California has long considered itself to be a global beacon on environmentalism. But the state is now going on four straight years with a poor record on one of the core environmental practices: recycling.

The problem began in January 2016, when the California Department of Resources Recycling (CalRecycle) lowered the reimbursement rates that it paid recycling centers that took in single-use glass, plastic and metal bottles from consumers. Recycling center operators immediately complained and warned they already had razor-thin profit margins before the rates were cut. There were also signs that the government of China – long the world’s biggest buyer of plastic recyclable goods – was beginning to see accepting the waste of other nations as problematic, adding to recycling centers’ bottom-line headaches.

But the administration of Gov. Jerry Brown appeared indifferent to the warnings and opposed efforts in the Legislature that sought to keep recycling centers in business. The recycling industry began a slow-motion collapse that led to 560 recycling centers closing by May 2017.

“The reduced recycling means that every day 2 million additional containers are littered or landfilled, including more than 1 million plastic bottles every day,” Mark Murray, executive director of Californians Against Waste, wrote that month. “For consumers who try to supplement family income by redeeming containers, the loss of buy-back recycling locations has reduced total redemption payback by more than $3 million per month.”

Consumers losing $25 million a month on deposits

In February of this year, Associated Press reported that consumers’ loss of money because of a lack of access to redemption centers paying back 5-cent deposits on cans and bottles had soared to $308 million in 2018 – about $25 million a month.

The AP report was based on a Consumer Watchdog analysis that called on California to begin charging a minimum of a 10-cent deposit on cans and bottles, as is done in Oregon and Michigan, which report recycling rates of 90 percent – far better than California’s 75 percent rate.

Those states have accepted that with China’s 2018 decision that it would no longer accept the world’s waste, the basic economics of recycling had to change to prevent recyclables from ending up in landfills. But the administration of Gov. Gavin Newsom has so far not pushed for higher deposits.

In February, the California State Association of Counties wrote Newsom a letter requesting that he form a state commission to come up with new recycling policies.

“Significant market disruptions for recyclable materials have a direct impact on California’s local governments and our ability to meet state-mandated recycling goals,” the association told the governor. “The commission should examine potential solutions including, the development of international and domestic markets, updated compliance standards in this new economic environment, ways to increase source reduction, and any other means that will alleviate this growing public health and environmental crisis.”

Public pressure on Newsom and state lawmakers to respond to recycling headaches could build soon because of pocketbook issues. The Southern California News Group reported last week that many local governments were steadily increasing monthly trash/recycling collection rates because of the changing economics of recycling.

Legislature may add bans on single-use plastics

The report also noted that the state Legislature was responding to recycling woes by considering bills that would discourage or ban single-use plastics, following up on measures banning plastic bags and limiting the use of plastic straws in California.

One of the measures – Assembly Bill 1080, by Assemblyman Henry Stern, D-Canoga Park – would require “single-use plastic packaging and products sold or distributed in California to be reduced, recycled or composted by 75 percent by 2030, and require all single-use packaging and products to be recyclable or compostable on and after 2030,” according to a legislative analysis.

It passed the Assembly Natural Resources Committee and the Assembly Appropriations Committee on party-line votes on March 25 and May 16, respectively.

“The teaching profession is critical to California’s economic success and impacts every vocation and profession in the state,” state Sen. Henry Stern said in a statement. “SB807 addresses the immediate teacher shortage and sends a loud and clear message across the state and nation: California values teachers.”

Senate Bill 807 would exempt teachers from paying state income tax after teaching for five years and would also provide a tax deduction for costs relating to obtaining credentials.

It comes at a time when California is scrambling to hire teachers, as between 20 percent to 40 percent of teachers leave the profession after the first five years, according to recent research, and the amount of teachers is at a 12-year low.

But critics say it’s an impractical solution to combating the problem of poor-performing schools.

“If you take an entire class of people based on their occupation and say that they are somehow ‘more deserving’ than everyone else and should be exempted from paying state income taxes, what other groups might qualify?” conservative commentator Jazz Shaw, writing for the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, argued.

The bill comes at a time when proficiency rates among California students still are under 50 percent, as 49 percent in English and just 37 percent in math scored proficient on CAASP tests in 2016, with minority students scoring even lower.

It’s also unclear what effect the bill would have, as opponents have noted it appears to be a measure to provide monies to veteran teachers, where retention is less of an issue, at the expense of the taxpayer.

Furthermore, the starting salaries at even small high schools stands near $44,000, just slightly less than the median household income in the U.S., which stands at around $50,000.

If teachers are exempt from paying income tax, is raises the question of what other occupations may qualify due to their perceived importance in society.

Details on the effect on tax revenues have not been released and the California Teacher Association has so far not taken a position on the proposed legislation.