RE: [greenyes] RE: [CRRA] Comments on White Paper #4

["Reindl, John" <Reindl@no.address>]

I recommend that all solid waste activities include the cost of
externalities (a la Pigou). In Europe, some countries, for example, have
placed substantial fees on landfills to cover these environmental costs.

In addition, I recommend that the cost of the subsidies for virgin materials
be more accurately accounted (besides the federal subsidies, there are state
and local subsidies, such as reduced or no property taxes on both publicly
and privately owned forests), and, then, eliminated.

John 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rory Bakke [mailto:rbakke@no.address]
> Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2004 4:02 PM
> To: 'Elizabeth A Citrino'; gaia-members@no.address;
> zwia@no.address; crra_members@no.address; greenyes@no.address;
> RicAnthony@no.address
> Subject: [greenyes] RE: [CRRA] Comments on White Paper #4
> 
> 
> Yes, I agree with Liz, especially about the first point.  
> Lower garbage
> rates are not allowing for enough economic incentive for 
> providers to offer
> separate food waste collection and marketing services, for instance.
> 
> Regarding the issue of waste prevention education, not sure 
> this is best
> done by haulers at this point.  I think that we need a local
> government/non-profit collaborative/possibly business leaders 
> effort on this
> one and it should be based on quantitative objectives.  Will 
> be talking a
> little about this at the upcoming NRC presentation.
> 
> Rory Bakke
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Elizabeth A Citrino [mailto:lcitrino@no.address] 
> Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2004 7:33 PM
> To: gaia-members@no.address; zwia@no.address;
> crra_members@no.address; greenyes@no.address; RicAnthony@no.address
> Subject: [CRRA] Comments on White Paper #4
> 
> Two thoughts -
> 
> I would like to see this paper include two additional points -
> 
> The impact on properly priced disposal fees as a 
> participation incentive in
> reduction and recycling programs (could be included in the 
> PAYT section, or
> as a stand-alone); and
> 
> the importance of including waste prevention in an effective education
> program, particularly in regard to business success.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Liz Citrino
> (530)626-5077
> lcitrino@no.address
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <RicAnthony@no.address>
> To: <gaia-members@no.address>; <zwia@no.address>;
> <crra_members@no.address>; <greenyes@no.address>
> Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2004 5:35 PM
> Subject: [CRRA] White paper #4: Beyond 50% Waste Diversion thru Reuse,
> Recycling& Composting
> 
> 
> GRC is circulating portions of a White Paper for your review 
> and comment
> that
> are being prepared for the International Dialog for Proper Discard
> Management.  GRC welcomes your suggestions before the event 
> about how well
> each portion
> of the White Paper addresses the overall topic of the paper.  
> Please reply
> to
> this listserve with comments to share with all and replace 
> the subject with
> "Comments on White Paper", or comment directly to me at 
> Ricanthony@no.address,
> by
> cutting and pasting this document into WORD, and using the 
> Tracking tool to
> send suggested specific markups of this draft document that we should
> incorporate
> in before distributing it on August 26, 2004.  Please send 
> your comments in
> no later than Friday, noon PST, August 20, 2004.
> 
> 
> Thanks for your input to developing a clear direction for the 
> new Zero Waste
> industry!"
> 
> White Paper the Proper Management of Discards in the New Millennium
> Fourth of a series of papers for discussion;
> 
> 
> Beyond 50% Waste Diversion through Reuse, Recycling & Composting
> 
> By Brenda Platt
> Co-Director
> Institute for Local Self-Reliance
> www.ilsr.org
> 
> Introduction
> 
> Recycling came of age in the 1990s.  The number of curbside recycling
> programs climbed to 9,300 and the national recycling rate 
> approached 30%.
> Public
> policies have spurred recycling around the country.  
> Mandatory recycling
> requirements, pay-as-you-throw trash fees, buy-recycled 
> campaigns, minimum
> recycled-content legislation, grant and loan programs, and 
> recycling market
> development
> zones encouraged both the supply and demand for recyclable 
> materials and
> products.
> 
> Private sector initiatives have been remarkable too.  Many businesses
> reduced
> their waste and redesigned their products and packaging with materials
> efficiency and cost cutting in mind.  Some even adopted zero 
> waste goals.
> The
> technology available to utilize recyclable materials has 
> never been better.
> 
> Technological developments, citizen activism, and public 
> policies have laid
> the groundwork for a zero waste and sustainable future.  
