Thank you for staying with this important conversation, Eric. I offer
At 10:31 AM 11/19/2008, Eric Lombardi wrote:
With the greatest respect for Helen
and all dedicated producer responsibility advocates ? I have waited to
respond to this to see what sort of emails might surface from
others. Unfortunately, not many?
Helen, I hear you, but I don?t see a 3-Bin World being incompatible with
an EPR World. If the industrial designers of the world
redesign everything to be either reusable, recyclable or
compostable (our goal, ya?), then we?ll still need a discard
collection system from homes and businesses.
The challenge, Eric, is that it is unlikely that there will ever be a
single "discard collection system" that is capable of dealing
with "everything." Theere is so much diversity in
"everything." Each thing has particular requirements in
handling. The model of "discard collection from homes and
businesses" was invented with a homogeneous stream in mind. It works
better for homogeneous materials -- paper products, for instance -- but
as soon as you start broadening the stream problems begin. The
practicalities of managing this diverse stream in a "mass
transit" system are unsurmountable. I remain convinced that we need
a different model for recovering discards.
Any packaging or product that isn?t
Zero Waste compatible would then go into the Landfill Bin, sent through a
Residue Process that would then ?identify? the villain and a big tax is
slapped on them. If you want to get glass bottles out of the
recycling bin and into the refillables box, then go for it!
I'm with you here. How about if we develop a "checklist" of
essential policy instruments for Zero Waste - things that a community
that adopts a Zero Waste Resolution can do to measure progress towards
Zero. The first thing on the list would be disposal bans and economic
penalties for wasting recyclable products.
As for refillable glass, this option can't compete against publicly
subsidized wasting programs (which in my opinion include recycling as
well as landfill disposal: single-use glass has the highest environmental
footprint of any beverage package.) We need to withdraw the subsidy for
single-use glass by refusing to provide public collection
programs. These should be subject to mandatory deposit/refund
systems, and the producers who use one-way glass should be required to
pay a Pigovian tax reflecting the environmental cost of this
As for the big stuff like e-scrap, appliances, etc etc ? then EPR is much
easier there. That stuff doesn?t go in the 3-Bins
The question will always be: what does go in the 3-Bins? How about empty
lipstick tubes? Old running shoes? That electric blanket?
We have a huge job ahead of us chasing after all these pieces of the
problem because they, collectively, add up to the Big Stuff. The limits
of the 3-Bins looms sooner than we think.
My question to you is that if you don?t like the ?3-Bin with EPR? World,
and you don?t like what Germany has created ? then what do you like and
has anyone done it yet? Please paint us a picture of how
your ideal community deals with discards ?
NOW you're getting down to brass tacks! You are absolutely correct to
challenge me with this question, Eric. This is exactly the challenge that
we are going to start working on here in Vancouver. I think we have the
incinerator salesmen in the run here. In our candidate survey in the
recent civic elections there was an overwhelming (95%) rejection of
incineration - including by the new Mayor of this city and 9 out of 10 of
the Councillors (the 10th didn't respond to the survey, but is an avid
What we need to do for our elected officials and our citizens is create a
"picture" of what we can do instead of building incinerators. I
think the current economic collapse is going to create the perfect storm
for testing out a lot of the new possibilities. Dan Knapp's
"scavenger" model is closer, I think, than the current 3-Bin
model. I'll chime in from time to time with thoughts and look forward to
brainstorming with the list....
On Behalf Of Helen Spiegelman
Sent: Monday, November 17, 2008 10:51 AM
To: greenyes greenyes
Subject: [GreenYes] Re: market downturn
With the greatest respect for Eric and all dedicated recyclers, I have to
insist that single-stream recycling is a snare and a delusion.
Eric, waste is not a technological problem, to be solved by optimizing
MRF speed. It is a social problem, arising from people's assumption that
there are simple, convenient solutions that will be almost as easy as
wasting. I have to insist that your "3-Bin Discard Collection
World" is not my vision of the future. Three bins is almost as great
an oversimplification as One Bin. The more we try to put in that
recycling bin, the more it looks like a garbage can.
But the most dangerous thing about single-stream recycling is the way it
protects producers from responsibility. ARBoone writes:
I am not aware of any markets anywhere for post-consumer mylar
although I have seen rolls of pre-consumer mylar film trim in plastics
recycling plants. Mylar is 30% of my non-recyclable discards.
Here is what Germany's much-vaunted producer-responsibility program
for packaging looks like -- full of mylar headed for the incinerator. The
European "Green Dot" recycling system has become a
waste-of-energy system (they even had to amend the Packaging
Directive for this) because single-stream collection gives producers of
non-recyclable packaging cover.
When I lived in Colorado for a year it broke my heart that I had no
choice but to dump 14 glass micro-brew beer bottles that George and I
drained each week into a big dumpster with a recycling symbol on the
side. What a waste. I sure miss the Boulder Flatirons in the
sunrise... but I sure like living in a place where I can get any
domestic beer in a refillable bottle.
At 03:16 PM 11/14/2008, Eric Lombardi wrote:
Single stream is not the big bad monster here folks. As Biddle said
in his last email, there are different qualities of single stream out
there. The key is the technology and how many tons an hour you run
In the early history of SS, the markets did not enforce or reward
quality, thus the MRF's didn't get the pricing feedback that said
"clean it up stupid"... instead, the world has been buying
everything at an increasing price!!! Because the collection
cost savings are real (and this is the most expensive part of the ZW
system), and because less trucking equals less GHG, the technology for
automated sorting of mixed recyclables just keeps on getting
better. And that is good, because hand sorting recyclables is
not a great job. So, we're at the point now that if you run the
SS technology really sloooowwwwllllyyyyy, then you can get a really good
quality sorting job done and the mills will love the quality of the
stuff. But if you run the system too slowly, then your
throughput rate is too low, and you won't make any money.
