There’s a great op-ed in the New York Times this week by Bharati Chaturvedi that looks at how the collapse in recylables markets has impacted those at the far end of the recycling food chain. Trash pickers, or as the author defines them, “sorters, traders and reprocessors who extricate paper, cardboard and plastics from garbage heaps and prepare them for reuse,” live essentially hand-to-mouth and have been devastated by the wallop to their livelihood. While many waste-handling companies and recycling processors are feeling an impact on their bottom line, these people lose their only source of income and support.

This is not a crisis limited to third-world countries and slums. Every urban area supports (and is supported by) trash pickers. Chaturvedi suggests government subsidies to keep recycling going in lean times along with some sort of federal registration so that these people don’t fall through the cracks. But both ideas strike me as wishful thinking. What can be done?

Earlier this week, U.S. Senators Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., and Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., introduced legislation to increase the recycling of electronics and to reduce the use of hazardous materials in the products. The Electronic Device Recycling Research and Development Act comes at a time when electronics manufacturers, state and local governments, waste handlers, environmentalists, and consumers are all crying out for consistency in the handling of e-waste. Trying to juggle 50 different sets of regulations for e-waste only ends up hurting everyone and makes compliance costly and difficult. It also prevents the establishment of large-scale domestic markets to process and use this material.

What components should be included in this legislation for it to be successful and what will help it meet the needs of the waste and recycling industry?

Yesterday, I stumbled across this shocking and disheartening collection of photos that show the very real consequences of pollution and irresponsible waste handling. They’re hard to shake. It would be easy to seek comfort by assuming that scenes like this are not possible in this country, and for the most part, that’s true. But that strikes me as a cop out.

The fact is, much of the material depicted in these faraway lands originated in or passed through the United States. And it is U.S.-based companies that deliver and heavily market these products (and product containers) overseas without providing any method for reclamation or helping to provide for proper disposal. There’s no escaping our complicity in what is an environmental and human tragedy.

Back when the economy was booming, San Francisco and several other U.S. cities were confident they could ban, tax or require the recycling of plastic shopping bags, considered a blight on the environment and a waste of resources.

But according to the New York Times, the deepening recession has caused most of those efforts to stall.

Momentum for imposing fees or bans has expanded from a few, often affluent, liberal cities on the West Coast — San Francisco was the first big city to ban plastic bags, in 2007 — to dozens of legislative proposals in states like Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts, Texas and Virginia.

Some officials say they fear a public backlash if they were to raise fees in an economic downturn; others say governments need the revenue now more than ever. Still others say a cleaner environment, not revenue, is their only goal.

Do you think these bans and fees should be implemented regardless of the economic climate? Will they be successful?

Here’s a interesting but frustrating story from KUOW in Washington State about a possible drawback to the state’s aggressive new e-waste law. Essentially, computers that might otherwise be easily retrofitted and redistributed to people and organizations in need are instead being broken down for salvage and recycling due to a provision of the law that insists that only “fully functional” computers are eligible for reuse.

The story quotes Charles Brennick, who runs Interconnect, a Seattle-based processor of donated computers:

“So if it’s like a year–old computer or whatever and the donor’s taken out their hard drive, that computer then is no longer functional. Then we’d have to send to state program. Easy fix is just putting in another hard drive. It’s a two–minute job. Put in another hard drive and the computer’s good again.”

Under the new law, however, that computer cannot be refurbished. It must be torn down for parts and recycled.

This goes to show that what is e-waste for some could be a lifeline for others. Sometimes the best way to “recycle” a computer is simply to give it to someone who needs it more than you.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency announced that, effective Jan. 18, the Office of Solid Waste (OSW) has been reorganized and renamed as the Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery (ORCR).

The reorganization consolidates complementary functions in order to achieve efficiencies in operations. This reorganization consolidates the four major areas of the Resource Conservation Challenge (RCC) under one division; combines data collection and data analysis activities thus streamlining operations to better coordinate EPA’s efforts to analyze and present the benefits of its program; and consolidates waste-to-energy activities in one division and branch.

Whether this change represents a fundamental shift in how the former OSW does business — perhaps in concert with the new administration — or is just a superficial make over remains to be seen. We can only hope that it reflects the federal government’s intention to make recycling and conservation a national priority.

The New York Times shines a spotlight on Houston, home to the nation’s largest waste handler in Waste Management, as well as to the worst recycling rate of any major metropolitan area in the nation.

Cheap land, a lack of political will, and an “independent streak” among the Houston populace translates into an anemic 2.6 recycling rate. Compare that to San Francisco at the opposite end of the spectrum, which recycles close to 70 percent of its waste, or New York, which is just above the national average at 34 percent.

“But city officials say real progress will be hard to come by. Landfill costs here are cheap. The city’s sprawling, no-zoning layout makes collection expensive, and there is little public support for the kind of effort it takes to sort glass, paper and plastics. And there appears to be even less for placing fees on excess trash.

‘We have an independent streak that rebels against mandates or anything that seems trendy or hyped up,’ said Mayor Bill White, who favors expanding the city’s recycling efforts. ‘Houstonians are skeptical of anything that appears to be oversold or exaggerated. But Houstonians can change, and change fast.’”



They’ll have to, lest the rest of the nation leave them behind.