The official student newspaper of University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire since 1923.

The Spectator

The official student newspaper of University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire since 1923.

The Spectator

The official student newspaper of University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire since 1923.

The Spectator

Recycling program needs re-evaluation

We were the first generation to have it beaten into our heads so thoroughly.

Grade school classes, Saturday morning cartoons and even McDonald’s preached to us about the importance of recycling.

It was up to us to preserve the environment. It was our responsibility to save the planet.

We had a whole new three “Rs” to learn in school, “Reduce, Reuse and Recycle.”

Story continues below advertisement

But using one of those old fashioned “Rs” arithmetic (how is that an “R” again?), we find out that recycling isn’t all it’s cracked up to be.

One of Gov. Scott McCallum’s many budget cuts due to the $1 million deficit the state is running comes in the recycling department.

A recent state survey found that 75 percent of Wisconsinites are strongly committed to separating their garbage for recycling and 98 percent said they recycle at least some of their garbage.

But all of this recycling isn’t cost-effective, according to a recent report in a Legislative Audit. While the average cost of collecting and disposing of waste in a Wisconsin landfill is $85, the average cost of recycling a ton of waste is $95.

Add to that the way the state hands out money to subsidize these programs and the program looks like it’s the one that should be rinsed out, crushed and tossed in a blue recycling bin.

Currently, the state doles out $24.5 million in grants for local recycling programs, but McCallum wants to reduce that to $14 million and $13.5 million during the next two years.

One of the big problems is how the money gets handed down. There are 1,010 government units that receive grants based on the percentage of participation in the recycling program. Twenty-five percent of communities failed to reach the standards to secure their aid.

But that didn’t stop the DNR from failing to enforce yet another law it’s responsible for, because almost all of those communities collected your tax dollars, $5.1 million to be exact.

But this lack of cost effectiveness doesn’t mean the state should cut recycling programs. The DNR estimates that recycling prevents enough waste every 1.1 to 1.7 years to fill the average-sized landfill.

Not only that, but the DNR reports that manufacturers who use Wisconsin recyclables instead of extracting new resources save enough energy to provide 302,000 homes with all of their heating, cooling and electrical needs.

The government and businesses have combined to spend more than $1 billion since the program started in 1990. But in one year, manufacturers who use recycled materials also reduce the greenhouse gas emissions by almost 32,000 tons and decreased air emissions equivalent to those of 2 million cars.

There is no question the state has to keep recycling programs but it’s time for state legislators to do what they were paid to do.

In the early 1990s, recycling and being environmentally friendly was the en vogue thing to do. There were plenty of press and photo opportunities for anyone who wanted to get involved.

But now people see how cost ineffective the program is. When the state legislature meets next it needs to use three more “Rs” to solve the problems.

First it needs to Review the grant program. Then it formally needs to Revise it so the taxpayers money isn’t wasted and then it needs to Report to the people and tell them how they have made this invaluable program even better.

Leave a Comment
More to Discover

Comments (0)

The Spectator intends for this area to be used to foster healthy, thought-provoking discussion. Comments are expected to adhere to our standards and to be respectful and constructive. As such, we do not permit the use of profanity, foul language, personal attacks or the use of language that might be interpreted as libelous. The Spectator does not allow anonymous comments and requires a valid email address. The email address will not be displayed but will be used to confirm your comments.
All The Spectator Picks Reader Picks Sort: Newest

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Activate Search
Recycling program needs re-evaluation