Today's Topics:
Fwd: Is more recycling the answer? (2 msgs)
Fwd: Is more recycling the answer? -Reply
GreenYes Digest V96 #10 (2 msgs)
Send Replies or notes for publication to: <greenyes@UCSD.Edu>
Send subscription requests to: <greenyes-Digest-Request@UCSD.Edu>
Problems you can't solve otherwise to postmaster@ucsd.edu.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 1996 08:26:33 -0800
From: dassmann@sirius.com (David Assmann)
Subject: Fwd: Is more recycling the answer?
>Date: Thu, 31 Oct 1996 08:23:08 -0800
>To:jennie.alvernaz@sfsierra.sierraclub.org
>From:dassmann@sirius.com (David Assmann)
>Subject:Re: Fwd: Is more recycling the answer?
>
> Response to Jim Poll:
>
>
>He wrote:
>
>Recycling should be justifiable on environmental and economic grounds.
>
>My response:
>
>Yes, which means you take into consideration the cost of recycling vs. the
>cost of waste disposal (both current and future), resource extraction,
>virgin material subsidies, and future costs of virgin material extraction.
>In that case recycling is almost always a winner. Even when comparing
>recycling strictly to waste disposal, most studies, such as those put
>together by the Institute for Local Self Reliance, show that recycling
>comes out ahead.
>
>He wrote:
>
>>
>> In the waste management heirarchy, reduce/reuse comes before
>> recycling. Consequently, why do some states spend large amounts of
>> money on supporting their recycling programs, but only tiny amounts
>> (compared to their spending on recycling programs) on their waste
>> reduction/reuse programs? Has any work been done on whether some
>> consumers have changed their buying patterns to buy products in
>> packaging which they can recycle, even if this means that they create
>> more waste?
>
>My response:
>
> More effort should be put into waste reduction, and some
>jurisdictions are doing so. The California Integrated Waste Management
>Board has been supporting waste reduction efforts. One of the efforts
>they helped fund was a waste reduction campaign in the San Francisco Bay
>Area, called the Shop Smart: Save Resources and Prevent Waste campaign
>sponsored by 103 Bay Area cities and counties and 225 supermarkets. During
>this campaign, sales of recycled products and products with minimal
>packaging increased by almost 20%. Exit polls showed that 43% of shoppers
>(more than one million shoppers regionwide) remembered one or more
>elements from the campaign, and more than 1.5 million people recalled
>elements of the media campaign for Shop Smart. Almost three-quarters of
>shoppers (750,000 regionwide) who noticed the materials were interested in
>the messages of the campaign, with almost 30% (more than 300,000) saying
>it affected their buying habits. Shoppers translated their interest into
>action: 29% of the consumers said they bought in bulk, 20% said they
>bought reusable products, 18% said they bought items with minimal
>packaging, and 10% brought their own bags to the checkout counter.
>
>
>David Assmann
>Public Outreach Coordinator
>San Francisco Recycling Program
>
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 1996 10:15:40 -0800 (PST)
From: Dave Wade <dmwade@cats.ucsc.edu>
Subject: Fwd: Is more recycling the answer?
In an ideal world, of course everyone would reduce and re-use, and only
then recycle. I think ideals are good, and something to strive for.
But meanwhile, we all have to deal with whatever current reality we are
in. If we can implement recycling programs, even if they aren't the
ideal solution, isn't that better than waiting until we have our
perceived perfect solution?
-----------------------------
Dave Wade
Recycling Coordinator
University of California, Santa Cruz
email: dmwade@cats.ucsc.edu
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 1996 12:49:35 -0600
From: George Dreckmann <GDRECKMANN@CI.MADISON.WI.US>
Subject: Fwd: Is more recycling the answer? -Reply
The problem with relying on reduce and reuse programs is that they
require a life style change. Life style changes are, of course desirable,
but barring a major catastrophe they are slow in coming. Pushing for life
style changes often causes resentment and slows the process.
Another problem with source reduction is the current boasts of the
plastic industry that plastic is source reduction and better than recycling.
Are we really better off with a light weight plastic bottle or the heavier
glass one? We can argue the numbers all day, but I think that glass, with
its closed loop for recycling and more environmentally friendly raw
materials is a better choice than the source reduced plastic.
