RE: [GreenYes] RE: [BBAN]: Recycling article in today's NewYork Times

["Michele Raymond" <michele@raymond.com>]

My personal opinion is that we will have to move towards wet-dry-paper and 
keep it simple for consumers and let the MRFs pull out what is 
valuable.  The $200 million is only for PLASTICS sorting by resin and 
color.  dont know about other sorting equipment

Michele

At 10:32 AM 2/20/02 -0500, Doug Koplow wrote:
>This estimate applies to modifications to the existing infrastructure of 
>MRFs.  As such, it does not change the basic cost structure of curbside 
>very much, since separate manual sorts in households and separate pick-up 
>at curbside continue to be required.  Have you ever seen cost estimates 
>relating to materials recovery out of the compacted (or slightly less 
>compacted) normal household waste stream?
>
>_______________________________
>Doug Koplow
>Earth Track, Inc.
>2067 Massachusetts Avenue - 4th Floor
>Cambridge, MA  02140
>Tel:  617/661-4700
>Fax: 617/354-0463
>E-mail:  koplow@indecon.com
>
>
> >>> "Michele Raymond" <michele@raymond.com> 02/20/02 10:06AM >>>
>Dear Greenyes
>
>We recently estimated that it would cost about $200 million to automate the
>nation's top MRF's for plastics sorting, including installation, etc.  The
>amounts to one cent per pound of resin sold in the U.S. for two years.
>
>That's not much when you consider what is spent on PR from many of the big
>companies.  Note that more than $500 million moves through California's
>redemption program annually.
>
>Manual sorting should be reduced in the future.  There seems to be no
>leadership or move to provide capital funding.
>
>FYI
>
>Michele Raymond
>
>At 09:34 AM 2/20/02 -0500, Doug Koplow wrote:
> >If you ignore his sarcasm on the idea of tolls as sacraments (though
> >cruising by a long toll line with an automatic toll transponder could be
> >close...), Tierney does raise one point worth further discussion.  I think
> >it is probably true that increased automation in materials separation
> >could make a huge difference in the economics of materials recovery.  Does
> >anybody on this list have insights as to the progress (or lack of
> >progress) in increased and expanded automated sorting?  What are the
> >current technical capabilities of the so-called "dirty MRFs" that take
> >commingled trash and recover recyclable materials from the waste
> >stream?  What are the major technical constraints towards breakthroughs in
> >recovery of recyclables from normal MSW streams?
> >
> >_______________________________
> >Doug Koplow
> >Earth Track, Inc.
> >2067 Massachusetts Avenue - 4th Floor
> >Cambridge, MA  02140
> >Tel:  617/661-4700
> >Fax: 617/354-0463
> >E-mail:  koplow@indecon.com
> >
> >
> > >>> "Steen, Terri - Contractor" <Terri_Steen@belvoir.army.mil> 02/20/02
> > 09:17AM >>>
> >Ah, John "recycling is garbage" Tierney strikes again!  I believe in freedom
> >of the press, but this guy.... Can't somebody educate him, or muzzle him, or
> >discredit him?? Something??!!
> >
> >  -----Original Message-----
> >From:   Reindl, John [mailto:Reindl@co.dane.wi.us]
> >Sent:   Monday, February 18, 2002 9:49 AM
> >To:     BBAN; 'greenyes@grrn.org'
> >Subject:        [GreenYes] RE: [BBAN]: Recycling article in today's New York
> >Times
> >
> >Given the subsidies to virgin materials, as well as un-internalized costs of
> >landfills (a European estimate in December 2000 put this cost at about $16 a
> >ton for new landfills, largely due to methane emissions), any evaluation of
> >the economics of recycling vis-à-vis landfilling seems spurious to me.
> >
> >John Reindl, Recycling Manager
> >Dane County, WI
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: David Markert [mailto:dmarkert@container-recycling.org]
> > > Sent: Friday, February 15, 2002 5:00 PM
> > > To: BBAN
> > > Subject: [BBAN]: Recycling article in today's New York Times
> > >
> > >
> > > Article below excerpted from today's New York Times.  I
> > > especially like the
> > > part about using the recycling budget to urge New Yorkers to
> > > pick up litter
> > > instead of for recycling.  Hah!  Does this guy even live in
> > > New York?  That
> > > strategy doesn't work anywhere else in this country, and it DEFINITELY
> > > wouldn't work in New York.
> > >
> > > ******************************
> > >
> > > February 15, 2002
> > > Rethinking the Rites of Recycling
> > > By JOHN TIERNEY
> > > Environmentalists may not like Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg's
> > > proposal to
> > > suspend the recycling of cans and bottles. But it could be
> > > their best chance
> > > to save their reputations and do some good for the environment.
> > >
> > > The recycling program was sold to New Yorkers nearly a decade
> > > ago with the
> > > promise that it would save money. It did not. If New York had instead
> > > shipped all those recyclables to out-of-state landfills, the
> > > city would have
> > > saved more than half a billion dollars, and that figure
> > > doesn't even include
> > > the biggest costs, which are the labor and storage space that
> > > citizens are
> > > forced to donate to the cause.
> > >
> > > Recycling newspapers makes a certain amount of sense, because
> > > used newsprint
> > > often has economic value and people often have special bins for their
> > > newspapers anyway. But why clutter the city with bins for
> > > stuff that's less
> > > than worthless? The city pays extra to collect and dispose of
> > > the bottles
> > > and cans, and then 40 percent of the stuff ends up in
> > > landfills anyway.
> > >
> > > Could this sort of recycling ever pay for itself, as
> > > environmentalists are
> > > still promising? Maybe, but only if its devotees abandon
> > > their passion for
> > > hand-sorted trash and their belief that we're running out of natural