Thus, the conflict over who is going to make any money ... the MRF's or
the Mills? Because I've been told by a big name expert on paper
mills (Bill Moore) that the new cleaning screens on the new mills in
Asia are much much better than ours here domestically and they CAN
clean up the dirtier SS fibers they are getting. Proof of that is
the increasing price and demand for fiber over the last five years while
I am not advocating dirtier recyclables, but I am saying that single
stream collections is a key piece of transforming our world into a
3-Bin Discard Collection World, thus putting a stake through the
heart of the 1-Bin Trash World... and if we win this single battle of
creating a "source separated world", then we will also
have killed the economics of landfilling and burning.
The real issue before us now is to understand why China was able to bring
us all to our knees like this? One reason is because we have let
our domestic recycling industry die, and the only way we will fix that is
to create bigger markets here at home for recovered resources. The
way to do that is called "national minimum content standards"
for everything manufactured or imported into the US. The NRC
discussed this in 1994, but when the markets exploded in 1995 and
suddenly the recycling business was profitable... well ... we all just
went to work. But NOW is the time to bring this issue back...
even if Chindia (China and India) are going to keep buying everything we
throw away, we should still be looking local and using our discards
From: "Helen Spiegelman" <email@example.com>
Sent: Friday, November 14, 2008 3:40 PM
To: "greenyes greenyes"
Subject: [GreenYes] Re: market downturn
Hi all ~
I share Amy's concerns. Here in Vancouver (CANADA) we are trying to head
off a shift to single-stream. See a
post to our Zero Waste Blog on the issue.
At 02:16 PM 11/14/2008, Amy Perlmutter wrote:
I just saw this in NRC"s e-newsletter. I was surprised about the 2nd
point under 'what to do.' I would think that the quality of material
from single stream programs would make those materials harder to market
at times like this. Thoughts?
Georgia Recycling Coalition Releases Advisory on
Impact of Commodity Values on Recycling Programs
Earlier this week NRC Affiliate, the Georgia Recycling Coalition (GRC),
in conjunction with the Georgia Department of Community Affairs and
several industry representatives, released an informative advisory
and analysis summarizing the factors that influenced the recent drop in
recycling commodity values along with a set recommendations for
"weathering the storm":
? Market prices for recycled commodities were at historic, unsustainable
highs - this market correction was expected but exacerbated by the world
wide credit crisis and global recession.
? The number of recycling programs in the country has grown, thus
increasing the overall supply of recovered materials.
? As the economy slows the manufacture and sale of new products has
slowed thus lowering the demand for paper products and other recyclable
? Asian markets may have over reacted to the Financial Market crisis by
ceasing paper and other recyclable commodity imports.
? When the Asian markets ceased imports, a significant "new"
sup ply of recyclable materials was available in the U.S.; however with a
sluggish economy demand for the existing supply of recyclables was
? Demand for recyclables, although reduced in a sluggish economy, will
continue; however they will be more localized to the end markets using
the materials - transportation is a major factor impacting the market
price of recyclable commodities. (In the long run, this may make
recycling more sustainable by linking where materials are collected to
? Lower oil prices have had an impact on recycled plastic commodity
prices but may ease the need for recyclable revenues needed to offset
high fuel prices for recyclable collection.
Impact to local governments - what to do..
? Don't over react! Just like the financial markets, now is not the
time to sell. Need to stay in the "market" for the long-haul.
Markets are cyclical - the cost to restart versus maintaining a recycling
collection program during a sluggish recyclable market is significant and
should be considered carefully.
? Minimize collection costs. The collection and transportation of
recyclables are a major cost of recycling. Single-stream collection
programs will minimize collection costs and as market values drop, single
stream collection programs will continue to off-set time, labor, and cost
intensive manual source separated collection programs.
? Minimize processing costs. Identify stable; efficient recycling
processors. Automated, efficient processing recycling centers will be key
in lowering processing costs while still maintaining a degree of high
quality of materials for end markets.
? Some local companies may look at this as a feasible time to make
upgrades to facilities in order to streamline their operations toward
higher efficiency; this should be construed to be a positive move toward
future operations, although it may seem inconvenient for the short
? Hold the course:
- Recyclables delivered to local end users support local business, jobs,
- Recycling conserves water and energy, resulting in manufacturing
savings thus building stronger local economies;
- Recycling is a strong component of any livable/sustainable community
- The cost to process recyclables is typically less expensive than
? Consider short-term collection contracts. If you are considering, or
have a long-term contract, include or add a provision to share in
commodity processing costs and/or revenues depending upon the market
conditions; understanding that recyclable collection is a service many
residents want or have come to expect in their community.
? Remember, commodity prices are subject to supply and demand. Market
prices have been at an all time high for the past few years, when making
decisions on program changes look at a three-year (3) average (at a
minimum) of market prices before conceding to renegotiate revenue sharing
contracts or modifying a recycling collection program.
23 Avon Street
Cambridge, MA 02138
Strategic planning, partnership building, communications, and program
design for a sustainable future
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "GreenYes" group.
To post to this group, send email to GreenYes@no.address
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to GreenYesfirstname.lastname@example.org
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/GreenYes?hl=en