A significant part of municipalities’ budgets goes towards local  waste disposal. Some municipalities have found a way to alleviate this expense; clear garbage bags.

Municipal enforcement of clear garbage bags, while controversial, have proven to be very effective in reducing waste sent to landfills, and therefore the cost to the municipality. One Ontario municipality found a reduction of 38% to its municipal solid waste curbside collection in the first year after the program’s launch. This number is consistent with or below the average found across several North American communities that have adopted this practice.

Is this practice realistic? Why does it work? In this article, we take a look.

Municipalities may face push back.

While in every community where they’ve been implemented, clear garbage bag mandates have been a success, they lack widespread implementation due to public resistance. In some cases, so much so, that the mandates don’t pass at all.

Residents tend to see clear bags as a privacy concern; with some municipal polls finding the split about 50-50 with those opposed versus those supporting the change. While garbage cans and bins are a potential solution for this, other municipalities have “opted to allow small opaque privacy bags within clear bags for private items.”

The privacy concerns are also what makes these mandates effective.

Some studies have found that clear bag policies can reduce a municipality’s weekly waste by as much as nine tonnes. This isn’t because the opacity of a bag suddenly changes how much waste a household produces. What the opacity changes is how much attention people pay to sorting their garbage, recycling, and compost.

Part of the concept behind clear bag policies is that if a certain percentage of the waste in the bag – as determined by the governing body behind the decision – is recyclable material, the bag will be rejected for pickup. This creates both tangible consequences to not sorting trash, as well as social pressure to adhere to best practices.

The Decision Lab describes this as a “green nudge” relying on “moral pressure.”

“While you were free to try to dispose of your recycling by mixing it in with your garbage, you would both incur the inconvenience of the collectors not picking it up and the disapproval of your eco-conscious neighbors,” it explains.

What are the pros and cons?

For municipalities that are considering this waste and cost reduction strategy, knowing they may face public pushback, it’s important to weigh the advantages and disadvantages.

The two big no-brainer advantages are the environmental and fiscal benefits. Not only does the diversion of plastics from landfills to recycling facilities create fewer pollutants, it’s also extremely cost-effective, too. One city that implemented a clear-bag policy, St. John’s, found huge savings due to the reduced tonnage of municipal solid waste.

“The city pays $82 for each tonne of garbage it brings to [the local landfill], while recyclables cost only $22 per tonne.”

On top of these factors, other advantages include:

• Improved sorting leading to less hazardous waste items at curbside collection, improving safety for collection staff.
• Reduced contamination of recyclable materials with non-recyclable waste, improving the quality of recyclables.
• Increased awareness among residents about their waste generation habits.
• Deterrence of illegal dumping of prohibited items.

However, some disadvantages to keep in mind are:

• Complaints from residents about privacy and aesthetics.
• Enforcement struggles.
• An upfront cost to transition, including a cost to residents.

In conclusion…

Clear garbage bag mandates can represent huge cost savings for municipalities. If they can get public support behind the initiative, this is a fantastic, sustainable option that cushions an otherwise potentially tight budget.