Expand UC's Recycling Program!

Dear university staff and administration,

Across the country, we are hearing more about the importance of "green," sustainable living.  The "3 R's"--reduce, reuse, and recycle--that today's college students learned in elementary school are getting a renewed push as the general public wises up about the dangers of adhering to the status quo.  As politicians debate the inherent disasters of climate change, as natural resources continue to disappear, and as issues such as recycling become more imperative to younger generations, students are taking great strides to shift their habits.

Unfortunately, though, many students are feeling more and more as if their colleges' administrations are not taking their demands seriously.  Lamentably, the University of Cincinnati is not immune to such negative attention.  Yes, the university has begun to make noteworthy commitments, such as the signing of the ACUPCC and the formation of PACES.  However, when it comes to one very basic principle of sustainability--one of the "3 R's" that is so crucial to the sustainability movement, recycling--the university is lagging very far behind.

A few efforts have been made in the past, as documented on UC's website here: http://www.uc.edu/af/facilities/recycling2.html.  However, progress is slow, and often only occurs through student action.  In the past several years, for every one step forward, another step seems to be taken backward.  For example, it is true that in 2008 the university purchased and instituted small recycling dumpsters across campus in addition to the larger ones near Sander Dining Hall and the Scioto-Morgens Complex.  It is also true that in 2008 the university purchased numerous 30-gallon recycling containers from Rumpke to be placed in academic buildings, and for the 2008-2009 school year paid a custodian to empty these bins.  However, the website (which seems to need updating) does not state that for the 2009-2010 school year this custodial position was cut.  Recycling bins are again being emptied by student volunteers, who, despite their commitment, are not able to keep up with demand as fast as those with paid positions had.

Further, other actions by the university have hurt the recycling initiative.  Most notably, beginning in the 2009-2010 school year, the Cincinnatus office has begun no longer counting service hours for volunteering efforts with recycling programs on campus.  This has predictably caused a great uproar from students, and has led to another petition similar to this one (http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/allow-cincinnatus-hours-for-recycling-programs) and numerous meetings to reverse this decision, all to no avail.  Denying service hours for such basic recycling efforts greatly diminishes student groups' efforts to draw volunteers to help recycle.

It is unfortunate that the university would not recognize the many benefits of recycling.  UC Sustainability's mission is largely to promote "environmental stewardship, social responsibility, and economic prosperity" (http://www.uc.edu/af/sustainability/).  The environmental and social benefits of recycling are obvious:  they promote a renewal of resources and prevent overcrowding of waste in landfills.  However, the economic benefit is, counterintuitively, the most often principle dismissed.  It is true that it costs the university money to recycle.  But, by increasing recycling and thus decreasing the university's waste removal fees (as well as increasing payments from Rumpke for paper and cardboard recycling), who is to say that the university would not save money?

Recycling truly does benefit everyone.  Thus, it is for this reason that we, the undersigned, call upon the University of Cincinnati to expand its recycling program in the following ways:

1)   Once again, as had been the case for numerous years until this year, allow Cincinnatus service hours for recycling-related activities not fulfilled by the university.

2)   Rewrite the contracts with Rumpke to combine recycling and waste removal in one contract.  It is our viewpoint that by having a separate recycling contract, the university gives Rumpke the upper hand in negotiations.  Combining the two contracts would be both more efficient and more economically viable for the university.

3)   Reinstitute the custodial recycling position(s) in the next housekeeping contract.  It is atrocious that the UC administration expects students to dispose of the recyclables in their own classrooms in academic buildings such as DAAP, Zimmer, etc.

4)   Expand said custodial recycling program to include residence halls.  The success of such past programs as the Housing Conservation Challenge illustrates students' commitments to recycling in their respective halls.

5)   In future years, expand said custodial recycling to satellite campuses.  It is unfair that students on West Campus would receive benefits that those at East Campus, Clermont College, or Raymond Walters College would not.

6)   Finally, institute education efforts to explain to students how the UC recycling program is to work.  One of the greatest issues as a student is being unclear about, and unaware of, what the university is trying to accomplish.  By including education in the university's recycling program, more students are likely to participate and the program's success will surely grow.

We know that what we are asking the administration is a major effort, not just in terms of man-hours and commitment, but also in terms of rethinking the way things have been organized in the past.  However, we would not commit ourselves to calling for such an effort if we did not feel it in the capacity of the university to carry it out.  The Student Sustainability Coalition and all associated member groups, as well as outside students, faculty, and staff are ready to help in pursuing these lofty goals.  The real question is, are you?

"Proudly Cincinnati,"

(Petition signers names below)