nusip@maccs.McMaster.CA (Mike Borza) (03/24/89)
Now you've hit a nerve... (the fact that we've got Norm from MOE along
on the topic should make this interesting).
Here in Hamilton, we've got curb-side recycling in place at last,
following the lead of some more progressive communities, and ahead of
some laggardly others.
One of the things that really bothers me about the program, as it exists
here, is that products which should be ideal candidates for recycling are
excluded. Aluminum foil, for example, is usually scattered on my lawn
after pick-up day. Given the energy deficit one faces when producing
aluminum from raw materials compared with the cost of reusing refined
aluminum, this should be one of the highest priority reuse items.
It would seem to me that even if it was necessary to set aside a small
portion of landfill sites to store specific materials while recycling
programs are instituted for those materials, we'd be far further ahead
than just lumping them in with other waste for which there is no clear
recycling technology. Why is there no agressive policy to deal with
relatively simple issues such as this? (he asked naively) I think that
more than part of the answer lies in Norm's reply on the disposition of
old telephone books in India (no hewers of wood and drawers of water in
this high-tech free-trade society, no, sir).
Incidentally, I saw on the news last night that Bell had ordered the
destruction of what must be a forest's worth of telephone books because
they found the front cover painting of a famous figure skating duo too
racy (although less so than the costumes displayed at last year's Olympics).
Bell was hasty to point out that since they were printers of the phone
books, they could easily recycle them. Since it's so easy for them to
rectify their own screwup, maybe they should take the (now well-used)
phone books back to slip them in with the new ones.
Or have I missed some fundamental point here?
mike borza <antel!mike@maccs.uucp>
God bless the greening of Maggie.cebly@ai.toronto.edu (Craig Boutilier) (03/24/89)
In article <2226@maccs.McMaster.CA> nusip@maccs.UUCP (Mike Borza) writes: > ... >Incidentally, I saw on the news last night that Bell had ordered the >destruction of what must be a forest's worth of telephone books because >they found the front cover painting of a famous figure skating duo too >racy (although less so than the costumes displayed at last year's Olympics). >Bell was hasty to point out that since they were printers of the phone >books, they could easily recycle them. Since it's so easy for them to >rectify their own screwup, maybe they should take the (now well-used) >phone books back to slip them in with the new ones. > >Or have I missed some fundamental point here? > >mike borza <antel!mike@maccs.uucp> > God bless the greening of Maggie. A quick correction: Bell is not involved with those phone books. It's Maritime Tel & Tel, the phone co. in N.S. (and P.E.I. ?). Estimates of the cost of the screw-up (100 000 phone books) range around $20 000. The books were to be re-covered, not recycled. Hence, old directories aren't exactly amenable to the "recycling" they have in mind. However, the latest word has it that MT&T has decided to sell the covers for $1 each ($1.50 with directory attached) in the hope that people will consider them collector's items. Proceeds of the sale are to go to the Canadian figure skating governing body, as the cover was aimed at promoting the 1990 World Championships in Halifax. An interwiew with the artist who designed the cover indicated he was not too thrilled with the decision. Craig Boutilier Dept. of Computer Science University of Toronto --- cebly@ai.toronto.edu
soley@moegate.UUCP (Norman S. Soley) (03/26/89)
nusip@maccs.McMaster.CA (Mike Borza) writes: > Now you've hit a nerve... (the fact that we've got Norm from MOE along > on the topic should make this interesting). WAIT JUST ONE MINUTE HERE! PLEASE KEEP IN MIND THAT I DO NOT SPEAK FOR THE MINISTRY IN MY POSTINGS! Ok now that we've got that out of the way I can stop shouting. > Here in Hamilton, we've got curb-side recycling in place at last, > following the lead of some more progressive communities, and ahead of > some laggardly others. > > One of the things that really bothers me about the program, as it exists > here, is that products which should be ideal candidates for recycling are > excluded. Aluminum foil, for example, is usually scattered on my lawn > after pick-up day. Given the energy deficit one faces when producing > aluminum from raw materials compared with the cost of reusing refined > aluminum, this should be one of the highest priority reuse items. > It would seem to me that even if it was necessary to set aside a small > portion of landfill sites to store specific materials while recycling > programs are instituted for those materials, we'd be far further ahead > than just lumping them in with other waste for which there is no clear > recycling technology. Why is there no agressive policy to deal with > relatively simple issues such as this? (he asked naively) I think that > more than part of the answer lies in Norm's reply on the disposition of > old telephone books in India (no hewers of wood and drawers of water in > this high-tech free-trade society, no, sir). Really there are three problems that are causing this type