I went through the effort to write them a snail mail letter telling them to not bother with me as I would not participate and the container would be wasted. Not listening to the desires of one of their customers (or hostages, as I don't have a choice in which company I can use for waste disposal, but that's another subject for another post), I received my red plastic container. Appropriate, as today's green is the old red.
Well, what the hell to do with this I asked? My wife suggested we use it for temporary storage and we did pack stuff for our vacation in it. But I got annoyed at looking at the damned thing. It was only taking up space in my garage and when I put it into one of my trash cans for pickup, the men did not take it. I guess they can't take a hint. So I did the next best thing. I recycled it. When I made a donation of household goods to the Society of the Purple Heart, I packed the items in this red plastic waste of my money and drove to the donation site. I asked the nice gentlemen there if we could use it and and he was very happy to see it. They use plastic containers like that to separate the donations on the trailer and they can always use another one. And I got a tax deduction for it on top of it.
Now last week I saw this article in the Houston Chronicle and...well, just read the first few paragraphs.
City eyes trash fee
Mayor admits it will be a tough sell, but budget gap looms
For years, Houston’s Solid Waste Management Department Director Harry Hayes has suggested the city implement a garbage fee to expand curbside recycling and pay for other initiatives. And for years, Mayor Annise Parker has demurred.
Now, with a looming budget deficit that could force widespread layoffs and cuts to services, the idea may see serious discussion at the council table for the first time.
Though Parker has not endorsed any particular path, she acknowledges a garbage fee is among the most important of the dozens of ideas officials are considering as they try to close a $150 million budget gap by next summer.
Parker said she understands the fee would be a tough sell for residents, just as persuading voters to amend a cap they placed on city revenues a decade ago— expected to carve millions from next year’s budget — would be difficult.
The mayor said she could ask voters to amend the cap to accommodate needed services, including waste pickup, or could let the cap force a cut in the property tax rate and impose a garbage fee instead, explaining to voters why it is necessary.
“I’ve been successful having those conversations on water-sewer rates, on streets and drainage, and now I’m going to have a conversation about this area, too,” Parker said, referencing a 2010 water rate increase and the drainage fee imposed by the voter-approved ReBuild Houston program. “We’re going to lay all that out and council will whine about it, and then I’ll put forward a position so they can attack it, and then we’ll actually get somewhere.”
Imposing such a fee, Parker added, would be about more than revenue.
“A garbage fee actually allows us better control over the waste stream and how we incentivize people to recycle,” she said. “There are benefits there...”
Who the hell are you to incentivize me to do anything Madam Mayor? I don't pay you (full disclosure, I don't live in Houston proper so I didn't have the opportunity to vote against her as the city's chief executive) to tell me how to live my life. I pay you to keep the roads paved, the street lights on, the police and fire services operational, the public schools teaching our kids and a few other essential services. Seeing our roads need some serious work, many of the schools are a disaster, etc, maybe you should think of that before you start trying to incentivize people's conduct. And while your at it, you're making the usual threat of "give politicians more money or loose the cops,teachers and firefighters". Maybe you can stop giving senior executives of your administration six figure salaries with pay raises of 20-40%. And do we need a "Sustainability Director" with all of her hangers on? How about we cut her down to size?
Back to the recycling. I recall back in the early 90s when the reds took over the green movement and started to push this crap on America, one of the things they said was "it's cheaper to recycle..." Then I recall a debate on CNN with a city official (I can't recall what city) and a 20 something greenie. The city officer was making the point they started a recycling program in the hopes it would reduce overall waste management cost but it actually raised them. He made the point if anything these environmental groups should work on getting markets for this trash, err recycled products opened up, as this would solve the issue of cost. But the green weenie wasn't concerned about that, she thought we should incur more cost to "be green" That told me enough about the green movement and their actions in the years since haven't make me question this.
