The biodegradable banwagon
Marketers, in their zeal to “green” their products, are calling everything they can “biodegradable.” There was an article in September’s paper about making plastics “green.” Everyone’s trying it–softdrink manufacturers, plastic bag manufacturers and even pen manufacturers.
With the array of products being marketed as “green” alternatives to plastic ranging from “new carbon” inputs to biodegradable (although not necessarily compostable) processing options, it can be a confusing world out there. And consumers are confused, or more often, misled.
There is a line that marketers tend to cross. Under the pressure to produce the greenest consumer products, they tend to misuse language, and the word “sustainability” most of all. If we consider the entire lifecyle of these products, what do we really gain? We’ve seen some plastic bags marketed as “will biodegrade in a landfill,” which is dually funny, if you know anything about landfills.
An article in today’s Mercury News announced that California’s Attorney General is finally going after false advertising. This is a significant step in the recycling world. We are sure there will be a long road ahead for recyclers, manufactuers and consumers–everyone.
California is moving the needle on recycling
By now you may know that California has a new state goal of diverting 75% of “garbage” from landfills by 2020. 2020 is a big year for the state. San Francisco and Oakland have their own goal of reaching zero waste by that year. The city of Mountain View has set the goal of reducing its greenhouse gas emissions to 20% below 1990 levels by that year. Why is 2020 so important?
Over twenty years ago, the California legislature mandated that 50% of landfill-bound materials had to be diverted to other uses. San Francisco, with its growing population opted for the higher goal of 75% several years later. The year 2020 is the target year for proving what can be accomplished in three generations. The idea of zero waste has gained momentum here in the United States because, whether aspiration or not, the technology, know-how, public will and information is now available for us to make it happen. Yet, according to CalRecycle, although some places in San Diego County are on their way to meeting the 75% recycling mandate, there are many places within that county and throughout California where cities, towns, municipalities and unincorporated areas struggle to divert even 50% of their landfill-bound materials.
Percent Diverted from Landfills, San Diego County
So what is zero waste?
Zero waste is the perspective that no materials are sent to landfills or incinerators. At Recology we believe in WASTE ZERO, which means making the best and highest use of all resources. There is a slight distinction. It is not enough to aspire to send nothing to landfills. Rather, the idea of WASTE ZERO is that the materials that are diverted from end-of-life destinations should be used in smart ways.
Raising the bar on mandated recycling isn’t just about the destination of landfill-diverted materials. Governor Jerry Brown signed the legislation not only to save our natural resources, but also to create jobs. Assembly member Chesbro, who authored the bill, said that the original 50% mandate helped to create 125,000 new jobs since 1989 and provide $4 billion in yearly salaries. Members of StopWaste.Org mentioned that for every job lost at a landfill, three more were created in recycling. Here’s to more jobs! Let’s keep recycling!
Clean Economy Jobs: A Key in America’s Emerging Next Economy
In December of 2009, we wrote about green jobs in recycling–jobs that have a positive environmental impact. And so we are glad that yesterday, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson visited one of the Recology materials recycling facilities (MRFs) to promote President Obama’s jobs plan and sustainability . If you’re wondering what clean economy or “green” jobs have to do with recycling, you should read a report called ”Sizing the Clean Economy” written by The Brookings Institution. It found that:
In terms of its sectoral profile, the clean economy encompasses a wide variety of activities that extends far beyond high-profile renewable energy and energy efficiency sectors. In fact, the vast majority of clean economy jobs produce goods or services that protect the environment or reduce pollution in ways that have little to do with energy or energy efficiency. Nearly one-fifth of clean economy jobs, for example, involve agriculture and conservation, which includes a variety of land and forestry management jobs, as well as those in organic farming. Another 40 percent of clean economy jobs benefit the environment through greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction, the management of resources like air and water, and recycling. Businesses involved in renewable energy, by contrast, comprise just 5 percent of all clean economy jobs. Nuclear energy, considered clean but non-renewable, comprises 3 percent of jobs: roughly 75,000.
The Brookings-Battelle Clean Economy Database, which was a source for the report, also found that according to their data, 1.7 million people in 2010 held clean economy jobs. San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont ranked #6 out of a 100 metropolitan areas, with 51,811 people working across sectors to create environmental beneficial alernatives. There’s an interactive map you can look at online that illustrates their findings.
The data on San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont shows that between 2003 and 2010, 15,784 new clean economy jobs were created–and over 6,000 of them were in the waste industry. In 2010, these jobs paid $59,856 per year on average. That’s not a bad deal in a country struggling to overcome an unemployment rate of 9.1%.
