There are certain things that can be accomplished to reduce your carbon footprint, or put another way, reduce what you schlep to the curb and pay for with you tax dollars.
Personally, we're not there yet, but had additional lazy motives for pursuing the issues.
Why should I have to take plastic shopping bags either to the 'curb' or in my case, down a 1500 foot driveway?
There's also my pet peeve - JUNK MAIL that filled my mailbox, invaded my home, and forced me to remove my identifying information to discard or shred. Another 'laziness' project ensued. Why should I have to take this unwanted crap into my house, invest my time to dispose of it? It was a lengthy project to reduce the volume and succeeded, except for the volume originating from Sean Bielat.
OK! So, it began with laziness, not solely environmental responsibility.
If there's another simple way, why not consider it?
Looking around at the mounds of trash put out each week, it's pretty astounding.
For awhile, we 'recycled' our plastic bags which meant remembering to take them next trip to the supermarket. Another project tackled from laziness.
And then I looked up the cost of municipal trash collection in the Annual Town Report and it seemed a 'no brainer' to reduce our contribution.
Frankly, it's disappointing that no active campaign has ever been conducted in Middleboro, but the Town Fathers/Mothers have enough difficulty addressing a Town Hall that consumes 5 times what other comparable buildings do. Not so enlightened, this crew! As former members of the Committee to Design the Camel, I hold out little hope.
In the MASSPIRG newsletter (worth reading in its entirety), the following was included:
"Zero Waste" Plan Needs Work
Forty years after the first Earth Day, we are still burying or burning more than half our waste. MASSPIRG has been urging the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) to adopt a solid waste plan that emphasizes recycling and strives for a goal of zero waste. And, on July 2, the DEP released the draft Solid Waste Master Plan, the state’s blueprint for dealing with waste for the next decade.
The draft, called “The Pathway to Zero Waste,” certainly pursues zero waste in name, but does not move quickly enough to address our trash problem. The plan has set a goal of 80 percent reduction in waste by 2050, which is about 20 years too long. Plus, the draft includes loopholes that permit certain types of waste burning in a statewide ban on new incineration.
Campaign Builds Momentum
During the last year, MASSPIRG has collected and delivered 15,000 signatures to DEP Commissioner Laurie Burt asking for a Master Plan that firmly sets the Commonwealth on the road to zero waste.
In response to the draft plan issued on July 2, we have ramped up our campaign to educate the public about the plan’s contents—both its strengths and weaknesses—and encourage people to participate in the public hearings, outline our concerns to DEP as they consider public input, and generate media attention for an issue that affects every citizen in the Commonwealth for the next 10 years and beyond. To that end, we held a press event with members of HealthLink in Saugus on July 26 in front of one of the bigger incinerators in the state.
The event was attended by state Sen. Sal DiDomenico, who represents the area. The event preceded the public hearing held the next day in Boston, at which many MASSPIRG staff and volunteers testified. In addition, activists held a press event at the public hearing in Worcester on July 27 that drew local media.
To me, what seemed like a "no brainer" sure didn't seem like a Right Wing Pro-Trash Vulture endeaver.
That is, until I found Jeff Jacoby's propaganda! Phwew!
Get excited about recycling? Not me
By Jeff Jacoby
‘GET EXCITED about Single Stream!’’ trills the flyer that comes from Brookline Town Hall. A letter from the commissioner of public works hails the “exciting change’’ beginning next month, when town residents will no longer be required to sort their recyclable trash into separate blue bins — one for paper, the other for cans, bottles, and plastic containers. Instead recyclables will all go into 64-gallon “toters,’’ which will be emptied at curbside on trash day.
But the excitement of this eludes me, so I turn to the enclosed information sheet. A list of “frequently asked questions’’ and a letter from the town’s Solid Waste Advisory Committee — and what would town life be without one of those? — assures me that single stream does away with “guesswork,’’ making trash-disposal easier than ever. “By eliminating sorting,’’ it reports, the new system may boost recycling rates by 30 percent or more. In large boldface print, it urges: “Get Excited!’’
I gaze at the brightly colored “Single-Stream Recycling Guide,’’ with its illustrated array of trash items that can all go in the “toter’’ without sorting. There are pictures of bottle caps and egg cartons, books and tin cans, plastic jugs and newspapers. “All Together Now!’’ the leaflet proclaims.
Then I start reading the fine print. It turns out that when the town says it is “eliminating sorting,’’ what it means is that glass bottles and jars can be recycled, but not drinking glasses or window glass. It means plastic tubs are OK to toss in the toter, but plastic bags aren’t. It means that while cardboard boxes must be flattened, milk and juice cartons must not be flattened. Reams of office paper are fine, but not the wrappers they came in. Tinfoil should be crushed into balls of 2 inches or larger; tin cans shouldn’t be crushed at all. I don’t think the green police will haul me off in handcuffs if I try to recycle an ice cream carton or a pizza box, but the town has warned that “there will be fines’’ for residents whose “recycling protocols’’ don’t measure up to “basic community standards.’’
