Trash talk better than no talk at all

We can expect a lot more trash talking in the weeks to come.

Gov. Ned Lamont started the exchange by pitching an ambitious solution to Connecticut’s mounting garbage problem. No one can escape dealing with garbage. That won’t translate to broad public interest in this issue.

It’s probably Lamont’s biggest pitch since his failed effort to revive tolls in Connecticut. That was easy for every state resident to understand. It would mean money out of the pockets of drivers, so it failed.

Garbage is more complicated. In short, yours probably does a lot of traveling. Connecticut is second to New Jersey for transporting trash across state lines. Much of ours is taken to landfills in Ohio and Pennsylvania.

Haulers can quickly recognize that finding a better way can cut into their own revenue stream. That alone will likely fuel some lively trash talk in the General Assembly.

The governor is responding to the closure of Hartford’s Materials Innovation and Recycling Authority, which led to about 40 percent of Connecticut’s waste being shipped to other states via road and rail (the state still has a similar waste-to-energy plant in Bridgeport, along with some smaller ones).

There could also be blowback from companies with bold-faced names. The proposal would shift some of the burden to companies that provide the packaging to help foot the bill for the eventual fate of their boxes and containers. Skeptics following the money lean on the argument that those costs will only be passed along to the consumer (that would be you).

Or it might just inspire better packaging. You can probably summon recent examples of waste that arrived at the front door. Order a couple of batteries the size of fingernails and they arrive in a box that could contain a pair size 11 loafers.

Connecticut’s Department of Energy and Environmental Protection posits that taking such measures to keep 190,000 tons of recyclables out of landfills would also save municipalities as much as $50 million.

James Albis, the director of DEEP’s office of policy and planning, says nothing would really change for the consumer.

“You’d still have a blue bin that you’d put out to your curb. You’d still bring your recyclables to the transfer station for drop off. The only difference would be that for municipalities that are opting in, the stewardship organization would be paying for that collection, either directly reimbursing the municipality or contracting directly with the hauler,” Albis said.

There’s more to the proposal, including efforts to reduce more food waste from the stream. If the plan survives, it will inevitably include compromises. But lawmakers should consider the history of waste management, which serves as a demonstration that habits can change. The term “litterbug” seems quaint now, having expired back in the 1970s after helping transform the way Americans looked at their trash. There were similar showdowns over the launch of recycling before blue bins became an afterthought.

This proposal, too, deserves debate in the hope of making further strides to reduce waste (it also wouldn’t hurt to keep more haulers off our highways).

So trash talking is better than not talking about it at all. This is not a problem we can just kick to the curb.