of thing; The Ministry of Environment doesn't put as much effort into this as it probably should, not that were standing around twiddling our thumbs, it's just that the people who make such decsicions have decided that things like MISA and acid rain are more important. Add to this the fact that many municipalties view any Ministry efforts in this area as Provicial interference in what is after all a municipal responsibility; Curbside recycling in Ontario was pretty much invented singlehandedly by the City of Kitchener 6 years ago. In that 6 years there have been a lot of advances in recycling technology and a lot of better ideas about how to run these programs have been tried by communities in the US and elsewere in Canada yet the blue box programs being implemented in Ontario today are virtually identical to the program initiated in Kitchener 6 years ago. Why? A lack of imagination, or interest, or real commitment to the idea on the part of city councils and works departments; In many places the decision has been made to not do curbside sorting, either in a boneheaded attempt to save money or knuckling under to the workers unions who have never been happy about doing it. This results in a lot of contamination by non-recyclables, which in turn results in the recycling contractors rejecting a lot of loads. Also many places have not spent an appropriate amount of money in promotion and education on how to properly use the boxes. So? What is to be done? Firstly use the boxes in exactly the way you've been told to, no matter how stupid the rules might be, doing your part to make the program work is one of the strongest weapons you have in convincing you city council to increase it's commitment to the idea. Write to your council, and to the Ministry, listing the things you would like to recycle but can't and encouraging them to add them to the "allowed" list. When you travel note the good things about other communities programs and write to council about them. -- Norman Soley - The Communications Guy - Ontario Ministry of the Environment Until the next maps go out: moegate!soley@ontenv.UUCP if you roll your own: uunet!{attcan!ncrcan|mnetor!ontmoh}!ontenv!moegate!soley
dave@lsuc.uucp (David Sherman) (03/27/89)
cebly@ai.toronto.edu (Craig Boutilier) writes: >A quick correction: Bell is not involved with those phone books. It's >Maritime Tel & Tel, the phone co. in N.S. (and P.E.I. ?). Not P.E.I. They're Island Tel[ephone and Telegraph, I guess]. From what I remember of my Communications Law course many moons ago, the Islanders are rather protective/proud of their own phone company. And it's *The* Island Tel, not just Island Tel. (No, I don't know whether they list themselves under 'T':-) David Sherman -- Moderator, mail.yiddish { uunet!attcan att utzoo }!lsuc!dave dave%lsuc@ai.toronto.edu
eastick@me.utoronto.ca (Doug Eastick) (03/28/89)
In article <207@moegate.UUCP> soley@moegate.UUCP (Norman S. Soley) writes: [some deleted, including Norm's disclaimer about NOT speaking for the MOE] >Curbside recycling in Ontario was pretty much invented singlehandedly >by the City of Kitchener 6 years ago. In that 6 years there have been >a lot of advances in recycling technology and a lot of better ideas >about how to run these programs have been tried by communities in the >US and elsewere in Canada yet the blue box programs being implemented >in Ontario today are virtually identical to the program initiated in >Kitchener 6 years ago. Why? A lack of imagination, or interest, or real >commitment to the idea on the part of city councils and works departments; Living in a Co-operative housing project, and also a BIG apartment building (800 people), we have been trying to get the "recycling is good" idea across the the other residents. We've been recycling newspapers for 2 years now, and fine-paper for 1 year. We are pleased with this, but would like to do more. I remember hearing on the radio that the City of Toronto will be initiating a "Blue Bag" program for Apartments in T.O. [in reference to Norman's posting]. Someone was REALLY thinking when they decided to do that. Not too many residents around here would keep one of those boxes in their apartments, but a bag is easier to carry in the elevator, hallway, etc. Great idea. I sometimes bring my recyclable goods to the depot at the beer store, but only if I have the time and space to carry it there. I'm sure I am one of few in the building who does this. With snazzy Blue Bags, we could have competitions :-) -- Doug Eastick eastick@me.UTORONTO.BITNET UUCP: ...!utai!me!eastick eastick@me.toronto.edu
nusip@maccs.McMaster.CA (Mike Borza) (03/28/89)
In article <207@moegate.UUCP> soley@moegate.UUCP (Norman S. Soley) writes: >nusip@maccs.McMaster.CA (Mike Borza) writes: >> Now you've hit a nerve... (the fact that we've got Norm from MOE along >> on the topic should make this interesting). > >WAIT JUST ONE MINUTE HERE! PLEASE KEEP IN MIND THAT I DO NOT SPEAK FOR >THE MINISTRY IN MY POSTINGS! Sorry, Norm, I knew I should've put smileys on that; it was just too good an opportunity to pass up. >Ok now that we've got that out of the way I can stop shouting. Thank you. >Norman Soley - The Communications Guy - Ontario Ministry of the Environment Seriously, thanks for the response. mike borza <nusip@maccs.uucp or antel!mike@maccs.uucp> cruft for inews