Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Prices, desire to recycle ebbing
Denver Post ^ | September 1, 2002 | Trent Seibert

Posted on 09/01/2002 3:40:22 AM PDT by sarcasm

Sunday, September 01, 2002 - A movement against recycling is growing across the country, and there's a chance the trend could soon hit Denver and other Colorado communities.

The downturn in recycling has sparked debate throughout the West and in Washington, D.C., where lawmakers are debating legislation that would provide economic incentives to keep people recycling their cans and bottles.

Recycling advocates admit they're afraid of what the future may bring.

"We have a fight on our hands," said Marjorie Griek, who heads the Colorado Association for Recycling.

The problem is twofold: The public's interest in separating bottles, cans and newspapers from trash is declining, while the prices that companies are willing to pay for items also are plummeting.

One recent study found that 13 percent of consumers are less likely to recycle cans than they were a few years ago. Indeed, aluminum-can recycling across the nation is at its lowest levels since 1987, according to another survey.

Even a city councilman in green-friendly Denver has proposed charging residents for curbside collection of recyclables, a move that many fear could mean the end of curbside recycling in the city.

When Denver launched curbside recycling in 1991, about 73,000 households - almost half the homes in the city - participated. While the program continues to grow each year, recycling advocates fear a fee would cause the number to drop.

"I'm outraged at Denver for even posing the question to charge for recycling," said Christine Potter, who has been leading the charge for her Jefferson Park neighbors to recycle.

The reason many cities and towns are considering abolishing their curbside recycling programs has much to do with green - cash.

The idea of charging residents to recycle in Denver was introduced as a cost-saving effort. In cities big and small - such as Dallas and Polk County, Iowa - recycling programs are on the chopping block or have been scaled back to save money.

In Slidell, La., city officials in May dumped that city's decade-old recycling program to pay for $10 million in sewer-system upgrades.

The most talked-about example is New York, where Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg said recycling "does nothing to help the environment." He said he wants to suspend recycling of metal, glass and plastics to help chip away at a $5 billion budget shortfall.

Here in Colorado over the past year, Weld County eliminated its recycling coordinator, although its program remains. Archuleta County is charging $2 for each tire residents want to throw away, up from $1, according to the Colorado Association for Recycling.

"Unfortunately, that seems to be a trend right now, rather than 10 years ago, when people were saying, 'This is important, this should be mandatory, we need to do this,"' association chief Griek said.

Denver Mayor Wellington Webb said he's opposed to the idea of charging a $10 monthly fee for curbside recycling.

But Councilman Ted Hackworth, who proposed the idea, said he will announce this week that he will continue to fight for the fee to help close the city's $15 million budget gap.

It costs the city about $1.7 million annually for its recycling program, officials say. Some of those costs are offset by money the city collects from private companies for the recycled material it sells to them.

Last year, the city took in $650,000. The year before, it got $1.2 million.

"That's nothing to sneeze at," said Julie Klein, Denver's recycling coordinator. "Recycling can work."

Hackworth, though, said he'd rather see taxes pay for children's programs rather than subsidizing a recycling plan.

"I'm sorry, I'm not going to suffer very much if they throw (cans and bottles) in the trash," he said.

Hackworth has a lot of company.Many people aren't recycling like they used to be .

A study sponsored by the Container Recycling Institute shows that 100 billion cans sold in the United States in 2001 were not recycled, and last year's aluminum-can recycling rate dropped to 49 percent, the lowest level in 15 years.

"The problem is that many officials think of recycling as optional, that it's not a necessity, like providing water or electricity," said Jennifer Gitlitz, author of a report called "Trashed Cans."

Much of the drop-off in recycling stems from people eating on the run more, experts such as Gitlitz said. People aren't eating at home as much. They grab a bite in the car, at work or at the mall and toss their refuse in a trash can, rather than separating paper, cans and glass as they might at home.

"More cans and bottles are ending up in the trash," Gitlitz said.

Add to that the fact that many nonprofit pro-recycling groups are having a tough time getting free public-service announcements on TV, such as the famous "crying Indian" anti-pollution ad starring the late Iron Eyes Cody that first aired in 1971.

"It's harder. There's a lack of interest," said Robin King with the Washington, D.C.-based National Aluminum Association.

There are groups out there, though, trying to turn that lack of interest around - and to their advantage.

For example, in places such as Sumter, S.C., Fernandina Beach, Fla., Fort Wayne, Ind., and San Bernardino, Calif., Habitat for Humanity organizations have been collecting aluminum cans to help pay for the homes they build.

That's also happening in Mesa County on Colorado's Western Slope, where Habitat for Humanity is collecting cans to buy the materials to build a home.

On a warm, sunny day two weeks ago, Mesa's Habitat volunteers set up cardboard bins at the annual peach festival in Palisade.

As those visiting the festival washed down peach pies with soft drinks, the aluminum cans that normally would have gone into the trash were tossed in Habitat's bins.

Habitat cashed in 300 cans for about $8, executive director John Farmer said.

"But that's fine," he said. "People are thinking about recycling, (and) they are helping a little bit to build a house."

And certainly there are many recycling success stories, even in the face of budget cuts. Experts laud programs in San Francisco, Seattle and Boulder.