> Twenty years ago,
> most
> solid waste planners thought at most 25% of the waste stream could be
> recycled.  Today more than 100 communities report 50% and higher waste
> reduction
> levels.[1] A number of individual establishments -- public and private
> sector --
> such as office buildings, schools, hospitals, restaurants, 
> and supermarkets
> have approached 90% and higher levels.
> 
> Keys to residential program success include:
> Targeting a wide range of materials,
> Composting yard debris,
> Designing programs for convenience,
> Using pay-as-you-throw trash fees,
> Requiring resident participation; and
> State initiatives and policies.
> 
> 
> Targeting a Wide Range of Materials
> 
> Accepting a wide range of materials is vital to reaching high waste
> diversion
> levels.  Communities with high recycling levels recover 17 to 
> 31 different
> types of materials. Paper and yard trimmings are especially important.
> 
> Reusable items are also important to target.  Durable goods, 
> textiles, and
> wooden pallets make up 23.3% of the municipal waste stream 
> (nationally only
> 16.7% of the 53 million tons are recovered).[2]  Reuse 
> organizations such as
> Materials for the Arts (New York City), LA Shares (Los 
> Angeles), and Urban
> Ore
> (Berkeley) accept a wide range of reusable items from furniture and
> electronics to
> books and clothing.  LA Shares has expanded from its 
> warehouse operations
> into web-based matching and is moving significantly more 
> materials as a
> result.
> A growing trend in many communities is "swap shops," where 
> residents can
> leave or take reusable items. And some vanguard communities, 
> such as Saint
> Paul,
> Minnesota, have added reusable household items to their 
> curbside recycling
> programs.
> 
> Composting Yard Debris
> 
> The number of composting facilities that process yard debris 
> has grown from
> under 1,000 in 1988 to over 3,800 today.  Nationally, yard 
> debris represents
> 12% of municipal discards.  But, of course, it can account 
> for much more of
> a
> community's residential discard stream, especially in 
> communities with large
> lawns and mature trees.  Composting yard trimmings is an 
> essential element
> in
> striving for zero waste.  A study of 18 waste reduction record-setting
> communities indicated that in 11 of these, composting yard trimmings
> accounted for half
> or more of all residential waste reduction.  Composting 
> levels alone ranged
> from 17% to 43% of residential discards generated.[3]  The 
> best composting
> programs target a wide range of yard trimmings and offer 
> service year-round.
> 
> Designing Programs for Convenience
> 
> Residents are more likely to participate if set-out requirements are
> uncomplicated and recyclables collection is frequent.  
> Providing adequate
> containers
> also improves convenience.  Curbside as well as drop-off 
> collection gives
> residents more recycling options.
> 
> Using Pay-as-You-Throw Trash Fees
> 
> The U.S. EPA reports 4,032 communities charge 
> pay-as-you-throw (PAYT) fees
> for trash, in which residents pay by bag or can for the 
> amount of trash they
> set
> out at the curb for pick-up. Such fees are a direct economic 
> incentive to
> reduce trash and recover as much as possible.  These systems are not a
> recent
> innovation; in fact, Richmond, California, implemented PAYT 
> fees in 1912.[4]
> 
> Recent growth in programs, though, has been spurred by the 
> success of PAYT
> trash
> fees in encouraging recycling and waste reduction.  Research 
> indicates that
> PAYT trash fees contribute to waste prevention and when combined with
> frequent
> curbside collection and drop-off programs for recyclables, the highest
> recycling rates are achieved.[5]
> 
> Requiring Resident Participation
> 
> Local requirements and mandates encourage participation.  
> Many, if not most,
> of the recycling record-setters ILSR has documented have some 
> type of local
> ordinance requiring residents to source-separate or banning set-out of
> designated materials with their trash.  A study of more than 
> three dozen
> communities
> found that 14 of the 19 programs with recycling participation 
> above 80% were
> mandatory programs.[6]
> 
> State Initiatives and Policies
> 
> State policies in particular have been effective in 
> increasing recycling
> levels.  Many of California's record-setters, for instance, began or
> expanded
> their programs in response to the state's 50% recycling goal.
> 
> Perhaps it is not surprising that the top waste reducing states --
> California, Florida, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New 
> Jersey, New York,
> Oregon,
> Washington, and Wisconsin -- rely on a mix of strategies.  
