Waste King names ten items to recycle rather than send to landfill
Added: 11 January 2012
Waste King’s managing director, Glenn Currie, said: “Waste King guarantees to recycle at least 85 per cent of all the waste it collects and, for example, over the last four weeks, we’ve separated 23 tons of wood from mixed loads. If we hadn’t separated this wood, it would have gone to landfill but now it can be recycled, reducing the need to cut down even more trees and allowing 23 tons of materials that aren’t able to be recycled to go to landfill in its place.
“Keeping Waste King’s recycling rates so high means that we expect to hold our prices to customers from April this year, when landfill tax is due to rise,” he revealed.
“While Waste King is working hard to reduce the amount it sends to landfill, everyone can do their bit to ensure that only non-recyclable materials go to landfill,” commented Andy Cattigan, Currie’s Waste King co-director. “A great way to do this is to make a conscious effort to recycle ten types of material that often find their way to landfill sites.”
These ten common materials that are recyclable are:
1: Glass containers can be recycled into new glass containers over and over again. Recycled glass is also energy efficient since the process consumes 40% less energy than new production.
2: Paper - from newspaper to cardboard boxes, junk mail to grocery bags, recycling paper products helps in energy conservation, water efficiency and air quality. Every ton of recycled paper reduces the production of virgin paper and energy use by 4000 kilowatts, water use by 7000 gallons, and pollution by 60 pounds. The extra 17 trees are an added bonus!
3: Plastic bottles comprise over 10% of our landfills. So recycling plastic containers is an important step to helping reducing the waste going to landfill.
4: Aluminium cans take over 500 years to deteriorate – so recycling them is a less polluting option than putting them into landfill.
5: Steel is recycled more than aluminium, paper and glass combined, since thousands of food products are sold in steel cans.
6: Dry cell batteries are used by the million in modern Western society. Each of these contains mercury, which is highly toxic.
7: E-waste. Computers, mobile phones and TVs use non-renewable resources to produce and may release hazardous substances into the environment if they are disposed improperly.
8: Motor oil is another item that can be recycled. A quart of motor oil can contaminate 2m gallons of clean water if not disposed of properly. A truly recyclable product, motor oil can be refined again and again.
9: Leaves, grass clippings and other garden waste – which, of course, Nature designed to be recycled.
10: ‘Packaging’ comprises a third of all landfills. The more ‘things’ we buy, the more packaging we generate. Choosing products with minimal recyclable packaging will help to reduce damaging our environment.
Comments:
Posted by
D Blackledge
on
Jul 16th, 2012
Do you have a branch or agent in the North?
Posted by
Bambang
on
Aug 3rd, 2012
I'll weigh in with some comments about some renect postings on the blog, in an effort to clear up some misconceptions and to make some suggestions on how to proceed.Elisha: absolutely show your support to the municipalities and the county for funding the subsidies that will be essential to any government run recycling program. The time to do so is getting severely limited, however, as annual budgets are nearing completion. The budgets must be finalized by the end of the year, and most jurisdictions (I believe, knowing that Granby does) try to get that work done sooner. I know that Granby's board is very aware of the community's support for improving the recycling situation, but all budgeting entities need to know how much money is needed and how the program will be administered. Without that knowledge, we (as local governments) can't budget. We can put aside some funding, but it would be a shot in the dark as to whether it would be enough to get the job done. That's why the RFP process is a critical step.I suspect that if the private sector can develop a better system (e.g. curbside pick up), there will costs to the refuse producers (us) in the form of fees or fee increases for the service. We have to be willing to pay the price for the service no matter what system evolves out of this dialog.Kevin: The Town of Granby also ponied up money when Valley Recycling came to us for a subsidy, but the more important thing to realize about how we got to where we are today is this: Grand County and Grand Recycles ran the old system, combining extensive volunteer time commitments, funding from the county and the towns, money from the sale of the recycled materials (always a volatile item), and massive in-kind services (hauling to Denver) also donated by the county. Valley Recycling came to the county and represented that VR could take over the program and be able to make a profit. The County Commissioners jumped at the chance to reduce their expenditures of funds and in-kind contributions; and here we are. Whether or not the VR proposal was realistic can be questioned, but I have no doubt that it was presented in good faith. My sense is that the towns and county will contribute money, but there needs to be a plan and one that is truly realistic.The hard/cold facts are that recycled materials are not stable markets, and some sort of funding will be needed to keep a comprehensive program operating. VR did receive some support from local governments to subsidize the operation, but it obviously has not been enough. Kevin makes some excellent suggestions, and I particularly like the building materials re-use idea. BUT (there's always a but ), it takes resources ($$$, time, etc.) to make a center like that work. The materials don't sort themselves. Through a process of discussion and planning, reasonable people should be able to develop a workable plan. So, Kevin, stay engaged and keep those ideas coming.Gretchen: I've been to the Summit County Landfill and have had a number of conversations with local government officials about their operation. The last time I checked the recycling of wood fiber consists of grinding it into chips and piling up massive heaps of the material, with no clear idea of what to do next. The proposal to heat the Summit Cty. Commons with that biomass proved to be economically unfeasible, so the piles continue to grow. I hope your research will turn up some better news! There is some hope that the 2 pellet plants approved for Kremmling might help in disposing of the wood fiber, but in some meetings I've attended I've heard that the construction waste may not be suitable. Contamination with metals (nails, etc.) may be the problem there.An update on the RFP working group would be helpful at this juncture. See ya'll at the landfill (for the time being),Ted Wang
Social links |
