I remember my first Spring in Fairfield Iowa several years ago when it came time for the city wide annual “Trash and Brush” pickup. One day I woke up to find that every resident in the city decided to empty the contents of their garage and basement onto their front lawns.
At first I thought it was due to the heavy rain. “Oh that sucks! Looks like their basement flooded. Oh, and I guess their neighbor’s basement flooded too. “ Two blocks later, “Wow, this whole area must be in some sort of flood zone.”
Of course I started to catch on after driving several blocks (I’m not that slow).
I’ve lived in several metropolitan areas throughout the country and have never lived in a city that encouraged residents to stack piles of trash on their lawns for the city to pick up and take to the dump. If you had an old couch to get rid of, you either kept it because you were too lazy to haul it away or had no means of taking it to the dump, or if you did have the means to haul a couch away, you’d most likely end up dropping it off at a Salvation Army or thrift store. But here in Fairfield, you only have to drag it out to your curb for the trash fairies to come by and take it away for you.
I admit that at first I thought that having this service was nice. That perception changed last Spring when, around the time of the annual trash pickup for the South side of town, I saw the video The Story of Stuff. And again this Fall, as I drove on the North side of town where residents prepared for their annual trash pickup I thought about the juxtaposition of The Story of Stuff and Fairfield’s annual trash pickup.
On one hand, The Story of Stuff presents a compelling criticism of American consumerism, and how our current habits around use and disposal of “stuff’ is unsustainable. On the other hand the Fairfield annual trash pick up promotes excess consumerism by encouraging disposal without any reward for recycling, reducing or reusing. That set of cheap plastic lawn furniture you bought two summers ago? Just toss it out to the curb and go buy another cheap set at Walmart.
Consider for a moment if there was NO annual trash pickup here in Fairfield. If you wanted to get rid of a bunch of “stuff”, you’d need to haul it to the dump yourself. You’d have to pay for the disposal and you’d see first hand the scale of waste management operations, the smell of trash and all the other stuff people are dumping.
Fairfield’s Go-Green Strategic Plan includes objectives to “Establish Fairfield as a model Waste to Energy community / Waste to Resource community”, which is a fancy way of saying they want to minimize waste. To that end I would propose the goal of eliminating the city wide annual trash pickup, and instead use a fraction of that budget to fund “recycle, reduce, reuse” education and initiatives.
I’m interested to hear what other people think about the annual trash pickup. Do you think it sends the wrong message? Would you support eliminating the service entirely?
Related articles by Zemanta
- Recycle, reuse for Earth’s sake (timesunion.com)
- No Impact Week: Trash (huffingtonpost.com)
- Quebec spending $650M to cut household waste (cbc.ca)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=43e7d13c-b228-410b-8686-e60df38d3c94)
I somewhat disagree with your perspective. I think the city should maintain the trash pick-up, but educate residents more on r, r, and r'ing. On one hand, I do agree that it promotes consumerism and allows people to be less responsible for their own good. On the other hand, it does promote sustainability–have you seen the number of people who drive around and actually do grab up "stuff" they could reuse in their own homes? In the past, I have seen my garbage pile shrink to almost nothing as people came to take things they could use. I've done the same; I've found furniture items and stuff to re-use for art projects. I have even put two couches and a door out during "non-garbage" periods; they were gone by morning. And they were FREE which for some people is very important in this economy. Finally, I must say you've raised a good point. It is sad to see the amount of stuff that goes to waste and how some people abuse the idea of garbage pick-up. (I especially wonder why people can't compost their brush.) Perhaps a stronger focus on education could help people become more conscious of their junk…so to speak.
Two thoughts:
I really dislike the 2-4 weeks every year we have to look at those piles.
If there was no pick-up, rural roads would be dumped upon a lot more often. It already happens to our neighborhood, then we have to haul it to the dump and pay the fees.
But, yeah, we have too much stuff.
You're right Kevin, there is a LOT of people the come out to collect what other people consider trash, to take home and either sell, sell for scrap or reuse themselves. I remember last year I put out half a dozen items and within a couple days I had half a dozen DIFFERENT items sitting in my yard. Apparently someone decided the stuff I had out was better than the stuff they picked up elsewhere in town – lol!
