A city task force is recommending the city adopt single stream recycling that would not require residents to separate recyclable materials.
The Recycling Task Force also is recommending that the city immediately adopt a three-week recycling collection schedule and implement a “pay-as-you-throw” system under which, in its most common form, the city would charge residents for garbage carts but provide recycling carts for free.
“The PAYT program results in a decrease in the trash tonnage and increase in recycling tonnage. A 16 to 17 percent diversion from residential trash is the average, which is generally divided equally among recycling, yard waste and source reduction,” the task force said in its report.
The city collects recyclables once a month from 95-gallon carts in 85% of the city and weekly from 18-gallon bins in the other 15%. The system in the bulk of the city uses divided recycling carts, with one-half reserved for containers and the other half reserved for paper. The larger carts generally are not big enough to hold a month’s worth of recyclables, particularly for newspaper subscribers.
The task force’s report is scheduled to be discussed Thursday by the Common Council’s Public Works Committee.
Recycling by city residents has declined sharply.
Source: Recycling Task Force Final Report and Recommendations to the Common Council
The single stream recommendation, if adopted, would eliminate the need for divided recycling carts.
“Single stream recycling is more user friendly because the public can simply consolidate all recyclables in the home and place them all in one cart without further sorting,” the task force said in its report. “The recycling industry is moving toward single stream recycling nationwide. Single stream can accommodate fully automated collection, which improves efficiency by allowing carts to be serviced without the driver exiting the vehicle.”
Under a single stream recycling program, recyclables would be sorted after they are collected. The task force recommended two options for handling the materials after they are collected — one recommendation assumes the city would work on its own and the other assumes it would team up with Waukesha County and Wauwatosa to develop a materials recycling facility.
Did Content get the joke?
Tuesday, January 26th, 2010It’s hard to tell. Maybe JS reporter Thomas Content did get how ludicrous some of the positive spin We Energies was trying to put on its greenhouse-gas spewing coal plant.
This is my one of my favorite humor points from yesterday’s story:
“We have been very fortunate that we had managed to obtain the permits for this project when we did,” (Project Director Tom) Metcalfe said. “The environmental concerns and issues with greenhouse gases and what have you have made it much more difficult for projects of this type to move forward.”
How wonderful for We that there were no limits on its carbon footprint! Too bad for the rest of us!
Here’s another hidden gem:
Of the project’s total price tag – which is equivalent to, take your pick, three Marquette Interchanges or six Miller Parks – one-third is paying for the environmental controls.
Wow! That kind of social / environmental commitment must really hit We’s bottom line!
Not. Much further down in the story, we get this:
The project will help boost profit for Wisconsin Energy, We Energies’ parent company. That’s because regulators, seeking to help the utility with its big investment, authorized a 12.7% return on equity for the project.
Wisconsin Energy told securities regulators last month that the opening of the plant and resolution of its recent rate case would help its earnings grow 15% to 20% in 2010.
The best part is that the plant is not really needed to meet energy demand, according to the story.
So We Energies will make lots of money with an unneeded coal-fired plant that has a huge carbon footprint. Kind of makes it hard to resent that 7% rate increase, doesn’t it?
Posted in Commentary, Environment | 1 Comment »