County Threatens to Cut Recycling

Chestertown Spy: County Cuts Curbside Recycling

Dear readers,

When you read the above news item, please also read the commentary. I would like to attempt to dispel some of the preconceived notions regarding recycling that the general public seems to hold. I feel that as the Recycling Coordinator for a 2000 person community I can speak with some accuracy in regards to the larger issue of the surrounding Kent County community.

First of all, recycling is an expensive proposition. As Ford Schuman states in the commentary (and he is one of the few other people who can speak accurately about recycling, being the head of a recycling company himself), “It has always been a misconception that recycling pays for itself. Recycling easily costs less than landfilling. Even if you have to pay $20/ton to ship a load to a manufacturer that accepts it free, you’re well below the trash tipping fee of $55/ton, not counting shipping. Plus you don’t have to safeguard the recycling for perpetuity and more jobs are created.”

Recycling does not pay for itself. Recycling will never pay for itself so long as raw materials are cheap and largely subsidized. Consider the plastic bottle. Plastic bottles are made of PETROLEUM, ie OIL, and we all know oil is in short supply. However, it is so heavily subsidized by the federal government that the price is unnaturally low. This allows beverage companies to use it copiously to produce plastic bottles for your consumption. You are not paying the price to them. They are not paying the price of extracting the oil, particularly from conflict areas. The federal government (and our soldiers abroad) are paying for this with YOUR tax dollars.

After you’ve used a plastic bottle, if it gets recycled, it is then somehow the county government’s responsibility to figure out what to do with it. They need to put out the money to collect it, and, because people are insufferably lazy, in Kent County they have chosen to do this via curbside collection to make it as easy as possible. We have gone a step farther at Washington College, because our community was too lazy even to be bothered with curbside. Instead, we installed 230 fairly expensive bins directly in hallways on campus and employ 10 students to empty them on a weekly basis, and still, STILL, we are not capturing all of the recycling that goes through this campus. An enormous amount of it goes into the trash, because apparently it is too “inconvenient” to walk ten feet down the hall to the recycling bin.

The fact that the county has been successful with curbside is a stellar recommendation for their efforts and commitment. But let’s talk costs for a minute. Here on campus, we have spent thousands of dollars on installing recycling bins (one sturdy bin that is able to hold up to the beatings students regularly give them is approximately $120- just as an aside, this is comparably cheap when placed next to your average public trash can). We annually (or rather, the federal work study program) pay about $25,000 for student work. And then there’s me, the only “full” time staff person dedicated to recycling, and considering I am technically only paid half of my salary to do recycling, but spend more like 80% of my time on it, the college is getting a pretty good deal. It’s expensive. And, to top it off, we aren’t paying for containers, or hauling. The county is (thanks, guys).

The point is, we as a society expect to pay to have our trash removed. We somehow expect recycling, because it is associated with the environmental movement, to pay for itself. Newsflash: it doesn’t. It never will, unless oil subsidies vanish and the real cost of raw materials reveals itself (I’m hoping for that option, personally). Recycling is not, and never will be, saving the environment. It is diverting a few types of waste away from landfills and converting them (through an extremely energy intensive and expensive process) into other materials. If we were really concerned about the environment, we wouldn’t be producing the recyclables in the first place, we’d be concentrating on zero waste and reusables. We’d be holding companies responsible for the products they are creating, so that the cost of dealing with a beverage container was put back on the creator (and the purchaser), NOT the tax-paying public and the municipalities.

But that, of course, would be inconvenient.

In closing, if the county is truly shutting down the recycling program because they are disappointed it’s not more of a money generator, I would really like to see the figures on how much they put out annually for trash removal and tipping fees. If these costs are covered by the towns (as I believe they are), then I move that it should be the responsibility of the towns to pay for recycling as they also pay for trash removal. And if people are not willing to pay more to live in town and have someone come to their doorstep to pick up their waste, they need not to create so much waste in the first place.

I invite anyone who complains about the expense of recycling to spend a day collecting and transporting recyclables from the public. After seeing the inordinate amount of materials people waste in the space of a single week, please feel free to come back to me and complain again about the expenses. All we, the recycling collectors of the world, are trying to do is manage YOUR waste in the most efficient way possible.

Believe me, it’s not a job that receives a lot of thanks.

Read more...

The Wrong Kind of Green

The Wrong Kind of Green, by Johann Hari. Nation: March 4, 2010.

This is another one of those, no, REALLY? sort of articles. No, REALLY? Massive environmental organizations take money from major corporations?

No, it couldn’t be.

Sometimes it is so difficult to control the sarcasm on this blog. The funny thing is, I posted about this before, though in reference to the smaller scale version. Actually, upon reading that post again, I’ve already said just about everything I might say in response to this Nation article.

