City council was once more talking trash at a recent meeting, as the merits of a city wide conversion to roll out bins for garbage collection was debated.
In the end, council adopted a "go-slow" approach, as the individual bin collection system is expensive to implement and operate.
In the midst of this debate it was revealed participants in a pilot project had been concerned the bins wouldn't be adequate to hold a household's week of trash accumulation.
When Battleford first implemented the rollout system several years ago, residents were made aware of a strictly enforced rule stating bins with their lids popped open due to overstuffing would not be emptied. At the time I marveled at the idea anyone could actually stuff these huge receptacles beyond capacity.
That was because, back then, I was a diligent recycler. I separated out all the cardboard, box board, newsprint, cans, newspapers, plastics and milk cartons and jugs and made frequent visits to the recycling bins near Alex Dillabough Centre.
Over the years, however, misuse of those bins and the convincing and pervasive rumours the contents of these bins ultimately end up at the landfill, have disillusioned me. A recent letter to the editor from Kathy McAllister of North Battleford (see Recycling a sham, News-Optimist Nov. 24) sparked council's interest, and a memo from Director of Public Works and Engineering Stewart Shafer tries to clear up some of the confusion. His memo states McCallister's interpretation of City recycling policy isn't "entirely true." She was correct in noting paper and cardboard is baled and sent away for processing. The memo points out tin cans are stockpiled at the landfill. This fall, says Schafer, a contractor baled 310 tonnes of cans and other scrap metal stored there. The memo doesn't indicate if the baled metal was removed, or continues to be stored on site, however.
Milk containers, plastic and cardboard, collected at the depots are sent to SARCAN for processing and recycling.
So, yes, McAllister was mistaken. The tin cans will be recycled (or at least baled). She was right on the mark about plastics and glass, however. The City admits these items are not recycled but bins are provided because without them on site residents contaminate other bins with these materials.
Recycling is expensive. The cost of hauling glass to a recycling depot, for example, far outweighs its worth. The same is probably true of plastics. But, if you take the time to analyze your grocery store bill, and add up all the environmental surcharges paid on non-refundable packaging, we could expect those fees to be doing something to help reduce the waste going into our landfills. Where do those fees go? I suspect into the provincial government's general revenue fund and not into any fund earmarked to aid municipalities in finding ways to deal with these materials.
There needs to be a better plan. City council rightfully frets over the fact the landfill is filling up more quickly than expected and, whether the collection system involves individual or communal bins, the lack of effective recycling strategies is at the heart of the problem.
