In 2008, a new phrase entered the American lexicon, something many consider a paradox: A recession hit the U.S. hard that year, making many large companies vulnerable to collapse, particularly banks and the auto industry. Following the premise that the auto industry was of vital importance to the economy, the federal government extended $17.4 billion in loans to GM and Chrysler to keep those companies solvent.

The automakers were, in the eyes of the government, simply too big to fail.

Now, 15 years later, a different spin on that paradox has emerged in the city of Starkville as it contemplates a return to curbside recycling after the city’s board of aldermen voted in March 2002 to suspend the program effective Oct. 1 of that year. The board cited low participation and increasing costs to justify its decision.

A few months after the end of curbside recycling, the city started a program that allowed citizens to drop off their recyclables at the sanitation department, but in recent months a push for curbside recycling has reemerged.

Among the concerns the board of aldermen have expressed is to how many residents might participate.

The legitimate fear?

Curbside recycling could become too big to succeed.

Here’s why. The city can use its current equipment to provide a small-scale curbside recycling program. During Tuesday’s board meeting, Ward 5 alderman Hamp Beatty laid out a plan for a program that would add $6 monthly to residents who sign up for the program. Beatty admitted that his plans for using available equipment would accommodate fewer than 800 customers.

Participation greater than that would require the city to purchase a “tipper truck” at the cost of $300,000 or more. There could be additional costs based on the level of participation, particularly labor and fuel costs.

It could turn out to be prohibitively costly, in other words, too big to succeed.

Although Beatty is the lone advocate on the board for curbside recycling, there is some sentiment on the board that the idea is worthy of further investigation.

Ward 2 alderman Jeffrey Rupp said that he would be willing to have the city pick up as much as half of the costs if provided a reliable estimate on what those costs would be. To proceed without that estimate would be fiscally irresponsible.

Recycling is a noble effort. We should all seek to reduce waste where we can. Any materials that can be repurposed for the benefit of the environment and public use is worth pursuing – at least to a certain point.

What can be safely said is that it is not an ideal time for pursuing broad-scale taxpayer supported recycling programs. The market for recyclable goods is low and the costs are steadily increasing, especially transportation costs.

Hundreds of communities across the nation have ended their recycling programs because of these factors, according to a New York Times report.  Prompting this nationwide reckoning is China, which until January 2018 had been a big buyer of recyclable material collected in the United States. That stopped when Chinese officials determined that too much trash — cardboard and certain plastics — was mixed in with recyclable materials. China’s decision has knocked the bottom out of the recycling market.

Low demand and high costs are a bad combination.

While the city should look for ways to accommodate residents who want to recycle, the city is wise to move slowly and carefully.

Ultimately, the best course of action right now may be to maintain the current program that allows residents to drop off recycled goods, a program that keeps costs to the minimum.

The Dispatch Editorial Board is made up of publisher Peter Imes, columnist Slim Smith, managing editor Zack Plair and senior newsroom staff.