{"id":16791,"date":"2018-08-29T15:16:26","date_gmt":"2018-08-29T19:16:26","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/ilsr.org\/articles\/single-stream-recycling-explaining-the-waste-knot\/"},"modified":"2024-05-01T18:16:31","modified_gmt":"2024-05-01T18:16:31","slug":"explaining-the-waste-knot","status":"publish","type":"article","link":"https:\/\/ilsr.org\/es\/article\/composting-for-community\/explaining-the-waste-knot","title":{"rendered":"Single Stream Recycling: Explaining the Waste Knot"},"template":"","class_list":["post-16791","article","type-article","status-publish","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","article_type-article","initiatives-composting-for-community","topics-recycling","authors-neil-seldman"],"acf":{"details":{"featured_image":4445,"background_color":"","article_type":[134],"initiative":15,"display_event_fields":false,"start_date":null,"end_date":null,"start_time":null,"end_time":null,"time_zone":"America\/New_York","virtual_event":false,"location":"","topics":[112],"impact_areas":false,"abstract":"

Neil Seldman and Bob Gedert explain how the consolidation of large waste disposal services led to single stream recycling, and how China’s changing rules will affect the future of that system.… Read More<\/a><\/p>\n","authors_tax":[605]},"sidebar":{"title":"\u00cdndice"},"page_layout":[{"acf_fc_layout":"layout_wysiwyg","_acfe_flexible_toggle":null,"component_wysiwyg":{"content":"

<\/div>
Article by Neil Seldman and Bob Gedert<\/em><\/h5>\n

Two decades ago, the dominant waste hauling companies began a highly successful campaign to persuade cities to adopt a system in which all recyclables were commingled and deposited in a single cart. Single-stream recycling collection systems proved very profitable to these companies. And after they mechanized sorting at supersized processing facilities, or materials recycling facilities (MRFs), the higher capital costs resulted in a further consolidation of the waste business. <\/span><\/p>\n

This single-stream collection, practiced on a mega scale, dramatically increased contamination, reduced the quality of recycled materials and undermined a vibrant small-business-based collection and remanufacturing system that had evolved over the previous generation. <\/span><\/p>\n

The Chinese embargo on contaminated recyclables has provided a much-needed wake-up call to cities and recyclers that we\u2019ve redesigned our waste handling systems into ones that profit monopolies and undermine the citizen involvement that for more than a generation has been the driving force toward expanding recycling. <\/span><\/p>\n

We need to assess and understand the injuries we\u2019ve inflicted on ourselves and fashion a system that enables and encourages increased recycling while also nurturing an economic ecosystem that maximizes the benefit to local economies.<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

A New Dialogue on Single Stream<\/h4>\n

David Bornstein\u2019s opinion piece in the New York Times has happily stimulated a healthy dialogue among recyclers. (The Conflict of Interest That is Killing Recycling<\/a><\/strong>, August 15, 2018).\u00a0[1]<\/a>\u00a0The key takeaway is that a critical activity such as recycling in U.S. cities should not be entrusted to consolidated companies whose main business is landfilling and incinerating garbage. This is an obvious conflict of interest that has been the focus of attention in the grassroots recycling movement for quite a while.<\/span><\/p>\n

Waste Reduction Resources in Fayetteville, Ark., for instance, has fought to protect the city\u2019s effective curb-sort recycling program from proponents of single stream. Its campaigner Louise Mann argues, \u201cSingle stream is not about sustainability. It\u2019s about communities relinquishing their recyclable resources to an industry whose [economic] bottom line depends on their continual generation of waste. Let\u2019s quit talking about diversion and get serious about waste aversion.\u00a0<\/span>[2]<\/a> Dan Knapp of <\/span>Urban Ore<\/a><\/strong> recently wrote, \u201cWaste Management and Republic mostly blame the public because they do not recycle right. Yet the big corporate guys didn\u2019t mention single-stream as a cause at all. Why should they, with all those sunk capital costs in expensive MRFs, still in need of collecting large quantities to be recovered?\u201d\u00a0<\/span>[3]<\/a><\/p>\n

<\/a><\/p>\n

Recycling is less than 10 percent of these companies\u2019 business and is less profitable than waste disposal. Landfilling and incineration can yield super profits. Wall Street has consistently warned Big Waste that recycling cuts into its bottom line.<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/a><\/p>\n

It\u2019s not that single stream cannot work. It can, if scale and ownership issues are planned and implemented correctly. In Boulder, Colo., <\/span>Eco-Cycle<\/a><\/strong> operates a 200 ton-per-day MRF that adequately processes materials to meet market specifications. Materials are clean and prices are good. Similarly in the Twin Cities, Minn., <\/span>Eureka Recycling<\/a><\/strong> operates a 300 ton-per-day MRF with a processing cost within the industry range of $50 to $75 per ton. Independent MRF operators can improve operations. Eureka\u2019s ongoing research shows that compaction rates in collection vehicles can impact the amount of residuals generated. (Residuals are materials that are rejected as non-recyclable at MRFs.) The higher the vehicle compaction rates, the more residuals.<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/a><\/p>\n

The inherent problems with single stream are compounded when materials are sent to mega MRFs (up 20,000 tons per month) operated by the consolidated companies and located far away from a city. Transportation costs surge. Often transfer stations are required to transfer material from smaller vehicles to large tractor trailers; these add costs and deteriorate the quality and value of recyclables. The goal of processing is mass throughput, not careful recycling, thus processed materials have up to 20 percent contamination and sometimes more.\u00a0<\/span>[4]<\/a><\/p>\n

We need to separate recycling collection and processing from garbage collection and disposal practices.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

How We Got Into This “Waste Knot”<\/strong><\/h4>\n

Historically the garbage-hauling industry was comprised of many local haulers throughout the U.S. Easy entry and low capital investment allowed companies to form, often owned and operated by immigrants. The economy of scale for efficient and profit-making firms was only a few trucks and a garage, with drivers, fleet mechanics, and a one-person sales force. Two waves of consolidation followed in the later 1950s and 1960s, and then again in the 1980s and 1990s. New companies with access to large amounts of capital, acquired small- and mid-sized local haulers to form national conglomerates. In most situations, efficiency did not improve, but profitability soared based on market share power. Funds for lobbying, cajoling, predatory pricing, and fisticuffs paved the way for consolidation.\u00a0<\/span>[5]<\/a><\/p>\n

Federal solid waste management regulations \u2013 spurred by growing environmental consciousness in the 1960s \u2013 gave rise to new landfill regulations in the 1970s and early 1980s. These regulations favored well capitalized companies, which could afford the plastic linings and leachate and methane recovery technologies that local governments and small landfill owners could not. (Leachate is the liquid that drains or leaches from a landfill.) The implementation of Subtitle D landfill regulations resulted in the closure of small community landfills, from 10,000 in 1980 to just over 6,000 in 1990 and fewer than 2,000 in 2000. The environmental movement fought for safer landfills with strong containment to prevent water, air, and land contamination. However, consolidated companies benefited from weaker and more ineffective liner requirements than originally proposed. Leachate collection methods that were unaffordable to local governments resulted in a tighter grip by these companies over waste disposal throughout the country.<\/span><\/p>\n

Now, four garbage-hauling firms hold at least 50 percent of the national market for solid waste management, and an even higher share in local markets, which allows them to dominate the market pricing. In addition, they influence and often determine local and national policies.<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

Reported 2017 annual revenue from the four largest consolidated waste hauling companies in U.S., in USD<\/h2>\n