Re: [greenyes] Abandoning glass recycling?

[Helen Spiegelman <hspie@no.address>]

Hello Alan,

I would like to suggest that the group is pursuing the wrong dichotomy. 
Rather than divide all waste into the two proposed categories, I suggest 
that you think about separating wastes into ORGANICS and OTHER WASTES.

There would need to be strong supplemental messaging about BANS on the 
disposal of HAZARDOUS PRODUCTS.

This is the familiar wet-dry system, which collects "wet" food waste, yard 
waste, and low-grade paper products separately from "dry" products, which 
would include both currently recyclable products (such as glass, 
newspapers, etc.) and products for which no current recycling programs 
exist (all other products except HAZARDOUS).

Thus, rather than bicker over which products are 'recyclable', we go with a 
distinction which is practical as well as principled.

PRACTICAL:
After hazardous products (paint, oil, pesticides, computers, etc.) organics 
cause the most immediate problem when landfilled: they are the source of 
leachate and methane. Also, there are local markets for finished compost 
(if nothing else, as soil amendment in public parks). Also, organics 
technologies are turning out to be quite diverse, with the promise of 
producing not only soil amendment but energy (methane) in conditions that 
are much more controlled than the very crude landfill gas capture programs 
that are being used by the waste industry to rehabilitate landfilling.

PRINCIPLED:
As a devout supporter of EPR, I hold to a vision that someday all products 
will go "back to their makers" (this is the kind of discourse we are 
supposed to use in the post-election era?). My belief in EPR also compels 
me to hold my local community responsible for proper stewardship of 
community organics. Just as I don't cut producers any slack in landfilling 
their products, I won't cut my local government any slack in landfilling 
community organics.

I urge you to take a look at Metro-Portland's White Paper on its Organic 
Waste Management Program at:

<http://www.metro-region.org/library_docs/recycling/white_paper-1-28-04_final.doc>www.metro-region.org/library_docs/recycling/white_paper-1-28-04_final.doc

Helen.









At 08:34 AM 11/3/2004, Alan Muller wrote:
> A group working on a curbside program for Delaware has proposed a two 
> stream system in which residents would separate their wastes into 
> recyclables, and non-recyclables to be landfilled.  Part of the proposal 
> is to have the users put the glass into the non-recyclables.
>
> Several reasons (or excuses) are offered for this, including:
>
> (1) broken glass will contaminate the paper stream and reduce prices 
> gotten for it;
>
> (2) recycling glass isn't profitable unless it's separated by color;
>
> (3) the tonnage is relatively small and decreasing (as plastic containers 
> take over) and glass is OK to landfill as a stable material.
>
> I would much appreciate some comment on this.
>
> Regards,
>
> Alan Muller
>
> Alan Muller, Executive Director
> Green Delaware
> Box 69
> Port Penn, DE 19731 USA
> (302)834-3466
> fax (302)836-3005
> greendel@no.address
> www.greendel.org