In Response to Mr. Forkash’s Letter

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
The views expressed here do not necessarily represent or reflect the views of the Northern California Recycling Association.

By Arthur R. Boone, Center for Recycling Research (CRR)

I think your article brings a needed perspective to the question, but I don’t think I would put all the pieces together as you do.

My orientation is of a man who goes through trash all the time, looking to see what’s in play in the marketplace that is not recyclable. I started my quest being exasperated by my Zero Waste friends who had little to no idea about what’s getting thrown away and the disarray of these and other reformers at creating various minimum content and other laws to drive the reuse of previously unused scrap materials.

Paper, wood, metal and glass materials have been recycled for over 100 years; plastics and composites are the new guys on the block with no experience or even interest in what happens to their stuff after the first sale. In 2011, when I got up to 250 entries in my list, I discovered nobody was interested then (nor now, for that matter) in my little list. In the process of going through all this stuff, I realized I had created a mini-MRF, far more discerning than the monstrosities working today, with good attention to reuse. Still looking for my first bigger-than-bench-scale site, but closer than I was.

I also think AB2020’s big mistake was failing to recognize that unless CRV return was very much tied to the supermarket (its hours, location, convenience, etc.), a disconnect would exist for the always-short-of-time consumer that would allow, even encourage, folks for whom many nickels make a living to get involved in the redemption transactions. Markets hated all those scruffy underclass people and the CGA’s eternal antipathy to the idea got a face (usually what I saw black or brown) on it. And, since CalRecycle (as it’s called) gets its money from the grocers, the grocers and their lobbyists call the shots.

My recent but incomplete survey of CRV sites in operation says there are only three in Sonoma County, two in Alameda, SF and Napa counties, one each in Solano and Contra Costa counties, and too incomplete data for Marin, San Mateo and Santa Clara counties; the AB2020 arrow has landed in the mud, I wish all agreed on that. Maybe when CV trundles off into history, we can talk about it.

Note: Boone operated a Saturday morning buyback in North Oakland from early 1984 until early 1989. 

# # #

Website & Social Media Survey!

We would like to know what you think of this website and our social media:
Facebook, Twitter , LinkedIn and YouTube

Please take our Survey by June 15!

Members            Non-Members

Now that we can only interact virtually, on-line communication is more important than ever. So, we’ve created a survey to get your feedback on how our website and social media can meet your needs. It shouldn’t take more than 5-10 minutes to fill out (depends on you) and if you include your contact info, you’ll be entered in the survey raffle to win a 2021 Recycling Update (RU) registration or a $100 Community Bikes  gift certificate

Also, please help by sharing the following link with non-member friends interested in recycling, so we can learn how to better reach people with our Zero Waste message:

https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/NCRAWebSurvey2020Shared

Our goal is to hear from hundreds if not thousands of people!

Please respond today or by June 15!

Horrible Hybrids Letter To The Editor

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
The views expressed here do not necessarily represent or reflect the views of the Northern California Recycling Association.

Re: ‘Horrible Hybrids’, The Guardian, 4/20/20, NPR , 4/26/20, Waste360, 4/30/20

By Neil Seldman, Waste to Wealth Initiative, Institute for Local Self-Reliance, 5/5/2020

This article –

Horrible Hybrids’: The Plastic Products That Give Recyclers Nightmares, introduces the problems posed by hybrid packaging for recyclers and has excellent specifics on how to avoid hybrid and other unnecessary packaging. But the solution proposed — putting manufacturers in charge of recycling — excludes tried and true alternatives to putting companies in charge, which for decades have made unmet promises for better packaging. Companies respond to hard mandates. Recall the aerosol ban of years ago. Companies complained bitterly about the regulations but the day after the aerosol ban their products were on the shelves just as before.

Citizens have been providing these hard mandates for 50 years: mandatory recycling and composting, container deposits, waste surcharges and more. Organized citizens and small businesses have been the engine of recycling in the US. Waste and beverage companies fight to repeal yard debris bans, bottle bills and most recently use state preemption to quash local initiatives such as bans on single use plastics. Recycling has gotten us to 35% despite wrongheaded solutions posed by industry to reduce waste: large scale incineration, single stream recycling and the Chinese debacle. Some cities have reached 50%, 60% and even 70% recycling.