> > > resources. They've expected recycling to become profitable as
> > > raw materials
> > > become more expensive, but they're on the wrong side of two historical
> > > trends. For thousands of years, the costs of natural
> > > resources have been
> > > falling in relation to the cost of labor.
> > >
> > > Recycling might someday pay if the sorting were done not by
> > > hand but by
> > > machines. Miners and oil drillers have used computerized technology to
> > > extract small concentrations of materials that would once have been
> > > unprofitable. Maybe robots will one day profitably sift
> > > garbage for minerals
> > > and plastics.
> > >
> > > But many environmentalists don't like this vision. In some
> > > cities, they've
> > > fought plans to use automated sorting equipment because they
> > > wanted people
> > > to have the hands-on experience. Here in New York, one of the
> > > most expensive
> > > labor forces on the planet is being forced to sort materials
> > > that third
> > > world peasants wouldn't waste their time saving.
> > >
> > > Recycling has become a sacrament of atonement for buying too
> > > much stuff -
> > > for secretly loving stuff too much, as James B. Twitchell
> > > explains in "Lead
> > > Us Into Temptation," a study of consumer passions. "While we
> > > claim to be
> > > wedded to responsible consumption," he writes, "we spend a
> > > lot of our time
> > > philandering. Trash is lipstick on the collar, the telltale
> > > blond hair."
> > > Recycling is our way of saying, "I'm sorry, honey."
> > >
> > > Sinners have every right to repent, but in this country
> > > religious sacraments
> > > are not supposed to be legally mandated or publicly
> > > subsidized. Recycling
> > > bottles and cans next year would cost taxpayers more than $50
> > > million. Why
> > > don't its devotees find another ritual of atonement that
> > > might help the
> > > environment and save the city money?
> > >
> > >
> > > SUPPOSE that all the time and money spent exhorting children
> > > and adults to
> > > recycle were spent instead urging each New Yorker to pick up
> > > one piece of
> > > litter each day. Millions of pieces of trash would disappear;
> > > street-cleaning bills would plummet.
> > >
> > > Perhaps guilty consumers could get used to paying for their
> > > sins with cash.
> > > Environmentalists could urge the end of free trash
> > > collection. If people had
> > > to pay for each can of trash they produced, they'd find ways to reduce
> > > waste, and the city budget would benefit.
> > >
> > > Or suppose environmentalists channeled their zeal for
> > > recycling into another
> > > political cause: putting tolls on the East River bridges.
> > > These tolls would
> > > have economic virtues (more on that in another column), while
> > > also reducing
> > > air pollution and fuel consumption by easing traffic congestion. The
> > > recycling program, by contrast, increases local air pollution and fuel
> > > consumption by putting extra trucks on the roads to collect
> > > bottles and
> > > cans.
> > >
> > > Could the act of paying a toll be turned into a sacrament?
> > > Could children
> > > and adults be trained to regard the toll as penance for the
> > > extravagance of
> > > owning a gas- guzzling, polluting machine?
> > >
> > > Some recycling devotees might not be satisfied. Paying a toll
> > > on the East
> > > River bridges might seem too simple, too antiseptic, too easy
> > > by comparison
> > > with the mortification of sorting garbage. For these
> > > ascetics, maybe the
> > > best ritual would be for them to get out of their cars
> > > altogether and walk
> > > across the bridges, possibly on their knees. For extra penance, these
> > > pilgrims could carry sacks filled with old bottles and cans.
> > >
> > > ******************************
> > >
> > > David Markert
> > > Container Recycling Institute
> > > 1911 N. Fort Myer Drive, Suite 702
> > > Arlington, VA   22209
> > > Tel:  703-276-9800
> > > Fax:  703-276-9587
> > > E-mail: dmarkert@container-recycling.org
> > >
> > > www.container-recycling.org
> > > www.bottlebill.org
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > bb-action-ntwk mailing list
> > > bb-action-ntwk@lists.bottlebill.org
> > > http://lists.bottlebill.org/mailman/listinfo/bb-action-ntwk
> > > To unsubscribe, email kpaulson@container-recycling.org with
> > > your request.
> > >
> >******************************************
> >To post to the greenyes list,
> >email to: greenyes@grrn.org
> >
> >Subscription information for
> >this list is available here:
> >http://www.grrn.org/general/greenyes.html
> >******************************************
> >******************************************
> >To post to the greenyes list,
> >email to: greenyes@grrn.org
> >
> >Subscription information for
> >this list is available here:
> >http://www.grrn.org/general/greenyes.html
> >******************************************
> >******************************************
> >To post to the greenyes list,
> >email to: greenyes@grrn.org
> >
> >Subscription information for
> >this list is available here:
> >http://www.grrn.org/general/greenyes.html
> >******************************************
>
>Michele Raymond
>Publisher
>Recycling Laws International/ State Recycling Laws Update
>5111 Berwyn Rd. Ste 115 College Park, MD 20740)
>301/345-4237   Fax 345-4768
>http://www.raymond.com

Michele Raymond
Publisher
Recycling Laws International/ State Recycling Laws Update
5111 Berwyn Rd. Ste 115 College Park, MD 20740)
301/345-4237   Fax 345-4768
http://www.raymond.com

******************************************
To post to the greenyes list,
email to: greenyes@grrn.org

Subscription information for
this list is available here:
http://www.grrn.org/general/greenyes.html
******************************************