Dirty Harriet, the Recycling Cop
Rhywun sends along news of a tough new breed of NY city cop: The recycling enforcer. She's a maverick with a summons-book and she plays by her own rules. Or something like that:
"It feels good when I see everybody recycling," said Sergeant Pascall, a 47-year-old former fashion designer who came to New York from Trinidad 20 years ago. "But they're just not recycling correctly."
And so it is her job, and the job of 45 other recycling inspectors, to make sure that New Yorkers are doing what they are supposed to do. In the year after the city decided to get tough on recycling violators, inspectors issued 10,276 summonses throughout the city, collecting more than a quarter of a million dollars in fines….
In one stretch of three-story houses, Sergeant Pascall found a belt with metal inserts (not recyclable), an automobile hubcap (not recyclable), and an old plastic recycling wastebasket (not recyclable).
"There's a lot happening in here," Sergeant Pascall said, looking through another bag. Shallow plastic deli containers and clear plastic boxes, which are not accepted, were mixed with water bottles and a few tin cans, which can be recycled. But then her attention turned to a large white department store bag sitting by itself at the curb.
Sergeant Pascall put on a pair of mismatched rubber-coated gloves and untied the bag. Inside, plastic jugs were mixed with greasy food trays and toilet paper rolls, wet newspapers and coffee grounds.
She will let a few violations slide, she said, but once she counts five or more it is time to open her summons book.
"Oh, my god," she said after counting up well over five recycling sins. "This is another ticket."
Whole NY Times account here.
Quick question: Are the summonses recyclable?
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
I put everything in one bag and drop it down the garbage shute. Everything is recyclable, you see. It all goes to make wonderful landfill.
Another feel good initiative brought to you by the geniuses who setup random bag checks (which I have so far successfully skirted).
The summonses may be recyclable, but there is no need to do so. They are one resource which can never be exhausted.
Hmm, I wonder if feces wrapped in cardboard is recyclable. I guess we should leave it for them to make the decision. It's their job, after all.
So if you wanted to be sneaky and evil, you could get somebody in big trouble with the Garbage Police by dropping bags of improperly-sorted refuse in front of their houses and then sitting back and waiting for the tickets to pour in.
What's interesting is that when Bloomberg cut recycling a couple years ago (I think he eliminated metal collection? I forget exactly) he ADMITTED that recycling was a waste of time and money. But he brought it back full-force anyway - I guess the populace weren't feeling "good" enough only recycling glass and paper.
Garbage police? This is getting surreal.
That's odd.
Does any know how NYC's recycling works?
In my home town, they encourage recycling by requiring special trash bags that cost about fifty cents a piece. Recycling is collected for free, while trash requires payment. It's known as apPay-as-you-throw system. I believe we have a 54% rate of recycling, though those numbers are from 1996.
I think most leaders, like Bloomberg, realize it's a waste, but opposition to recycling programs is the surest way to get yourself tarred and feathered as someone who doesn't care about the environment...and...our children's future. Better to acquiesce to the nonsense.
Is it really true that recycling certain things, e.g. paper, is ~more~ expensive and ~more~ damaging to the environment than not recycling? I've just heard this claim and wonder if anyone has any good sources for this.
Recycling costs towns less than landfilling.
Either you want your town to have a high recycling rate, or you want to pay more for your trash disposal.
Your aesthetic judgement about having a recycling cop don't really matter.
Xmas,
And what happens when someone puts non-recyclable material in those special bags? Sooner or later your home town will have recycling police. viva la revolucion!
Andy D--
Yes, it is true. In fact, some recycling centers went on to become super-polluted Superfund sites. Recycling aluminum or glass is usually a good idea, but recycling paper or plastic is basically a manufacturing process involving lots and lots of chemicals (and recycling paper is far dirtier than making fresh paper). That's also why most , if not all, non-aluminum recycling centers can only survive via subsidies--they don't make enough money on their own to even break even, let alone make a profit.
MP, you missed Xmas's point.
His town, and mine, charge for garbage collection. Recycling is free. If the recycling truck sees non-recyclable materials in your bin, they just leave it behind. No need for tickets.
bubba,
They use bags in Xmasville, not bins.
Joe,
You entirely ignore the simple fact that, if you're trying to get your populace into the habit of recycling, then maybe issuing tickets and court summons for breaking the "recycling rules" isn't the best tactic.