The way to break through the stagnation is to focus on better solutions than creating corporate dominated agencies to take over a thriving industry:

    • Product Stewardship in which companies pay into funds to support municipal programs
    • Minimum recycled content for products sold
    • Taxes on packaging, especially hybrids
    • Carbon tax to increase the value of materials with embedded energy, labor and extraction costs

For 100+ examples of successful local actions that can be replicated in any county, town or city visit the US EPA’s Managing and Transforming Waste Streams – A Tool for Communities

# # #

 

 

 

Suspend and Overhaul Bottle Bill

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
The views expressed here do not necessarily represent or reflect the views of the Northern California Recycling Association.

SUSPEND AND OVERHAUL CALIFORNIA’S BEVERAGE CONTAINER REDEMPTION PROGRAM
By Aaron Forkash. Aaron Metals Company, in Oakland since 1976 and in Hayward since 2011, California State Certified Recycling Center, PR 0026/RC 0926, 5/11/2020

The State of California must immediately suspend the collection of redemption deposits and begin overhauling the California Beverage Container Recycling and Litter Reduction Act.

Popularly known as the Bottle Bill, the underlying legislation has been exposed by the Coronavirus pandemic for its manifold faults; just as the pandemic reveals some of our nation’s social and economic injustices.

The statewide shelter-in-place order prompted by the pandemic prevents consumers from redeeming recyclable materials at nearly non-existent redemption centers. Consumers have no reason to risk infection and violate the shelter-in-place order as there is now wide-spread access to curbside collection.

Simply put: If there’s nowhere to redeem, suspend the collection scheme.

The Bottle Bill has been in a steady and irreversible decline since the late ‘80s as the economic growth of California’s urban regions forced the closure of redemption centers.

The last few years revealed what are now major flaws with California’s buy-back system: the gradual and inevitable disappearance of the supermarket redemption sites, the closure of small recycling centers and the cessation of larger recycling companies participating in the unprofitable program. All amplified, no doubt, thanks to the risk of infection related to the Coronavirus pandemic – since viral droplets live in saliva and in the container’s residual moisture. Add to this increasing operational costs and the contemporaneous refusal of China to receive and use the contaminated scrap material.

Ultimately, however, curbside pick up — being a much greener option — led to the Bottle Bill’s irreversible undoing.

According to a 2019 Los Angeles Times article, in 2018 consumers left $308 million in unredeemed deposits on the table. The story clearly supports my contention that the lack of redemption centers limits a consumer’s access to the collected deposits.

The system relies on California’s established recycling industry. In fact, California’s recycling centers once operated on the front lines of the State’s buy-back program. However, rather than defending and working to strengthen the State’s recycling industry, CalRecycle, the regulatory agency enforcing the program, has been unsupportive.

CalRecycle appears more focused on preventing and prosecuting fraud. In the aftermath of one of their crime-fighting ventures, a CalRecycle rep had the temerity to be quoted thusly: “Defrauding the recycling fund is stealing from the state of California and its citizens.” Ironic, isn’t it, considering the hundred millions of dollars California citizens can no longer collect due to the reduced numbers of recycling sites.

CalRecycle’s staff attorneys should have brought legal action against cities denying permits for new recycling sites and existing recycling sites trying to expand. As well, they should have aggressively responded to residents who lodged nuisance complaints against the remaining sites — not chasing down out-of-state cans.

Now is the time for Gov. Gavin Newsom to act. As the State tentatively takes steps to ‘reopen’ let’s not return to a flawed system. The state cannot be allowed to continue to collect deposits without giving Californians opportunities for redemption.

By executive order, the governor is in a position to suspend the collection scheme. The purpose? To motivate CalRecycle and the Legislature to dismantle and reconfigure the Bottle Bill to a producer responsible model which mandates the phase-out of single-use plastic and glass. Within such a framework, the beverage maker is responsible for the use-life of each container it produces; tracking its location from distribution, purchase, disposal and return. The new system must promote the use of (disinfectable) reusable containers.

The recycling industry stands ready and willing to partner with CalRecycle to build a robust recycling system worthy of the consumers it serves.

California continues to collect deposits knowing access to redeem recyclables is inadequate. Let’s stop it now!

Keeping COVID-19 At Bay While Recycling

WHILE RECYCLING WE KEPT COVID -19 AT BAY, STILL SOCIALIZED AND IT WAS FUN
By Daniel Knapp, CEO of Urban Ore, Inc., a Materials Recovery Facility now celebrating its 40th year in Berkeley, California
On my way home from an essential errand today, I got off the I-80 freeway at Gilman in Berkeley to check out the status of Community Conservation Center’s (CCC’s) recycling dropoff, buyback, and materials processing facility. I had a pickup full of cans, bottles, and paper, and in previous days I’d driven by at least twice to no avail as the weight built up and the truck’s handling got more sluggish. Recycling is an “Essential Business” but CCC had been closed to the public. Had they reopened yet?