I'm trying to think of a program that would offset my biggest issue with the annual trash pickup – my perception that it undermines the "reduce" part of "recycle, reduce, reuse". I find the annual trash pickup to be the epitome of a "Walmart" culture where we accumulate cheap, disposal goods, without consideration for the real cost of consuming in this fashion.
There's got to be a better way. A way that has sustainable eduction and lessons integrated into the program, and a way the (as yermama points out) doesn't create other nasty habits.
I'm with Will on this one. The free annual pick-up makes it too easy for people to "throw away" their unwanted stuff. As a friend of mine on Facebook posted recently: There is no "away." It's convenient to have anything you no longer want or need picked up and taken to the dump for you, but it sends the wrong message and is too expensive (about $60,000/year).
Kevin's point about reusing and recycling are valid, but there are other ways to encourage that than the annual trash pick-up. Fairfield Free-cycle/Buy-cycle is an example of an exchange program where people either give away (free-cycle) or sell (buy-cycle) their unwanted stuff, thus keeping it out of the landfill (at least a little longer). If people can no longer haul their stuff to the curb for free pick-up then they'll become a lot more creative in finding ways to pass it along, so I foresee even more reuse programs sprouting up as a result of ending the pick-up. The City can facilitate these programs as alternatives to dumping.
Yermama has a good point about the rural dumping problem, but I don't think the City taking on the burden of managing people's junk is the solution. If the City discontinues the free annual trash pick-up then we would have the funds to possibly purchase a vehicle that can suck up leaves and chip brush, hauling it away to be composted, thus solving the leaf burning issue (residents would only have to rake their leaves and brush to the curb). So in essence the brush pick-up would continue, the trash would be discontinued, and leaf pick-up would be included free of charge. That scenario is much more sustainable and in line with our community's desire to Go Green.
In short, don't be surprised if the new council member (me) sets things in motion to end the annual trash pick-up. The City's funds can be used for far better uses than hauling away people's junk.
You're right Kevin, there is a LOT of people the come out to collect what other people consider trash, to take home and either sell, sell for scrap or reuse themselves. I remember last year I put out half a dozen items and within a couple days I had half a dozen DIFFERENT items sitting in my yard. Apparently someone decided the stuff I had out was better than the stuff they picked up elsewhere in town – lol!
I'm trying to think of a program that would offset my biggest issue with the annual trash pickup – my perception that it undermines the "reduce" part of "recycle, reduce, reuse". I find the annual trash pickup to be the epitome of a "Walmart" culture where we accumulate cheap, disposal goods, without consideration for the real cost of consuming in this fashion.
There's got to be a better way. A way that has sustainable eduction and lessons integrated into the program, and a way the (as yermama points out) doesn't create other nasty habits.
The Story of Stuff is entertaining but misguided. It appeals to our natural instincts to fear waste, our feeling that no new wealth can be created, and plays on our natural inclination to believe that something is wrong when some people become very rich. None of these ideas are necessarily true.
The video encourages us to indulge in our instinctive fears, and many of its arguments are unmistakably false.
The trash collection costs about $6 per resident. In my opinion it encourages free exchange and re-use more efficiently than web barter systems. I may be willing to put my old things on the curb, but would not bother to list them all online, set up appointments to meet potential buyers, etc. I wouldn't mind seeing the service removed, but suspect that people who cannot afford a hauling service will find less desirable places to dump unwanted things and or burn them.
Fears of running out of landfill space are not very worrisome; we could put all the trash currently produced by the entire United States for the next 1,000 years in a single landfill 100 yards deep and 20 miles wide.
I just moved to Fairfield, but where I moved from had a very active Freecycle community with a deliberate goal of keeping more stuff out of landfills. It was always amazing to me how much stuff moved on those lists. One person's junk was another persons vintage fixer upper.
I just met with the third of seven city council members and was told that the annual trash pick-up is already close to being discontinued. It most likely comes down to budgetary reason since 2010 is expected to be extra tight (with state budget cuts and a slower economy).
