Taking on our growing recycling crisis

I have been reading with great interest articles like that in the CT Examiner last week entitled, “A reckoning for Connecticut on handling municipal waste” and “The recycling squeeze” in CTNewsJunkies, which says, “Changes in the recycling market internationally are pinching Connecticut cities and towns, turning onetime revenue streams into massive costs almost overnight.”

Unfortunately, these are the truths of the situation and policymakers and participants in the recycling process need to recognize the reality — a changing global economy and commodities markets have drastically shifted the waste and recycling dynamics in Connecticut and across the country. Over the past several years, the Chinese market for American recycled goods has collapsed and many of the products that were previously recycled by American consumers can no longer be shipped abroad for a profit. Our materials management plan was last updated in a comprehensive manner before the recycling market’s breakdown. Connecticut can no longer look back at our recycling habits and practices, but must look forward to real policy solutions that can mitigate the economic and environmental impacts associated with trash.

The Connecticut Conference of Municipalities testified during the 2019 legislative session that its members are struggling with the cost increases due to the broken recycling markets. According to CCM, Bridgeport’s recycling used to produce more than $129,000 in annual revenue, but now it estimates it will cost $394,000. Milford used to earn $85,000 from its recycling materials, but now expects the annual cost to be $250,000. Stamford netted $95,000 in the current fiscal year but is now expected to pay $700,000.

These price impacts are real and substantial for residential, commercial and municipal customers and don’t show encouraging signs of recovery. Despite this, the Connecticut Chapter of the National Waste & Recycling Association recently indicated that anything we’ve heard about recycling being in “crisis” in our state is false. However, these numbers beg to differ. If they don’t amount to crisis in recycling, then I am not sure what would constitute a crisis.

The expectation of municipal leaders to build surpluses to alleviate tipping fee burdens is impracticable. These leaders can testify to the fact that surpluses are difficult to accumulate and when surpluses do occur, municipalities risk equivalent reductions in state aid. But it also must be pointed out that municipal budget surpluses come from taxpayers — the very same people who pay the haulers for trash pickup and recycling services, even when costs spike. Instead of just saving up, an impossible proposition for most, town leaders are looking for solutions to lower costs to taxpayers.

In this time of diminishing markets and increased disposal costs, it makes perfect sense for policymakers to redirect materials out of the blue bin. This is especially true with the high contamination rates in our blue bins that also end up costing the municipalities and the overall hauling and recycling system.

Connecticut is at a crossroads when it comes to recycling and its costs both to municipal bottom lines and the environment. The status quo is not working, and policies and recycling practices have not adapted to meet the changing market dynamics.

All players in the trash and recycling system should be part of developing solutions to this problem. We cannot deny the existing predicament and assert that everything is OK simply because haulers can pass their costs onto consumers with higher rates. It is time to work together and have a serious conversation to identify policy changes we can make to build a better functioning, more sustainable and userfriendly recycling system for Connecticut.