Previous letters about Concord’s recycling policy contain many terms and misconceptions which I’d like to address. Despite our best intentions, most of what we “recycle” is not really recycled.
Who am I to advise you on these matters? I am an MS student with coursework and research experience in the manufacturing, lifespan, and recyclability of plastics.
First: what is, and is not, recyclable? When you “recycle” plastic, you believe anything in the bin will be industrially recycled. However, many items placed into recycling are instead trashed by the recycling center, especially low-density polyethylene (plastic bags), polystyrene (Styrofoam), anything marked type “7” (other), plus any that have been dyed colors. There is no economic demand for these items, so they are sent to the landfill after sorting. Some of the only TRULY recyclable items are made of HDPE or PET.
In reply to a previous letter stating that our old bins can be recycled, that may be incorrect; unless there is a purchaser, the bins are not an economically desirable color and will likely still be sent to a landfill by the town (along with oversize products like laundry baskets and fans).
Second: Contamination also has a significant effect on whether plastics are viable to be recycled. Single-stream recycling streams have greater contamination than dual-stream, resulting in less material recycled and lower value. This has been well documented by recycling centers, states, and environmental groups. By changing to a single-stream system, Concord’s carbon footprint will increase (which should be accounted for in town statistics) from the increased contamination and decreased recyclability of our waste. The town might instead consider pursuing grant funding to remain dual-stream.
How else might we cut costs without sacrificing sustainability? If we claim to be “green,” shouldn’t we be taking steps forward rather than backward?
Lucy Manlick
Hill Street