ruth Ellen Miller, 1978, 103pp.-, $5.75, both from: Cloudburst Recycling Collection Service 2440NE 10th Portland, OR 97212 family. - • When grocery shopping, avoid buying more package than food. (In 1980 we'll spend nearly $50 billion to buy 80 million tons of packaging and then spend $1 billion to dispose of it!) Buy in bulk and re-use your con- •tainers. Favor fiber over plastic. • Refillable beverage containers are better than recyclable glass which is better than aluminum. (Avoid bi-metal·cans, they can't • Start a compost pile for your biodegradable waste at your home, or give to a gardening friend. • Large tools and appliances can be shared and rented when needed. •R1de a bicycle. • Pass it on. There is always someone who can use what you can't. And something you can that that other person is at wit's end to get rid of.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy NTc4NTAz