Regards,
Dave Reynolds
<< Start of Forwarded message via Prodigy Mail >>
From: Jim Scanlon
Subject: New York Times (the newspaper )editorial
Date: 07/29
Time: 05:59 PM
Date: Mon, 29 Jul 1996 13:17:25 +0100
From: Jim Scanlon [jscanlon@linex.com]
Subject: New York Times (the newspaper )editorial
David: I posted this. I know you will find it of interest. As you can
see
for yourself, the Newspaper distances itself from the Magazine (which
seems
to be trying to be more lively and provocative). It takes a very
strong, in
my opinion, position towards recycling on strictly economic grounds,
and
also adds in reasonable political considerations (i.e. laws against
exporting, and attitudes of others). Best of all, it chides, I think,
the
Mayor and Tierney for their rigid "theological: position.
======================================================================
==========
The New York Times Lead Editorial July 29, 1996
Recycling Without Tears
Mundane as it sounds, the subject of recycling garbage in New York
City
provokes fierce emotional responses. Joining what has become a
serious
debate, Mayor Rudolph Giuliani argues that recycling may be more of
an
expensive nuisance than it is worth. He has also cut back on
recycling in
his budget end assembled experts to compare the costs and benefits of
all
the City's refuse programs.
Such a process can only be healthy. Once it is concluded however, Mr.
Giuliani will almost certainly find that recycling must still play a
significant role in disposing of the City's 13,000 tons of
residential
waste a day.
.Prodded by a 1989 municipal law, the city set out to recycle 25
percent of
its garbage by 1994, roughly the national average. New Yorkers are
required
to set aside recyclable materials for separate collection, but many
resist
doing so. After an intensive effort, the city is recycling only 14
percent
of its garbage. Proponents of recycling have gone to court to force
the
city to meet its targets. Echoing the argument of our colleague John
Tierney in a recent article in The New York Times Magazine, Mr.
Giuliani
now charges that recycling has become a matter of emotion and
ideology
rather than logic.
This page has long advocated recycling, and we accept Mr. Giuliani's.
challenge to be rigorous in defending it. No one disputes that
collecting
recyclables in New York costs more per ton than collecting ordinary
refuse.
Recyclable garbage cannot be compacted. Collecting it therefore
requires
more time and space than collecting and hauling regular garbage,
which is
deposited in the city's only dump at Fresh Kills in Staten Island.
But the costs of disposal after garbage is collected also need to be
taken
into account. Depending on the material, for example, the city pays
between
$10 and $40 a ton to vendors to accept its plastic, paper, metals and
glass
for recycling-less than the $42 per ton it costs to dump garbage at
Fresh
Kills.
The balance favoring recycling is actually likely to grow, at least
for
some materials. Aluminum and other metals earn a profit for
independent
vendors. Depending on the grade, so does most paper. That is why two
new
paper recycling mills are being built in the city, which will gain
from the
jobs they create. Certain kinds of plastics are also profitable, and
it
would be a good idea to require more companies to use them.
At the same time, the cost of dumping is certain to grow. Fresh Kills,
which is the cheapest dump available, is an environmental disaster
that is
due to shut down in five years. Meanwhile, many analysts think that
private
dumping fees, which have already risen threefold in 10 years, will
accelerate, especially if the city shuts down its recycling. Dozens
of
bills in Congress seek to block out-of-state shipments, and experts
say it
will be politically difficult for the city to export its garbage if
it does
nothing to live up to the national average for recycling.
Dumps also pose environmental hazards, a hidden cost even if it does
not
show up in the city's budget. Like Fresh Kills, most of the state's
dumps
violate air and water pollution laws but stay open because they were
built
before the laws took effect. New York City, which is trying to curb
development upstate to preserve its watershed, cannot ignore these
dangers.
Mr. Giuliani suggests that he can reach the mandated 25 percent
recycling
target by counting other forms of waste-abandoned automobiles, tires
and
demolition material. The ideal level of recycling might well need to
be
adjusted. Rather than play numerical shell games, however, the city
should
examine all approaches to reducing the city's waste stream, including
taxes
or laws to reduce the amount of plastic and paper used in packaging,
and
come up with a mix of strategies. Recycling should be a part of that
mix.
Many neighborhoods have reached the mandated goals already. The waste
issue
is complex. It is not to be approached with theological fervor. That
goes
for foes of recycling as well as proponents.
Jim Scanlon
199 Canal St #8
San Rafael CA 94901
415-485-0540
Fax -Manual
-------- Original message header follows --------
>From jscanlon@linex.com Sun Jul 28 17:59:50 1996 [PIM 3.2-030.47]
Received: from linex.com (linex.com [199.4.98.10]) by pimaia1w.
prodigy.com (8.6.10/8.6.9) with SMTP id RAA103732 for
<david_reynolds@prodigy.com>; Mon, 29 Jul 1996 17:44:06 -0400
Received: from linex4 by linex.com (NX5.67c/NX3.0M)
id AA14490; Mon, 29 Jul 96 13:16:13 -0700
Received: from sp96.linex.com by linex4.linex.com (NX5.67c/NX3.0S)
id AA10972; Mon, 29 Jul 96 13:16:15 -0700
X-Sender: jscanlon@pop.linex.com
Message-Id: <v02120d00ae225a6af5e6@[206.54.38.43]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Mon, 29 Jul 1996 13:17:25 +0100
To: david_reynolds@prodigy.com ( DAVID B REYNOLDS)
From: jscanlon@linex.com (Jim Scanlon)
Subject: New York Times (the newspaper )editorial
-------------- End of message ---------------
<< End of Forwarded message >>