Sorry, but this isn't, as you say, simply an "aesthetic" criticism; strictly policing a voluntary action (esp. via fines and court summons) is a surefire way to make sure less people volunteer. And that's a bit more than an aesthetic concern, wouldn't you say?
It amuses me that life is becoming more and more like the movie Cherry 2000.
Complain all you want about FEMA, it's this kind of story that makes me ashamed to be an American.
they don't make enough money on their own to even break even, let alone make a profit.
Jennifer: which has a lot to do with the simple fact that Aluminum Ore is extremely plentiful, and we have no danger of running out. Of course, when you have government-controlled/provided refuse handling, the "market force" involved in dealing with huge piles of trash is dimished, save for the few NIMBY's close to the landfill. If we all had to deal with our own trash, rather than sweeping it under a publicly-owner rug, then there would be greater market pressure to recycle coming from the elimination side of the equation. Not that I fully support complete privatization of refuse dumping, I'm just saying...
But that's what modern America is all about, Somebody--interfering with the life of Person A so Person B can feel better about himself.
I'm curious to know how they enforce recycling in large apartment buildings, especially since I just moved from a house to a large building. We have recycling bins in my basement - but the categories are different from what I remember when I lived in a house and had to put out the garbage myself. I suppose the super gets in trouble if I don't recycle correctly.
Fair enough, Evan. Pay as you throw - which put the power to determine costs and practices in the householder's hands - is probably a better way to win friends and influece people, along with its other virtues.
Jennifer, virgin paper mills are no cleaner than recycling operations. Even if we are to accept that assertion that the two operations are equally dirty, one eats trees that would otherwise, you know, do tree stuff, while the other eats trash, that would otherwise end up in a landfill.
"they don't make enough money on their own to even break even, let alone make a profit." They don't have to make a profit, or even break even, to be worth it. They just have to cost less than landfilling.
strictly policing a voluntary action (esp. via fines and court summons) is a surefire way to make sure less people volunteer.
Except recycling in NYC isn't voluntary. Is it voluntary anywhere - and if so, why on earth would anyone do it?
My favorite recyling quote:
Everything is biodegradeable, you're just impatient.
one eats trees that would otherwise, you know, do tree stuff
You DO know, don't you, that most paper nowadays comes from trees farmed expressly for that purpose? Recycling paper doesn't "save" trees anymore than avoiding the consumption of vegetables "saves" corn.
I live in a Manhattan apartment and we just toss everything down the chute and assume that the super and his crew sort it out. In our last few apartments, which lacked chutes, we actually saw the super doing this a few times down in the basement or on the sidewalk.
If I owned a home and had to sort the stuff myself, I am sure I would be paying those tickets; take a look at this simple guide: http://www.nrdc.org/cities/recycling/gnyc.pdf
Not simple enough for me.
It is true, at least from my personal experience, that New Yorkers have some kind of romantic or maybe religious attachment to recycling. When recycling was suspended the lefty grad students I know (are there any other kinds of grad students?) often griped and bitched about it, so Bloomberg (and every other elected official) has political reasons to pursue the recycling program, even if he doesn't have financial or economic ones.
I assumed Bllomberg brought back the recycling laws for one reason and one reason only: to create another revenue stream to help him close what was then the ballooning NYC deficit. It had nothing to do with environmentalism, or so I reckoned.
chute
Dammit, I knew something looked fishy with my "shute" spelling.
Except recycling in NYC isn't voluntary. Is it voluntary anywhere - and if so, why on earth would anyone do it?
It's voluntary where i live in Atlanta, and we recycle all our cans and bottles. It's just as easy to throw those in a separate bin, and stick that on the curb with our trash, so why not do it? They dont make it complicated (we dont have to do any additional sorting) which i think is the key.. if i had to keep a bunch of bins i probably wouldnt.
Jennifer,
The lifespan and bioactivity of a tree - even one grown on a tree farm - are much more significant that that of corn. One year's crop of corn is replaced by the next year's in the same place. You have to go through 30X the land area required for one year's crop of trees to keep such an operation going.
Considering that most paper comes from trees specifically grown for that purpose, and considering ALSO how much carbon dioxide a growing tree consumes, you could make a serious argument that recycling paper is bad for the environment--using fresh, virgin paper reduces the greenhouse gases that lead to global warming.