Sooo, I think we are going to have to continue to accept increased
recycling while slowly educating the public about reduction and reuse
and working with businesses that are into real source and pollution
reduction. Recycling is for immediate returns and education for the long
term gain.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 1996 12:37:54 -0500
From: "Marjorie J. Clarke" <mclarke@shiva.hunter.cuny.edu>
Subject: GreenYes Digest V96 #10
>
> Now that the hysteria amongst recyclers over the New York Times
> article has subsided, perhaps it is time for some discussion of a
> number of issues about recycling, and on whether doing more recycling
> is the best solution to waste management problems.
And perhaps it is time for the outrage of the week. The NYC Sanitation
Dept. decided that the tons of mixed white paper that fell on a 15-block
stretch of Broadway during the Yankees parade would could/would not be
recycled (Thank you very much!) Anyone who can tell me which firm could
have picked this up and recycled it, and for how much, should please do so.
The City spend about $150 thousand to dump it in our landfill.
>
> as happens in parts of Canada? Regarding the cost of recycling, can
> anyone provide an example of a recycling scheme that achieves the
> recycling rate target set for New York (or any other large city) at no
> cost to the residents and local commerce and industry, ie the cost is
> completely covered by savings in disposal fees and income from sale of
> recyclables?
I have the late Frank Sudol, on a video that I helped produce for the Air
and Waste Management Association, talking about the economics of recycling
in Newark. He said that depending on how you figure it, the program either
broke even or made Newark $6 million per year.
> In the waste management heirarchy, reduce/reuse comes before
> recycling. Consequently, why do some states spend large amounts of
> money on supporting their recycling programs, but only tiny amounts
> (compared to their spending on recycling programs) on their waste
> reduction/reuse programs?
I've been asking this for years.
Has any work been done on whether some
> consumers have changed their buying patterns to buy products in
> packaging which they can recycle, even if this means that they create
> more waste?
>
I've been doing my doctoral dissertation on this, among other things.
> Perhaps the solution for New York is a sensible target for reducing
> the amount of waste requiring disposal through a combination of a
> waste reduction program (Note - by waste reduction I mean reducing the
> amount of waste produced, not reducing the amount of waste for
> disposal by recycling) and limited (justifiable) recycling. This
> might be a lower cost solution than implementing a large scale
> recycling program, and would still reduce the amount of waste for
> landfill.
>
It is certainly true that waste prevention costs less per ton to implement
than recycling. But overall, recycling is easier to implement. In its 1992
Solid Waste Management Plan, DOS said that prevention costs $20/ton and
everything else in an integrated program costs $200/ton. They don't stand
by those figures now, and break out recycling which is more costly than the
system cost. But the decks are stacked against cost-efficient recycling
here. There are laws limiting where you can design routes, and how often
these can be changed (translation: recycling trucks come back half full
sometimes); the labor agreement specifies how much stuff each truck must
have, but recycling trucks need bring back only about half what garbage
trucks do... a built-in barrier to recycling efficiency (translation: we
need bigger recycling trucks); the Mayor reduced the recycling budget by 38%
this year just after they had decided to add mixed paper, wax paper cartons
and bulk metal to the program; so these are again excluded and the education
and research budgets are now zero. Parts of the city recycle at about 30%
rate; others more like 3%. They refuse to do the research to learn why and
figure out what to do about it. Get the picture?
Prevention vs. Recycling? We need both. I've been pounding on the NYC govt
for 8 years as a member, Vice Chair and Chair of the Manhattan Citizens'
Solid Waste Advisory Board, to do this, but the Sanitation Dept. likes to do
things the ways they always have (definition: conservative), and reducing
waste will mean the dept. will shrink, and they certainly don't want that
either. So they cook the books, and avoid much discussion of prevention.
There are only 2.5 people out of many thousands dedicated to prevention
there. So tell us... how can we improve the situation in NYC. Maybe I'm
missing something.
__ __
//\\ //\\ _ ___ __ o __
// \\ // \\ // \\ // \\ // \\ ||| //__\\
// \\// \\ \\__|| \\___// \\__// ||| \\___
// //
\_// \_//
Marjorie J. Clarke Environmental Scientist and Consultant
Address: mclarke@shiva.hunter.cuny.edu
New York City Phone & Fax: 212-567-8272
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 1996 17:35:18 -0800 (PST)
From: "John E. Young" <youngje@well.com>
Subject: GreenYes Digest V96 #10
my dear greenyes friends--
the "jeff?" message was a personal one from me to barry lampke
which i inadvertently copied to greenyes (by answering something
he had posted to the list). any cryptic significance to the
message is yours alone.
begging your forgiveness...
jy
------------------------------
End of GreenYes Digest V96 #11
******************************