Today's Topics:
attn: Tara: volume vs. weight based garbage collection
Fw: Coke refillables in Germany (2 msgs)
need info on a Co. called CARS
Tara's query: volume vs. weight based garbage collection
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.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Loop-Detect: GreenYes:97/299
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 8 Dec 1997 07:21:19 -0800 (PST)
From: Boston CWA 486 <bostoncwa@cleanwater.org>
Subject: attn: Tara: volume vs. weight based garbage collection
I used to feel strongly that weight was better than volume, because using
home compactors seemed a pointless kind of cheating to encourage, but that
doesn't seem to have turned out to be such a problem.
Volume is much more common than weight, because it is easier - but
it isn't real volume, but more a potential-volume surrogate (size of
container, not actual volume of contained trash) which makes it easier - but
also means we aren't getting the marginal disincentive to the user to not
fill up the container. The worst of this is charging people based on the
size of their trash can, whether or not they even put it out. Guess I
prefer real pay-per-bag for that reason. But politics may mean giving
everyone "first container free" so trash cans are a good way to implement that.
The underlying "reality" is tricky. The hauling phase is probably
more volume limited. The landfill phase is fundamentally volume-based, but
the tipping fee standard is all weight, because it is easier to measure,
more "fair" - very complex to try to think about! Heavy inerts like dirt
and rocks get unfairly penalized, and light poisons (plastics?) get a free
ride while using up lots of precious space.
I feel more strongly about using weight-based as ideal for pulling
commercial dumpster loads.
The best scheme for reducing trash would be weight-based curbside
charging pure fee/pound. More realistic economics would charge cost per
stop plus cost per pound. Again, most crucial to me is to not charge at all
if no trash set-out.
"Nice" systems charge nothing for recycling. But a "too successful"
diversion system might have to also charge for recycling, unless it found a
way to actually make recycling pay.
-k
=====================
Keith c/o bostoncwa@igc.org
total recycling - zero waste
W.Rox/Boston, MA USA
=====================
At 04:37 PM 12/5/97 -0800, Neighborhood Energy Consortium wrote:
>I am a resident of the city of North Saint Paul in Minnesota and our city is
>considering providing garbage service via the public works department. If
>the city does provide garbage service, they will start out with a volume
>based billing system and possibly switch to weight based billing in the future.
>
>Does anyone have an oppinion they would like to share with me about volume
>based garbage collection vs. weight based collection?
>
>Please e-mail me and put attn: Tara
>
>Thanks!
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 8 Dec 1997 07:48:56 -0500
From: "Bill Sheehan" <bill_sheehan@mindspring.com>
Subject: Fw: Coke refillables in Germany
> From: Jeanne Davies <jeanne.davies@sfsierra.sierraclub.org>
> Subject: More on Coke
> Date: Saturday, December 06, 1997 10:02 PM
>
> More on Coke:
>
> >From "Germany, Garbage and the Green Dot
> Challenging the Throwaway Society"
> by Bette k. Fishbein
>
> "After one-way PET bottles were put on the market, the German
government, in
> 1988, imposed high mandatory deposits on one-way plastic
bottles. This
> requirement resulted in the removal of the bottles from the
market. The Coca
> Cola Company withdrew its one-way PET bottles and introduced a
refillable PET
> bottle. Coke now sells 74% of its drinks in refillable
bottles--glass and
> PET--which the company says are cheaper than one-way
containers."
>
> "BUND (the German Federation for the Environment and the
Protection of Nature)
> concludes that a returnable bottle system creates jobs because
it requires
> labor-intensive services, whereas one-way packaging mostly
involves
> consumption of energy and raw materials. Packaging materials
account for only
> 36% of the cost for refillable bottles, compared with about 87%
for one-way
> containers. Washing the bottles accounts for about 20% of the
packaging cost
> of refillables bottles."
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 08 Dec 1997 14:41:35 -0500
From: Cindy/Mike Shea <mcshea1@gte.net>
Subject: Fw: Coke refillables in Germany
I suspect the market share of refillable PET bottles in Germany is now
over 60%. (The earlier figure combined glass and refillable PET) Many
German, and Dutch, shoppers still walk to and from the store or live in
buildings where they have to climb lots of stairs. Refillable PET
bottles are much easier to carry than cases of glass bottles. In the
early 90s, refillable PET bottles were THE fastest growing market
segment for Coke. Most German consumers consider aluminum too energy
and resource intensive to waste on packaging uses. The 20-25 trippage
rate is followed by recycling in the Netherlands. The deposit is about
60 cents per bottle.
