recycling

Dungheap said:
There are plenty of ways to "enforce" it. The easiest way is to make it cost a lot for the disposal of waste at the end of the system (i.e. the dump, landfill, etc. . . ) and then let the costs trickle through the system. If a gas station wants to provide trash disposal to its customers it can pay for it and make up the difference in its pricing.
Click to expand...

I thought the nickel charge for the container was the enforcement?
 
Dungheap said:
Well, I haven't really developed a full policy proposal on the issue. I'll let you know when I do.

"It's hard" isn't really a sufficient reason not to do something worthwhile (unless you're governor of Alaska) and pricing in negative externalities, while difficult, is a worthwhile thing to do.



Edit to Respond to Your Edit: In many communities we already ask people to sort through their shit and separate glass from cans from plastic from paper from "trash" and we ask politely that they do it out of the goodness of their hearts instead of throwing all that stuff together in one big bag labeled "trash." My goal is to make it cost more (in real money) to throw everything in one bag labeled "trash" than the "cost" of separating cans from glass from plastic from paper from "trash."
Click to expand...
"It's hard" is a good reason not to do something like this because you think the cost is divorced at the front end, if collection at the front end will cost less and get the job done.

It is far easier to collect the cost for disposal at purchase either as a deposit or a tax. It also gives incentives for people who need it to separate these items from garbage and collect the deposits. Even if you don't need the cash and toss it, somebody will likely separate it out later in order to collect your rejected deposit.
 
Mottleydude said:
I thought the nickel charge for the container was the enforcement?
Click to expand...


What I am arguing (disclaimer: I haven't fully though this through to a comprehensive policy proposal that could be implemented without modification) is that the deposit system whereby the cost is divorced from the act of throwing something out is ineffective to bring about the desired result.

Or maybe 5 cents just ain't worth what it used to be .
 
Mottleydude said:
I thought the nickel charge for the container was the enforcement?
Click to expand...
He's talking about collecting at the time of disposal. IMO that makes the job far more difficult without any real added benefit. Unless you make it impossible to dispose of the garbage in any manner other than the official sorting areas...

I don't really see how he would enforce the idea.
 
Damocles said:
So the cost divorce ISN'T what you actually dislike about deposits, as that would certainly divorce the cost.

It sounds like a relatively difficult to enforce law. Who is going to go through the piles of garbage to count your plastic bottles at the landfill? It's much easier to collect that cost at the front end than the back end. Imagine the wasted time as the trash is sorted carefully and bottles counted to charge the trash dude standing and waiting... Or does he have to get out and separate out the trash before he dumps it into his truck?

Your idea sucks.
Click to expand...

You're just plain wrong Damo. Deposit laws are hugely succesfull. They prevent these containers from becoming solid waste to begin with as a pollution prevention measure they've been a resounding success. The whole idea behind the deposit laws in to incentivise people to NOT throw these items away and it's a system that's worked very well for nearly 30 years in some states. It's hard to argue with success.
 
Damocles said:
"It's hard" is a good reason not to do something like this because you think the cost is divorced at the front end, if collection at the front end will cost less and get the job done.

It is far easier to collect the cost for disposal at purchase either as a deposit or a tax. It also gives incentives for people who need it to separate these items from garbage and collect the deposits. Even if you don't need the cash and toss it, somebody will likely separate it out later in order to collect your rejected deposit.
Click to expand...


But what I am saying is that the front end doesn't get the job done. And while someone may separate it out later, I don't know that it is likely. I put my trash out on a Sunday night in a bag in a barrel and no one touches it. It then gets picked up in a truck and is co-mingled with all the other trash. If I have some returnables in there I doubt someone is going to dig them out.

Also, the cost shouldn't be just for bottles and cans but for any material that is recyclable.
 
Mottleydude said:
You're just plain wrong Damo. Deposit laws are hugely succesfull. They prevent these containers from becoming solid waste to begin with as a pollution prevention measure they've been a resounding success. The whole idea behind the deposit laws in to incentivise people to NOT throw these items away and it's a system that's worked very well for nearly 30 years in some states. It's hard to argue with success.
Click to expand...
Again, he isn't arguing for deposits, he is arguing that you should be charged at disposal because, supposedly, it separates the cost when you pay a deposit up front. I am the one arguing that deposits are better.

My point is that there are so many points of disposal that this would also be ineffective. What is to stop me from driving by your trash can for instance and dropping the wrong item into the wrong bin as I pass? Would it be effective to teach me anything if I threw out my trash at the gas station without separating out recyclables?

I like deposits, you can get your money back or not, if not somebody else is likely to and that person likely needs the money far more than you.
 
Damocles said:
He's talking about collecting at the time of disposal. IMO that makes the job far more difficult without any real added benefit.
Click to expand...
Ahh, that is a horse of a differant color. That won't work unless you have a MRF (Municipal Recycling Facility, pronounced Murf.) near by and most MRF's are marginally viable economically due to the volatility of the prices of the low end materials they recover. I agree on the back end enforcing deposit laws won't work and kind of misses the point. Deposit laws are ment as pollution prevention incentives and not an end of pipe waste management one.
 
Damocles said:
He's talking about collecting at the time of disposal. IMO that makes the job far more difficult without any real added benefit. Unless you make it impossible to dispose of the garbage in any manner other than the official sorting areas...

I don't really see how he would enforce the idea.
Click to expand...


I'm also not talking about a per item cost that would require any sorting. Instead, "trash" would cost real dollars to get rid of whereas recycling would be free.
 
Dungheap said:
I'm also not talking about a per item cost that would require any sorting. Instead, "trash" would cost real dollars to get rid of whereas recycling would be free.
Click to expand...
That doesn't make much sense. You need to make the decision to recycle before you hit the landfill, not when your pulling up to it.
 
uscitizen said:
The electric industry was wanting to put in a trash burning power plant within 40 air miles of me.
Their plan was to transport pellitized trash from New Jersey to KY and burn it and produce cheap power?
We got that plan killed.

Let them try it in Jersey first.
Click to expand...
Just as I said, the environmentalists fight the most environmentally responsible plans. *shrug*
 
Mottleydude said:
That doesn't make much sense. You need to make the decision to recycle before you hit the landfill, not when your pulling up to it.
Click to expand...


Your response doesn't make much sense to me. I understand that you need to make the decision before you hit the landfill. The idea is for people to think that recycling is free but to put stuff in the "trash" is going to cost them money. As it stands now, at least locally, recycling costs time and effort whereas throwing everything in the trash is "free."

It's easier to throw everything in a bag as "trash" than it is to separate and sort glass from plastic from cans from paper from trash. My proposal is to find a way to change the dynamic to make it cost more to throw everything in a bag labeled "trash" than it does to sort and recycle.
 
Southern Man said:
Just as I said, the environmentalists fight the most environmentally responsible plans. *shrug*
Click to expand...

Check the history of the prices of houses when a major waste disposal facility is built nearby. The price of houses drops dramatically.

So building a waste disposal facility in my neighborhood would directly effect the investment I have in my home.
 
WinterBorn said:
Check the history of the prices of houses when a major waste disposal facility is built nearby. The price of houses drops dramatically.

So building a waste disposal facility in my neighborhood would directly effect the investment I have in my home.
Click to expand...
That explains NIMBY, but not the traveling enviro-nut dog and pony shows. *shrug*
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top