March 14, 2010
Recycling efforts fail to change old habits
Apathy, confusion cited as obstacles
Residential recycling rates in Massachusetts have not budged in the past decade, even as environmental concerns have sparked “sustainability’’ movements and fueled markets for hybrid cars and green products.
For years, environmentalists have preached the importance of recycling to relieve pressure on burgeoning landfills and reduce greenhouse gases released from decomposing trash. But to a startling degree, the refrain seems to have fallen on deaf ears.
In 2008, according to preliminary statewide statistics, just over one-quarter of all residential trash was recycled, roughly the same percentage as 1997, according to a Globe review of figures kept by the state Department of Environmental Protection.
“It has plateaued for some years,’’ said Laurie Burt, the department’s commissioner. “Clearly we have to get at that untapped capacity.’’
Burt said Massachusetts recycling efforts still compare favorably with other states, and state environmental officials are crafting a 10-year plan designed to reduce the amount of refuse that ends up in landfills.
But to date, personal recycling in many communities has shown little progress. Some cities including Boston, Everett, and Fall River recycle less than 15 percent of their rubbish. And in a number of communities, including many with eco-friendly reputations, recycling rates have stalled or fallen off.
Newton, for instance, recycled at a robust 46 percent in 2001. By 2008, despite a range of initiatives designed to prod residents to separate their papers and plastics, it recycled just 29 percent of all rubbish. Lincoln, at 53 percent in 2002, dropped to 34 percent. Danvers, at 29 percent a decade ago, plunged to 15 percent, according to Department of Environmental Protection figures.
Recycling advocates say they are frustrated by the lack of progress and perplexed that decades of public awareness campaigns and heightened consciousness around conservation haven’t made more of a dent. Most have come to the sobering conclusion that people have simply decided it’s not worth the hassle, however minimal.
“Knowledge doesn’t equal behavior,’’ said Claire Sullivan, who directs the South Shore Recycling Cooperative, which works to boost recycling in 13 towns south of Boston. “A lot of people just can’t be bothered, which is extremely disheartening. They take the path of least resistance. So if it’s easier to throw it away, they’ll throw it away.’’
Residential recycling rates are reported by cities and towns and compiled by the state. A number of communities, mainly those that do not provide public trash collection, do not report totals.
Beyond apathy, specialists cite a range of factors discouraging people from consistently recycling. Many communities do not provide recycling at larger apartment complexes, and others pick up only every other week. Some do not offer curbside recycling at all, forcing trips to transfer stations.
Sluggish recycling efforts carry serious consequences, environmentalists say. Recycling saves up to five times more energy than incineration plants, advocates say, and sharply reduces disposal costs. About half of all potentially recyclable material still winds up in landfills, Sullivan said.
“When you’re paying $89.50 a ton for trash removal, recycling translates into big savings,’’ said Peter Buttkus, public works director in Duxbury, where recycling rates surged after the town started charging a per-bag fee for trash collection and collecting unsorted recyclables, known as single-stream recycling.
With persuasion falling short, communities are increasingly adopting policies designed to motivate recalcitrant recyclers. Like Duxbury, many have adopted “pay-as-you-throw’’ programs, giving residents a cash incentive to cull cans and cardboard from the trash and put them in recycling bins, which are emptied for free. These programs consistently raise recycling rates, local and state officials say.
“We saw a huge spike,’’ Buttkus said. “Now people are extremely mindful of it.’’
Others are moving to unsorted collection in a single receptacle, saying residents are far more likely to carry their bins to the curb if they don’t have to separate glass, metal, plastic, and paper.
“Any town coming up on a new trash contract is looking at single-stream,’’ said Rosemary Nolan, a consultant for a trash program covering Braintree, Quincy, and Weymouth that has seen recycling climb 15 percent in the past two years.
Last summer, Boston began single-stream collection after a pilot program showed a 50 percent increase in recycling. Officials said the move would save the city approximately $1 million a year.
In the past year alone, some 30 communities have adopted the single-stream method, state officials say. In Dedham, which launched its program in November, recycling collections on pickup days rose from seven tons to 18 tons. A pilot program in Springfield resulted in a 75 percent increase, Burt said.
But some recycling advocates criticize single-stream collection, saying it reduces the resale value of materials and sends more of it to landfills.
A recent study by the Container Recycling Institute found that mingling materials makes them harder and more expensive for recyclers to sort. About 40 percent of glass from single-stream collection winds up in landfills, according to the study, about the same amount that is converted into new glass containers.
“The report confirms that you can’t unscramble an egg,’’ said Susan Collins, who directs the institute.
Given the widespread reluctance to recycle at all, however, the trade-off is worth it, many say.
“We’ve said for years, ‘Less trash means less cost,’ but people still don’t seem to get the relationship,’’ Nolan said. “Communities have spent a fortune on outreach, but the message hasn’t gotten through.’’
That reality stuns activists who assume the fundamentals of recycling are widely known, and that its benefits are self-evident.
“I still get questions about milk cartons or cereal boxes,’’ said Jessica Wozniak, executive director of MassRecycle, a statewide recycling coalition. “We still have to work on educating people, even after all these years.’’
In the face of such indifference, many environmentalists call for a more active government role. Coercive strategies such as pay-as-you-throw and bottle deposit laws have a proven record of success, they say.
“This is a question of public policy, and a matter of political will,’’ said Lynne Pledger, an activist who helped found Don’t Waste Massachusetts, a statewide alliance of 35 organizations that is pushing to reduce waste. “Boston’s recycling rate is 13 percent, and San Francisco’s is 72. Why? Because they have a zero-waste plan and have followed through.’’
San Francisco requires that all residents and commercial properties separate their refuse into recyclables, compostables, and trash. Violators may be fined.
Pledger and others support legislation that would shift some of the responsibility to recycle to manufacturers, and back efforts to make more beverage containers redeemable for a nickel. Some containers are currently exempt from the deposit law in Massachusetts, including wine and juice bottles.
“It’s the most effective recycling measure known to man,’’ said Sullivan.
But many environmentalists, echoing state leaders, say it’s crucial that people not only recycle more, but produce less trash to begin with.
“The whole system was built on unending supplies,’’ said Virginia Valiela, who directs the Greater New Bedford Refuse District. “That has to change.’’
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2010/03/14/despite_environmentalists_pleas_massachusetts_recycling_rate_stalls?mode=PF