Save the environment--waste paper!
Has anyone ever suggested recycling toilet paper?
Keith could be correct, that enforcing the recycling laws makes money by issuing fines, but I seem to recall that the very reason recycling of some materials was suspended was to save money, as recycling those materials was not cost effective.
I'm all for recycling if it can be made to pay, and if it can be made to pay, there is no reason for the government to do it via taxes and fines; if recycling is profitable some private concerns will leap at the chance to do it. I am a techno-optimist, so I am smugly assuming that some new process or device will eventaully appear that will make recycling of most things profitable and thus resolve this whole mess, the same way I am unworried by "Peak Oil."
we recycle all our cans and bottles. It's just as easy to throw those in a separate bin, and stick that on the curb with our trash, so why not do it?
They don't force you to wash them? That's my biggest gripe. I greatly resent being forced to spend time washing shit that I throw away.
I live in a Manhattan apartment and we just toss everything down the chute and assume that the super and his crew sort it out.
I do have a chute, but it's so tiny I hardly ever use it. But now that I think about it, walking to the chute every day is probably easier than dragging my garbage to the basement once a week...
Jennifer, dear, what do you suppose happens to the carbon as the tree is turned into paper, and as the paper decomposes?
What happens faster - a 30 year old tree dies, decomposes, and releases the carbon it stores, or the paper from a 30 year old tree decomposes and releases its carbon?
mitch, recycling doesn't have to be profitable. It just has to be cheaper than landfilling.
Joe--
If the paper is in a landfill, the carbon is not released into the atmosphere but stays right there in the ground. Haven't you ever seen those "landfill" exhibits in museums, where they showed disinterred 50-year-old newspaper clippings that were still legible?
Okay, observations from the deep south.
Jennifer,
First off, I don't know where all of these tree farms you speak of are, but down here almost all of the harvested trees are old growth. Second, let's review the math on your tree farm equation. 30 tree exist on a plot. You cut them down for paper. You plant 30 more trees. Net equation is still 30 trees worth of carbon filtering, except the nutrients that used to exist on that plot have been removed and moved(eventually) to a landfill in wherever the paper ends up.
As for recycling, I do so voluntarilly. I also "recycle" paper, toilet paper, feces and kitchen scraps by composting them in my back yard. Saves me money by not having to buy ferilizer from the store. I am not so wrapped up in capitalism that I will buy things when I don't have to.
I like the idea of "pay as you throw". Here they charge us to collect recyleables. Silly if you ask me, they charge the same every month for both waste collection (10bux say) and recycling(2bux). No incentive to separate out the recyclables. They also only accept non-clayed paper. So cardboard and newspaper only, not office paper (one of the biggest consumers) or magazines (another biggie). All of my magazines end up in the compost pile. I figure if the paper is going to end up in the ground somewhere, it might as well make my tomatoes grow better.
Wow, from what Rhywun says, NYC has a government as awful as I always assumed.
I've lived lots of different places in California, and I've never been charged to recycle, or asked to wash the cans and bottles. In some places, they ask you to do lots of sorting, in other cities, not so much. But lots of people still recycle -- it's just as easy as using the trash bin. I guess people do it because freaky Californians like to recycle. But it's not just hippies that do it. Maybe it's because they don't give you a trash bin that's big enough to fit all of your stuff, if you're throwing away your recyclables. If you want a bigger bin, you have to pay extra, whereas if you just recycle, it's free.
Also, if you live in a somewhat urban area, there are poor people who scrounge the dumpsters for cans and bottles to recycle. So I put my empty bottles in a bag and leave them next to the dumpster, so they won't have to dive in there. I know they'll still do it, but at least I've saved them a little effort.
"Net equation is still 30 trees worth of carbon filtering, except the nutrients that used to exist on that plot have been removed and moved(eventually) to a landfill in wherever the paper ends up."
It would seem to be less, as a single tree will filter a lot more carbon as a big ol' 31-60 year old than as a little 1-30 year old.
Feces and paper in your compost bin? Like, magazines? How long dos that take?
Joe, your predictability is so comforting. If there's a lefty cause being discussed, I know -- a priori -- what position you will take on it; I also know that you will have already taken that position by the time I read the comment thread.
It is of such simple, predictable things that my daily routine is constructed.
