In 2009, Governor Martin O’Malley charged the state of Maryland to develop a greenhouse reduction plan–a plan with the goal of accomplishing a 25% statewide reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2020 and zero waste by 2040, which, in reality, means diverting 85% of what gets buried in landfills now.

In a recent article from the Baltimore sun David Costello, the deputy secretary of the environment was interviewed. He stated, “We’d love to zero it out, but zero is probably, quite frankly, impossible.” David also noted that statewide, Marylanders generate more than 12 million tons of trash and waste annually.

While zero waste is not actually impossible–Sweden is very close to zero waste with a 99% recycling rate–it’s a pretty ambitious goal–one that Baltimore is currently not on track to meet. One of the largest problems with the plan is that it calls for doubling recycling in Maryland. Under the plan, recycling statewide was expected to be at 54% by 2015. Currently, Maryland is only at 40% statewide, and bleaker still, Baltimore City is only recycling 25% of its municipal waste.

With the aforementioned important milestones yet to be met, new ventures are on the horizon, however, they aren’t ones that would aid in meeting any zero waste goals. In an effort to improve waste collection efficiency, Baltimore City will be expanding the Quarantine Road landfill by incorporating a 52-acre industrial landfill next door.

Although according to Robert Murrow, Baltimore’s recycling coordinator, the city does plan to launch a public education campaign concerning lowering waste (and more) sometime this year, expanding a landfill seems to be counterintuitive of the task at hand.

Recycling’s Role in the Zero Waste Goal

If Maryland is going to get anywhere near their zero waste goal, recycling needs to be a priority. While Maryland has made it mandatory for schools and apartments to recycle, the amount of recyclable materials still being placed into the waste stream is high. One reason that a large percentage of recyclable materials still enter the waste stream instead of being recycled is due to single stream recycling.

The main difference between single stream and dual stream recycling is that dual stream recycling centers receive their recyclables separated while single stream centers receive their items commingled. When all recyclable materials are placed together glass shatters, paper is commingled with bottles and cans and everything gets very mixed up, making it hard to sort. Some have described trying to recycle single stream recyclables as “trying to unscramble a scrambled egg.”

The problem with single stream recycling is that it renders much of the materials collected unrecyclable (see “How Single Stream Recycling Makes Raw Materials Unrecyclable“) and eventually, those materials end up in the landfill anyway. If we all practiced dual stream recycling, a larger amount of items would be prevented from going into the waste stream.

In Sweden, one of the world leaders in recycling, less than 1% of their waste goes to the landfill. Why? One huge factor is their separation process and priority hierarchy. “At the core of Sweden’s program is its waste-management hierarchy designed to curb environmental harm: prevention (reduce), reuse, recycling, recycling alternatives (energy recovery via WTE plants), and lastly, disposal (landfill). Before garbage can be trucked away to incinerator plants, trash is filtered by home and business owners; organic waste is separated, paper picked from recycling bins, and any objects that can be salvaged and reused pulled aside. (Wastedive).”

For both businesses and residences, dual stream recycling is at the heart of Sweden’s process. As a rule, recycling stations are no more than 300 meters from any residential area (that’s less than .2 miles–walking distance!). Swedish households separate newspapers, plastic, metal, glass, electronics, light bulbs and batteries. Additionally, many municipalities encourage the separation of food waste. All of these materials are reused, recycled or composted.

Sweden’s way of dealing with waste is so efficient that their waste-to-energy facilities don’t have enough garbage to burn and they have actually begun importing garbage from neighboring countries.

For many material recovery facilities (MRF), which receive items via single stream, the residue – what’s left over from single stream and which is higher compared to dual stream – is a primary feedstock for the new “waste-to-energy” facilities being promoted across the county. This encourages the construction of waste-to-energy plants and distracts from the goal at hand–lowering the volume of the waste stream.

Waste-to-Energy Plans Discouraging Waste Reduction

In addition to the expansion of the Quarantine Road Landfill, another preoccupation is the expansion of waste to energy here in Maryland. One troubling thing is that waste-to-energy (WTE) is increasingly referred to as “recycling” by its proponents. This is controversial because according to Allen Hershkowitz, a senior scientist at the Natural Resources Defense Council, waste-to-energy facilities may have a place in the waste management, alongside recycling. Hershkowitz believes that firstly, the country needs to address the fact that 80 percent of what people throw away is recyclable.

Sweden is regarded as a leader in recycling and yes, Sweden does a lot of waste-to-energy, however, waste-to-energy isn’t Sweden’s main priority. Sweden first separates everything and recycles as much as they can prior to sending materials to the incinerator. Waste-to-energy is Sweden’s last step in their process. We should not be striving to use waste-to-energy as a way to get rid of our waste. We should be striving to have less waste overall through recycling.

Creating more WTE sites isn’t a step toward zero waste–it’s sweeping the problem under the rug. Considering the fact that multiple case studies done in other municipalities concerning single stream have proven that the process has major flaws, the state seems to be dealing with this large problem the short-term, easy way rather than with a long-term solution.