Still, as city officials think about ditching recycling programs, and as many city residents don't think about it at all, some, such as Jefferson Park's Potter, will continue their struggle to get people to separate paper, glass and cans.

In Ohio, Dayton residents rose up earlier this year after city officials announced they were going to cancel the curbside recycling program. The outcry was so loud officials quickly backed off.

That's exactly what's needed in Denver, Potter said.

"Denver residents need to put pressure on our politicians to be responsible," she said.


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS:

1 posted on 09/01/2002 3:40:23 AM PDT by sarcasm
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: sarcasm
My line of business... I work for (and partially own) a local independent residential sanitation company. You look like the bad guy when you tell people recycling is a myth, but the truth does hurt and when you are telling it, it can hurt yourself. It happens to be politically incorrect if you do not support recycling. The trend nationally is to scale back recycling, but many don't understand why. The why is $$$. Recycling does not make any money for my company. We give the materials away, with the exception of the aluminum cans, and our recycling processor that takes all of this (Weyerhauser) is going to quit accepting glass at the start of 2003. We would not be suprised if Weyerhauser started charging us to dump this material charging us rates comparable to our trash transfer station! That is how bad the situation has gotten. Basically, recyclables are garbage. Local governments have instituted a means of "waste stream recovery" by forcing people to recycle. The fact is, it is cheaper, more sanitary and hell of lot more efficient to dump it in a landfill. But most people just don't get it. If there was any way to make money off recycling it would not have to be mandated and forced onto people. The free market would take care of the demand, if there was any money to be made. The fact that recycling does not make money and that government must mandate it go hand in hand. The wicked environazi's have had their way for too long. Now the bell tolls, recycling is dying. May it rest in peace. Cities and Counties must get back to sound fiscal policies and not fund knee-jerk feel-good socialist myths like recycling.
2 posted on 09/01/2002 4:00:14 AM PDT by lmr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sarcasm
By the way, great article. I printed it out along with the many other "recycling is dead" articles that I have. I need this stuff just in case we have to battle to county or city. (Which we do on a constant basis!)
3 posted on 09/01/2002 4:06:32 AM PDT by lmr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lmr
Talk to the people who have to site, buy, manage the actual landfills. Recycling isn't perfect, but it keeps the landfills filling up faster than they otherwise would. And bringing new landfills into this world is a labor worthy of Hercules.
4 posted on 09/01/2002 4:54:11 AM PDT by mewzilla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: lmr
Interesting take. In the PR of Massachusetts it is unlaw to dispose of bottles, cans or newsprint in a landfill, due to a law championed by the wife of former RINO Governor Bill Weld (herself a Roosevelt cousin of some sort). When I good-naturedly chided my poor town clerk collecting for increased price dump stickers that we should get a discount because of all the money we were saving on recycling, she told me that BFI charges $5,000/ month to transport all this stuff to a landfill in Michigan. ("If you seek a beautiful penisula, look around you.")

The reason it is so hard to site a landfill is NIMBYism and a quasi-religious fever on the part of maladjusted people on a messianic ego trip trying to save the World from the evils of flush toilets and modern sanitation.
5 posted on 09/01/2002 5:15:30 AM PDT by Lonesome in Massachussets
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Lonesome in Massachussets
We know people who've had their well water contaminated by the local landfill. There're good reasons why you wouldn't want one next to you. But they do have to go somewhere. The best thing to do is fill them as slowly as possible. Usable landfill space is not a renewable resource.
6 posted on 09/01/2002 5:21:42 AM PDT by mewzilla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: sarcasm
Personal responsibility comes to mind. If recycling cost is the problem, I'd bet it can be surmounted by offsetting the expense by charging for multiple, overloaded garbage cans on trash-day. After all, if you're too lazy to do the right thing, then pay the price for it.
Do you believe that there's ever-expanding room for waste dumps?
7 posted on 09/01/2002 10:48:05 AM PDT by GirlShortstop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GirlShortstop
At the current rate of landfill usage factoring in growth and if recycling were eliminated completely, we would only have used 1/12,000th of the usable land for landfills after 50 years. It would be at least another 24,000 years before all the usable space is used up! This space does not include any land that is used for farming or national parks or areas that are already built up. Other things can be done with the garbage sure, but recycling is not going to eliminate the problem. People who have alot of trash pay more to have it hauled anyway, so your solution by charging more to those who have more is faulty logic, they are already paying more. Landfills in the past have polluted groundwater, but the requirements for building a landfill these days have virtually eliminated this problem for the future. It's not just a hole in the ground like people think. Landfills are protected by layers of sand and rock and a thick durable, chemical resistant plastic liner that would not decompose for a million years. The ultimate solution is possibly incineration, maybe it would become economical in the future to make more waste-to-energy facilities, but right now it is cost-prohibitive. All I am saying is let a free-market solution come and it will. The government doesn't need to mandate everything on everyone. If I am too "lazy" to recycle that is my business, much of what people think is "recycled" is actually disposed of in a landfill or it sits in an unsanitary warehouse. Recycling is failing as an option right now, that is what I am saying.
8 posted on 09/01/2002 7:46:31 PM PDT by lmr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson