Discarding of Recyclables - Case Study Example

Argument Synthesis: On Whether Portland Should Ban The Discarding of Recyclables in Trash Cans Table of Contents Works Cited 10 Many places all over the United States, from North Carolina to Illinois to California and Colorado, have imposed bans on trashing recyclables, citing environmental sustainability and the conservation of landfill spaces among others. At least 25 states have laws relating to the recycling of what is termed as e-waste, and of these, at least 15 have laws that outright ban the disposing of such wastes (Koch; Patane; CalRecycle; Meincke; Bosque). There is overwhelming merit and common sense in these bans. Throwing recyclables is inefficient on many levels, and does great environmental harm. This paper posits that a ban on throwing recyclables into trash cans in Portland Oregon is necessary and positive, because there is a growing clamor for it as reflected in a cascade of legislation in many states all over the US enforcing such related bans, because there is overwhelming evidence that mandated bans in law are more effective than voluntary recycling programs in reducing waste and eliciting support for recycling programs,, and because the foundations of good environmental practices and awareness in the communities of Portland are in place to successfully enforce a ban (Millman; CalRecycle; Bosque; Koch; City of Seattle; Peters). First, there are overwhelming precedents from other states with regard to positive outcomes and wide support for the enactment and enforcement of laws that ban the trashing of recyclables such as electronics and other items from trash cans. Those precedents point to the success of such legislation and controls in bringing about a drastic reduction in the amount of such recyclables in the trash, with positive repercussions on the sustainability of the trash collection programs, the recycling programs, and the landfills that are used to hold the trash. In state after state, the enactment of laws relating to e-wastes, for instance, and the banning of such e-wastes from landfills have forced citizens to more actively support their state recycling programs, and to be very mindful about what they put in the trash. In North Carolina, for instance, state laws that ban recyclable items from its landfills have resulted in the passage of stricter regulations and area ordinances relating to the putting of such items into the trash bins, reinforcing the state landfill bans in a downward cascade of restrictions. What the state laws on bans on landfills of recyclables do, as demonstrated in the example of North Carolina, is to tighten regulations and laws down the line, passing on from the state to the cities and counties, leading to the eventual policing of the trash cans coming out of individual homes, with good results. The literature too supports the assertion that many of the residents in the states where trash can bans on recyclables support the bans, adding to the momentum of those laws and to the wide acceptability of such mandated bans (Peters). Elsewhere, such as in Seattle, the state has had a successful run keeping recyclables off trash cans since 2005, and that the city has successfully extended the coverage of the ban effective July of 2014 attests to the success and the widespread support for the ban on recyclables in trash bins not only from the citizens but from that city government as well (City of Seattle). In North Carolina too, there has been a ban on the disposal of plastic water bottles going back to the fall of 2009, in a move that was at the time seen as largely benefiting state efforts to better manage its landfills, rid the environment of those plastic trash, and to find better and more efficient ways to recycle water bottles, together with pallets made of wood and filters for oil (Bosque). In Illinois, a ban on putting electronic waste into trash cans has been in place since the start of 2012, again with intentions similar to the North Carolina ban, but this time for electronics wastes rather than plastic bottles. The reasoning is the same, that disposing of such wastes is inefficient, and that there are large environmental and financial motivations to keep them off the landfills and to recycle and retrieve their vital components. (Meincke). Meanwhile, the success in other states that have enforced bans on putting recyclable wastes into trash cans have taken different forms and routes, with states such as Minnesota first facing a surge in illegal disposals of electronic items when they were banned from trash cans, and then facing a second surge of recycling centers that in the end solved the problem of electronic wastes being illegally dumped. The enactment of laws banning such wastes from trash cans in the end proved beneficial to the development of the electronic trash recycling ecosystem in that state, which augurs well for other states like Portland who are mulling imposing similar bans (Koch). Meanwhile, the decades of experience of the state of California in handling and banning hazardous wastes from trash cans, or what it calls universal waste, point to the viability of imposing such bans in law. The precedent in California also provides a wealth of experience that other places like Portland can look at to gain insights into how best to impose the ban, what the potential challenges are, and how to handle individual recyclable items and recyclable but hazardous items of trash. The take from the California experience is that banning recyclables and related trash work from the perspective of crafting ordinances and laws to that effect (CalRecycle). The same positive results and public reception to recyclables bans in places like Denver and the entire state of Colorado add to the growing body of evidence and precedents that should encourage Portland and similar other states contemplating a ban on recyclable materials on trash cans (Patane). Second, there is a need to enforce a ban on recyclable materials from trash cans in Portland, because the experience of many states has been that voluntary bans do not work as well as mandatory bans, by law, by ordinances and by regulations, to curb the proliferation of recyclables in landfills and to encourage recycling. The