Interesting observations, Pete.
My conclusion is that it is inconsistent to ban disposal without, at the
same time, mandating recycling. And also these measures have no effect
The missing element, I found in a survey of disposal bans in British
Columbia a couple years ago, is PUBLIC INFORMATION. Most of the rules
exist on the books only, but do not become part of the community culture
because the public doesn't know about them.
Our regional government is expanding and stepping up enforcement of bans
- and committing resources to public information about the programs. Here
we have a lot to learn from the state of California, which is really good
at catchy TV ads. Darryl Young showed audiences in Australia some great
ads promoting the CA bottle bill. It has to be really catchy and at the
same time preachy: like anti-smoking campaigns?
At 08:14 AM 7/17/2007, Pete Pasterz wrote:
I don't agree that bans
and collection mandates necessarily lead to the same outcome...here in
North Carolina, we have several banned items, but voluntary provision of
recycling services by local communities, and voluntary citizen
participation. Those municipalities that don't provide service, or
that provide inferior programs have a majority of the banned items still
going to landfill. Even in Mecklenburg County, which has
[had] been an early leader in recycling and education programs, more
materials, including banned ones like aluminum cans, go to the landfill
than the MRF. If there were some [any] enforcement of the
bans, this may have the desired effect of directing the materials to
a recycling stream...or to a roadside dump, depending on the
incentives given to the generators.
So, the combination of
bans and voluntary programs is not optimizing recycling here. I'm
not sure that mandates would necessarily change this, without also a
framework for a better focus on economic and intrinsic incentives to
generators. The financial incentives don't necessarily need to be
PAYT-type rewards/penalties, or RecycleBank coupons; they could also be
product/packaging costs which reflect their impacts...
Cabarrus County, NC
On Behalf Of Helen Spiegelman
Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2007 6:40 PM
Subject: [GreenYes] Re: Recycling to be mandatory? Compromise bill
may bevoted on soon in House
I am interested in the dualism of "mandatory recycling" and
"disposal bans" which lead to the same outcome. Does anyone
have experience that compares the effectiveness of the two
At 08:52 AM 6/21/2007, Reindl, John wrote:
This is great news ! Wisconsin has
had mandatory recycling in place since the early 1990's and, while not
perfect, it has worked very well. Without mandatory recycling, I doubt
that we would have the economies of scale for either collection,
processing, or marketing.
Dane County, WI
- -----Original Message-----
- From: GreenYes@no.address
Behalf Of RicAnthony@no.address
- Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2007 10:17 AM
- To: GreenYes@no.address
- Subject: [GreenYes] Recycling to be mandatory? Compromise bill may be
voted on soon in House
- Published: Jun 19, 2007 - 11:19:49 pm EDT
- Recycling to be mandatory? Compromise bill may be voted on soon in
- By Drew Volturo, Delaware State News
- DOVER -- Lawmakers pushing two separate curbside residential
recycling bills have reached a compromise on legislation that would be
mandatory and charge a $3 per ton assessment on solid waste.
- The measure, a combination of two bills that had their supporters and
detractors, was being shopped around Legislative Hall Tuesday and could
find its way to the House of Representatives floor for a vote soon.
- "We have been doing voluntary recycling for several years and
can't get much above 15 percent (participation among residents),"
said Rep. Pamela S. Maier, R-Newark, who is sponsoring the compromise
- "I don't want folks to be afraid of the word 'mandatory,' which
always raises red flags."
- Rep. Maier originally sponsored a bill that would mandate curbside
residential recycling, while Gov. Ruth Ann Minner backed legislation
calling for voluntary recycling and setting up a $3 per ton
- The compromise measure incorporates many of the tenets of the
Minner-backed legislation, including the assessment, which would create a
fund to help with startup costs associated with recycling programs, and
the establishment of recycling goals.
- Secretary of Natural Resources and Environmental Control John A.
Hughes said his department could live with the mandatory recycling bill,
but he prefers the original voluntary measure because it would be more
palatable to legislators and residents.
- "We agree with getting recycling started, planting the
seeds," Mr. Hughes said.
- "We will reach the point when the majority of people see how
well recycling functions and the costs are balanced out by large-scale
- Then, Mr. Hughes said, adopting a mandatory system would be less
- He noted that his hometown of Rehoboth Beach has implemented
voluntary curbside recycling through Delaware Solid Waste Authority and
many of his neighbors already have signed up for the program.
- Mr. Hughes said he is concerned that mandatory recycling might not
pass, and the voluntary proposal might end up on the cutting room floor
- Clean Air Council community outreach director James Black said he
would have preferred a mandatory recycling bill without the assessment,
which is estimated to cost the average household 38 cents a month.
- "Mandatory recycling is not as much of a problem as it used to
be because people realize to reach the goals we set, it has to be
mandatory," Mr. Black said.
- "It's better to have a compromise bill now because every year we
wait, the trash in the landfills is going to pile that much
- But Delaware Solid Waste Authority CEO Pasquale "Pat"
Canzano said not establishing the assessment while requiring recycling
creates an unfunded mandate, which often is difficult to meet.
- "(The bill) provides the ability for public and private entities
to apply for grants for recycling programs, which should increase the
amount of recycling," Mr. Canzano said.
- Under the legislation, a recycling fund would be established and
financed by a $3 per ton assessment on all solid waste -- excluding
recyclables -- collected and/or disposed of in Delaware.
- That money, Deputy DNREC Secretary David Small said, would be
available to private companies, municipalities and community
organizations as startup funds for recycling programs and could be used
to purchase equipment, such as a truck or recycling containers.
- Once a local government reaches a recycling rate of 30 percent, it
would not be assessed the $3 a ton surcharge.
- "At some point, around 30-40 percent recycling, towns would be
saving enough in tipping and disposal fees to cover recycling
costs," Mr. Small said.
- But how would the mandatory component of the legislation be
- Rep. Robert J. Valihura Jr., R-Wilmington, a sponsor of the original
voluntary recycling bill and co-sponsor of the compromise measure, said
there are mechanisms in place to ensure the program's success.
- Refuse brought to a landfill already is inspected for contraband,
asbestos and other contaminants. If trash haulers start bringing in
refuse with too many recyclables, the landfills would reject the loads
and could fine the haulers, Rep. Valihura said.
- DSWA and DNREC, he said, would develop the exact process.
- The measure carries the goal of increasing Delaware's recycling from
15 percent to 30 percent recycling by 2010 and 51 percent by 2015.
- Post your opinions in the Public Issues Forum at newszap.com.
- Staff writer Drew Volturo can be reached at 741-8296
- See what's free at
E-mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the
North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third