Cindy Pollock Shea
Promoting Sustainable Development
(resident in Germany and the Netherlands for 5 years since 1990.)
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 08 Dec 1997 15:32:29 -0500
From: Cindy/Mike Shea <mcshea1@gte.net>
Subject: need info on a Co. called CARS
Hatti,
This is becoming common practice in Europe and is indeed now required in
Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden, and probably a few other countries as
well. Volkswagon, Daimler Benz, Opel (the European subsidiary of GM),
Volvo, and others have been in the forefront. Biocycle, the
International Environment Reporter (BNA), and Raymond Communications
have run articles on the subject. In the Netherlands you have to pay an
up front recycling fee, about $150, before you can license your vehicle.
Germany started the ball rolling by declaring shredder fluff
hazardous waste. Keep us posted on what you find out.
Cindy Pollock Shea
Promoting Sustainable Development
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 8 Dec 1997 15:08:35 +0000
From: "Caroline Brimblecombe" <caroline.brimblecombe.pt@norfolk.gov.uk>
Subject: Tara's query: volume vs. weight based garbage collection
Hello Tara
> I am a resident of the city of North Saint Paul in Minnesota and our city is
> considering providing garbage service via the public works department. If
> the city does provide garbage service, they will start out with a volume
> based billing system and possibly switch to weight based billing in the
future.
You
might want to check with the Assn of Recycling Managers in Minnesota
(ARM), for some local/regional input. In general terms, volume based
can be less expensive to administer.
Weight based often means investing in new equipment and a more
elaborate tracking/accounting system.
Association of Recycling Managers
http://www.concentric.net/~Armweb/
Someone at NEC undoubtedly has their phone number and contact
details.
> Does anyone have an oppinion they would like to share with me
about volume
> based garbage collection vs. weight based collection?
I'd start with the EPA's " Pay as you throw" pages:
http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/non-hw/payt/index.htm
They have both a fact sheet and a downloadable guide (Adobe Acrobat
format) on "pay as you throw" pricing.
There has been quite a bit written on this subject, and the consensus
among waste mgmt people seems to be that it is one of the most
effective ways to bring about a reduction in waste. It is used
in about 3000 communities nation wide. Again, I'd check with
ARM, and consult the many articles written about this from a
municipal point of view - such as (and this is most definitely a
partial list!):
BioCycle, March 1997 Dramatic Results from weight based fees pp
36-38.
BioCycle July 1997 Block, Dave, Testing pay as you throw, pp. 46-47
Bio Cycle, October 1997, Skumatz, Lisa, Green, John, and Truitt,
Erin, Texas Moves into Variable Rates, pp 39-40.
Warmer Bulletin, July 1997, User Pay: Pay as you throw, pp.14-16
Air and Waste Mgmt Assn, Kugler, Anita, Community Response to
Quantity Based Solid Waste Collection Fees in Gainesville, FL June
1995
Air and Waste Mgmt Assn, Haines, Dick, Quantity Based Fees for
Residential Trash Disposal, June 1997
State of Minnesota, Office of Environmental Assistance, "The
Resource" (newsletter), Fall 1996, "Point-Counterpoint" on volume
based pricing, perspectives from Gary Lockner and Lynne Waytashek.
There are numerous other in-depth studies (eg Duke University)
mentioned earlier on GreenYes (sorry I no longer have the messages
as we switched to a new email system at work in the interim), and the
recent work undertaken by Lisa Skumatz.(?I think her firm name is
SKERA, Skumatz Economic Research Associates).
I used to live in Minnesota,
worked for Hennpin Cty, and I seem to recall State statutes requiring
volume or quantity based pricing - but that may have been for cities
of a certain size, I am not sure. I believe all cities in Hennepin
Cty have adopted it.
I hope this is useful information.
Caroline
PS: for statutory info,
The State of
Minnesota's Northstar site
http://www.state.mn.us/mainmenu.html
Caroline Truth Brimblecombe
Norfolk County Council
Norwich, United Kingdom
+44 1603 222243
+44 1603 223219 fax
+44 1603 613806 home
ctbrim@aol.com
------------------------------
End of GreenYes Digest V97 #299
******************************