Since there is a lot of re-use that occurs when the stuff is put out by the curb the new policy could be to put out your stuff, let people take what they want, and PAY for the city to take the rest. Some might say "Pay twice" if you consider that the annual trash pick-up is paid for in our monthly WaterWorks bills, which is a topic I'll bring up to the chair of the Ways and Means committee when I meet with him next month.
I envision that a very large portion of the City Council's effort to help Fairfield become more sustainable will NOT come from new ordinances, fines, and/or new taxes, but in facilitating communications between existing community groups. When you give people more options and make going green as easy as possible then you've got a recipe for success. Forcing things down people's throats has never and will never work, so keep the good ideas coming because it will be YOUR ideas that will make this town and even more awesome place to live.
"I doubt any cost estimates exist for cleaning up rural dumping because the land owners that are 'gifted" the trash become responsible for it unless the offending party is caught in the act."
Precisely. And catching the dumper is almost impossible. We had trash dumped on my neighborhood road that even had old bills, mail, etc with one particular person's name on it. We thought we'd finally caught the dumper. Wrong. Unless a dumper is caught in the act, there is no legal recourse, according to the sheriff. It's the price we pay for living in rural paradise – that and fear of a CAFO moving in next door.
Almost makes you want to post the name of the person on the mail.
Wheeeee! We were taking our recycling out to Waste Management/Stevers on Libertyville Road this morning a scored an energy efficient $200-300 dehumidifier from guys with a truck. They were emptying an old house and just throwing stuff away. They gave it to use for free because they avoided the appliance fee for disposal. Yay for spontaneous freecycle!!!!
I'm lurking at this site because my daughter is a student at MUM and loves Fairfield. It was refreshing for me to read the posts here: people actually talking with community members about a goal of a greener community, and a committment to facilitate that.
Years ago, an acquaintance told me about Oktoberfest in Germany where he had once lived. During that week of festivities, people placed on their front stoops or sidewalks serviceable items they no longer wanted. The community being Germany, many of these items were antique furnishings in impeccable condition–for FREE. Our culture being what it is, such a community practice might not have the same allure. Then again, we all have things that we no longer need. "Massage" the concept a bit, and it might work in the US.
Habitat for Humanity Re-stores have sprung up in many communities here in Oregon. They do a great service of keeping usable construction materials out of landfills. I got all our doors, several of our "new" double pane, "low E" windows, tile and trim, and some light fixtures and cabinets for our home remodel at their stores in Portland and more locally. Hopefully these are something you already know well and use!
I totally agree with the assessment that composting the community's leaves and brush would be a better use for community funds than hauling stuff to the landfill for free.
Aloha
Who needs to wait for trash pick-up to freecycle? Whenever we have something we don't need any more that has some servicable life left in it (and is not worth the trouble of selling), we put it on our front lawn with a sign that says free. Things almost always disappear before the next time we have a chance to look. And for no effort at all we've gotten rid of something we don't need and have that warm feeling that someone has now has something they need without having to go out and buy it.
Yes, that certainly works. And an organized freecycle weekend which includes a central spot for county residents to offer up items as well would accomplish many things:
1. help some of us get rid of unwanted items
2. help some of us procure free items we need
3. build general awareness of the value of re-use/recycle so less stuff ultimately ends up in the landfill
4. raise Fairfield's profile as a blooming green community and increase our eligibility for green grants/funds for other green projects.
5. help us act as a role model for other communities to go green.
Adding a group dynamic to several things already happening individually can ultimately increase all green advantages.
if this topic comes up for a city council committee I will be there to discuss the topic. There have been many comments pro and con. If we really want what is best for the community long term, the pick up needs to be continued — with some modifications. And, the up front short term cost should be a consideration, but NOT at the top of the list.
What is your suggestion for continuing the pickup with modifications?
The most inspiring example of turning trash into usable treasure I've seen is in Oakland, CA:http://www.creativereuse.org/ For an artist, it's heaven. Their emphasis is on putting the items back into circulation in the context of education.