Excited? Not.
To be fair, things could be worse. Clevelanders will soon have to use recycling carts equipped with radio-frequency ID chips, the Plain Dealer reported last month. These will enable the city to remotely monitor residents’ compliance with recycling regulations. “If a chip shows a recyclable cart hasn’t been brought to the curb in weeks, a trash supervisor will sort through the trash for recyclables. Trash carts containing more than 10 percent recyclable material could lead to a $100 fine.’’ In Britain, where a similar system is already in place, fines can reach as high as $1,500.
San Franciscans, meanwhile, must sort their garbage into three color-coded bins — blue for recycling, green for compost, and black for trash — and scofflaws who pitch teabags or coffee grounds into the wrong bin can be fined. In other cities, residents must bag their trash in clear plastic, lest they be tempted to toss recyclables out with the garbage.
Does any of this make sense? It certainly isn’t economically rational. Unlike commercial and industrial recycling — a thriving voluntary market that annually salvages tens of millions of tons of metal, paper, glass, and plastic — mandatory household recycling is a money loser. Cost studies show that curbside recycling can cost, on average, 60 percent more per ton than conventional garbage disposal. In 2004, an analysis by New York’s Independent Budget Office concluded, according to The New York Times, that “it cost anywhere from $34 to $48 a ton more to recycle material, than to send it off to landfills or incinerators.’’
“There is not a community curbside recycling program in the United States that covers its cost,’’ says Jay Lehr, science director at the Heartland Institute and author of a handbook on environmental science. They exist primarily to make people “feel warm and fuzzy about what they are doing for the environment.’’
But if recycling household trash makes everyone feel warm and fuzzy, why does it have to be compulsory? Mandatory recycling programs “force people to squander valuable resources in a quixotic quest to save what they would sensibly discard,’’ writes Clemson University economist Daniel K. Benjamin. “On balance, recycling programs lower our wealth.’’ Now whose idea of exciting is that?
Although Jacoby's comments are straight from a Right Wing Think Tank Handbook, what is disheartening is continued reliance on Heartland Institute. Next thing, he'll resume the arguments presented by Big Tobacco and their paid scientists to tell us smoking is really good for us.
Are we willing to allow Big Corporations to dictate sensible policies and govern our future? Beacon Hill has bottled up an expanded Bottle Bill because of Big Corporations. When do we resume that "Government for the people...." thing?
Isn't that what Tuesday's vote is about?
Personally, we're not there yet, but had additional lazy motives for pursuing the issues.
Why should I have to take plastic shopping bags either to the 'curb' or in my case, down a 1500 foot driveway?
There's also my pet peeve - JUNK MAIL that filled my mailbox, invaded my home, and forced me to remove my identifying information to discard or shred. Another 'laziness' project ensued. Why should I have to take this unwanted crap into my house, invest my time to dispose of it? It was a lengthy project to reduce the volume and succeeded, except for the volume originating from Sean Bielat.
OK! So, it began with laziness, not solely environmental responsibility.
If there's another simple way, why not consider it?
Looking around at the mounds of trash put out each week, it's pretty astounding.
For awhile, we 'recycled' our plastic bags which meant remembering to take them next trip to the supermarket. Another project tackled from laziness.
And then I looked up the cost of municipal trash collection in the Annual Town Report and it seemed a 'no brainer' to reduce our contribution.
Frankly, it's disappointing that no active campaign has ever been conducted in Middleboro, but the Town Fathers/Mothers have enough difficulty addressing a Town Hall that consumes 5 times what other comparable buildings do. Not so enlightened, this crew! As former members of the Committee to Design the Camel, I hold out little hope.
In the MASSPIRG newsletter (worth reading in its entirety), the following was included:
"Zero Waste" Plan Needs Work
Forty years after the first Earth Day, we are still burying or burning more than half our waste. MASSPIRG has been urging the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) to adopt a solid waste plan that emphasizes recycling and strives for a goal of zero waste. And, on July 2, the DEP released the draft Solid Waste Master Plan, the state’s blueprint for dealing with waste for the next decade.
The draft, called “The Pathway to Zero Waste,” certainly pursues zero waste in name, but does not move quickly enough to address our trash problem. The plan has set a goal of 80 percent reduction in waste by 2050, which is about 20 years too long. Plus, the draft includes loopholes that permit certain types of waste burning in a statewide ban on new incineration.
Campaign Builds Momentum
During the last year, MASSPIRG has collected and delivered 15,000 signatures to DEP Commissioner Laurie Burt asking for a Master Plan that firmly sets the Commonwealth on the road to zero waste.
In response to the draft plan issued on July 2, we have ramped up our campaign to educate the public about the plan’s contents—both its strengths and weaknesses—and encourage people to participate in the public hearings, outline our concerns to DEP as they consider public input, and generate media attention for an issue that affects every citizen in the Commonwealth for the next 10 years and beyond. To that end, we held a press event with members of HealthLink in Saugus on July 26 in front of one of the bigger incinerators in the state.
