Lately you may have noticed that I’ve been somewhat vocal over on my Twitterstream regarding question #1 on next month’s Maine ballot. I understand that many people are turned off when people express their political views online, and frankly, I feel it often hurts more than it helps. On certain issues, though, I feel that it is important to speak about my beliefs in an effort to educate others why I believe in a particular cause.
I’ve found that I fall into one of four categories for almost every political topic.
- I don’t know enough information about the topic to make an informed decision.
- I don’t care about a topic enough to have an opinion either way.
- I have an opinion about a topic, but I can understand the opposition.
- I have an opinion about a topic, but I don’t understand why anyone could have a reasonable argument for support of the other side.
The first two positions are pretty self-explanatory. The healthcare debate is a great example of the first: the issues just seem to complex for me, and I feel it’s better left to those who know more about the topic. The second actually covers most legislation and, unfortunately, most local elections. (I’ve always wanted to do something about that.)
The last two options are a bit more complicated. Personally I like to think that I’m more politically tolerant of differing viewpoints than most people; sure, I have my own opinions about how things should be done, but I understand that not everyone will agree. Questions 3, 4, and 5 on this year’s ballot fit nicely into this category.
Question 1 falls into the final category. In short I haven’t heard a logical justification to support those who believe this law should not be in place. I’m still looking for someone to explain the other side to me in rational terms. (To his credit, gubernatorial candidate Matt Jacobson came close in an interview with Pine Tree Politics but ended up falling flat.)
I guess I’m vocal about political issues when I have trouble understanding why anyone could oppose the views I hold on an issue. If politics isn’t your cup of tea (or can of Moxie, in this case), sit tight. We’ll be back to regular programming soon.
I received an email from city council candidate Cary Weston today regarding the recent proposal to begin a per-bag solid waste fee for Bangor residents. While this proposal is undoubtedly unpopular by itself, the justification provided in the message seemed downright wrong to me. The email said that many Bangor residents asked the following question:
Why should the majority of tax payers in Bangor subsidize a [curbside recycling] program being used by only a small percentage?
I’ve always been passionate about recycling and reducing waste, but in the interests of keeping this entry relatively short, I’ll focus on a couple of points.
The benefits of recycling
In any society – especially one in which mass consumption tends to be the norm – waste is an unfortunate yet extremely visible consequence. New landfills are passionately debated among nearby residents, and those that already exist are fought by those who see and smell their contents every day.
Recycling, on the other hand, is a clean alternative. Recycling reduces waste by allowing materials to live a second, third, or tenth life, and it delays the growth of landfills by keeping materials in the consumer stream longer. Recycling is becoming easier to do with the adoption of single-stream recycling, in which materials do not need to be sorted before entering the recycling process.
And there’s also a financial incentive: recycling generates revenue and municipalities are compensated for the materials, as opposed to the costly process of traditional solid waste disposal.
The benefits of a per-bag fee
Solid waste disposal is costly. Trash must be collected, ideally transported to an incinerator to reduce its volume, and then shipped to the landfill. The landfill must be monitored and supervised over its extensive lifetime, and the area feels its effects long after its closure.
Municipalities take on this cost and pass it onto residents through taxes. The per-bag fee system is a much more reasonable way to distribute costs; those who generate more trash in turn pay a larger portion of the collection and disposal fees for the municipality. Those that only generate a small amount of waste are charged less. The municipality, in turn, covers a larger portion of its disposal fees while encouraging its residents to find alternate means of disposal.
Charging a disposal fee may also lead consumers to make more environmentally responsible choices when they buy, including everything from buying in bulk to using reusable bags when they shop.
What should the question be?
What would be a better question instead of the one proposed at the top of this post? The answer is pretty simple: why aren’t more people recycling? In many cases, people don’t recycle due to the relative ease of throwing something away versus sorting it in some sort of receptacle. Most people don’t understand the complete environmental and financial benefits of recycling, and as a result they choose the easiest path for disposal (the trash bin) over the more sensible one.
In addition to being a fairer option for residents, a per-bag waste fee offers an incentive to consider recycling as a way to save money, and the “program being used by only a small percentage” will be used by a larger portion of residents over time. As they do, the municipality not only slows the growth of local landfills but also saves money by shifting a larger portion of its waste from a costly disposal option to one that costs much less money (and may even generate revenue).
I know which option I’d choose.
Update: In my original post it was not entirely clear who had asked the question at the top of this post. I went back and changed the first paragraph to clarify that the question at the top was an opinion voiced by some Bangor residents.
