Recycling World Forum: States Should Lead the Way Toward Recycling

Posted: 01-Jan-1994; Updated: 29-Oct-2004

By Suzanne Y. Mattei, Esq.

No state has fully implemented a comprehensive statewide recycling program. State governments should put as much emphasis on recycling as they now do on incineration.

I am a latecomer to recycling. Like so many others, I had this old-fashioned notion of recycling as a church basement operation run by volunteers who pulled out the paper clips and staples before loading the battered pickup truck with bales of paper and driving to some remote, shabby recycling company.

Now I am convinced that recycling is not only a viable option, but the best option for solid waste management. Some states and cities are setting recycling goals of half of their solid waste stream. Can a 50 to 60 percent goal be achieved? I believe it can.

People will recycle if it is made easy. Don't expect most people in this busy day and age to haul their garbage across town to a drop-off center. It's not practical, and it's not efficient. Experience has shown that curbside pickup works best. Convenience is the key to successful recycling.

Few Connecticut towns currently recycle bottles, cans, newspapers, mixed paper and corrugated cardboard for both residences and businesses and, at the same time, compost leaves and yard waste. Many towns do a wonderful job at one or more of these, but few towns do it all.

The State's Role

No state has fully implemented a comprehensive statewide recycling program. State governments should put as much emphasis on recycling as they now do on incineration. State solid waste plans should start with aggressive waste reduction and recycling programs, then discuss incineration as a potential technology for addressing only the waste that cannot be recycled or eliminated. State and local agencies and institutions should lead the way by purchasing recycled paper for all their paper needs.

An incinerator burning 1,000 tons of garbage a day will produce more than 100,000 tons a year of concentrated waste ash containing lead, dioxin, cadmium and other toxics such as mercury and arsenic. Most states lack regulations on how to dispose of that ash, which often goes into regular solid waste landfills. There is no guarantee that the new ash landfills to be built will prevent hazardous chemicals from leaching into ground water.

Certainly, because of air pollution problems, material that can be recycled should not be burned. Even state-of-the-art pollution controls on new resource-recovery incinerators can only reduce -- not eliminate -- what will come out of the stack. And, of course, what they prevent from coming out of the stack will end up in the waste ash.

Citizens want to recycle their garbage. In New Haven, they are even paying to recycle. But the infrastructure must be set up for recycling to happen.

In the U.S. we have been working at locomotive speed to construct incinerators, but at a snail's pace to establish recycling. We need to reverse these priorities, so that we can promote the best long-term solid waste program possible. We need leadership and commitment--from our governors, legislatures and state agencies.

Citizens will give enthusiastic support to a state solid waste plan if they see a strong commitment to minimize the use of landfills and incinerators and to make the best possible use of our newest and most neglected resource -- garbage.

1994  |  Environmental Defense Fund