NYC Rolls Back Recycling Rules in Move That Could Reverberate Nationwide

AP via TBO ^ | June 30,2002 | Katherine Roth

[John W]

NEW YORK (AP) - The nation's largest city is eliminating glass and plastics from its recycling program on Monday in what recycling advocates say is the first significant rollback of such a program in the United States. "No other big cities have taken a step back like this, and I'm not even familiar with any smaller cities taking out elements of their recycling programs," said Laura Haight, senior environmental associate of the New York Public Interest Research Group.

"It's unprecedented," she said. "People across the country are looking very closely at this."

Starting Monday, sanitation workers will collect only paper and metal for recycling.

Mayor Michael Bloomberg says the change will save the deficit-troubled city $40 million in the coming fiscal year.

"In the case of plastic and glass, the fact of the matter was that it was phenomenally expensive and most of it ended up being dumped in a landfill anyway," the mayor said. "The paper recycling has worked for a long time, and we believe that the metal recycling will certainly pay for itself."

Critics say the change threatens the future of a program that took more than a decade to establish.

Vicente Alba, a spokesman for Local 108, a union representing workers in the city's private recycling industry, said the change will cost more than 200 of the city's 1,000 private recycling jobs. One plant already has said it will close, he said.

Bloomberg, facing a multibillion-dollar city budget deficit, originally proposed a suspension of all recycling except for paper.

Instead, his final budget, which seeks to close the deficit through various cost-cutting and revenue-generating moves, eliminated only plastic and glass.

The plastics recycling will be suspended for at least one year and glass recycling for two while the city examines whether the labor-intensive recycling program can be made more cost-effective.

"Our commitment to recycling is just as strong as ever," Bloomberg said. "We're just trying to be practical."

[thinktwice]

Proceeds from glass and plastic "recycling" is almost non-existent at the household level. That "recycling" fee you pay for every glass or plastic bottle is going primarily into politician's hands.

[alloysteel]

Were glass and plastics actually being recycled that much, or were they simply being smashed to shards and put into landfill? The incinerators should have been running at blue-flame intensity (since the logical way of disposing of both would be incineration), completely combusting all organics in the process, leaving only sanitized ashes. I know, I know, glass doesn't burn, but heated hot enough, it makes little globules, that on cooling, break up into a sand-like substance.

[TomB]

If global warming is a true concern of the enviros, they would support disposal of paper, especially newsprint, in landfills. This paper is produced from trees specifically grown for the purpose, so it doesn't take away from "the forests". Of course while growing, these trees absorb a huge amount of carbon dioxide. This is one of the main reasons the US is a carbon SINK, that's right, the evil US absorbs more CO2 than it emits.

Anyway, newsprint that is disposed of in a landfill is essentially "mummified" and doesn't break down, which means everytime paper is made and then thrown away, we are removing CO2 from the atmosphere.

[Prodigal Son]

Good for them. $40 million is a pretty big chunk of change.

[jimtorr]

The incinerators should have been running at blue-flame intensity (since the logical way of disposing of both would be incineration)

Leaving aside the question of burning glass (easier just to run it thru a grinder) the plastic could power the incinerators, and generate electricity in the process. Keep the fire hot enough and you only have to worry about a small amount of stack gasses which are easily cleaned up.

[grundle]

Government mandated reclycling wastes more resources than it saves. The reason that environmentalists support government mandated recylcling is because #1 They like the idea of using coercive government policies to tell people what to do #2 They choose policies based on emotion, not on fact #3 They don't understand the concept of cost/benefit analysis #4 They are ignorant of the facts #5 They want to feel that they are morally superior to everyone else, and they think they know what is best for everyone else #6 All of the above

Here's a great article explaining that government mandated recycling wastes more resources than it saves. This article was originally published in The New York Times:

http://www.freerepublic.com/fo cus/news/662438/posts

Of course, this won't stop environmentalists from supporting government mandated recylcing.