Climate Action Leadership
Recology is named Climate Action Leader
Some time ago, Recology got a letter from the California Climate Action Registry. It said:
I am writing to inform you that we have reviewed your verified GHG emissions inventories and found they meet the standards of our General Reporting Protocol Version 3.1. We are pleased to accept your emissions report at the California Climate Action Registry. For completing this effort, we grant you the status of Climate Action Leader… Congratulations on completing the reporting process! We commend you for your hard work in gathering and calculating the necessary information, and your organization for its participation in the country’s most rigorous voluntary GHG reporting program.
We are proud, we are happy, we were… hopeful that the annual United Nations climate change conference, held in Cancun, Mexico this year, would show more definitive results and demonstrate the leadership that other stakeholders are taking in the negotiations process.
In particular, the much-discussed Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation (REDD) program highlights one of the many conflicts among the debate stakeholders. Although the program is said to set aside tens of billions of dollars per year to prevent forests from being cut down by making them worthy of granting carbon offsets, there are also unintended consequences.
First, REDD prevents large greenhouse gas generators in developed countries from curtailing their own emissions by allowing them an out of sorts. They do not have to change what may be highly polluting practices. Second, REDD penalizes the indigenous communities that live in and sustain themselves via the forests that REDD seeks to keep out of human hands.
Despite that, it is a good sign that the 193 nations that participated in the negotiations in Cancun came to consensus on some of the issues. And anyway, whether you believe in climate change and global warming or not, it doesn’t hurt to be more efficient in our use of natural resources like coal, oil, and natural gas. And, like in Recology’s case, it doesn’t hurt to be recognized for those efforts either.
We are proud to be among the Climate Action Leaders in our country.
Disposable Coffee Cups: From Your Lips to the Landfill
People sometimes complain that recycling is not only too hard, but also too expensive, and that it’s better to just throw things “away”.
Photo by Per Ola Wiberg
A few weeks ago, I read ”Coffee-cup recycling brims with obstacles“ about how our national obsession with coffee results in 3 billion Starbucks-branded paper cups going to the landfill each year. The author explains that although compostable cups won’t turn to goop in your hands anymore when filled with coffee, they’re still ($0.07) more expensive than the alternative. Starbucks would probably pass on the cost of the more expensive compostable cup to the consumer, thereby making the $2.51 Tall Latte more like $2.58. Seriously, can you imagine paying $2.58 for your cup of Joe on your way to work while you fill up your tank with $3/gal gas? I started to wonder if it was any use making compostable products at all. Nonetheless, a compostable coffee cup would mean that at least we can reuse the fibers in the cup as something beneficial–like compost–from which plants and trees can grow.
Then I happened to hear Governor Schwarzenegger’s speech last night on the recently-contentious California Assembly Bill AB32, and something clicked. Climate change legislation in California is not about crippling the economy, but about creating incentives for entrepreneurship, innovation, and positive alternatives to our dependence on foreign oil. It’s about seeing climate change, and its economics in its entirety.
Similarly, although the mint.com article, “Trashonomics,” paints a gross and inaccurate picture about the economics of the garbage industry, it does highlight our problem: we throw good money into a pit in the ground. It’s not just about how many green collar jobs are created by recycling.
So here we are. On the one hand, it’s too expensive to add an additional $0.07 per cup to our daily, designer coffee habit, and other hand, it’s not too expensive to deplete our national coffers and natural resources by sending good, reusable material into the landfill.
Is it too expensive to throw money away by land filling our bad, disposable, single-use habits yet?
560,000 Tons to Go…
This week San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom took time out to commend some of the 1,000+ Recology employees in San Francisco that helped acheive the 77% diversion rate for the city in 2009.
In a press release dated August 27th, the Mayor’s office explained that the 77% diversion rate for the city sets a new record in the United States. 1.6 million tons that would have gone to a landfill were instead recycled, composted, reused or donated.
The other 560,000 tons of “garbage” that was generated by San Francisco’s residents and tourists went to a landfil in 2009. That’s quite a lot of material, which is why cultivating the right habits and educating others about landfill diversion is so important.
Congratulations to Recology Sunset Scavanger, Recology Golden Gate, and Recology San Francisco for bringing us a little closer to the goal of zero waste!
Burlingame Vice Mayor Prompts Bulb Recycling
Posing as a consumer, Burlingame Vice Mayor Terry Nagel was troubled by the lack of answers she found regarding proper disposal of her compact fluorescent light bulbs.
