'Single stream' makes it easier to be virtuous
Anyone old enough to remember the ’70s in Ann Arbor will also remember, no doubt with a grimace, what an effort it took to be a recycler here in those days. You not only had to separate paper from other materials, but cans had to be flattened, bottles had to be grouped by color, and they all had to be rinsed out. Then you had to put the whole shebang in your own containers - no city-provided totes - and schlep it to the one and only location, on South Industrial, where it could be dropped off … during limited hours.
I think it was even uphill both ways to South Industrial, but maybe I’m just being old and cranky. I know for sure that I have vivid memories of sitting with my then-sweetie pie in a line of cars there on a Saturday morning, half congratulating ourselves for being so responsible and half wondering if we were just a little nuts.
But as William Blake famously observed, “The fool who persists in his folly will become wise.” Recycling has become mainstream or, in Ann Arbor, single-stream, so please forgive me if I confess to being geeked about that method of collecting items formerly known as waste, which launches locally on July 5.
I’m one of those people (I do hope there are others) who won’t toss a paper napkin or facial tissue until it’s been fully used, or buy take-out or heat-up food that’s overly packaged, or any “disposable” product (pen, razor, lighter) whatsoever, who in fact has several bags full of currently unrecyclable material that I couldn’t bear to toss, lest I be tormented by visions of my contribution to the Great Pacific Garbage Patch, or the similar atrocity that was recently discovered in the Atlantic.
And we have all contributed to it. It didn’t just happen. As someone other than William Blake once said, “You can’t throw anything away because there is no ‘away’ anymore.” Once you know this, I don’t think it’s okay to act as if you don’t.
Many people do, of course. They put down the remote just long enough to stick their fingers in their ears and go “lalalalala, I can’t hear you.” They leave the SUV running while they shop for junk shipped from China that will fall apart in a year and be carted to the landfill, or for food packed in plastic domes and cartons that they carry home in plastic bags. Then they watch reports of the coal mine explosion in West Virginia or the oil rig disaster in the Gulf of Mexico and wonder how such things can be, oblivious to the connection between their “needs” and what’s required to satisfy them.
These people aren’t going to snap out of it just because virtuous folks like you and me think it’s a good idea. But it’s just possible - in fact, there are data indicating it may even be likely - that accommodating their passivity, so to speak, will produce significant benefits.
If it isn’t clear by now, I’ll say it in so many words: I’m convinced that an inability or unwillingness to perceive systems on a large enough scale to understand the role of one’s own actions is the source of most of the trouble in the world. But in our little corner of it, at least, behaving responsibly is about to get easier.
(Jeff Mortimer is a free-lance writer and editor based in Ann Arbor.)
Comments
treetowncartel
Tue, May 4, 2010 : 4:02 p.m.
As a user of single stream in Ypsi township i will say it ieasier on the household now. We have a brown grocery bag in the kitchen that we put recycleable material in and then place thos in the containers. We stilll have the small containers, so I am making a few trips down the driveway, but I am no longer sorting things in to seperate bins. It encourages me to not throw as much stuff away. @ Ignatz, I agree about the loss of drop offs, but that was mostly due to the fact that people were putting things there that did not belong.
Bill Wilson
Tue, May 4, 2010 : 3:17 p.m.
Jeff, Talk about the 1970's... it wasn't much better in the 1990's. I lived in Liberty Pointe then, and I recall we sorted, segregated, and set by the curb. We had a few different pickups: for the trash, and those for the recycle. Sometimes, I'd see special pickups made later in the day, seemingly, just for one person. Landfill issues aside, the fossil fuels used far exceeded any environmental benefits. If you subscribe to the "first, do no harm" school of thought, we should not have involved the government until technology caught up with the method.
bunnyabbot
Mon, May 3, 2010 : 1:25 p.m.
while recycling really is easy and being less wasteful isn't all that hard I do not agree with the holier than thou tone of: "They leave the SUV running while they shop for junk shipped from China that will fall apart in a year and be carted to the landfill, or for food packed in plastic domes and cartons that they carry home in plastic bags. Then they watch reports of the coal mine explosion in West Virginia or the oil rig disaster in the Gulf of Mexico and wonder how such things can be, oblivious to the connection between their needs and whats required to satisfy them. These people arent going to snap out of it just because virtuous folks like you and me think its a good idea. you do sound like a cranky old man
Lokalisierung
Mon, May 3, 2010 : 1:12 p.m.