[Still Thinking]

Critics say the change threatens the future of a program that took more than a decade to establish.

So according to the "critics", it isn't whether the policy is working that is important, but how long it has been in place. This bit of news should be useful in second amendment debates.

[Nick Danger]

Vicente Alba, a spokesman for Local 108, a union representing workers in the city's private recycling industry, said the change will cost more than 200 of the city's 1,000 private recycling jobs.

Let's see, that's $40 million divided by 200 jobs is... clickety click... woah! $200,000 a job!

Hell, let's re-hire them at a more reasonable fifty grand and have them follow Hillary around singing, "Oh we love... the oooolllld one. Oh we love... the ooooooollld one."

[tom paine 2]

One of the funniest aspects to this ridiculous recycling fad is the fact that most of the recycled crap which is picked up seperately by different expensive recycling trucks is the thrown right on top of the garbage picked up by the old traditional garbage trucks. The Sierra club never talks about that little piece of ridiculousness

[NativeNewYorker]

Under President Giuliani, starting in 2009, Bloomberg should be put in charge of the fed's General Services Administration to rationalize the federal apparatus.

[nothingnew]

"In the case of plastic and glass, the fact of the matter was that it was phenomenally expensive and most of it ended up being dumped in a landfill anyway," the mayor said.

Bwahahahaha!!!!!

What a bunch of maroons!

FMCDH

[KC_for_Freedom]

What a bunch of maroons!

Yes but they feel so much better with the masses carefully separating their garbage. My wife did it for about 6 months and decided to stop supporting these fools. They have tacked on a recycling fee to our pick up. Since they get the money anyway, why go through the hassle and motion and lose money on the other end?

[varon]

….it isn't whether the policy is working that is important, but how long it has been in place.

This is the mentality that exists in the Federal government that has been used as justification for the untold numbers of government agencies and programs.

[wheezer]

I know, glass doesn't burn, but heated hot enough, it makes little globules, that on cooling, break up into a sand-like substance.

In NYC, they mixed the glass bits with asphalt and used for it for street paving. They said it actually made the pavement last longer (maybe so).

I never minded recycling while I lived in NYC although I didn't understand the logic of wasting all that great (and I do mean great) NYC tapwater on empty soup cans and plastic soda bottles, especially when facing possible water shortages.

Where I lived, the recycling ticketers were real b@llbreakers for compliance....accept of course if you lived in the nearby projects where throwing a bag of trash out a eight story window and having it land within 10 feet of a dumpster qualified as full compliance with environmental code. ;o)

[Still Thinking]

In NYC, they mixed the glass bits with asphalt and used for it for street paving. They said it actually made the pavement last longer (maybe so).

If so, they were probably making their budget look better at the expense of car owners who had to buy tires more often (all the while getting gratuitously abused by the same government lackeys, for "contributing to the garbage problem").

[Koblenz]

Plastic and glass recycling is a waste of time, energy and money. Aluminium can be easily recycled, and paper fairly easily. But glass is not easy to recycle, especially when you consider that there is clear, green, brown and even some blue glass. And even after you sort by color, it's a difficult process. Plastic recycling is also difficult, because you've got several different resins -- PET, LDPE, HDPE, LLDPE, PP and PS for instance. These generally cannot be mixed when recycling.

[Dales]

Critics say the change threatens the future of a program that took more than a decade to establish.

Vicente Alba, a spokesman for Local 108, a union representing workers in the city's private recycling industry, said the change will cost more than 200 of the city's 1,000 private recycling jobs.

Is it about protecting the environment?

No.

It is about taking money forcibly from private citizens, particularly the wealthy, and using it to create union jobs (and union workers vote leftist more often than not).

[Publius6961]

"It's unprecedented," she said. "People across the country are looking very closely at this."

It was ineveitable.
Having the neurotic and the ignorant write the rules of society will eventually fail.
They have caused us billions in waste and resulted only in employment opportunities for millions who would otherwise need to get real, productive jobs.