Comments on: Column: Recycling Virtues and MORE

By: TMG2010

TMG2010 — Thu, 15 Apr 2010 18:27:30 +0000

Single/multi stream recycling is still an apples to apples comparison– in any case, the (Chronicle) comparison isn’t local enough for me… macintosh and gala or ann arbor, ’07 and ann arbor ’05 would be a better system for distinguishing the different systems– as in street by street, code by code… more detail less politics to help neighborhoods to see the benefit of not sorting! Ann Arbor is great at it- because of what we recycle, not how!

‘RecycleBank’ language (not treatment) could be implied to be maybe (shoulder shrug) retaliatory toward an economic system to which we are all already indebted and that is scarier to me than a basic fruits (low or high hanging matter) comparison.

By: Jeff Gaynor

Jeff Gaynor — Tue, 06 Apr 2010 02:53:29 +0000

As a teacher at Clague Middle School (AAPS) and seeing water bottles thrown in the trash 2 years ago, I arranged for a recycling cart. At first, I thought I was doing a good deed, but then realized I had created a monster. In the mantra of ‘more is better’ the rate of recycled bottles increased fourfold. Everyone was bringing in water bottles and recycling them, instead of, 1) using the water fountain; and 2) washing and reusing the bottles for a reasonable time. It became a game of how many bottles we could throw out (recycle) rather than how much less we could discard (recycle or trash). Somehow Recycling has become more virtuous than Reusing – perhaps because it can be quantified?

By: Chuck Warpehoski

Chuck Warpehoski — Mon, 05 Apr 2010 14:54:02 +0000

re: using the household data for a competition basis without a rewards program.

As Dave points out, we already have that kind of data for utilities such as water and power, so if we wanted to have a competition-based green program, we could create that with what already exists.

I don’t think it would be very effective, though. I think the transaction costs of getting people into that program would be high (that is, it would be too much of a hassle for most people to do), and I suspect that reward program-type petty bribery will motivate far more people than a competition would.

By: glenn thompson

glenn thompson — Sat, 03 Apr 2010 17:32:12 +0000

Mostly @Eric – Comment 24

The majority of the “rewards” are discount coupons that are only useful if you buy more “stuff”. Just like the thousands of dollars of “rewards” you now receive in your mail box free each year. I believe the merchants have to pay RecycleBank to participate.

There may be a few instances where the reward points may be converted as a donation to a project, but the value is greatly reduced.

Comparing data between cities is very suspect because the detail basis behind the data is usually unknown. How did Ann Arbor measure number of households? Residential water meter connections? Census data? I believe the residential recycling program currently collects from some mutifamily units but not all. Did the number of households used in the AA and Westland calculations accurately reflect the number where the measured recyclable materials were collected?

Here is a specific example of the problems in comparing cities. The historical data from Westland would show a very high increase in recycling with the RecycleBank program. There is only one little problem with the data, Westland did not have curbside pickup before the RecycleBank program. Is it any surprise that a large amount of material that citizens intended to take to the drop off station next week suddenly got recycled?

By: Eric Wucherer

Eric Wucherer — Sat, 03 Apr 2010 15:53:01 +0000

1. “That would held keep local dollars local, she said.” I don’t follow this statement. The customer saves $5 (in the example), meaning it doesn’t go to the merchant, meanwhile the city pays RecycleBank money, which presumably comes out of tax money collected from the customer. So, the dollars seem to be going to RecycleBank instead of to the local merchants.

I suppose RecycleBank might transfer money to the merchants as part of the partnership, and maybe loyalty would be established to the local merchant for other purchases, but these points are either unclear or fuzzy. Wayne claimed in @1 that RecycleBank partners with a lot of national companies… do we know what local companies they partner with, and how the economics of that work?

2. Even without the data other commenters suggested (e.g. waste per household/capita that goes into landfills, yard waste, etc), a glaring absence in the data presented is historical data. It’d be pretty useful to see how even what numbers we’ve seen have changed over time in Westland, going back to before their single-stream program started, alongside Ann Arbor numbers. Without that, I can’t conclude that Westland’s apparent amount of recycling hasn’t always been higher than Ann Arbor’s, even without single-stream.

By: Pete

Pete — Sat, 03 Apr 2010 00:00:35 +0000

Vivienne, your points 3 and 4 lead to an obvious conclusion: we’re going to see pollution to our groundwater and illegal dumping skyrocket by all the people who don’t want to/can’t be bothered to PAY to spend a half hour taking their own materials to the drop off station.

“You want to charge me to do the job you used to do for me for free? I think I’ll just walk on over to this park and get rid of my fluorescent bulbs and use this handy storm drain to get rid of my oil rather than drive, wait and pay.”

By: Vivienne Armentrout

Vivienne Armentrout — Fri, 02 Apr 2010 20:55:10 +0000

Re (21): that clarification to the article was apparently added subsequent to the article’s publication (it is in a different color). It seems to conflict with this sentence further down the article:

“McMurtrie responded by saying that the city council had already approved a purchase order for 33,000 carts and that the carts have in-molded labels saying that there would be rewards.”

By: Dave Askins

Dave Askins — Fri, 02 Apr 2010 20:08:38 +0000

Re: [18] and [19] and the issue of the molded labels with the generic message “Earn rewards for recycling.” Tom McMurtie subsequently clarified that his remarks at the council meeting were intended to make clear that the placement of the labels was a one-time opportunity to make those kind of labels, not that the carts with those labels had already been purchased. And we added this clarification to the article: [Clarification: The authorization for the in-molded cart labels had not been made before the council approved the incentive contract.]

By: Cosmonican

Cosmonican — Fri, 02 Apr 2010 19:52:34 +0000

Something I’ve missed along the way is whether the new carts could contribute to litter in the streets. With the garbage carts, it is required to bag all items. The new recycle carts will be filled with loose cans and papers, and whatever else — what is to keep flotsam from flying out when they empty it, and messing up the neighborhood?

By: Vivienne Armentrout

Vivienne Armentrout — Fri, 02 Apr 2010 19:32:00 +0000

Brad makes some very good comments. I was particularly offended by the end-run around council by presenting them with a “done deal” on the carts (with the stamp already included).

However, regarding millage reduction: this ignores the fact that the city has been finding lots of ways to shift expenses onto the solid waste millage. For example, the fall leaf pickup was shifted to solid waste from transportation. It had been previously paid for by the formula transportation funds coming from the state. I could speculate that the intention was to free up transportation funds to use for pet projects like the Fuller Road Station.