The event was attended by state Sen. Sal DiDomenico, who represents the area. The event preceded the public hearing held the next day in Boston, at which many MASSPIRG staff and volunteers testified. In addition, activists held a press event at the public hearing in Worcester on July 27 that drew local media.
To me, what seemed like a "no brainer" sure didn't seem like a Right Wing Pro-Trash Vulture endeaver.
That is, until I found Jeff Jacoby's propaganda! Phwew!
Get excited about recycling? Not me
By Jeff Jacoby
‘GET EXCITED about Single Stream!’’ trills the flyer that comes from Brookline Town Hall. A letter from the commissioner of public works hails the “exciting change’’ beginning next month, when town residents will no longer be required to sort their recyclable trash into separate blue bins — one for paper, the other for cans, bottles, and plastic containers. Instead recyclables will all go into 64-gallon “toters,’’ which will be emptied at curbside on trash day.
But the excitement of this eludes me, so I turn to the enclosed information sheet. A list of “frequently asked questions’’ and a letter from the town’s Solid Waste Advisory Committee — and what would town life be without one of those? — assures me that single stream does away with “guesswork,’’ making trash-disposal easier than ever. “By eliminating sorting,’’ it reports, the new system may boost recycling rates by 30 percent or more. In large boldface print, it urges: “Get Excited!’’
I gaze at the brightly colored “Single-Stream Recycling Guide,’’ with its illustrated array of trash items that can all go in the “toter’’ without sorting. There are pictures of bottle caps and egg cartons, books and tin cans, plastic jugs and newspapers. “All Together Now!’’ the leaflet proclaims.
Then I start reading the fine print. It turns out that when the town says it is “eliminating sorting,’’ what it means is that glass bottles and jars can be recycled, but not drinking glasses or window glass. It means plastic tubs are OK to toss in the toter, but plastic bags aren’t. It means that while cardboard boxes must be flattened, milk and juice cartons must not be flattened. Reams of office paper are fine, but not the wrappers they came in. Tinfoil should be crushed into balls of 2 inches or larger; tin cans shouldn’t be crushed at all. I don’t think the green police will haul me off in handcuffs if I try to recycle an ice cream carton or a pizza box, but the town has warned that “there will be fines’’ for residents whose “recycling protocols’’ don’t measure up to “basic community standards.’’
Excited? Not.
To be fair, things could be worse. Clevelanders will soon have to use recycling carts equipped with radio-frequency ID chips, the Plain Dealer reported last month. These will enable the city to remotely monitor residents’ compliance with recycling regulations. “If a chip shows a recyclable cart hasn’t been brought to the curb in weeks, a trash supervisor will sort through the trash for recyclables. Trash carts containing more than 10 percent recyclable material could lead to a $100 fine.’’ In Britain, where a similar system is already in place, fines can reach as high as $1,500.
San Franciscans, meanwhile, must sort their garbage into three color-coded bins — blue for recycling, green for compost, and black for trash — and scofflaws who pitch teabags or coffee grounds into the wrong bin can be fined. In other cities, residents must bag their trash in clear plastic, lest they be tempted to toss recyclables out with the garbage.
Does any of this make sense? It certainly isn’t economically rational. Unlike commercial and industrial recycling — a thriving voluntary market that annually salvages tens of millions of tons of metal, paper, glass, and plastic — mandatory household recycling is a money loser. Cost studies show that curbside recycling can cost, on average, 60 percent more per ton than conventional garbage disposal. In 2004, an analysis by New York’s Independent Budget Office concluded, according to The New York Times, that “it cost anywhere from $34 to $48 a ton more to recycle material, than to send it off to landfills or incinerators.’’
“There is not a community curbside recycling program in the United States that covers its cost,’’ says Jay Lehr, science director at the Heartland Institute and author of a handbook on environmental science. They exist primarily to make people “feel warm and fuzzy about what they are doing for the environment.’’
But if recycling household trash makes everyone feel warm and fuzzy, why does it have to be compulsory? Mandatory recycling programs “force people to squander valuable resources in a quixotic quest to save what they would sensibly discard,’’ writes Clemson University economist Daniel K. Benjamin. “On balance, recycling programs lower our wealth.’’ Now whose idea of exciting is that?
Although Jacoby's comments are straight from a Right Wing Think Tank Handbook, what is disheartening is continued reliance on Heartland Institute. Next thing, he'll resume the arguments presented by Big Tobacco and their paid scientists to tell us smoking is really good for us.
Are we willing to allow Big Corporations to dictate sensible policies and govern our future? Beacon Hill has bottled up an expanded Bottle Bill because of Big Corporations. When do we resume that "Government for the people...." thing?
Isn't that what Tuesday's vote is about?
No comments:
Post a Comment