The end of glass recycling in Laramie has been covered by the Branding Iron since ARK Regional Services announced the discontinuation of their glass program in October of 2013. Since then, several community organizations, RSOs, independent students and community members have expressed their discontent with the situation and we at the Branding Iron urge the city council, as well as the University of Wyoming and Laramie residents, to work together to find a long-term solution to the issue.
The council has paid considerable attention to the issue and we do not dismiss that effort. Vice Mayor Paul Weaver has been a vocal supporter since the talks began.
“One thing that’s clear is the city wants glass recycling,” Weaver said. “We need to find the best way because there is an expectation we can do that and I share that expectation.””
There seems little doubt the community is behind finding a solution and the city owes their residents progress. Seth Cude, President of the Sustainability Club, said his RSO has already done one petition drive and is currently in the middle of another that began in early April. Initially collecting approximately 670 signatures, Cude expects this drive to be even more successful in demonstrating student interest in the cause.
“At this point we have over 1,000 signatures,” Cude said. “We’re still getting very positive feedback.”
While there are those who are against the initiative, their logic is full of holes and unreasonable. Cude believes some are opposed to glass recycling because they believe it costs more than putting it in the landfill. Although he acknowledges there are upfront costs to a program, Cude said that belief is inaccurate. Rocky Mountain Bottle pays $20 per ton of separated glass and Laramie Solid Waste Manager Brooks Webb said it costs between $800 and $900 to transport 22 tons-seems like the math adds up in recycling’s favor.
“This is a city service that will save the municipalities money over the long run because of the increased lifespan of the landfill-which they are required to provide-and the citizens get charged when they build a new one,” Cude said. “You’re saving yourself money by extending the life of the existing landfill.”
During their last work session, Weaver said the city proposed an initiative to began glass collection at the landfill as soon as possible. Beginning by stockpiling glass until there is a large enough volume (the aforementioned 22 tons) to justify the cost of shipping the glass to Colorado, he said this “short term solution” would have to do until a long-term solution is reached.
While we understand the implementation of a program that may include an increase in fees for taxpayers can take time, it is important that this stay the short-term solution. If people are required to take their own recycling to the landfill, it will cost residents more in gas money and effort than it would have cost to pay for the city to find a long-term solution.
There is an inherent fear in conservative populations of any sort of tax increase, no matter how minuscule.
While it is certainly understandable to not want to rake over hard-earned money to the city, residents should also want to make the best place it can be. Webb reminds those concerned parties that the city is not trying to yield a profit by initiating a program that has to be paid for somehow.
“If you’re paying for the real cost of the program, that’s reasonable,” Webb said. “We’re the city, we can’t make a profit.
The fee that goes in place actually pays for the cost of the program-no more, no less.”
In terms of what the long-term solution would look like, Webb said it is not possible to include glass recycling in the curbside single stream program we use for other types of recycling. Instead, there would be collection points set up around the city, much like during the days of the ARK program. Residents seemed happy with this scenario in the past and given the circumstances, we believe it is the best path to take. Webb said the cost will vary on how the city decides to manage the program.
“Do we want two collection sites or 10?” Webb said. “That’s what the cost will depend on. It really depends on what the city council wants that to look like.”
We at the Branding Iron believe this proposition will be worth the cost. It is 2014 and we have understood for some time now how the squandering of resources and wasteful consumer lifestyles we lead have a grave impact on the world we live in. As Cude described, it is a “small investment with very real value.” We have a responsibility to future generations and to ourselves to take care of the communities and world we live in because to not do so is criminal.
We hope the city understands the short-term plan must not be the end of our endeavor with glass recycling. The Branding Iron urges readers to join us and voice their support to the city and university, encouraging those hard-working residents who have sought tirelessly to improve our world-one empty beer bottle at a time.
