Changes to the city recycling program

I am responding to a column by Tiffany Paulsen on the banning of plastic bags from the city recycling program.

Like many recycling advocates, Paulsen means well but shows a fundamental misunderstanding of its purpose.

Recycling makes it possible to recover some value from post-consumer waste, which would otherwise be discarded, to make new products.

The side benefit is the diversion of waste from the landfill.

Focused solely on diversion, Paulsen and city council bought into the expectation that curbside recycling would divert 26,000 tonnes annually.

Disregarding warnings, the city made the critical error of implementing a single stream collection system. This method produces poor quality and often heavily contaminated bales.

Ironically, the promised diversion is unattainable and collected tonnage keeps dropping.

To make matters worse, China has recently restricted the importing of recyclables because of contamination levels inherent to single stream recycling and the presence of non-marketable material such as plastic bags. They are prepared to be the manufacturer for the world, but not its landfill.

The tightening of China’s borders has resulted in a glut of recyclable material on today’s markets. It makes little sense to try and recycle household glass and plastic film when there is no market for them.

Community support for recycling isn’t based on collecting a couple of marginal materials.

It’s time to be honest with residents about what recycling can and can’t achieve. The reality is, our recycling program must collect, sort and market clean material that is in demand, otherwise, what’s the point?

Cal Carter, Saskatoon