Cut-n-paste:
http://www.ecology.com/feature-stories/paper-chase/
Paper making also uses up vast quantities of trees. But trees are a renewable resource, which means that once one is cut down another can be planted in its place. In fact, much of the wood used by paper companies in the U.S. comes from privately owned tree farms where forests are planted, groomed and thinned for harvest in 20 to 35 year cycles, depending on the tree species. . . . . Only 9% of the wood used to make paper is harvested from old growth forests, which are impossible to replace because of their maturity.
And I take comfort, isuldur, in knowing that any comment you post is guaranteed 100% content free.
This just isn't the system we (I) envisioned 30 years ago. To 'save the world' we (I) believed that not only the population but also consummerism needed to be controlled, voluntarily. Lot of people felt that way, that other people should have fewer kids and buy less stuff.
Polititcians took to recycling as a political expediant. Nimbys didn't want landfills near them so... I learned that one when I advocted for a regional landfill when I ran for the county legislature.
Seems quait now to 'save the world' doesn't it? Well the bombing starts on Thursday and the internment will proceed when the dust settles. Serves you right for having poor parents, Kenny.
Rhywun: Except recycling in NYC isn't voluntary. Is it voluntary anywhere - and if so, why on earth would anyone do it?
It's mandatory? So, how do they enforce that? Do the trashmen sort through your trash? I'm sure that these 40 recycling cops can't exactly sort through the tons of general refuse that NY spits out every day. So, I'm really assuming that this is something that is, for all intents and purposes, unenforceable. Which means that, pragmatically, it IS voluntary.
Anyway, it's officially voluntary here in Charlottesville, VA.
[rant]Get this: we don't have the infrastructure in place for recycling at this point, aside from the trucks and the bins. But, they expect that, at some point in the future, we will have full-on recycling capabilities. So, to get everyone "in the habit" until then, we have "recycling" services here. You put a bin out front, they collect it, then dump it in with the rest of the refuse. Of course, they don't tell people about it, but, hey, word gets around, y'know?
The silliest part is that I'm on a "waiting list" to even get a curbside recycling bin. I might have one sometime next year, they say. Oy. So, if you wanna "recycle" here, you have to take it to the collection center yourself. Ha. [/rant]
Anyway, you asked, if it's voluntary, why would someone do it? Well, let's see: I have a 30 gal. trash can. A yearly trash sticker costs upwards of $130. If I fill that can up before Monday rolls around, then I have to buy extra stickers for the extra bags. Or, I can put my bottles and paper in a plastic bin, and they pick it up for free. I imagine, if I had a big family, I'd fill up two cans, and recycling would be even more cost-efficient for me. Especially considering that I'm a bit of a wine & beer geek, which means I dispose of great many glass bottles, including many samples from the wineshop I part-time at. Yes, I could save me some money, along with a whole lotta trash-stomping effort, if the city would give me a plastic bucket with the official c-ville recycling logo on the side.
Evan,
I see... there's a financial incentive, whether or not it actually reflects the real world. Living in an apt. bldg., I have no financial incentive because the cost is covered by my rent or my city taxes. I imagine right about now the residents of the buildings in the article are receiving stern warning letters from their landlords to recycle "properly".
Jennifer, note the following weasel-words in that quote:
"much of the wood used in..." How much of? He doesn't say.
"Only 9% of the wood used to make paper is harvested from old growth forest..." Most of the wooded areas of the country are covered in second growth forest, varying in age from 70-150 years. No, it's not old growth, but it ain't chopped liver, either. Until it's chopped, that is.
Joe--
Are there ANY ways a person can chop down a tree for profit and NOT destroy the earth, in your estimation?
Joe, Feces and paper in your compost bin? Like, magazines? How long dos that take?
About a year, to a year and a half. Basically, I fill up one bin, shift it over and let it set another year to "finish". At the end of two years, I have a little over a cubic yard of great compost for nothing more than the time it takes me to tote my scraps out there. I could speed the process up by turning the pile every so often but I am lazy. Some think it is too long to wait, but I intend on living a long life, so I have the time. Not like I need it to be a quick process.
Evan,
Yeah, I hear you on the "take it down yourself". I like the idea of not dumping paint thinner, used oil and old carb cleaner into the ground water around here. But the "household hazardous waste" collection center is open only one day a week, 4 hours a day, during normal business hours. Which basically means, I have to take time off of work to drop it off. They don't have a "drop off" point, you actually have to drive into the building to dispose of stuff. Right now, I have a half a pickup bed full of stuff I need to deliver to them and a Honda civic to do it in.