"I'll have to go to the drop-off station (which, because the city council stopped supporting it, now costs $3 for a visit)." that is only a vehicle fee for going there. You can park your car outside and walk in for free.
Tom Teague
Mon, May 3, 2010 : 8:03 a.m.
Having lived in a small city that adopted single-stream approach, I can attest that it was a marked improvement over the bins. No matter the weather, I was able to put the items curbside the night before without worrying about office paper getting blown all over the neighborhood or overnight rain turning newspapers into unmanageable pulp. I will miss the battery recycling but will now just keep the old ones until I have a significant stack and accept that the $3 is part of the hidden life-cycle cost of buying disposable batteries. That said, I do like @63Townie's idea of getting Drop Off station coupons instead of the ones from the usual businesses - that would be an innovative way of closing the loop on battery and motor oil disposal.
Deb Burch
Mon, May 3, 2010 : 5:51 a.m.
It is sad that they are discouraging the small containers. I had to call 3 times to reach the staff that would arrange for me to swap my large trash container for a small one. Reuse of items instead of disposing will allow us to use the smallest containers for both trash and recycling. Go Blue! Think Green!
E. Manuel Goldstein
Sun, May 2, 2010 : 8:58 p.m.
I'm more inclined to be in agreement with logo on this issue, so I won't repeat their argument or points. I guess Ann Arbor could also go towards the other extreme, as cited by this news article from England: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/greenerliving/7627055/Nine-bin-recycling-system-introduced.html Part of the article reads as follows: Households have been told to separate cardboard from paper, and plastic bottles from glass, tins and aerosols. The regulations have prompted fierce criticism, with people complaining that the scheme is too confusing and their homes do not have space for the various different bins and bags. The new bin system by Newcastle-under-Lyme Council, north Staffordshire, includes a silver slop bucket for food waste, which is then emptied into a larger, green outdoor bin. There is a pink bag for plastic bottles, a blue box for glass, foil, tins and aerosols, a green bag for cardboard and blue bags for paper and magazines. Clothing and textiles go in a white bag, garden waste in a wheelie bin with a brown lid and non-recyclable waste in a separate grey wheelie bin. If successful, the scheme which is more rigorous than any previous recycling standards expected of households is likely to be adopted by councils up and down the country. So, yes, I also agree there would be tradeoffs with ANY recycling system.
melissa
Sun, May 2, 2010 : 6:30 p.m.
I am in van Buren township and they take nearly everything, it's awesome. I shouldn't have to be viewed as an annoying because I insist on recycling items that are recyclable. By the way you can recycle dead batteries for free at Ikea, as well as florescent light bulbs and more. Best buy takes old electronics too. And once you've recycled your dead batteries switch to rechargeables. We need to be more like other countries (costa rica, most of Europe, etc) and be more mindful of our waste. Earth is not your personal trash can!!
logo
Sun, May 2, 2010 : 5:13 p.m.
Single stream will be great for Ann Arbor and just like they were with garbage pick up the carts will be more efficient with faster pickup, less labor intensive and fewer injuries to the workers. The technology has advanced so far in just the last year or two that comparisons with systems using the older technology don't hold water. Single stream will be saving the city money for a long, long time. The city needed new recycling trucks and now they will be hybrids. All of the funding for single stream came from money saved up in a dedicated millage. I am most impressed by the fact that the people who support it the most are the people who started Recycle Ann Arbor and/or have worked with RAA for a long time.
glenn thompson
Sun, May 2, 2010 : 4:44 p.m.
