| Many Calgarians are advocating the right to choose when it comes to managing their waste – the right to choose whether or not they recycle and the right to choose how they recycle.
Currently, residents have a number of choices. The city has placed 48 recycling depots accepting milk jugs, paper, tin and glass materials. There are also 33 city-sponsored locations to drop off leaves and pumpkins during peak periods. Discounted backyard composters, e-waste roundups, hazardous waste collections and Christmas tree recycling are among the other ways the city is trying to better manage our waste. In addition, eight private curbside collection companies operate within the city.
Clearly, there is no lack of choice available, but still, most Calgarians choose not to recycle or compost. Less than 20 per cent of residential waste is being diverted through current efforts.
And those choosing to divert that waste are actually paying more than those who choose not to. Although the landfill tipping fees (disposal fees) cover the cost of city-sponsored recycling depots and composting programs, those who make use of the programs pay more – whether it be in the time it takes to collect, sort and transport the materials, or the money it costs to run the car to and from the nearest depot.
The thousands of Calgarians who subscribe to private curbside collection pay $100 or more each year, while those who choose not to recycle at all contribute nothing.
Choice is creating inequality and financially rewarding those who don’t recycle or compost. This flies in the face of the polluter-pay principle.
But it’s not even about what’s fair. It’s about what works. Despite efforts to educate Calgarians about recycling and composting, the majority of residents are choosing not to do either. Despite having a citywide recycling depot program and various composting initiatives available for more than a decade, the majority of residents are choosing not to do either. Despite having excellent private curbside recycling companies available, the overwhelming majority of residents are choosing not to sign up.
And now, faced with the failure of current programs and the prospect of paying for a better program, many people feel the proposal is unjust. Those who make use of recycling and composting programs feel they shouldn’t have to pay to have curbside collection to divert waste they are already diverting. The private curbside collection companies feel the city is unfairly trying to put them out of business.
The fact is, though, things need to change. The current funding model alone requires a major overhaul. Tipping fees are funding all recycling and composting efforts and have been for a long time. It’s a model that appeared to make sense when it was first introduced more than 10 years ago. Anyone who comes to the landfill to dispose of something pays a fee. Part of that fee goes to fund recycling and composting efforts, thus our current recycling system doesn’t actually cost taxpayers anything.
The problem is, as the city prepares to address the amount of waste being allowed to enter landfills, the revenues from those tipping fees will decrease. In fact, in order to continue funding even our current recycling efforts, the amount of commercial and private waste being disposed of at the landfills must stay the same or increase. It’s a Catch-22 and it comes down to a fundamental problem – the way we fund our recycling programs is not sustainable.
In order to create a sustainable way of funding waste diversion, the city must look to its tax base, revenues it can earn from recyclables, product stewardship programs, pay-as-you-throw programs and other long-term funding options.
Based on environmental, social and economic factors, citywide curbside collection of organics and recyclables is being recommended at a cost of $14 to $15 per household per month. But $6 of this is a fee already being paid for garbage collection and related infrastructure costs. That means the real cost of adding on curbside collection of both organics and recyclables is actually $8 to $9 per household per month.
This is competitive with and more efficient than what private curbside collection companies are currently charging, which is an average of $9 per household per month just to pick up recyclables.
The automated nature of the city’s collection process is also anticipated to significantly reduce on-the-job injuries for garbage collectors and the related worker’s compensation costs.
The long-term savings associated with less use and ongoing maintenance of landfills has not been calculated, but as proven by municipalities like Toronto and those in the Greater Vancouver Regional District, that can become priceless. We are all going to pay for our waste one way or another – whether it’s to divert it or continue dumping it.
It’s been more than a decade since the city, based on economic factors alone, decided to implement a less-than-adequate waste diversion plan. We are now at a crossroads and the choice is ours – whether to join other major cities across Canada in employing effective strategies to divert waste or continue to throw out these valuable resources as trash.
Those who decide on our future are going to be those who make their voices heard and contact their alderman before city council votes on this issue on Monday, October 17. |
Copyright ©2005 FFWD. All rights reserved.