“Everyone gave me different information,” Nagel said. “Even though the state made disposing of CFLs in residential trash illegal in 2006, they didn’t provide funding for community awareness programs — they passed the law, but gave no money for its enactment.”
Without proper education, the public likely does not know the harmful impact of not recycling these bulbs. While CFLs use about a quarter of the amount of electricity of standard bulbs, they contain mercury, a substance that once in a landfill is there forever, Nagel said.
Since 2008, Nagel has been working to encourage recycling centers in San Mateo County to publicize proper handling of CFLs. She enlisted the help of Recology — which will be taking over garbage services in a large part of the county starting in January — to post a list of CFL disposal locations within the county.
“This is just one component in the many services we provide,” Recology spokeswoman Gina Simi said. “Proper disposal is vital to the environment and our communities.”
Only a handful of recycling centers were available a couple years ago, but now Recology lists about 26 throughout San Mateo County, including several Home Depot and IKEA locations.
“These big businesses have been great about taking back CFLs,” Nagel said. “Every time people go to these stores, they are encouraged to recycle. It’s good to have reminders out there.”
With composting and mixed recycling coming to Burlingame, it is an ideal time to be reinforcing proper disposal of hazardous waste, Nagel said. It is necessary for people to understand the importance of recycling CFLs, both in environmental terms and for their own safety.
By: Sarah Haughey
Examiner Staff Writer
July 29, 2010
http://www.sfexaminer.com/local/Burlingame-vice-mayor-prompts-bulb-recycling-99499659.html
Seriously, No Trash-Picking on the Sidewalk
In the first three months of 2010, Recology recieved around 1,300 reports of people stealing from your recycling. Although there are law in San Francisco and throughout the U.S. that make recycling theft a crime, there are people out there without perspective on this.
Earlier we wrote about the unintended consequences of the CRV. It’s not just recycling. All over the country, dumpster divers and sidewalk pickers leave a mess behind them. A picture is a thousand word, and this one, from http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/cwnevius/detail?entry_id=59275&o=1#ixzz0idpR0xdd is the best illustration of the problem.
Trash invaders beware. In Pawtucket, Massachusetts, the city is took extra measures to ensure that the citizens of that city understand how seriously they are taking the law. Now, trash and recycling thieves face fines ranging from $100 to $500. That should make anyone reconsider if it’s worth it to go after those five cent bottles and cans…
CRV Part 2: Unintended Consequences
This is part two of a two-part examination of the recent controversy surrounding the CRV.
What could go wrong with a program that incentivized citizens to teach their children about recycling and work? What could go wrong with a program that enabled many poor people to participate in diverting useful material from going to the landfill while helping them to make ends meet?
The CRV program, which boasts 85% recycling of bottles and cans, has become central to an underground economy with all of the unhealthy incentives that have created a spectrum of thieves in the last twenty years.
Theft from curbside bins
Recycling thieves have focused on the redeemable material put out in bins and collected by local recycling and garbage companies. In December alone, San Francisco received more than 1,500 complaints from residents of people rummaging through their garbage, making noise and stealing recyclables in the wee hours. In the morning, the littered sidewalks gave evidence to scattered garbage on the sidewalks–both an eyesore and a health hazard. And don’t be fooled. 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 looking for material to redeem at a recycling center across the Bay. Mike Mosedale wrote a news story about the same problem in Minneapolis back in 2006. No matter where it happens or how you categorize it, it is still theft.
Redemption of California funds from outside California
There are other unintended circumstances. People from states that border California make their way here to redeem their collection of recyclable containers. The result is that the CRV (Fund B) is drained and unsustainable for the Californians that paid, and then are taxed for it to exist. For example, Super Bowl XLIV weekend, a red truck with an out-of-state license plate stopped on the corner to let me pass. Squeezed in the cab were three men, and the back of the truck had been modified so that it held, from what I was able to glimpse as the car pulled away, two or three tons of flattened cardboard boxes. I’d seen other similar trucks, sometimes packed with cardboard, and other times with tin, aluminum, and glass bottles.
Shoddy accounting and fraud
The recycling centers themselves are under scrutiny for the many reports of fraud and faulty accounting leveled against them. For example, there are limits to the amount that a redeemer can collect at one time, so many have been turned away without full payment. They are told “we can only pay you $50 at a time, but leave your materials here.” Shoddy record-keeping practices, including jotting down only the redeemer’s first name only, and verbal promises to pay them at a later time, account for some of the “unclaimed money” that support the handling and processing fees paid to companies for collecting recyclables.