converse of this, as has been partially discussed earlier, is that where mandatory programs have been lacking in results, outright legal bans have resulted in the mushrooming of recycling centers, adding to a set of forces that encourage a virtuous cycle of recycling and proper waste management to take root in those places. In the absence of widespread bans on recyclable materials in trash cans for instance, the figures are that just a quarter of recyclable electronic wastes were subjected eventually to recycling, a figure that is much too low and certainly something that is to change for the better if the new laws that are being passed are faithfully enforced and followed (Koch). Elsewhere we see too, from the staggering statistics on the amount of trash that America produces and the impact of such trash on the economy and the environment, that in a regime of voluntary recycling not much is going to change in terms of increasing awareness of the harm of trash and of the need to find ways to up the level of recycling of Americas trash. From plastic water bottles to electronics wastes to paper and tons of assortments of trash from commercial airplanes, it is clear that there is a need for tougher laws on recycling and banning wastes from trash bins. (Clean Air Council). On the federal level too, one can see from the failure of the national government to enact and enforce supportive legislation to curb the amount of recyclable trash points to opportunities at the state level to improve on this state of affairs by precisely enacting statewide and citywide bans on recyclable trash in trash bins all over Portland, with the expected benefit of further improving the recycling levels in the city and to improve outcomes for various recycling programs all over the city (Zero Waste America). Thirdly, a ban on recyclables in trash cans in Portland is necessary and positive, given that there is a very high likelihood of the ban succeeding in its aims relating to improvements in recycling rates and in making trash collection and management more efficient. This is because Portland already has a good track record of being one of the greenest places in America, and that this track record translates to communities that are receptive and capable of moving to the next level so to speak and migrating from a regime where recycling is voluntary to one where recycling is mandatory, as a result of the trash can ban on recyclables. This is not hard to imagine, given that even in places that have poor track records in environmental sustainability and community sense of responsibility and civic duty to properly dispose of its recyclable trash, such as in Minnesota, a ban on electronic wastes in trash cans initially resulted in widespread violations of the ban, but in the end resulted in the development of various viable recycling programs. Consider that the experience of the city with recycling goes back to 1971 and with formal recycling systems to 1987, and that people in Portland already recycle about two thirds of their waste. In a place like Portland, that already has a culture of environmental responsibility and of being green in place, it is easy to imagine that a ban on recyclables in trash cans will not only be a lesser burden compared to less prepared geographies, but that the receptivity of the city to such a ban would guarantee success and improvements in the citys recycling and waste management metrics. (Millman; Koch; Englebert). A counterargument is that in a place that is already one of the greenest cities in the United States, and one where two-thirds of wastes are already recycled, the imposition of a ban on recyclables is not only unnecessary, but may rub residents the wrong way and be a disincentive to further recycling. This argument is weak because as has been discussed earlier, the enforcement of bans on recyclable trash in trash bins has had the unanimous effect of further curbing unnecessary waste in all of the studied cases. In Portland a ban will not only be non-disruptive given the existing culture of environmental excellence, but will also just reinforce those elements of the city culture that encourage recycling and that does away with as much waste as possible from entering the public sphere and becoming a burden for city administrators. The thinking is flawed, because on the contrary a ban would make the city even more efficient in the way it handles its trash and the way it recycles as much of it as possible (Millman; Koch; Englebert). To conclude, a ban on recyclable materials in the trash cans of Portland is necessary and a positive thing for the city, because of the overwhelming evidence of effectiveness, of the greater efficacy of mandatory bans over voluntary recycling efforts, and because the city has the environmental track record, culture and the capability to enforce and to follow the law and to further improve on its billing as the one of Americas greenest places (Millman; Koch; Englebert; Bosque). Works Cited Bosque, Tomas. “North Carolina Bans Throwing Away Plastic Water Bottles, Must Be Recycled. Ban the Bottle. 17 June 2009. Web. 20 March 2014. CalRecycle. “Wastes Banned From the Trash”. Calrecycle.ca.gov. 2014. Web. 20 March 2014. City of Seattle. “Ban Ordinance on Recyclables in Garbage”. Seattle.gov. 2013. Web. 20 March 2014. Clean Air Council. “Waste and Recycling Facts”. CleanAir.org. n.d. Web. 20 March 2014. Englebert, Anne. “Portland is One of the Greenest Cities in US”. Cereplast. 5 January 2012. Web. 20 March 2014. Koch, Wendy. “More states ban disposal of electronics in landfills”. USA Today. 18 December 2011. Web. 20 March 2014. Meincke, Paul. “New Illinois law bans trashing of old electronics”. ABC 7 Chicago. 27 December 2011. Web. 20 March 2014. Millman, Joel. “Portland Puts New Twist on Trash Pickup”. The Wall Street Journal. 27 June 2012. Web. 20 March 2014. Patane, Matthew. “New ban prohibits residents from throwing out electronics”. The Denver Post. 23 June 2013. Web. 20 March 2014. Peters, Corbin. :Ordinance could limit what you toss into trash”. UNC Charlotte Urban Institute. 16 September 2013. Web. 20 March 2014. Zero Waste America. “Disposal Bans & Waste Imports”. ZeroWasteAmerica.org. n.d. Web. 20 March 2014. Read More