2 min read

Gorham recently moved to mechanized single-sort curbside recycling, which prompted our home to revisit its recycling methods, ultimately deciding to discontinue CLYNK. Our goal? Recycle directly though municipal single-sort program while saving on expenses such as gas and bag fees. Seems like throwing away money, but is it?

Gorham’s implementation of new, smaller recycling bins prompted us to purchase a simple can crusher on Amazon. Fun to use, it’s already paying space-saving dividends.

Economically, CLYNK no longer has value for us. When Maine’s bottle deposit law passed in 1978, a nickel had the purchasing power of roughly 27 cents today. Factoring in 25-cent CLYNK-mandated bags, time and fuel, breaking even with CLYNK is optimistic at best. A neighbor commiserated, sharing that he trailer-hauled stockpiled CLYNK bags several times, still failing to make financial sense of it.   

Fees aside, CLYNK provides zero bottle count transparency, no itemized accounting for rejected bottles and their bins are routinely jammed full. Hauling bags back and forth only compounds wasted time, energy and gas from “CLYNKing.”

Why does CLYNK not disclose an itemized list of rejected or unreturnable bottles in an account balance breakdown? Maybe because in 2025,  giant TOMRA bought CLYNK and exceeded $253,000,000 in global recycling revenue. Cash is king.

Our new home recycling routine eliminated transport hassles, trimmed our gas budget and lowered our carbon footprint. Could the leaders in Augusta please wholeheartedly revisit the 1978 Maine Bottle Deposit Law and closely review its environmental and economic efficacy in 2026? It’s long overdue.

Gregory Sundik
Gorham