Resident Calls for Careful Look at Recycling Programs

Monday, February 08, 2010 04:45 PM

Prince George, B.C.- The reduction of solid waste is number 7 on the City of Prince George’s list of priorities, but local resident Gail Inkster wants the City to tread softly.

Having worked on committees in the past dealing with solid waste reduction, she says she recalls the numbers called for a 65% increase in costs for a recovery rate of just 35%. “That is neither cost effective nor is it sustainable” Inkster told City Council in the public input session of the first budget meeting.

“Waste is only a word, garbage is only a word, it is an on going sustainable natural resource.” She urged Council to consider ‘garbage’ as a commodity as there are markets for paper , metals, plastics and glass. These are all marketable items, and it is up to each and every o ne of us to ‘mine’ these resources from our own homes.”

The City of Prince George has made some alignments with the Regional District of Fraser Fort George on the matter of waste management budget discussions as it is the RDFFG which is responsible for the Foothills Landfill site.

Previous Story - Next Story

Email |

Print |

Facebook |

Twitter |

Digg |

Del.icio.us

Posted on Monday, February 08, 2010 04:45 PM in News by 250 News

Return to Home

Comments

Posted by: whitewater on February 8 2010 5:14 PM

Our economies are based on waste, until this changes good luck.

Posted by: Harbinger on February 8 2010 5:34 PM

I don't wanna pay for some one elses idea of recycling. If there is a buck in it, someone will pickup recyclables. If not, it is a "waste" of time. Pay to have yer recyclables picked up only to be destined fer the landfill? Waste of time, money and effort. Some one will pick up recyclables free if there is a buck to be made. Wanna recycle? Bring back the swap sheds at our transfer stations, then turn a blind eye and leave them alone. Swap shed stuff that doesn't disappear is obviously garbage no one wants. Don't use my taxes to recycle. If it's worth anything, let the public domain take care of our recycling. Just don't use recycling as an excuse to raise my taxes again.

Posted by: Oldun on February 8 2010 8:59 PM

Seems the way to encourage recycling is to raise drop off fees to $6.00 and then raise the garbage pickup rates. LOL

Posted by: Harbinger on February 8 2010 9:48 PM

Can I presume that is sarcasm at it's finest, Oldun?

Posted by: seamutt on February 8 2010 10:53 PM

Two of the swap sheds were shut down, about one of the dumbest ideas out of city hall. One of the reasons, people are taking stuff and then trying to sell it! Soooo what, all the more power to them. Anyone care what happens to thier ex stuff after dropping it off at the swap shed. Another reason, the sheds get messy. Well so what.

Posted by: Oldun on February 8 2010 11:30 PM

Yes Harbinger, you can most definitely assume that.

Posted by: blue_sky_blue on February 9 2010 8:34 AM

I realize it might not be the best decision financially for the city to provide curb-side recycling, but it is the best decision for the environment. Not only does it keep a lot of material out of the landfills, it reduces the amount of non-renewable resources consumed. There are private options out there for curb-side recycling (I am a client of one of them), but let's face it, most people are not going to pay for that service unless they are forced to. We need mandatory curb-side recycling.

Posted by: acopolympics on February 9 2010 9:58 AM

If there is a market for recyclables such as glass, plastic, tin cans, etc then why would we have to pay to have a recycling company pick it up from us? Maybe the price isn't high enough for them to buy it from us, but surely the people giving thier recyclables away is a good trade off for someone to pick it up for us.

Posted by: Loki on February 9 2010 10:49 AM

http://www.storyofstuff.com/

Posted by: John Grogan on February 9 2010 12:36 PM

Right. So what are the related costs to filling all that sanitary landfill with inert materials such as glass?

If we apply "Full Cost Accounting" methods, we will soon see cost:benefit beyond financial to include social and environmental values.

If all you can see is the financial bottom line, I ask you to consider the associated fiduciary responsibilities in closing a sanitary landfill at the end of its life, and those of opening others.

To learn more about "Full Cost Accounting" check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full_cost_accounting and while you are at it, know that there are ISO standards. You need not reinvent the wheel.