Chicagoist: Blue Carts Lessening Recycling Blues

Brian

Sun, 22 Apr 2007 17:44:14 -0600

I think the blue cart idea seems to solve the two main problems that I had with the blue bag program. 1) Blue bags with regular trash - I couldn't help but be skeptical that the items put in the blue bags would not rip when being processed with the regular trash, they were rather flimsy. 2) I am cheap, blue bags cost money - I buy what garbage bags are the best deal, I really don't want to have to pay for EXTRA bags in addition to what was previously needed.

hmmm

Wed, 04 Apr 2007 09:26:00 -0600

I agree with #1 - until people have to pay extra for garbage, there isn't much incentive to recycle. I know the hobo's are pretty good at pulling cans out of the trash, but I'm guessing people have more glass, paper and plastic than cans now days. People can rank on the 'burbs all they want, but the 'burbians do take their recyclying seriously, because your paying $3, $4 bucks for a container about 1/2 of the city container's size for garbage, but recycling is free. And aren't a "blue container" & "blue bag" the same thing, conceptually? If people don't put in a bag in their house, their not gonna put in a container out in the alley.

completely useless by september

Tue, 03 Apr 2007 23:00:37 -0600

I really don't agree with "stupid" on the global warming thing at all, but on recycling, it's dead on. Sure, here in Chicago we do get a majority of our energy from clean and efficient sources (disclaimer: I work in the nuclear industry) and recycling could theoretically work here... provided we have the resources here to do all our own conversion ourselves. Which we don't. That stuff all gets farmed out somewhere else, where carbon emitting fossil fuels power the plants that would save your water bottle from becoming landfill. So, if you're prepared to spend the extra $0.03 on water to save landfill space (which we're really not running out of, by the way) you still have to pay the cost of spewing more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. And it's just my opinion, but global warming is a much more serious threat to human existence than not recycling something. With that, you can just dig a giant pit, line it with a giant plastic sheet, throw trash in, plow over it, and viola... Instant golf course/residential subdivision/commercial district. They do this all time. They built part of Hong Kong's new airport this way. Hell, "Streeterville" right here in Chicago is one of the most famous landfills in the history of the U.S. Some drunk guy (George "Cap" Streeter) ran a garbage scowl aground on the lakefront and encouraged people to dump their trash there. It's now some of the most expensive real estate in the world.

Unindicted Co-conspirator

Tue, 03 Apr 2007 15:29:18 -0600

The recycling bins in Rogers Park at Schreiber & Ravenswood have gone from one bin to three in the last three months. The bins are usually overflowing on Monday morning. It's about time that the city gives us blue bins up here.

stupid left wing nuts

Tue, 03 Apr 2007 15:27:06 -0600

I don't care where people live. If they want to live by a dump so be it. They seem to always be dumbster diving by my house. I would rather they would do that at it's final resting place so I won't have to hear cans and bottles rolling down the street. Recycling is like global warming much about nothing. Earth evolves and changes we can't survie for ever.

NSH

Tue, 03 Apr 2007 15:12:17 -0600

MJK agreed, as for commenter number 6, and flubsessed over there. What is the cost to put all these materials in landfills? Do you not care that the people of Hegewisch have to live in your garbage and are more susceptible to disease and may live less of a quality life than you do in your ivory tower because you can't put things in two different cans? What is the cost of that? Is it worth paying a little more to recycle plastics than to dump them in a landfill? I think we all know the answer.

MJK

Tue, 03 Apr 2007 14:37:51 -0600

geekgrrl and NSH, It's the whole "leading a horse to water" practice. People will only recycle if they are willing to do so. Many people just don't care. In my neighborhood, we have the huge dumpster sized bins at the park where you can pretty much take everything except food, lawn refuse, and shopping bags. In a matter of two months, the bin has gone from being filled once every two weeks to twice a week. So I agree that a 76% usage is a low number, but it all depends on the people. It may be people like me that recycle, but the folks on either side of me throwing all their garbage in one bin. I'm disappointed that my ward wasn't in the pilot program, but now knowing that the select ones are closest to recycling centers is understandable. You can educate people until you are blue in the face (no pun intended), but you will always have the ones like message no. 6 that find the opposite side of the argument. The Prius may be the most energy efficient car on the road, but there are people that argue that it is worse than the Hummer. Ethanol and Butanol may be cleaner burning, but oil is cheaper. Everything is about cost, cost, cost. F those people. How soon are you going to recoup the cost of your plasma TV?

Jeremy

Tue, 03 Apr 2007 14:34:59 -0600

Its tough to make things new when you don't have the raw materials to do it. And if the energy used to recycle goods comes from clean nuclear power (like it does in Chicago. 78%), then we're even better off because that higher use of energy comes from a better source than individual mining trucks pumping out diesel fumes. Now, if we'd only start using breeder reactors that can use their high-level wastes as fuels, then we'd solve all of our problems.

completely useless by september

Tue, 03 Apr 2007 14:27:21 -0600

Actually, with the exception of aluminum, he's right.

stupid left wing nuts

Tue, 03 Apr 2007 14:21:18 -0600

Recycling so stupid anyway. It take more energy to recycle than it does to make things new. Nuclear plants are the answer to all our problems.

NSH

Tue, 03 Apr 2007 13:32:25 -0600

My understanding was that these are the wards closest to the recycling centers. The original pilot program from two years ago in a section of 19 had a 76% usage. Which I guess is pretty high, so the environmental committee got the go ahead to expand the program to the rest of 19 and the other wards. From what I've seen, on my block 76% would be a low number. This is a good program, the bins are big and accept virtually everything except food, plastic bags, and yard waste. This pilot program will definitely be going citywide.

geekgrrl

Tue, 03 Apr 2007 13:31:28 -0600

why wouldn't it work well, is my question. if there's enough educational materials and ads pumped throughout the city, there's no excuse.

MJK

Tue, 03 Apr 2007 13:04:36 -0600

I understand these wards are part of the pilot program, but as my alderman explained to me, it will take a very long time to get this thing citywide. Why? If it doesn't work well in these wards, are they going to ditch the program?

tankboy

Tue, 03 Apr 2007 12:53:09 -0600

We've been using the recycling dumpster stations they put up around the city, so I wonder how good those are? Photogal has us recycling EVERYTHING now, though ... which is actually nice because now I barely even have to take out the regular garbage once a week!

unlikelymoose

Tue, 03 Apr 2007 12:33:35 -0600

It's good to see the city is doing more to follow up on its pledge to be green. I live in Elmhurst (displaced Chicagoan) and their tactics for recycling are interesting. You are allowed a certain size garbage can. If you have any more garbage beyond that garbage can, then you have buy stickers to place on the extra garbage. This way people are encouraged to recycle (which is free), so they don't have to pay extra for garbage that doesn't fit in their regulation garbage can. I don't see this "pay for extra garbage" program working in Chicago. Too many people will just find "creative" ways to dispose of the extra garbage that doesn't fit in their regulation garbage can. You gotta love Chicago.