I do want to point out one other part. Hari mentions the phenomenon in which environmentalists are happy to be thrown a bone, any bone: a few trees here, a few concessions toward climate change there. Many environmentalists will accept just about anything if it makes them feel like they’re accomplishing something. It’s sad, but you see it happen again and again. They just back down and back down and say things like, well, the political climate isn’t right, and next thing you know, the actual, physical climate is too far gone to do anything about it. And then there’s no going back.

It’s so sad, and it’s one of the delusions that plague the environmental movement. We feel powerless. We have been raised feeling that nothing we do really matters, and really, how could we possibly defeat the massive corrupt army that is Congress and its multitude of corporate funders? What can we possibly do? Easy to accept the sad concessions thrown in our direction when faced with all THAT. I think the 2004 election had a lot to do with it. I think a lot of us, after staying up all night thinking to ourselves, no, there’s really no way that idiot could be elected president TWICE, woke up the next morning (or dragged ourselves into work after no sleep) with a different view of the world. No, our votes don’t matter. No, sense and the best interests of the population (and the planet) do not matter. Money matters. Money, and expansion, and the economy, and the rest, and we can scream ourselves hoarse trying to convince anyone else differently.

Some people seemed to become hopeful again after Obama election, and maybe these are the people who were still hoping something would actually come out of the Copenhagen debacle other than a lot of waffle. But really, anyone who actually expected some kind of effective decision to come out of Copenhagen was delusional. Anyone who still expects Congress, despite its immense corporate sponsors, to act in some kind of reasonable and responsible way as far as climate change goes, is living in a fantasy world. So in that sense, the accusation that the major environmental organizations are only aiming for what they think might have a chance of passing Congress is unfair. Those major organizations have a much better sense of reality than the environmentalists who thought real action would come out of Copenhagen.

Of course, that’s no reason not to take a hard line. After all, that’s how the major corporations get their way (well, that, and a whole lot of money). They stand their ground. They decide what they want and they fight tooth and nail, do everything in their power, to ensure that they get that outcome.

Shouldn’t that be what we do, as well? I’ve had about enough of waffle.

Read more...

An Historic Day

I debated for a while about posting on Inauguration Day. I have my own personal opinions regarding the new president, but in the interest of keeping this blog relatively politically neutral, I'm going to compromise by posting this BBC article on the outlook for Obama's environmental policy:

BBC News: Scientists optimistic over Obama

I think they are maybe being a little bit too optimistic, but I suppose we'll have to wait and see. The president, as much as I don't like to admit it, does have a major influence on the world, and especially where the money goes, so it may be we see a lot more investment in "green" jobs and technology, as Obama has promised. Certainly he'll be better than Bush in this category. But he will be influenced by lobbyists, like all politicians, and the biggest lobbyists are still by far the oil companies. So I'm not holding my breath.

I think the most important thing for us to do, on this rather historic day, is to remember that no matter who is in office the power is in the hands of PEOPLE, and it is our responsibility to remain vigilant, and call out the people in power on their actions, regardless of their promises for change. If we do not remain ready to act then we'll find the change may not be quite in the direction we hoped for. A new president is not an excuse for us to stop fighting for that which we hold dear.

Read more...

Are you deep or shallow?

Since the inception of the modern environmentalist movement, there have been two major sections who both define what “being green” really means. The mainstream (and more popular) idea focuses on consumer environmentalism, where the buyer makes purchases based on whether or not the product is environmentally friendly. This is the environmentalism we are all familiar with – buy (certified) organic produce, recycle your milk jugs, and – look – you’ve helped save the world!

However, there is another branch of the green movement which feels that recycling just isn’t enough. Often, this movement, usually referred to as deep ecology or ecologism, is affiliated with radical groups such as Earth First! and PETA. With its ecocentric message, ecologism is often referred to by consumer-based environmentalists as misanthropic, which, of course, deters many people from even exploring dark green beliefs.

But is being deep really so radical? Many people don’t even realize that they are already following ecologist principles. Because ecologism is not an associative ideology like environmentalism, which attaches itself to an already existing political party, it often remains unknown to the public, especially in the United States. Ecologism has its own clearly defined principles that don’t adhere to the conservative and liberal parties. Here is just a short list of some of these principles:

• Emphasis on the spiritual and intrinsic importance of nature (Gaia hypothesis)

• Limits to growth is a reality

• Government decentralization (focus on local government)

• Anti-class posture

• Interdependence and complexity of systems

Just by looking at this list, it becomes apparent that ecologism is not part of any existing political system. It contains the aspects and principles of many political theories. I hadn’t even heard of ecologism myself until I took an environmental politics class in Ireland, where there is a much more prominent Green Party throughout Europe. After reading more dark green literature, I realized how much I agreed with ecologist principles.

Try it out for yourself. For more information on ecologism, try Andrew Dobson’s book Green Political Thought.

Read more...