The change to single stream has a significant cost, both economically and to the environment. Economically the the City Council has authorized over $6.7 million for consultants, equipment and new contracts necessary for single stream recycling. This expense comes at a time the city manager tells us there is insufficient funds for police and fire fighters or to repair the Stadium bridge. A study by the Container Recycling Institute concluded that single stream recycling often resulted in more material sent to the landfill than dual stream recycling. This was based on their observation that cross contamination, such as glass in the paper fiber stream, resulted in sorted materials being discarded by the reprocessing facility. The director of the CRI described it as "You can't unscramble an egg." We may not be able to unscramble this egg but we will certainly pay more trying. A recent article in Waste and Recycling News commented that the industry must to a better job "educating" citizens that recycling is not free, and will become more expensive. A major reason for the increasing cost is the additional cost of sorting all materials from a single collection stream. In addition to the extra cost, we will lose curbside recycling of batteries, engine oil, and florescent lights. We must expect that many of these more hazardous materials will go into the landfill instead of a small amount of inert plastic. This is an additional environmental cost of single stream recycling.
Ignatz
Sun, May 2, 2010 : 3:15 p.m.
Sadly, where I live in Ypsi Twp., recycling has become much more difficult to to. The Township closed all of it's 24 hour drop off centers and chose to restrict any drop off recycling to their compost facility on Clark Rd. Distance aside, most of the hours they're open I'm at work, thus making it highly inconvenient. Convenience, as we know, is a key to effective recycling. Unfortunately, I'm not able to utilize their curbside service, since I live in an apartment complex. The complex itself recently started some ersatz recycling that consists of one large dumpster. We can't recycle glass, of all things. The dumpster has been overflowing for a couple of weeks now. I'll crab at them tomorrow. So, I have piles of recyclables to get rid of. Little by little, I'll find a way to properly recycle it all.
63Townie
Sun, May 2, 2010 : 2:06 p.m.
Vivienne, I couldn't agree more. I used to bring home my styrofoam food packaging from work because I could drop it off at the recycling center for free. Same thing for batteries. But now they want to charge me $3 for doing the environmentally conscious thing. Instead of giving citizens token credit at a store (or whatever), why not give the ones who recycle the most credit towards dropping off items we can't put at the curb?
amlive
Sun, May 2, 2010 : 2 p.m.
The motor oil pickup is going away? Really? I've always changed my own oil, and did use it. Oh well, at least I have a gravel driveway. Five quarts every three months can't hurt too much I suppose - pouring it in to a gravel patch is actually the recommended disposal method in some of my old Chilton's manuals anyway, so I guess I'll finally be following directions.
Vivienne Armentrout
Sun, May 2, 2010 : 10:52 a.m.
I like and agree with everything you say except the idea that single-stream recycling pickup will make being virtuous easier. Now instead of putting batteries out for curbside pickup, I'll have to go to the drop-off station (which, because the city council stopped supporting it, now costs $3 for a visit). We didn't use the motor oil option but that is gone too. Meanwhile, I would say that single-stream probably undercuts virtuous behavior by literally rewarding consumption. The best options to "save the planet" (and you are right on target there, Jeff) are reuse and reduction. If we can just toss most unwanted goods into a recycling cart, this becomes "bumper sticker virtue" - emblematic but mostly meaningless.
Steve Bean
Sun, May 2, 2010 : 10:47 a.m.
Jeff, you might get a counter argument from those who see virtue in the effort of separating materials and what they believe will be a higher quality product as a result. There are tradeoffs, of course. I appreciate your perspective on it. I'm trying to think about such matters in terms other than virtue, though. Nature doesn't keep score. Can we try to clarify confusions, eliminate distractions, and appreciate all efforts without so many (unquestioned) judgments that unnecessarily divide us?