There are at least two other Council members that have proposed the idea of ending the program. Or at least that was my perception when I was regularly attending Council meetings this past summer.
Just to be clear, the pick is not "free" – the costs are included in the solid waste fee we pay on the water bill, however I don't expect to see any rollback in that fee if the service stops.
yermama is correct about the likelihood of increased rural dumping, the consume less mentality won't change overnight even if the collection policy does.
I'll be meeting with all the other council members between now and when I start in January and will discuss this issue with each of them. Three Council members can't make it happen, but four can.
I fully support the idea of ending the trash pick-up and instituting the leaf vacuuming program instead. Go Michael, go!
Agreed. So what to do? I say:
1) Stop the program
2) Take 50% of those funds and spend them on education and incentives that move use towards a more sustainable model in terms of waste disposal, as well as enforcement of improper waste disposal
3) Don't collect the other 50% next year.
I realize that the hard part is all in #2. But I've been thinking it over and researching it and we actually have the foundation for this component in the Mayor's Go-Green Strategic Plan.
Looking at my most recent Waterworks bill I was charged $6.80 for Garbage and $2.65 for Recycling. If the revenue for conducting the annual trash pick-up comes from those fees and those revenues were moved to another waste management issue then I doubt that anybody is going to get angry over it. Having said that I also must admit that I'm surprised over the things that people choose to get angry over, so I could very well be wrong.
The cost for cleaning up random rural dumping will be far less than the city-wide annual pick-up, so if we as a community decide our tax money is better spent in other ways (e.g. investing in an alternative to leaf burning) then in the end it's the fiscally responsible thing to do.
I love the idea of an alternative to leaf burning, but education may be good to divert some funds to as well. Ok, so while we're on the topic of trash – the kicker, and Michael, you may need to confirm this – is that my understanding is that the contract between Waste Management and the City states that the ONLY way that they will pick up regular trash, on regular trash days is if there is recycling accompanying the trash in the green bins. ???
"The cost for cleaning up random rural dumping will be far less than the city-wide annual pick-up" While it might seem obvious that that is the case, I would suggest that the problem of rural dumping is quite a bit bigger than most people think and it isn't addressed by either the city or the county – that I am aware of. I doubt any cost estimates exist for cleaning up rural dumping because the land owners that are 'gifted" the trash become responsible for it unless the offending party is caught in the act. Often times the trash is dumped in areas that make retrieval difficult at best. Besides, the city certainly isn't going to pay for picking up trash dumped outside the city limits, it creates all sort of problems, legal and otherwise. I say let the residents decide if they want to keep the program. If they do let them pony up the extra $25-30 per house/year (or whatever the fee is) to do it. For an extra $3/month (my guesstimate) I suspect the majority would want to keep the tradition alive. Just my sleep deprived two cents…my mind may change by morning…
Mark you are correct about the code requiring recycling. It is a huge landfill issue. We could make a considerable dent in solid waste deposits in the landfill if only someone would require Waste Management to collect the trash per the code. Of course any item in the bin will qualify the residence for pick up – so it's certainly not fool proof. But a windshield survey in any part of town on trash day will show you how many people choose not to participate at all.
Here is the city code section:
7.06.090 Violation–Penalty.
Commencing July 1, 1993, failure to exhibit participation in and cooperation with the city recycling
program by the placement for collection of the provided recycling bin, partially full or full, on the scheduled
days shall result in the omission of collection of all solid waste for the particular day of violation. (Ord. 833
§ 9, 1992).
The landfill space seems to be a concern for us. SEMCO is quickly filling the newest 1 million dollar cell (as I recall in a fraction of the time it was supposed to last).
I don't know about your 1000 year landfill (you left one dimension off). The problem, even if true, is transportation. How much is too much to transport trash around the nation/earth to dump it into a hole?
The argument I'm making has nothing to do with landfill space, but rather how we consume.
However, there is also an argument to be made not about the SIZE of landfills, but the COMPOSITION of landfills. The pollution coming from the leaching that occurs in landfills is well documented.