Jennifer,
What's with the cheap shot? You run short of facts, you turn into Isidur. "That's a lefty hippie kind of thing to say. I bet you hate capitalism."
C'mon, the facts behind this aren't going to change because you don't like where they take you.
Joe--
Are there ANY ways a person can chop down a tree for profit and NOT destroy the earth, in your estimation?
Maybe if you hug it first, and tell it that it won't feel a thing...?
Jennifer, don't try to argue such absurdisms. It's a waste. It's like trying to argue with a PETA member why it's "murder" to test medicine on mice, but it's alright to squish a spider.
an old plastic recycling wastebasket (not recyclable)
Classic.
Recycling costs towns less than landfilling.
In every case? I have to ask for a cite.
No, Joe, it was a legitimate question. I fully understand the desire to save old-growth forests, which cannot be replaced, but now you want to save the second-growth forests, too. And you completely dismissed the paper that comes from tree farms.
Joe,
I never saw any cheap shots. Every time Jennifer kicks the ball, you move the goalposts a little further.
Rhywun:
"I see... there's a financial incentive, whether or not it actually reflects the real world. Living in an apt. bldg., I have no financial incentive because the cost is covered by my rent or my city taxes. I imagine right about now the residents of the buildings in the article are receiving stern warning letters from their landlords to recycle "properly"."
Right, it's a financial incentive, not tied to any real market forces---but that's gubmint for ya. As for your "city taxes" covering the pickup, I doubt it. Most places I know, you have to pay for trash pickup in addition to your taxes. Here, our taxes go to more important stuff, like, um, re-paving already pristine streets, and, uh, putting up "art-in-place" sculptures on the medians and green spaces around town.
Anyway, your landlord probably has a private trash service that empties a large dumpster. Not always the same as city trash collection---but the costs that that company incurs by dumping at the public landfill are most definitely passed down to your landlord, and in turn down to you.
50+ comments and not one deviation into hemp paper? There must be a lot of people on vacation.
Happy Jack,
You took the words right out of my post.
The late Carl Sagan, who was very concerned about greenhouse gases and global warming, recommended that people grow trees, chop them down, and then bury them, to keep the carbon in the ground rather than release it into the atmosphere.
But turning them into paper which eventually makes its way into landfills would help, too.
Okay, observations from the deep south.
First off, I don't know where all of these tree farms you speak of are, but down here almost all of the harvested trees are old growth.
Kwix, what part of the deep south are you from? Nicaragua?
Like some other Joe comments, Joe's recent comment re the War on Poverty didn't seem very leftwing to me. If you think Joe is a kneejerk liberal then you don't know what one is.
"Recycling costs towns less than landfilling." Whoa, there, Joe. 'Recycling' usually involves storage. You see not everything gets 'recycled', newspapers and aluminum, for sure, but not most of that noxious crap. That's a myth spun by the anti-anti-consumer crowd. Remember that we were told after 9/11 to buy, buy, and buy some more.
We had an arsonist set fire to a warehouse in Syracuse that was filled with 'recycled' stuff. One way to get rid of it. Nobody but the workers and the arsonist knew all that garbage was being hidden in plain site in a rather prosperous-looking industrial area.
How many warehouses does it take to store a year's worth of Boston's crap? You want to save money? Don't throw out so much stuff. *sound of daggers being unsheathed*
Evan,
Now that I think about it, I'm sure you're right that the landlord probably pays for the garbage collection on top of taxes, just like water. I have no idea who picks up our garbage. My street is all six-story apt bldgs, so there are no dumpsters, and I see all kinds of different trucks picking up various garbage at all hours of the day (and night). The only constant is that there is a mountain of garbage bags covering the sidewalk every fifty yards, three nights a week.
Joe,
I've been under the impression that recycling costs more than landfill. Could you point me to some politically neutral (if such a thing exists!) info about the cost of landfill compared to recycling. Also, I read somewhere that there's more forest area in the U.S. now than there was in the 1920's. I don't know how much of that is old-growth or even whether old-growth is always better. Also, isn't it true that modern landfills are engineered (thanks to pesky regulations!) to be safe and even, in some cases, provide energy to thousands of homes?
