GreenYes Archives
[GreenYes Archives] - [Thread Index] - [Date Index]
[Date Prev] - [Date Next] - [Thread Prev] - [Thread Next]

RE: [greenyes] Recycling and incineration
I agree with the remarks of Pete and Wayne, and recommend that we get a copy
of the analysis that was done in Sweden on which the news story is based. 

I am familiar with the 1999 study by the Swedish economics Professor Marian
Radetzki, which came up with a similar conclusion. A major component of the
cost of recycling was due to the cost of the householder in separating and
cleaning the recyclables and delivering them to the dropoff centers. For
example, for newspapers, the personal cost per tonne to recycle was 6,500
Swedish kronor out of a total cost of 6,967 SEK per tonne (after subtracting
the value of the environmental benefits). For landfilling and incineration,
there was no personal cost assigned to the handling of the material, and
total costs were about 1,840 SEK per tonne. Other economists believe that
this accounting of personal costs is not legitimate. 

I have a 4 page summary of the paper in English, as well as the 92 page
report in Swedish, and would be glad to send copies of either to anyone who
is interested. It is my understanding that the full report was published in
English in the UK.

John Reindl, Recycling Manager
Dane County, WI 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Wayne Turner [mailto:WAYNET@no.address]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2003 10:22 AM
> To: greenyes@no.address
> Subject: [greenyes] Recycling
> In reference to the published musings of recycling opponents, 
> Pete Pasterz wrote:
> "But, I'm not of the school which says we should dismiss and 
> ignore these
> attacks...I think we should take these head on, or risk these tales to
> become truths..."
> I couldn't agree more.  The war of words takes it toll in 
> subtle but tangible ways that makes it much more difficult to 
> advance waste reduction and recycling over cheap waste 
> disposal in 'landfills' or 'highly engineered disposal 
> facilities'.  My favorite recent euphemism is 'natural 
> attentuation' which means *do nothing* in the context of 
> remediating groundwater contamination.
> Advanced disposal fees and advanced recycling fees and bottle 
> deposit systems are called, garbage taxes, recycling taxes 
> and bottle bills, respectively, by their detractors in a 
> successfull attempt to negatively spin useful and practical 
> funding mechanisms.  I've purposefully cleaned up my 
> vocabulary over the years in deference to my professional 
> colleagues so that I no longer say 'dump' when referring to 
> in in-ground disposal facilities.  And, I've never called a 
> tipping fee a 'garbage tax'.  But you know, claiming the 
> moral high ground becomes frustrating when it continues to be 
> littered with the bones of thoughtful, useful and 
> historically successful concepts.  Responding in kind may be 
> the better way of getting the attention of some of these 
> disposal pundits so long as the response isn't in conflict 
> with one's personal beliefs and convictions.  Or, would that 
> eliminate nearly everything in the arsenal?
> Wayne
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: greenyes-unsubscribe@no.address
> For additional commands, e-mail: greenyes-help@no.address

[GreenYes Archives] - [Date Index] - [Thread Index]
[Date Prev] - [Date Next] - [Thread Prev] - [Thread Next]