I completely disagree with you about the underlying messages in The Story of Stuff. It brings up the true point that in natural systems there is no "waste": everything is food to some organism (usually microbes). Matter is cycled through these systems over and over again without depleting the resource base. It's the very heart of the whole "sustainability" issue, and educating people about the reality of how resource extraction has historically been handled is not a bad thing.
And I also disagree that it puts wealth in a negative light. The criticism centers on exploitation of people and environments, which is driven by a corporate culture that puts the bottom line above all else (it's the inherent framework that's flawed, not the "evil" CEO's who are just doing their jobs). If we did as many have suggested and included "natural capital" in our assessment of wealth then the current extraction/materialism set-up is actually stripping our planet's wealth. Shopping addiction is very real, getting a sense of self-worth through material possessions is something we've all experienced, and given the current un-sustainability of production creation I think curbing our collective desire for more and more is an important piece of the sustainability puzzle.
You describe The Story of Stuff as if it's some sort of opinion piece you'd find on FOX news. Yet it has substantial reference to back up their arguments. And honestly, I don't agree with your premise that we have a natural fear of waste and wealth. Are you associating wealth with all the disposable crap you can buy at Walmart?
I must completely misunderstand the point you're trying to make.
I understand The Story of Stuff as a call to action on how we as a society need to be more responsible in how we consume, and be better caretakers of the earth.
Mark's right about the SEMCO cell filling up very quickly – they're already planning where their next cell will go. And Lyric, where do you get your facts? Landfill space is a HUGE issue in many parts of the country precisely for the reason Mark stated: transportation. The cities where the most trash is produced (specifically on the East Coast) don't have the wide open spaces we enjoy in the Midwest, and to move all their trash to a pit somewhere else is expensive, inefficient, and further polluting.
You might be too young to remember the barge of trash going up and down the East Coast looking for a place to unload in 1987: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobro_4000
Waste management is still a big problem in NYC, where recycling rules are very strict and people are fined for throwing a recyclable item in the trash. I'm not a big fan of fines, so I'd prefer to a less punitive tactic to encourage more people to reduce, reuse, and recycle.
The landfill would be 20 miles wide and 20 miles long, 100 yards deep. The calculation came from an article in the NY Times, which I confirmed by doing the calculation myself. Compaction technology is improving, but as we need to ship waste further, prices will rise until residents reduce and recycle because they not longer wish to pay the high cost of garbage removal.
With a price system in place, garbage production will reduce in tandem with shipping and landfill use costs.
For Fairfield, the landfill would need to be about 200 yards square and 100 yards deep to accommodate all of our trash for the next 1,000 years.
I dragged us into the landfill issue, sorry
Getting back on topic, indeed, there is a big issue around what people recycle in ANY way versus what ends up in the landfill. I think that not unlike anything else, a combination of education, code that is enforced (fines or no fines) and innovative programs like perhaps Freecycling as referenced in a later comment, are the way to go. Will, if I understand Freecycling correctly, perhaps we need to add a Freecycling forum to FFV. Could be as easy as adding a section to the Classifieds?
I haven't done much research on the leaching or pollution that landfills generate, but I know that modern landfills attempt to build foundations and venting systems that will eliminate groundwater problems and store the methane generated for use as a clean burning fuel.
The role of the Council totally makes sense to me. I believe that much of good governing is facilitation, not simply brute force. Thanks so much for being an active participant (before you even take office) and sharing your insights. Looking forward to when you'll be making a difference for Fairfield everyday!
"I envision that a very large portion of the City Council's effort to help Fairfield become more sustainable will NOT come from new ordinances, fines, and/or new taxes, but in facilitating communications between existing community groups. When you give people more options and make going green as easy as possible then you've got a recipe for success."
I agree mostly with that statement. Although I do believe there needs to be a minimum bar for enforcement and regulation. Codes aren't just about enforcement, they also provide guidance and clarity.
This is great news though Michael.
That's a priorities issue. There should be stiff penalties and *motivation* to catch and punish people who dump trash illegally. Very disappointing to hear that yermama.