The economic inefficiencies of a program that some prefer to expand but is hard to fix are amplified by the budget crisis in California. Staring in 2002, the state “borrowed” over $500 million from Fund A for other purposes and has yet to repay it. As a result, about 160 of the approximately 2,100 recycling centers in California have closed since July 2009. Many employees of the centers have cried fowl, although the program’s relevance is now questionable. The program was started as a first step “litter control” measure. Other recycling efforts that have since been implemented have taken resource recovery much further, including curbside recycling programs, comingled (single stream) recycling, and composting.
The program’s economic sustainability is also questionable. What is the benefit of an artificially created economy that encourages theft and fraud, and that is entirely supported by the state? The CRV was created at a time when there were fewer curbside recycling programs across the U.S. The effect of an outdated program like the CRV has been to increase the costs of curbside recycling programs (imagine empty recycling trucks that have already been paid for by taxpayers driving down the street, while recyclables stolen from curbside collection are redeemed at a materials recovery facility, only to be sold back to the curbside recycling program.). What is the purpose of an unsustainable program that reduces the availability of legitimate, green jobs with benefits and attempts to replace them with haphazard, fraudulent operations? Needless to say, the value and recognition for doing the right thing should return to the communities where the materials are legitimately collected through curbside programs.
| RECYCLING BY THE NUMBERS | |
| 5 cents: | Minimum deposit required for cans and bottles covered by the California Redemption Value, or CRV, program |
| 21.9 billion: | CRV bottles and cans purchased statewide in 2008 |
| $1.2 billion: | Annual CRV money collected by the state |
| Sources: California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery; state Department of Finance; TOMRA Pacific | |
The Sacramento Bureau reported that Governor Schwarzenegger will continue to fund recycling centers for two or three more months. His long-term plan in December, 2009 was to increase the redemption value for glass and plastic containers. He also wants to increase Fund A by another $60 million this year, through accelerating the payments from beverage distributors and manufacturers.
CRV Part 1: Good Intentions
This is part one of a two-part examination of the recent controversy surrounding the CRV.
I don’t drink much soda. I grew up in a neighborhood full of former hippies who, whenever I would reached for a Pepsi, suggested I try water, juice, or tea instead. So it wasn’t till recently, when I bought a small computer in California, that I noticed the “recycling fee” dangling towards the bottom of my receipt. The environmental handling fee is like the California Redemption Value (CRV) program’s fee which comes with every soft drink and other beverage container at your local grocery store that should be recycled.
Actually, there are two “CRV”s. They are often confused.
The CRV was established in 1987 as an “anti-liter” program, and it was meant to achieve a social good. It was one part of the California Beverage Container Recycling and Litter Reduction Act. The program charged manufacturers a small fee for the disposal of the containers that they manufactured, like plastic soda bottles, or aluminum cans, tins of tuna, etc. In a way, the environmental handling fee helped manufacturers to recognize that “disposable” containers often end up along the highways and river ways of the country. The CRV fee was actually passed on from manufacturers to consumers in the price of the bottle, can, or tin, and therefore increase the amount we pay in taxes for the container. Let’s call the CRV pool of “anti-liter” money collected by the state from these fees Fund A.
The other CRV (California Refund Value) is what recycling centers pay for the bottles and cans that consumers collect and redeem at the centers. Recycling centers can range from machines at the supermarket where anyone can feed with leftover beer cans, to the fenced-in lots in the outskirts town where families unload the bags of glass bottles they’ve collected. The way that the California Refund Value was meant to be used was this: a person who happened upon aluminum can or plastic bottle that had been thrown along the side of the road could take it to a recycling center and redeem its value from the state. The program allowed people who needed a little extra money to find a way to get it. It also kept the recycling rate up for a given community, and the streets liter-free. Currently, the state pays consumers $0.05 or $0.10 per container, depending on its size. Let’s call this CRV pool of money made available to recycling centers for “buying back” containers Fund B. Fund B was paid into with the money the state collected from manufacturers of recyclable containers (aka Fund A).
The program was set up so that Fund A would pay for Fund B. Not a bad idea. From the social and environmental perspective, the program would give everyone the right incentives to do the right thing: manufacturers were charged for the externality created by their products, and families were given a little revenue for redeeming the products and returning them to manufacturers for their next production cycle.
According to CalRecycle, the CRV program has facilitated the recycling of ”more than 200 billion aluminum, glass, and plastic beverage containers… since the program began in 1987.”
Everyone is set up to do the right thing… Right?
tulip
rachrecycles
cOLeCo7e
darbyandjoan
make art
slidetozero
wastezerosf
art at the dump
wedmorningpickup
recologysanmateocounty
iheartcompost
Sol
pnwblogger
2 comments