Report Calls Recycling Costlier Than Dumping

NY Times ^ | February 2, 2004 | ERIC LIPTON

[templar]

All garbage except metals should be incinerated at high temperatures and used for fuel to heat buildings.

That would work with glass?

[Mears]

I stopped recycling about 10 years ago.

[dennisw]

Been dumping some bottles in the trash instead of the recycling bin for a while, Because of the scam mentioned in this article.

[mindspy]

I am no leftist nor an apologist for them. However, recycling is not so much about the cost but rather a consequence of the age of disposables. Also, the leftist need to something with all their little water bottles. I do agree that government should not be in the recycling business. I would think it might be cost effective if handled by the private sector (and NOT outsourced either).

[shotgun]

Once worked for the city of Richland, WA in the 90's. They bought into the whole recycling thing hook, line and sinker. They had 2 full time staff and 1 part-time staff ($120,000 in salaries and bennies), a "enviromental robot" to go the schools, a handicap equipped van to haul the robot around, and other "necessary" items to make the program shining example of what is right with government. The only small problem was that after spending all this money (which they still do today) the actual amount of money made from the gross program receipts was about $1100 to $1500 per year and a net loss of about $140,000 per year in operating expenses...

[oyez]

This has been a sick joke that needs to end NOW

It won't. Recycling here started gradually and now the city operated a fleet of special trucks maned by people with union protected jobs.

[night reader]

Report Calls Recycling Costlier Than Dumping

I didn't think there was any question that recycling is more costly. If there was money to be made in a recycling operation, private industry would move in, purchase raw unsorted waste, process it and make money.

Even with the public providing free labor by sorting the waste, it seems to be an unprofitable exercise.

The only question is whether there is enough environmental benefit for government to run roughshod over the rights of its populace by mandating such an uncompensated expenditure of labor.

[Drammach]

Haven't seen any updates on these guys..

http://www.changingworldtech.com/home.html

Garbage into oil?

No news on the Philly plant, nor on the Arkansas plant being built for Tyson Foods..

It's been about 6 months now, or more..

[hoot2]

shouldn't this be "breaking news?"/sarcasm>
you can send it all to kalli-fornica..., they still believe...

[B4Ranch]

Mark A. Izeman, a senior lawyer at the Natural Resources Defense Council does NOT want to retire!

[neverdem]

All garbage except metals should be incinerated at high temperatures and used for fuel to heat buildings.

The NRDC and various eco-nuts had all the NIMBY types soiling their diapers about all the posible pollution from incineration. NYC and its environs are just too densely populated.

[HangThemHigh]

As an engineer I agree that you don't want to burn garbage, but not for the reasons you give.

I think sequestering will turn out to be a much more expensive proposition than recycling. The jury is still out on that (and hydrogen cars).

OTOH, burning garbage has been tried and generally found wanting. There are 3 major problems with burning garbage that keeps the practice from being much used:

1) garbage contains much water and other non-flammables and only modest fuel value.

2) garbage contains many nasties; chlorides, mercury, lead, and well, garbage. If the scrubber on this fails, CO2 will be your least concern.

3) Last, but certainly not least, would you want a garbage incinerator in your neighborhood?

All in all it stinks and/or you wind spending more to clean up the exhaust than the meager heat production is worth.

[Dan Evans]

carbonaceous materials (wood, paper, grass clippings, etc.) that are land-filled actually help to reduce "global warming" by sequestering CO2 that would normally be re-emitted to the atmosphere.

That assumes "global warming" is caused by CO2.

[William Tell]

From the article: "Because there is almost no market for recycled glass, the cost of recycling it is particularly expensive."

Only a liberal can think like this. If there is "no market" for recycled glass, then it is not being "recycled", it is just begin offered for sale.

For all practical purposes, there is no such thing as "recycled glass".

[neverdem]

For all practical purposes, there is no such thing as "recycled glass".

I wonder if that would be so if all glass was clear or at least the same color. I wonder if a similar argument could be made about standardization of plastic materials based on petroleum precursors and Organic Chemistry. BTW, I'm not talking about natural fertilizer for agriculture.

[E.G.C.]

BTTT!!!!!!

[American_Centurion]

Ping!

With reference to our earlier discussion.

Environmentalists seek plan for recycling computers.

Don't you just hate being wrong?

[Wonder Warthog]

"I think sequestering will turn out to be a much more expensive proposition than recycling. The jury is still out on that (and hydrogen cars)."

In this case, "sequestering" IS current garbage collection and land-filling practice, so costs (obviously) exactly the same as at present. The once-gaseous CO2 has already been "collected" from the atmosphere by the growing plant, and will be "sequestered" by burying in the landfill, where the CO2 will be locked up for thousands of years. I agree that the "fancy" schemes for capturing gaseous CO2 and re-injecting it into old oil wells WILL be prohibitively expensive--but that isn't the case here.

[Wonder Warthog]

"That assumes "global warming" is caused by CO2."

Oh, I agree that the current (tiny) global warming is due to insolation changes and cyclical variations in the earths orbit rather than anthropically-generated CO2 emissions. I am simply pointing out the hypocrisy/lack of thought on the part of the Greens, where their pet shibboleth of "recycling" is actually at cross purposes to their OTHER pet shibboleth of preventing "global warming".

[governsleastgovernsbest]

LOL. Right after I posted it, I actually asked the moderator to correct it to $10 million, but he obviously didn't get around to it.

PS: You ought to see our $2.95 City Hall!