> These states have
> recycling goals ranging from 30% to 65% and have one or more of the
> following
> policies:  mandatory recycling, landfill bans, public sector 
> grants, tax
> credits,
> minimum-recycled content requirements, buy-recycled programs, and/or
> beverage
> container deposits.
> 
> State Recycling Goals and Requirements Have Helped Increase 
> Recycling:  At
> least seven states have recycling goals that include 
> requirements for local
> governments to individually meet the state goals.  These 
> include California,
> New
> Jersey, and Wisconsin, states that are home to many community waste
> reduction
> record-setters. New Jersey's "Statewide Source Separation and 
> Recycling Act"
> mandated residents and commercial and institutional 
> generators of municipal
> 
> solid waste recover materials for recycling.  In 1986, the 
> year before the
> legislation passed, the state's municipal recycling rate was 
> 12%. By 1991,
> only five
> years later, the rate had reached 39%.[7]
> 
> Disposal Bans Have Spurred Recycling:  Some landfill bans, 
> such as those
> targeting batteries and mercury products, serve to keep 
> hazardous materials
> out of
> landfills.  Other bans on materials such as yard trimmings, paper, and
> containers were designed to encourage recycling.  Indeed, 
> they have been
> very
> effective mechanisms.  The 22 states with yard debris bans 
> are home to 49%
> of the
> U.S. population and 74% of the country's yard trimmings 
> composting sites.[8]
> 
> Creative Funding Mechanisms Have Boosted Recycling-Based 
> Industries:  By the
> 1990s, 37 states had developed special funding mechanisms such as tax
> credits,
> tax exemptions, loans, and grants.[9]  Pennsylvania has awarded
> approximately
> $40 million in funds to companies and local government to 
> expand recycling
> markets and economic development opportunities.  More than 
> 100 Pennsylvania
> companies now manufacture products with recycled content.  
> New York's Empire
> State
> Development Environmental Management Investment Group has had similar
> success.  In California, the state's Recycled Market Development Zone
> program has
> made dozens of loans worth millions of dollars.  As a result, 
> hundreds of
> jobs
> have been created at businesses that recycle more than 2 
> million tons of
> materials.
> 
> Minimum Recycled-Content Legislation, Requirements and Goals 
> Have Helped
> Build Markets for Recovered Materials:  Minimum recycled-content
> legislation,
> requirements, and goals have supported markets for 
> recycled-content goods.
> For
> example, California's newsprint law requires that by January 
> 2000, at least
> 50%
> of newsprint used by state printers and publishers have at least 40%
> post-consumer paper content.  In 2002, California's 
> publishing and printing
> industry
> reported using 921,257 metric tons of recycled newsprint. 
> This surpassed the
> state
> 's 2000 goal, accounting for 56% of total newsprint used.[10]
> 
> Beverage Container Deposits Have Been Highly Effective:  Although many
> beverage container deposit bills (popularly known as bottle 
> bills) were
> originally
> enacted to fight litter, the bills have also been a boon to recycling.
> Recovery of beer and soda containers is higher in deposit 
> bill states than
> in the
> rest of the country. In non-deposit states, approximately 38% 
> of beer and
> soda
> containers are recovered.  In contrast, 78% are recovered in 
> states where
> these
> containers have a refund value.  Containers collected through 
> deposit bill
> systems account for between 5% and 15% of total municipal materials
> recovered in
> those states.[11]
> 
> Buy-Recycled Programs Have Increased Demand for Recycled 
> Products:  In 1986,
> only 13 states and a handful of cities and counties had some sort of
> buy-recycled policy on the books.  Five years later, the 
> other 37 states had
> followed
> suit and more than 250 local jurisdictions had formal 
> buy-recycled policies.
> The U.S. EPA's federal guidelines for buying recycled 
> products have been
> critical to effective state and local buy-recycled programs.  
> They have
> enabled
> other jurisdictions to readily implement the guidelines.  
> They have provided
> industry with a clear definition of products that are 
> acceptable, and thus
> have
> helped increase production of recycled products that meet the 
> standards.
> 
> A Word on Cost-Effectiveness
> 
> Many factors contribute to cost-effective programs. One key 
> is treating
> waste
> reduction as a primary waste management strategy, rather than 
> as an add-on.
> High diversion levels can reduce costs in two major ways:  (1) by
> significantly
> reducing landfill or other disposal costs, and (2) by 
> eliminating some trash
> routes and their associated costs.