Someone once dumped a bunch of office stuff on some land I use to own out by Vedic City, complete with name, address, and phone number all over their mail. I called the guy and told him, and he apologized saying he paid a guy with a truck to "take care of it for him" and had not idea the guy would dump it. In the end he paid someone else to come out and pick it all off my land – I just hope it wasn't then dumped in yermama's neighborhood!
Yes, stiff penalties would help deter dumping, as well as more option of what to do with unwanted stuff. The file cabinets dumped on my land were in perfect working order, and most of the mail could have been recycled. The easier it is NOT to dump the less dumping there will be.
Yes, you're right, Will. There will inevitably need to be codes (and enforcement of those codes) to move away from certain "bad habits." If the majority of the community decides that certain behavior needs to change yet some people want to continue there have to be consequences to breaking the law. My point that I don't want to see creating and enforcing new laws as the fall-back tactic for moving Fairfield in a more sustainable direction.
Michael,
I have read about the Mobro incident. The barge's failure to dock was not because the United States is running out of landfill space; it was rumored that the barge contained medical waste, and each docking station rejected it because of the rumor.
"The ship set off from Islip, NY, carrying more than 3,000 tons of trash and made way for Morehead City, NC, where the rotting heap was to be converted into methane. But rumors persisted that it contained medical waste, and it was rejected."
http://www.todayscampus.com/rememberthis/load.asp...
http://www.indopedia.org/Mobro_4000.html
Here is the NY Times article on recycling, which comments on landfill space and states that a 35 mile square will be sufficient to hold all of our trash till the year 3000.
I looked up the total trash production and avg compaction densities and found that to be a conservative estimate. A 35 mile square, by my calculations, would last until about the year 3500, assuming no new technology and no growth of the population.
The solution for NYC and expensive, polluting, and dirty transport is simply to raise the price of trash service to match demand. People will reduce production of waste and increase recycling as the price of removal rises.
If you take a closer look at the references for The Story of Stuff, you'll find some gross errors, including the claims that 50% of government spending is for military, and that we have lost 80% of our original forests.
The primary message is that we are destroying the earth and the third world when we buy cheap products, and that the products are cheap because the externalities of production (pollution and destruction of the workers and environment) are not included in the price.
The realities of the situation are more complex, but we are inclined to believe it as simple as the film implies because of our natural tendency to think of wealth as a zero sum game (where one man wins only at the expense of another) and abhor waste. The film prays on our ignorance of basic economics and general failure to understand the source of wealth on earth.
Wealth is not created when the people, trees, mountains and streams of the third world are devastated. It is created when anyone on earth creates something of value, or improves the lives of those around him.
I think we can all agree here.
Make wasteful consumption expensive (it's now cheap) and ethical consumption easier (it's now more difficult).
Military Spending – you looked that number up online? If you did you'll see a number between 20%-30%. But that doesn't account for all the other spending that's contained in other categories. Like discretionary spending or whatever they call it. I'll pull out the reference, but I read an interesting on the Industrial Military Complex last year that put the number around 50%, and that's probably where they are getting their number.
It's hard to answer your objection to the film since you portray anyone who watches it as ignorant and paranoid. Which is obviously untrue. I'm surprised to find someone more cynical than I am
We'll have to agree to disagree here – the core principal of the film is accurate, it does a solid job of explaining basic economics, and correctly relates the production of goods to the law of entropy (regardless of how you wish to define "wealth").
Having said that, I challenge you to write a post that explains your viewpoint on the basic economics involved in getting a $5 alarm clock on the shelves of every Walmart in America (for example).
The source cited for military spending considers Medicare and Medicaid (33% of spending) to be a trust account. It is not; they are funded in the same way as other government spending.
I don't know about paranoid, I would guess that at least 50% of the United States is economically illiterate.
Not unless we want more dumped by our "friend." He knows unless we catch him/whoever in the act, we are helpless…..
you've connected with Jefferson County Freecycle?
What a great thing the Mayor and City Council could "sponsor" as a replacement for the city pick up.
"We're taking away the trash pickup, BUT, we're going to host a citywide freecycle day".