The marketability of recycled goods is not a concept with which most Canadians are familiar. And yet, millions of canadians engage with the practice of recycling everyday, a practice that is predicated on the notion that there is a demand for certain types of garbage. Ultimately, since recycled goods are products that need to be sold in order to be reused, the quality of recycled goods (like any other product on the market) is very important.
In terms of quality, contamination is the biggest player, costing Canadian recycling programs millions every year. When contaminated garbage is thrown out in blue bins, it is first processed as if it were recyclable, but ultimately, it ends up in the landfill. As a result, “you basically pay twice to manage garbage,” according to Jim McKay who works for solid waste management Toronto. According to CBC news, “even a few spoonfuls of peanut butter left in a jar can contaminate a tonne of paper and make it unmarketable — destined for the dump.” The costs associated with processing twice are not the only losses that need to be considered. Recycled garbage with a higher contamination rate, even after it has been processed to remove obvious offenders, cannot be sold as easily. As a result it needs to be discounted and sold at a cheaper price. Therefore the costs incurred from additional processing as well as the loss in revenue are both important factors that need to be taken more seriously when developing city-wide recycling programs.
Although recycling is something that cities are beginning to take more seriously, it is clear that the tangible costs associated with contaminated recycling is a concept that too many Canadians are either unaware of or indifferent to. Perhaps it is merely another situation which demonstrates the tragedy of the commons. Although the simplicity of this explanation might be enticing, there are large disparities between the rates of residential recycling contamination within various Canadian cities. This disparity can be partly explained by the variety and effectiveness of city-wide recycling programs. Vancouver, for example, has one of the lowest recycling contamination rates among large Canadian cities. According to Recycle BC, the percent of contaminated products in Vancouver’s recycling system is 4.6%. For reference, Toronto’s contamination rate is 26%, Montreal’s is 7.5%, Calgary’s is 13%, Ottawa’s is also low at 5%, and Edmonton’s is 24%.
One of the ways Vancouver accomplishes such a low contamination rate is through stricter separation of recycled goods. Glass and paper each have their own bins/bags, and in that way both are separated from recyclable plastics. According to Recycle BC’s Allen Langdon, recycling programs that operate in a “single-stream” manner without any further separation past the blue bin, consistently demonstrate higher rates of contamination.
The city of Surrey has increased its focus on education as a method to mitigate contamination. One of their first initiatives was to identify specific neighborhoods with particularly poor sorting habits. After gathering the data they were able to establish a door to door education program that targeted those specific neighborhoods in order to explain the different materials that should and should not be recycled as well as the impacts of contamination. Currently, the city continues to identify specific households that do not adhere to the recycling guidelines and sends letters and pamphlets. If a specific household continues to be found in violation of proper recycling practices, they are temporarily barred from receiving the pick up service, and their garbage is left at the curb. The solid waste manager at the City of Surrey, Harry Janda, reported that in 2017 on an average day, the City of Surrey issued 400 “no collection stickers” and “issued a significant number of education notices.” There are numerous tactics that a city can employ to improve recycling habits, and historically an effective education plan has been a core part of every successful city-wide initiative.
The strides that have been taken to increase the effectiveness of recycling in certain cities demonstrates the impact that various programs and initiatives can have. This is a promising result, and one that should not be taken lightly, especially in light of the changing economic market of recyclables. In 2017, China passed a ban on 24 types of imported waste. This ban became effective as of January 2018, and the market has not yet reached a stabilized equilibrium. Before the ban, China had been the largest importer of waste for decades. According to the International Solid Waste association, in 2012 China imported 56% of global plastic exports, which amounted to almost 9 million metric tonnes of plastic. In addition to the ban, China imposed new standards outlining the acceptable contamination within a given batch of recyclables. The new standards are much stricter and contaminated materials are now required to be limited to less than 0.5% of the batch. As a result, many Canadian cities have been forced to find alternative buyers for their recyclables.
The sudden decrease in demand for recyclables has resulted in a surplus of supply, reducing the market price. A report from Toronto’s solid waste management service estimates that in 2018 the loss in revenue as a result of the changing market will be about 5.2 million dollars for the City of Toronto. With most goods, this decrease in price would cause a decrease in supply and a new equilibrium would balance out in time. However recyclables are most often a by-product of the purchase of other goods (which have been packaged in plastic). And the decrease in demand for this packaging will not necessarily deter consumers from purchasing the good that has been wrapped in plastic. Unless consumer behavior is drastically changed or a new demand emerges, it is possible that a large amount of recyclable waste (which had previously been sold to China) will end up in landfills. One advantage of China’s import waste ban is that it puts added pressure on exporting nations to reduce the amount of garbage they produce. The ‘out of sight out of mind’ mentality is easy to sustain when garbage is being shipped off to another continent, but now that this option has been drastically reduced, it could provide a powerful opportunity for change.
References
https://recyclebc.ca/what-is-contamination/
https://www.statcan.gc.ca/eng/start
https://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/recycling-contamination-1.4606893
https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2018/pw/bgrd/backgroundfile-113576.pdf
https://www.iswa.org/fileadmin/galleries/Task_Forces/TFGWM_Report_GRM_Plastic_China_LR.pdf