THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Wednesday, October 11, 1995 TAG: 9510110008
SECTION: FRONT PAGE: A8 EDITION: FINAL
TYPE: Letter
LENGTH: Short : 41 lines
Myron O. Wilcox expressed uncertainty and skepticism about our current curbside-recycling program (letter, Sept. 27).
Mr. Wilcox correctly evaluated our public-recycling-collection programs for their cost effectiveness. Across the county these programs are relatively new and have required a great deal of examination.
The Wall Street Journal article cited by Mr. Wilcox, however, was mostly based on a study by Franklin Associates that has received criticism in several areas. The report used older recovery data, failing to consider the impact of newer but existing recovery of residential mixed paper, and neglected to evaluate the effect of increased revenues for recyclables. Based on the higher revenues being generated in the SPSA service region and the reduced cost of every-other-week collection, the net operating cost of curbside recycling for August was one penny per household.
At the beginning of our current recycling program, the landfill shortage may have been misunderstood. But by focusing only on landfilling as a method of handling waste, we would be shortchanging future generations and ourselves by wasting valuable and, in many cases, nonrenewable resources.
Although this country could physically support more landfills, new sites usually are opposed from local residents and they cost more than $100,000 per acre to build.
Is that really the best way to manage our limited resources? Combined with source reduction (making less waste) and composting, recycling in our area is offering citizens a waste-management alternative that is cost-effective, provides energy-conserving raw materials, spurs investments and preserves jobs.
CONRAD GREIF, chairman
Norfolk Environmental Commission
Norfolk, Oct. 4, 1995 by CNB