Now the question, is it more costly to recycle then it is to produce new products? Paper? That comes for a plant called a tree. You simply have to plant more. They take a longer growing cycle than carrots and other food stuffs but they can grow and produce enough to supply paper needs. How about ethanol, the panacea of fuel we were told. Well, the US government even shows it's a problems:
…The Role of Biofuels in Food Price Increases
The role of biofuel policies in the food-price hikes has become particularly controversial. The rapid increase in demand for and production of biofuels, particularly bioethanol from maize and sugarcane, has had a number of effects on grain supply-and-demand systems. Expanded production of ethanol from maize, in particular, has increased total demand for maize and shifted land area away from production of maize for food and feed, stimulating increased prices for maize. Rising maize prices, in turn, have affected other grains. On the demand side, higher prices for maize have caused food consumers to shift from maize (which is still a significant staple food crop in much of the developing world) to rice and wheat. On the supply side, higher maize prices made maize more profitable to grow, causing some farmers to shift from rice and wheat (and other crop) cultivation to maize cultivation. These demand- and supply-side effects have tended to increase the price of rice and wheat and other crops…
Finally, recycling in general. I found this interesting article in my research.
Cost-Benefit Analysis of Recycling in the United States: Is Recycling Worth It?
Daniel Ettehadieh
Although recycling programs in the United States have become a key component in waste management, recycling programs are in fact one the most costly methods of waste disposal. According to author Harvey Black of the Environmental Health Perspectives Journal, in San Jose, California “it costs $28 per ton to landfill waste compared with $147 a ton to recycle” (Black 1006). In Atlantic County, New Jersey, selling recyclable goods brings in $2.45 million. However, the cost of collecting and sorting these recycled materials plus interest payments on the recycling facility costs the county over $3 million (Black 1006). With the time, money, and energy spent collecting and processing recycled goods, the price of recycling is much higher than discarding waste into landfills or incinerators.
…In general, recycling is a costly method of waste management as it forces recycling centers to add specialized trucks and additional employees to collect, transport, and separate recyclable materials. In New York City, for every ton of recycled goods that a truck delivers to a recycling facility, the city spends $200 more than it would spend to dispose of that waste into a landfill (Tierney 2). Recycling programs also spend a great deal of resources on continual public relation campaigns explaining to the public which products are recyclable and which are not (Tierney 5). An extra cost that has hindered recent recycling efforts is the cost of purchasing and providing a variety of recycling containers to residences. In addition, recycling costs are generally more expensive than the manufacturing costs of producing virgin materials. Materials such as plastics, which represent up to 26% by volume of the municipal solid waste recycled in the United States, are more expensive and time consuming to recycle than to produce initially. Thus, it is cost effective to manufacture virgin plastics rather than recycled plastics, which must undergo collection, transportation, and sorting costs (Breslin et al. 2).
Not only are recycling programs cost inefficient, but they are also a source of numerous negative environmental effects. Given that the most popular method of recycling in the United States is curbside recycling, a large number of recycling trucks are constantly on the road. These additional trucks on the road offset the environmental benefits of recycling by “outweigh[ing] the pollution saved by recycling” (Cooper 271). A study of environmental emissions associated with curbside collection discovered significant amounts of carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, and other gasses polluting the atmosphere due to the increased number of trucks on the road. Other environmental and social costs found during the study included increased road congestion, litter, and noise pollution (Powell 100). What is even more surprising is the amount of toxic waste recycling facilities produce. The EPA has reported that “recycling 100 tons of old newsprint generates 40 tons of toxic waste” and 13 of the 50 worst Superfund Sites (hazardous waste sites) are currently or were at one point recycling facilities (Taylor 281). These facilities contain hazardous wastes due to the number of toxic substances and additives utilized to recycle materials. For example, recycling plastics creates a waste stream that includes contaminated wastewater and air emissions. Also, many toxic additives are used in processing and manufacturing plastics such as colorants, flame retardants, lubricants, and ultraviolet stabilizers (Breslin et al. 2). Recycling facilities that do not properly manage these chemicals cannot only cause health problems for humans, but chemicals that get mixed with rainwater can also damage nearby biomes and percolate into groundwater. In the article “Reused paper can be polluted,” Janet Raloff, explains that some bathroom tissue made from recycled paper contain toxic substances that can harm fish and other wildlife when flushed down the toilet and disposed into water bodies (Raloff 334)….
So back to the original point. Houston's mayor wants to charge people to recycle more so we can dispose of our waste (a legitimate issue for cities across the country) in a more expensive manner, all the while funding a buerocracy who's only purpose is to say "we are needed." And we are spending more and more to pay more.
Sounds like Democratic city government to me.
No comments:
Post a Comment