After budgeting $35,000 for marketing “Think Recycle,” the University of Idaho’s recycling reboot, and detailing a 24-page sustainability action plan, one might assume that the state of UI’s recycling is nothing but excellent.
However, the average diversion rate of 19% in 2023, as given by Olivia Wiebe, sustainability manager at UI, speaks truth to the fact that the program is not as successful as the university wants, with a target diversion rate of 30%.
The biggest problem with recycling on campus is the lack of student participation and proper education, according to Friday Hibbard, UI’s recycling lead.
“The issue here is that… some users are still unsure of the exact rules of recycling and, more often than not, do not speak up about this,” Hibbard said about the lack of recycling education. “I find myself a year later still answering basic questions about the program to staff, faculty, and students, as the route to gain this info is either unknown to them, or they haven’t read the provided information available online.”
Hibbard said that there wasn’t a lack of information available but rather a lack of initiative to read the information.
“We have posters placed at every bin and The Daily Register has links to recycling information quite often,” she said. “There’s not much that we can do here to ameliorate this ignorance; we can’t force users to read our posters or online information. The only solution that may help is a mandatory annual training about solid waste and recycling, but that is a large and expensive task to accomplish.”
She also spoke about the lack of participation.
“Some users are also anxious about recycling, believing that a single small bit of contamination, like one ring on a bottle or a tiny bit of soda in the bin, contaminates the whole bin. I have caught people throwing out good recycling due to this misplaced anxiety,” said Hibbard. “Yes, we need to avoid as much contamination as possible, but we are allowed a small allotment of contamination without turning the whole batch into landfill waste. When I’m removing whole meals, milkshakes, tools, wood, clothes, wires and hardware, computer parts, coffee, and foam products, an empty sticky can is not a concern.”
Hibbard mentioned how a lack of communication may also play a role in the shortage of recycling, recounting a specific instance where she was approached by a user who didn’t have enough recycling bins. This had apparently been a problem for the better part of a year and, instead of contacting the recycling team, the user’s department resorted to throwing their recycling away into the landfill bin.
With the new recycling initiative starting in April 2023, the university decided to switch from multi-stream to single-stream recycling. This decision was made due to the ease of single-stream recycling, according to Hibbard.
“Less sorting for the users means more potential recycling for us,” Hibbard said. “Lots of users do not want to put in the effort to put glass in a glass bin, and paper in a paper bin, leading to a massive amount of contamination. Amalgamating the recycling streamlines the collection process for the users and saves labor hours in sorting for the university. The recycling center that we contract with does single stream as well, so this makes cooperation with them much easier for everyone involved.”
Wiebe spoke on this issue as well, citing contamination as the main reason to make the switch.
Overall, the single most prevalent roadblock in a more successful recycling program is the high level of contamination. If 10% of a bin of recycling appears to be contaminated, the entire bin must go to the landfill, according to Hibbard.
Recently, the labels on the bins in the ISUB food court have switched from recycling, compostables, and landfill bins to all landfill only. According to Hibbard, these recycling bins have a history of a near-100% contamination rate, and this is a problem in multiple locations around campus.
“There are cases of bins that will be removed, but these are bins that have been identified as problem bins and they are only taken after a three-week warning is unheeded,” Hibbard said. “I place a red contamination notice sign on those bins.”
Wiebe also said that those bins had not been recycled in a while due to the remarkably high contamination and that relabeling the bins had been on their to-do list. She continued to say that placing recycling bins in food courts or cafeterias often leads to this issue, as plastics or other recyclable materials with any food waste on them are deemed unrecyclable.
“The bins in the ISUB are some of the most contaminated bins on the campus,” Wiebe said. “We made the conscious decision to move recycling bins away from so much food.”
This is also the reason the university does not recycle glass.
Sarah Dawson, the University Sustainability Director, said that glass contaminates other recyclables, especially when broken shards get in paper and plastics.
“(Glass) has been handled independently,” Dawson said. “We have had conversations about trying to instate a glass recycling program; the problem is that glass isn’t recycled anywhere in the region. Some providers will accept glass, but they just grind it up into small pieces, mix it with other materials to become a substrate, and use it on the ground outside. We’d like to find a way to truly recycle the glass so that it can stay in the loop and be used infinitely.”
Ultimately, recycling should be the last resort– reduce waste, reuse and repurpose items, and compost when it’s available.
“(Recycling) isn’t just a ‘get out of jail free’ card,” Wiebe said. “We should still be very conscious about our consumption.”
Rebekah Weaver can be reached at [email protected].
Jack
The recycling effort at UI is a disaster. Finger pointing. Excuses. Makes me curious about the integrity of the data for recycling that is alleged to be happening. And, staff cost isn't included in disclosures so the costs are actually high... for virtually an all-disaster situation. Insanity.