Tuesday, February 17, 2009

City losing money on recycling

From the NY Post:

New York is on pace to lose $6.5 million from its program this year, as the market for refuse turns to garbage worldwide, Department of Sanitation officials said.

By the end of the fiscal year on June 30, the city will have spent $15 million to get rid of metal, glass and plastic, an increase of $1.8 million from last year.

It will take in only $8.5 million from sales of recyclable paper, compared to $14 million the previous year, said Robert Lange, director of the agency's recycling program.

The city never made money on anything but paper.

11 comments:

Anonymous said...

Recycling is dependent on commoditites market - which has fallen dramatically in the last year or so - not surprising that less money is re-couped. There must be a substitute cost now and down the road to put garbage in the ground in NYC or pay for it to do the same elsewhere that would be even more expensive if we did not recycle (much less volume). Sounds like a wash.

Anonymous said...

So much for going green. Another moneymaking scam that is falling flat on its face.

georgetheatheist said...

I never recycle cans, bottles, and plastic. They go in with the regular garbage. So, arrest me. I don't care. Been doing it for the past years. Never got a summons.

CntrySigns said...

Too bad that article didn't mention how much the city saved in landfill avoidance fees.

Anonymous said...

Recycling has been in down market for many years now. Essentially, there's too much supply. Several critical factors are at play:

- Many municipalities and states mandating recycling programs means more recyclables are collected.

- Advances in technology mean a greater percentage of recyclable material is recovered from the waste stream. Value of the commodity is reduced.

- Recovering material is costly; add to that inefficiencies that come with city services and I'm sure the cost of recycling in NYC is higher than it should be.

- Unlike say, gasoline, consumption doesn't reduce supply.

And to put the excess in a landfill isn't a viable option unless laws are changed. Disposal in general is highly regulated, even for what I believe to be the better solution: power-generation. Burn the stuff to generate electricity. But that means a stinky, smelly power plant that no one would want in their neighborhood.

Anonymous said...

I never recycle cans, bottles, and plastic. They go in with the regular garbage... I don't care.

Somehow, georgethefetishist, this doesn't surprise me. In fact, it only reinforces my impression of you as a bumpkin.

Anonymous said...

When the hell was the last time you heard the word 'bumpkin'?

And they call the Krappie Krew ignorant.

Hell Gate Kid said...

"The city never made money on anything but paper."


How about this:

The city never made money on anything but dirt.

Anonymous said...

When the hell was the last time you heard the word 'bumpkin'?
And they call the Krappie Krew ignorant.


Huh? I'm supposed to feel silly or "ignorant" because I used a word YOU don't know???

Look up "bumpkin" and you'll see I was quite intentional in applying it to your small pal georgie.

Queens Crapper said...

Has nothing to do with not knowing what the word bumpkin means. Has to do with you using an antiquated term and looking like a fool.

Bhuvan Chand said...

Nice Article. Keep it up.