I turned left onto Second Street, and – great! CCC staff had reopened at least the dropoff function, so I could recycle again. They had made a nice adaptation to the shelter in place order. It was simple: they just opened their two long rolling gates on Second Street and skidded in five-yard bins to plug the gaps. Each bin had a label: “mixed paper,” “cardboard,” “green glass,” and so on through six choices. They had rigged an impromptu dropoff capability that we patrons could access from outside the site.

Inside the fence, CCC was still closed to the public. But staff were busily processing recyclables from commercial and residential curbside service. They were making bales.

I parked next to the three paper bins and put the first of seven or eight heavy bags of paper into the mixed paper. I’m slow because I save the bags for another use, and it takes time to fold them properly.

Meanwhile another patron joined me at the bins, a woman maybe in her sixties. (I’m 80.) We started talking about how nice it was to be able to get rid of our stuff again. I told her I still work for Urban Ore. “I know Urban Ore well,” she said. Meanwhile, a CCC forklift driver had come over, stopped on the other side of the bin row, and was looking at me. He looked like he might want to pull the bin I was dumping into. Then he and I recognized each other. It was none other than Michael Ware, the Supervising Manager at CCC.

Just then a talisman at right appeared. It unlocked the questions of responsibility and what is essential.

Earlier I had spotted a tiny hardbound children’s book by Beatrix Potter on top of the mixed paper in the bin, but it was too low and far away for me to reach. I had commented about it to the lady and said it was a shame it was in there with the recycling. She looked and immediately walked over to a different CCC employee who was working on a car on the other side of the fence. She told him there was a nice book in the mixed-paper bin. He just kind of fended her off, telling her “not to worry about it.” She rolled her eyes and resumed her outside-the-fence recycling.

Meanwhile, Michael Ware and I had started talking. He got off the forklift to get closer, but we were still the required six feet away.

Then the lady told Mike about the tiny Beatrix Potter book. He looked into the bin, spotted it, then levered himself up with his body draped over the edge like a beach towel. It took him about five seconds to retrieve the book; he was very agile. Back upright on the ground, he held it up and looked at it. I asked if he had a kid he could give it to. He said no, his youngest was sixteen. He reached across the bin, offering it to my recycling companion. She asked me to take it to Urban Ore, so I accepted it and brought it home.

At home I took a closer look at the book. It’s in good condition, first copyrighted in 1907, renewed in 1935. This is the 17th printing. Judging from the coated paper and high-quality print job, it’s maybe 35-40 years old. The title is The Tale of Tom Kitten. The author and illustrator was indeed Beatrix Potter, author of The Tale of Peter Rabbit, and Tom Kitten was the 11th of her 23 tales. The publisher was Frederick Warne & Co. I placed it in the “going to Urban Ore” box we keep by the front door.

I have no idea what it’s worth, but I’ll bet it might fetch a price of between $4 and $8 at our bookstore. Any price over a penny would be a vast multiple of the mixed-paper price if it had been sold as scrap.

Restore the CCC buyback service? When and how is the question. 

Then Jeff Belchamber, General Manager of CCC, left what he was doing and walked over to join the conversation. He noted that CCC had decided they could get their dropoff line going again, but were keeping the public out and the Buyback closed based on a directive from the Zero Waste Division.

He said there was some advantage to being closed, because they were able to get necessary maintenance done. I suggested that CCC could tell the City that it is an “Essential Business” for all its functions, including the Buyback that gives people back their nickel deposits, because it provides environmentally superior disposal services compared to wasting. He looked a bit skeptical, and said something about “the politics.” I repeated myself: “But you really are providing a valuable disposal service, and we appreciate it.”

As I spoke I glanced at Mike. He was nodding his head up and down in agreement. He got it! So I suggested to Jeff that he consider asking Mike to help with CCC’s politics, because he understands why all of their functions, not just processing, are essential. From earlier meetings, I thought Mike could do a good job of negotiating with the City to get the Buyback going again.

By this time a fellow in a motorcycle helmet and full motorcycle clothing had joined us outside and was asking Mike when the Buyback would reopen. He said he had a lot of material to bring in. Mike was patiently explaining the closure to him as I closed the awning on my truck canopy.

Jeff walked back to what he had been doing. I got email addresses from Mike and from Denah Bookstein, the lady who rescued the book for Urban Ore, and sent them their own digital copies of The Founders’ Hearts, our book of recycling pioneer stories, as soon as I got home.

That’s my tiny report from the front lines of Berkeley recycling during the time of the COVID-19 pandemic.

# # #