Letter: Haverhill wants curbside recycling

Forum

Discussion

Welcome to our online comments feature. To join the discussion, you must first register with Disqus and verify your email address. Once you do, your comments will post automatically. We welcome your thoughts and your opinions, including unpopular ones. We ask only that you keep the conversation civil and clean. We reserve the right to remove comments that are obscene, racist or abusive and statements that are false or unverifiable. Repeat offenders will be blocked. You may flag objectionable comments for review by a moderator.

comments powered by Disqus

September 11, 2008

To the editor:

I have been canvassing our neighborhoods, and one issue is clear: Haverhill citizens want to expand curbside recycling. They understand both the global and local environmental needs and see long-term financial benefits for our city. I propose that Haverhill pilot single-stream recycling, benchmark the benefit/cost ratio, and then decide on full implementation.

Haverhill can undertake a pilot program similar to one recently completed in Boston. That curbside recycling program had promising results. Boston's pilot program in Jamaica Plain and Roslindale, for example, increased recycling by 53 percent.

With the challenges our world faces with global warming, the stakes are high. Government bodies are beginning to move into action. Witness California's Global Warming Act of 2006, and our own Global Warming Act recently passed by the Massachusetts Legislature. Many Haverhill citizens have already begun to make the changes in their personal lives to conserve energy: They are insulating homes, buying hybrid vehicles, and using CFL light bulbs. Some citizens even opt to pay a little more every month to get their electricity from renewable sources, through National Grid's "Green Up" program.

As many of you know, we have gotten by for years with curbside recycling of paper only because of the special deal the city struck with Covanta, reducing our cost of incinerating trash. We therefore have never had that intrinsic motivation many communities have to reduce the cost of trash incineration by reducing the total amount of trash collected by means of recycling.

However, we now have more important reasons for reducing the amount of trash incinerated: the less trash burned, the fewer emissions we release into the atmosphere. In the first decade of the 21st century, knowing what we know, it quite simply is the right — and moral — thing to do.

So if we agree that Haverhill must take advantage of this moment of transition, then what options do we have?

Team Haverhill, in its presentation this past July, made a very strong argument in favor of single-stream recycling. Single-stream refers to a single collection bin for all curbside recyclables (paper, glass, plastic, aluminum, etc.). Dual-stream, on the other hand, requires separation of the paper from the other recyclables, so that on trash/recycling day you would have three bins: one for trash, one for paper/cardboard, and one for all other recyclables. There are advantages and disadvantages to each: One reduces collection costs but doesn't yield as much return (single-stream), whereas the other has larger collection costs but yields higher returns.

The critical distinction that Team Haverhill made is in overall participation. Fewer people participate in dual-stream recycling programs because doing so requires more effort. And in order for the city to break even, we need a certain level of participation. The temptation will be to choose dual-stream if the responses to the city's request-for-proposals show modestly higher returns for dual-stream in the near term, but doing so might not bring about the level of participation we need to break even and earn money for the city over the long term. Further, paper prices have been rising steadily in the last year, and many believe that this high price cannot be sustained. When China finds that they have sufficient paper inventory for the near term, demand will fall and our paper revenue will drop. Finally, higher recycling rates throughout the Valley and the commonwealth would reduce the need for increased landfill and incineration capacity.

This is no time to protect the perceived bottom line. It is time to move forward, and the way forward points to a pilot for single-stream recycling. As Haverhill positions itself as a progressive community that is part of a revitalized Merrimack Valley in its attempt to attract new and innovative business, it will go far in attracting forward-thinking residents who expect a community to be picking up all recyclable items at the curb.

John Michitson

119 Kenoza St.

Haverhill