I tell you I've been terribly conflicted on this issue for a couple of years now as I'm very interested in doing my part for the environment, but I honestly don't know whose information to trust anymore.
Jennifer, "I fully understand the desire to save old-growth forests, which cannot be replaced, but now you want to save the second-growth forests, too." Second growth forest provides important biotic benefits, too. They may not qualify as "national treasure" trophy forests, but they clean the air and the water, provide habitat, yadda yadda yadda.
"And you completely dismissed the paper that comes from tree farms." Not, not completely dismissed, just downplayed the significance, since plenty of "natural" forest gets cut for paper, too.
Now, knock off the smartass with the "use paper to reduce CO2" argument! The manufacture of the paper puts plenty of CO2 in the atmosphere on its own.
Rhwuyn nails the problem with privatized collection: "The only constant is that there is a mountain of garbage bags covering the sidewalk every fifty yards, three nights a week." There's an efficiency to the natural monopoly of universal pickup. An economic efficiency, and an efficiency of operations.
Les, I know what the guy who runs my city's trash program tells me - recycling saves him money. It's a lot cheaper to get paper and plastics carted away for recycling than to landfill them, and metal actually generate revenues. Not sure about glass.
"Also, I read somewhere that there's more forest area in the U.S. now than there was in the 1920's. I don't know how much of that is old-growth or even whether old-growth is always better." It can safely be said that none of the forested area we've gained in the last century is old growth. As for "better," better for what? There are some unique features to old growth forest - the presence of mature specimens of long-lived species, for example.
"Also, isn't it true that modern landfills are engineered (thanks to pesky regulations!) to be safe and even, in some cases, provide energy to thousands of homes?" They're certainly less likely to leak and contaminate groundwater, but they still eat up a lot of space.j
There are waste-to-energy projects that burn household trash. There are also initiatives to tap the methane in old, capped landfills.
I honestly don't know whose information to trust anymore.
Tell me about it.
Penn & Teller addressed recycling on "Bullshit!" on Showtime.
http://www.sho.com/site/ptbs/topics.do?topic=r
Crap-flinging Reasonmonkeys, pardon the interruption:
The Independent Budget Office offers this assessment (pdf) of recycling from June 2005, and a full report (pdf) from February 2004.
(the Independent Budget Office being a non-partisan, quasigovernmental something or other that analyzes things like this in NYC)
Joe,
My statement regarding the mountains of trash on my street says nothing about who's picking it up. In fact, I suspect all the pickups are city run, because we have no dumpsters on my street. Rather, the city sends out different trucks for different kinds of garbage and recyclables.
Joe--
So IS there any way a person can cut down a tree for profit without destroying the earth?
Has a more market-based approach to garbage collection ever been tried? What if, instead of paying a flat collection fee, people were charged for the weight of their garbage? Could that be an effective way of encouraging recycling without resorting to mandatory recycling laws?
Joe:
"Les, I know what the guy who runs my city's trash program tells me - recycling saves him money."
Ask him if federal or state subsidies enter into the equation for the recycling costs. I know the answer - maybe he will too.
The subsidies make it "cheaper" for the municipality, but that does not make it actually cheaper - otherwise, there would be no need for the subsidy, would there?
I know what the guy who runs my city's trash program tells me - recycling saves him money.
Yes, and my uncle the farmer tells me that letting fields lie fallow is more profitable than using them to grow crops. He's subsidized, too.
Curious George,
My guess is that the incentive would be stronger for people to find more "creative" ways of disposing of their trash than recycling, although in principle pay-by-weight is a good idea on most levels.
Mobile,
Kwix, what part of the deep south are you from? Nicaragua?
Not that deep. I am currently in the Panhandle of Florida. The pulp industry here is very strong, with most of the wood coming from virgin Slash and Southern Yellow Pine forests. I realize that they GP is starting to replant and reharvest some of these areas, but for right now, the percentage is heavy into the virgin wood area.
I am all for managed growth for logging provided that certain requirements are met. First, clear cutting is a dangerous practice that leads to serious erosion of forest land soil. Beyond that, the management of hardwood forests (slow growing trees) is paramount, especially in tropical forests.
