2 thoughts on “Policy Options Brief on Commercial Recycling in New York City”
I enjoy reading your option brief. Just like residential wastes I read from your earlier post, there’s also a huge potential to recycle commercial waste in New York City. Some crazy statistics I learned: it costs $2.3 billion to collect and dispose New York City’s residential and commercial waste; and there are 4 million tons of trash generated every year by the city’s businesses. Yet interestingly, we read from the news that MTA is ending its can removal program to reduce station littering. Your option brief lays out the solutions pretty clearly. As much as everyone is being raised the awareness and residents are recycling their food scraps, businesses should keep up their pace in this environmentally and economically prudent initiative.
As one who works in the open environment I was very interested in this policy memorandum. The problem of waste removal and recycling is significant. As human populations increase, the world is eventually going to run out of sufficient raw materials to keep pace with growing product demands. Not enough consumers think of this consequence today because it will happen far enough in the future that they need not worry, and presently we have sufficient disposal options and raw materials. This message about the future and recycling’s economic impact should be communicated more aggressively among industries and to their consumers. Recovering waste and reusing it as nature does will eventually become the only viable way for productivity to continue. In addition, because some of our waste is toxic, or just not biodegradable, that portion must be removed from the waste stream before it accumulates to unmanageable levels.
As someone who has received a Sanitation ticket or two, I was surprised that although recycling is required by commercial enterprises, the memo did not cite more enforcement strategies for failure to comply with recycling laws. I was also surprised that there were not greater incentives offered to those businesses that might systematize or successfully implement a recycling plan. For example, just as Sanitation distributed blue trash barrels to homeowners to separate bottles and cans, something on a larger scale, like a dumpster or some other equipment used in the waste recovery process, might spur greater corporate interest and publicity for a commercial recycling initiative.
Without enforcement, if there is no sense of urgency in the corporate community, tangible support, coupled with some reward like a tax break, will be needed to drive a more robust participation in commercial recycling initiatives. It will be interesting to know the dollar value of the necessary tax incentive to offset any projected increase in the price of goods and services without recycling.
I enjoy reading your option brief. Just like residential wastes I read from your earlier post, there’s also a huge potential to recycle commercial waste in New York City. Some crazy statistics I learned: it costs $2.3 billion to collect and dispose New York City’s residential and commercial waste; and there are 4 million tons of trash generated every year by the city’s businesses. Yet interestingly, we read from the news that MTA is ending its can removal program to reduce station littering. Your option brief lays out the solutions pretty clearly. As much as everyone is being raised the awareness and residents are recycling their food scraps, businesses should keep up their pace in this environmentally and economically prudent initiative.
As one who works in the open environment I was very interested in this policy memorandum. The problem of waste removal and recycling is significant. As human populations increase, the world is eventually going to run out of sufficient raw materials to keep pace with growing product demands. Not enough consumers think of this consequence today because it will happen far enough in the future that they need not worry, and presently we have sufficient disposal options and raw materials. This message about the future and recycling’s economic impact should be communicated more aggressively among industries and to their consumers. Recovering waste and reusing it as nature does will eventually become the only viable way for productivity to continue. In addition, because some of our waste is toxic, or just not biodegradable, that portion must be removed from the waste stream before it accumulates to unmanageable levels.
As someone who has received a Sanitation ticket or two, I was surprised that although recycling is required by commercial enterprises, the memo did not cite more enforcement strategies for failure to comply with recycling laws. I was also surprised that there were not greater incentives offered to those businesses that might systematize or successfully implement a recycling plan. For example, just as Sanitation distributed blue trash barrels to homeowners to separate bottles and cans, something on a larger scale, like a dumpster or some other equipment used in the waste recovery process, might spur greater corporate interest and publicity for a commercial recycling initiative.
Without enforcement, if there is no sense of urgency in the corporate community, tangible support, coupled with some reward like a tax break, will be needed to drive a more robust participation in commercial recycling initiatives. It will be interesting to know the dollar value of the necessary tax incentive to offset any projected increase in the price of goods and services without recycling.