Re: [GreenYes] Re: Single Stream Processing - Pro and Con

[Helen Spiegelman <hspie@telus.net>]

Yes, Roger.


At 12:12 AM 04/26/2002 -0400, Roger Guttentag wrote:
>(Note to GreenYesers: in order to keep this email reasonable in length -
>please refer to previous communications on this topic under the discussion
>thread labeled "Re: 2002 Recycling Today Paper Recycling Conference Report")
>
>Dear Helen:
>
>I must confess that I did not understand your message.  If I wanted to
>realize the additional value of my recyclables by sorting them, there is
>nothing stopping me from then selling them to a buy-back operation.  Are you
>suggesting that there should be multiple recycling collection systems
>serving the same community serving different constituencies that are
>differentiated by willingness to sort?
>
>Sincerely,
>
>Roger M. Guttentag
>610-584-8836
>rgutten@concentric.net
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: Helen Spiegelman <hspie@telus.net>
>To: <greenyes@grrn.org>
>Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2002 11:59 AM
>Subject: Re: [GreenYes] Re: 2002 Recycling Today Paper Recycling Conference
>Report
>
>
> > Michele,
> >
> > As a fellow free-enterpriser, I have to challenge you on your analysis of
> > the issue of fibre sorting!
> >
> > You suggest that it is a *social* issue whether fibre products should be
> > sorted  ("not possible to educate all consumers", "OK for middleclass
> > suburban neighbourhoods" etc.). While this observation scratches the
>truth,
> > it falls short of proposing a solution.
> >
> > Sure some people's time is too valuable to waste it sorting their garbage
> > -- those people should be expected to pay a price for having someone else
> > do it. That's not what happens in our municipal recycling systems.
> >
> > If we design inflexible collection systems that do not allow some
>motivated
> > consumers to reap economic benefits by adding value to their discards by
> > sorting them, then we miss an opportunity to make recycling more
>efficient.
> > This is not a question of 'education' it is a question of economics.
> >
> > IMHO, the last thing the city should do is provide free collection of
> > unsorted fibres. This distorts the market by rewarding those who don't
>take
> > the trouble to sort. It diverts a huge volume of otherwise high-grade
>fibre
> > from the market. It shuts out those who would like to realize economic
> > benefits by sorting their trash. It also perpetuates the crude 19th
>century
> > infrastructure of 'professional' trash sorters (what advanced professional
> > training does it require to stand at a malodorous conveyor and pick news
> > and OCC off a stream of MWP?)
> >
> > Until we free fibres from captivity in uneconomic monopolistic collection
> > systems we will never reach zero waste.
> >
> > Just my opinion, of course! :)
> >
> > Helen.
> >
>
>
>******************************************
>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
******************************************