Pine, Spruce, Poplar and Fir are all relatively quick growing trees well suited to forest farming, and in fact if the farm is planned well, the land can lend itself to multitudes of uses. For example, planning a plot of trees with clearings every so often is perfect habitat for deer who live on the forest edges. Then the land is beneficial not just for wood, but also as a hunting preserve or some such.
We can test joe's assertation, you know.
Have a city set up a contract with a private landfill, where the city pays x dollars per ton of waste. If joe is correct, that landfill will open up a recycling center on the premises, because it will be cheaper to recycle some of that waste than to landfill.
Simple, no?
Are there any private landfills? Have any of them done this?
Rhwyun,
If the trash on one street is not being picked up on the same day, it is because there are multiple private haulers, or the landlords themselves, servicing the area on a building-by-building basis.
jf, the cost of separating mixed waste delivered to the landfill would doom that scheme. Recycling only works if it is separated first, at least between msw and recyclables.
Jennifer, yeah man, like, there totally is.
Curious George, the Pay As You Throw (aka Pay Per Bag, but that's less popular, because it sounds like "paper bag") system is such a solution. First, you get rid of the trash fee. Then, the City will only pick up trash that's in specialy, expensive bags. However, the city will pick up properly bagged and separated recycleable materials for free. Individual homeowners save money by reducing, reusing, recycling, and compacting.
As far as "subsidies" go, I don't know. The whole waste disposal system is chock full of subsidies, regulations, and artificial price levels from top to bottom. I don't know how an apples to apples comparison could be done.
So what is it, Joe? How does one harvest a tree without running afoul of the environment?
Recycling costs towns less than landfilling.
jf, the cost of separating mixed waste delivered to the landfill would doom that scheme. Recycling only works if it is separated first, at least between msw and recyclables.
The only way to make these two statements compatible is to add the words "compulsory" and "customer sorted" to the first, then. Guess how far that concept is going to go on a libertarian message board.
Jennifer
Very carefully, and as seldom as possible.
jf, why would a libertarian assume that he gets to dictate terms to whomever's hauling his trash?
jf,
Why do you assume that a)a Liberatarian wouldn't want to recycle and b) that it must be compulsory? If I offer you the option of a) paying to get your trash hauled off for free or b) you sort out the recycleables first and not have to pay for them which would you rather do? Neither is compulsory, but to save a fair bit o' cash for a minimal amount of work makes sense, no?
If a landfill owner has a choice of a) recieving garbage from the city and charging the city a fair price to bury it (say 10bux a ton) or b) reciving a lesser amount of trash to bury at 10bux a ton but also recieving the remainder as presorted resellable material at 20-100bux a ton which makes more business sense; charging the city for the lump sum, or letting the burial fees slide on the more valueable material in hopes of getting higher quality material to resell? If the landfill owner dictates to the city what he is willing to accept as "recyclable" based on pricing then that is where it sits. If suddenly forests start popping up everywhere and recycleable paper becomes less valued, then it will be buried at 10bux a ton. If the value goes up, then the landfill owner will start requesting it be witheld from the waste stream once again.
joe
I don't understand your question. What company can force me to separate my trash? You're assuming that all trash is handled by a municipal public waste management program, which certainly isn't the case whre I live.
The pulp industry here is very strong, with most of the wood coming from virgin Slash and Southern Yellow Pine forests.
I would be very surprised if there were any virgin pine forests left anywhere in the South. Most virgin pine tracts of any size were harvested at least 100 years ago. These are most likely second or third growth forests.
Kwix:
You've attributed to me an assumption I've never made, and then followed it up with a hypothetical that has nothing to do with the current discussion. I do not assume that a (l)ibertarian wouldn't want to recycle, I only assume that libertarians aren't going to much care for government-compelled recycling.
As to your second point, show me a city where your trash is hauled for free as long as you sort your recyclables, and then we can discuss that. Until then, I'm debating joe's assertion that recycling is cheaper than landfilling, when by "cheaper" he means "as long as it is compulsory and the actual work is performed by citizens at their own expense". In other words, forced recycling is actually a tax, which means it's a subsidized venture even if no actual cash is paid to the recycling interest, so joe's assertation is most likely unprovable, but to date definitely unproved.
