The Northeast is running out of space for trash. Land is expensive and scarce, so we ship waste out of state. MassDEP’s goal to reduce trash 30% by 2030 from a 2018 baseline is falling short — by some estimates we’re above where we started. Arbitrary quotas without real education are bound to fail.
Some states — California, New Jersey and others — have limited virgin plastics in packaging and shifted responsibility for reducing plastics use to producers. California leads with innovative programs like recycled carpet drop-off centers. Massachusetts and our town can do more, and we’re not doing enough.
Why can’t we reduce waste the way Europeans and Japanese do? It comes down to behavior — how we dispose of food and recycle plastics. Earth Day events and recycling bins help, but we need to teach proper recycling habits and sustainable living starting in schools, early and consistently.
Trash fees above set thresholds won’t solve the problem — they’ll just shift it. Standardized curbside bin size limits are equally counterproductive. Residents may cut or crush containers to fit more in, but modern AI-powered sorting machines identify containers by shape. Altering that shape undermines recycling efficiency. Nesting smaller containers inside larger ones creates the same problem. Residents should be encouraged to dispose of containers as-is. If we recycle improperly, burden shifts to recycler who can shred and sort any plastic and metal containers. But shredding on-site increases energy use and slows the process.
Worse, residents who run out of bin space may simply toss recyclables in the trash. That’s the opposite of the behavior town wants to reinforce. Additionally, bin limits also disadvantage bulk shoppers — Costco customers for instance generate more packaging volume through no fault of their own. Limit on recycling bin encourages shopping one place and not the other.
Towns need creative solutions that encourage recycling and sustainable living rather than penalize residents. In our household, composting has cut our trash volume in half. Our town already offers a free composting program — we simply need to promote it more aggressively.
The path forward is education, producer responsibility, and smart infrastructure — not fees and bin mandates that push behavior in the wrong direction. It may not be common knowledge but recycling industry is making tremendous progress. Plastic recyclers can produce recycled feedstock at rates up to 95%. We just need to put plastic in a bin and leave it at the curbside for collection.
Fred Tahmasian
The town very explicitly is not trying to limit recycling. They described it as remaining “free and unlimited.” At some point, if you’re, say, asking for a fifth 64-gallon recycling bin, they might have to impose a cutoff (which would be true even if the referendum vote had gone the other way), but I am confident the recycling collection system will be designed to make it very difficult to reach any cap.
Given that, I think your letter is rather far off the mark. But to address your other claims:
* Trash fees empirically do reduce total waste, not just shift it. PAYT is in fact one of the ways both Europe and Japan reduce waste.
* Extended producer responsibility is a neat idea, but it is not something we as a town can control. EPR, and even just updating the bottle bill to be where it should have been 25 years ago (sponsored by our local state rep), seem to be dead for this state legislative session, so for direct reduction efforts, we’re left with using the meager tools we have at the local level. And use them we have: https://www.lexingtonma.gov/2191/Plastic-Use-Reduction Just this year, we also adopted “skip the stuff” as the latest modest measure on this front.
* The research I’m aware of is not nearly as sanguine about the “tremendous progress” that plastic recyclers have made as you are; plastic recycling has fundamental limitations, at least as long as “virgin plastic” remains cheap. Nevertheless, it’s better than nothing, and so we continue to support and promote it.