> 
> 
> Conclusion
> 
> Readily available strategies and policies have already helped many
> communities achieve 50% and higher waste diversion through 
> reuse, recycling,
> and
> composting.  Almost all the record-setting waste reduction 
> communities the
> Institute
> for Local Self-Reliance has documented indicate they can do 
> better.  How?
> Increasing participation, improving the recovery rate of 
> materials already
> collected, and targeting additional materials such as food 
> discards and
> reusable
> items, to name a few.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [1] Institute for Local Self-Reliance, Waste Reduction Record-Setters
> Project. For more information on this project see ILSR's web site at
> http://www.ilsr.org/recycling.
> [2] U.S. EPA, Municipal Solid Waste in the United States:  
> 2001 Facts &
> Figures, EPA530-R-03-011 (Washington, DC:  October 2003), available at
> http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/non-hw/muncpl/pubs/msw2001.pdf.
> [3] Brenda Platt and Kelly Lease, Institute for Local 
> Self-Reliance, Cutting
> the Waste Stream in Half:  Community Record-Setters Show How,
> EPA530-R-99-013
> (Washington, DC:  U.S. EPA, June 1999) p. 14, available in 
> PDF format at
> http://www.ilsr.org/recycling.
> [4] U.S. EPA, Unit-Based Pricing in the United States:  A Tally of
> Communities (U.S. EPA PAYT Web page at 
> http://www.epa.gov/payt/index.htm).
> [5] Robin R. Jenkins, The Economics of Waste Reduction 
> (Brookfield, Vermont:
> Edward Elgar Publishing Company, 1993); and Marie Lynn 
> Miranda, et. al., "
> Market-Based Incentives and Residential Municipal Solid 
> Waste," Journal of
> Policy
> Analysis and Management Vol. 13 (1994), pp. 681-698; and Lisa 
> A. Skumatz,
> Ph.D., Nationwide Diversion Rate Study: Quantitative Effects 
> of Program
> Choices
> on Recycling and Green Waste Diversion (Los Angeles: Reason 
> Foundation,
> 1996),
> pp. 12-3.
> [6] Waste Prevention, Recycling, and Composting Options:  
> Lessons from 30
> U.S. Communities, EPA530-R-92-015 (Washington, DC:  U.S. Environmental
> Protection
> Agency, February 1994), p. 63.
> [7] New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, New 
> Jersey Solid
> Waste
> Database Trends Analysis (1985 through 1996), (New Jersey DEP 
> Web page at
> http://www.state.nj.us/dep.)
> [8] United States Census Bureau, State Population Estimates 
> and Demographic
> Components of Population Change (Census Bureau Web page at
> http://www.census.gov); and Jim Glenn, "The State of Garbage 
> in America,"
> BioCycle (April 1999),
> p. 64.
> [9] National Recycling Coalition 1998 Market Development 
> Directory: A Guide
> to State and Regional Market Development Programs Version 3.0 
> (Alexandria,
> Virginia: National Recycling Coalition, 1998).
> [10] California Integrated Waste Management Board, Recycled-Content
> Newsprint
> Program (Public Resources Code Sections 42750-42791) 
> (California Integrated
> Waste Management Web page at
> http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/buyrecycled/newsprint/default.htm); 
> and California
> Integrated Waste Management Board, January 29, 1998
> News Release: Waste Board Fines Printing Service.
> [11] Container Recycling Institute, The Ten-Cent Incentive to Recycle
> (Arlington, VA:  CRI, February 1997), p. 2; and Pat Franklin 
> (Executive
> Director,
> Container Recycling Institute, Arlington, Virginia), personal 
> communication,
> August and November 1999.
> 
> August 26 - 27, 2004 - Global Recycling Council: 
> International Dialog on
> Proper Discard Management in the New Millennium, San Francisco, CA.
> www.crra.com/grc/international/index.html
> August 28, 2004 - GRRN Zero Waste Network Action Conference, 
> Oakland , CA
> www.grrn.org
> August 29 - September 1, 2004 - NRC Congress & Expo, San 
> Francisco Moscone
> Center. www.nrc-recycle.org/congress
> September 1 - 3, 2004 - Deconstruction & Building Materials Reuse
> Conference, Oakland CA, www.decon04.com
> September 2, 2004 - National Recycling Market Development Roundtable,
> Oakland, CA, Register online at: http://www.epa.gov/jtr/
> 
>