I wish *I* had a choice to recycle or not. I would gladly pay a little extra to save some precious time; or if the reward was good enough, I'd just as gladly recycle. As it is, I see no personal benefit to recycling other than placating my landlord. I suppose I should follow mitch's example above and just toss everything down the chute and let the super do the work. Since I have to tip him at the end of year anyway, I suppose I should make him do *something* for me 🙂
Kwix,
I recall a story about some species of woodpecker that prefers old growth trees. When the state tried to protect the woodpecker by stipulating that trees of a certain age or older couldn't be cut down if there was evidence of the woodpecker in the area, the tree owners decided to cut their trees down before th tree reached to age the woodpecker was attracted to.
Not sure how accurate the story was.
"the Pay As You Throw system is such a solution."
Does anyone happen to know how common this system is? I recently moved to Bloomington, Indiana, which is the first place I've encountered it. But then before this I've generally lived in apartments where my landlord dealt with waste disposal.
FWIW, I'm a big fan. I create very little garbage and recycle a lot (recycling picked at my curb for free, with minimal sorting), and it costs me next to nothing.
Laws like this crap are the reason I don't recycle. That's right. I. Don't. Recycle. Anything.
When I lived Oregon, I returned the cans for my deposit, but that was the only reason.
Also, I hate trees. Can't stand the bastards, with their snarkiness and their superior attitude.
if i had the time and energy, i'd skip garbage bags and just drive around littering.
SETTLE DOWN i'm kidding.
Quick question: Are the summonses recyclable?
I don't know, but they're great for wiping your ass with.
Here, we individually contract with private garbage haulers to bring our trash to the dump. We also have weekly free curbside recycling. By putting out all my newspapers and copious wine bottles for recycling, I don't have to pay to have someone haul it away, and the city makes enough on the aluminum recycling to pay for the entire program. The only tickets people get are when some "enterprising" individuals drive around with a truck swiping the aluminum cans out by the curb before the recycling truck comes by.
Too bad recycling in most instances is a waste of time and resources, is bad for the environment, etc.
joe,
Recycling costs towns less than landfilling.
Wrong. The cost per ton of recycled material is far higher than landfilled material. That's why governments have to heavily subsidize recycling.
Jennifer, virgin paper mills are no cleaner than recycling operations.
Sure they are. Do you realize what sort of extra processes are involved in making recycled paper? Further, the idea of paper recycling is based on the erroneous premise that we are "running out of trees," which couldn't be further from the truth. Using paper, lumber, etc. insures the existance of trees. You know, we eat a lot of carrots, but I don't see us running out of carrots. I think the issue with trees has more to do with environmental romanticism than it has to with reality.
I don't recycle and never will.
Let's not forget that one of the main reaons why recycling came into vogue was due to alarmist statements about how much landfill space we have. "We're running out!" we were told, which is absolute hogwash.
Good info on what NYC has wrought: http://www.cei.org/gencon/019,02897.cfm
"I would be very surprised if there were any virgin pine forests left anywhere in the South. Most virgin pine tracts of any size were harvested at least 100 years ago. These are most likely second or third growth forests."
Maybe the forests have those little silver rings. It is the South, after all.
"The cost per ton of recycled material is far higher than landfilled material." The collection costs are usually more, that's true. However, unlike waste that gets landfilled, containers and paper actually generate a revenue stream.
"That's why governments have to heavily subsidize recycling." Governments have to "subsidize," as in pay for, landfilling waste, too. The issue is, how much do they have to pay? I'll say it yet another time - recycling doesn't have to turn a profit. It just has to cost less than tipping fees at the landfill.
"Let's not forget that one of the main reaons why recycling came into vogue was due to alarmist statements about how much landfill space we have. "We're running out!" we were told, which is absolute hogwash."
Now hold on there, pardner. "We" the United States still have plenty of empty land in out of the way places, that we could choose to trash if we were so inclined.
But if you're Hawaii, Rhode Island, DC, or even a town in the Bay Area, not so much. Any extra penny spent on recycling is wasted, but paying to ship people's dixie cups and coffee grounds a thousand, or 10,000, miles away can be waived off without a second thought?
joe,
Its still cheaper to ship and bury it than it is to recycle it. Indeed, given that much of what is recycled is simply thrown away in the end anyway (because the markets aren't big enough to handle the waste flow), its even cheaper.
joe,
...containers and paper actually generate a revenue stream.
Actually, they don't. Indeed, you have to pay companies in many instances to use recycled material after all.
It just has to cost less than tipping fees at the landfill.
It has yet to do so even with subsidies. Look at the article I provided.