<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: CRV Part 2: Unintended Consequences</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blog.recology.com/2010/02/17/crv-part-2-unintended-consequences/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blog.recology.com/2010/02/17/crv-part-2-unintended-consequences/</link>
	<description>Recology changes everything</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 30 Jan 2012 06:01:34 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: b</title>
		<link>http://blog.recology.com/2010/02/17/crv-part-2-unintended-consequences/#comment-1080</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[b]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 13 Sep 2011 04:44:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.recology.com/?p=336#comment-1080</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&quot;...Sometimes it is an elderly person looking for a little extra income, but more often than not it is a junkie, desperate for another fix, or an organized group with a van....&quot;
  I can understand this type of statement coming from a metro-sized area (still tho it&#039;s a bit harsh), but in more rural northern ca communities Ukiah, Lake County, Fort Bragg ets... the recycling center facilities boast customers from all walks of life. From the homeless to off duty police, literally every &quot;fringe&quot; to &quot;in&quot; demographic/clique uses these centers to cash in. 
I read a few months back, a .pdf from 08&#039; i found on google, stating that CA CRV had an estimated $180 million in surplus funds. MI had the highest rate of recycling by consumer due to MI&#039;s nearly .10cent across the board return value on each consumer drink bottle (plastic/glass/aluminum). Grocery/Liquor stores of all sizes (mom &amp; pops to box) offer the MI buyback program to customers, as well as scattered &quot;centers.&quot;  Maybe CA could take a lesson]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;&#8230;Sometimes it is an elderly person looking for a little extra income, but more often than not it is a junkie, desperate for another fix, or an organized group with a van&#8230;.&#8221;<br />
  I can understand this type of statement coming from a metro-sized area (still tho it&#8217;s a bit harsh), but in more rural northern ca communities Ukiah, Lake County, Fort Bragg ets&#8230; the recycling center facilities boast customers from all walks of life. From the homeless to off duty police, literally every &#8220;fringe&#8221; to &#8220;in&#8221; demographic/clique uses these centers to cash in.<br />
I read a few months back, a .pdf from 08&#8242; i found on google, stating that CA CRV had an estimated $180 million in surplus funds. MI had the highest rate of recycling by consumer due to MI&#8217;s nearly .10cent across the board return value on each consumer drink bottle (plastic/glass/aluminum). Grocery/Liquor stores of all sizes (mom &amp; pops to box) offer the MI buyback program to customers, as well as scattered &#8220;centers.&#8221;  Maybe CA could take a lesson</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: tulip</title>
		<link>http://blog.recology.com/2010/02/17/crv-part-2-unintended-consequences/#comment-24</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[tulip]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 10 Mar 2010 17:10:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.recology.com/?p=336#comment-24</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Governor Schwarzenegger signed ABX8 7 (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?bill_number=abx8_7&amp;sess=CUR&amp;house=B&amp;author=committee_on_budget%20) into law yesterday. The &quot;Bottle Bill Fix&quot; will retroactively pay recycling centers for payments that were suspended last year till June 2010. The allocations are summarized as follows:

$20 million for conservation corps recycling
$10.5 million to local governments
$10 million for quality incentive payments for glass
$10 million for market development for plastic containers
$44 million in handling fees for supermarket recycling centers
$15 million for curbside recycling (payment in December 2010)]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Governor Schwarzenegger signed ABX8 7 (<a href="http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?bill_number=abx8_7&#038;sess=CUR&#038;house=B&#038;author=committee_on_budget%20" rel="nofollow">http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?bill_number=abx8_7&#038;sess=CUR&#038;house=B&#038;author=committee_on_budget%20</a>) into law yesterday. The &#8220;Bottle Bill Fix&#8221; will retroactively pay recycling centers for payments that were suspended last year till June 2010. The allocations are summarized as follows:</p>
<p>$20 million for conservation corps recycling<br />
$10.5 million to local governments<br />
$10 million for quality incentive payments for glass<br />
$10 million for market development for plastic containers<br />
$44 million in handling fees for supermarket recycling centers<br />
$15 million for curbside recycling (payment in December 2010)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Bob Besso</title>
		<link>http://blog.recology.com/2010/02/17/crv-part-2-unintended-consequences/#comment-22</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Bob Besso]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 03 Mar 2010 21:02:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.recology.com/?p=336#comment-22</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Based on data I have accumulated during recycling theft patrols, I estimate CRV lost to recycling poachers is between 5 and 10 million dollars per year, in San Francisco alone!]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Based on data I have accumulated during recycling theft patrols, I estimate CRV lost to recycling poachers is between 5 and 10 million dollars per year, in San Francisco alone!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tom Hundt</title>
		<link>http://blog.recology.com/2010/02/17/crv-part-2-unintended-consequences/#comment-21</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Tom Hundt]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 19 Feb 2010 16:20:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.recology.com/?p=336#comment-21</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[This article leaves out important numbers.  

How much gets paid out in CRV at recycling centers?  If 85% is recycled, that&#039;s 15% surplus in the system... until you subtract off the materials coming from out of state.  How much is that?  (The solution for cross-state transport is, of course, to have a national standard deposit amount and to have consistent redemption practices everywhere.  Remove the incentive to haul materials across state lines.)  

Also missing is data on how much Norcal/Recology loses out on due to theft from blue bins.  Do we have an estimate?]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This article leaves out important numbers.  </p>
<p>How much gets paid out in CRV at recycling centers?  If 85% is recycled, that&#8217;s 15% surplus in the system&#8230; until you subtract off the materials coming from out of state.  How much is that?  (The solution for cross-state transport is, of course, to have a national standard deposit amount and to have consistent redemption practices everywhere.  Remove the incentive to haul materials across state lines.)  </p>
<p>Also missing is data on how much Norcal/Recology loses out on due to theft from blue bins.  Do we have an estimate?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

