Have you ever considered making Art Paper? I know it's long shot... On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 12:20 PM, dooger watts <mikem...@efn.org> wrote:
> Paul your note really struck a chord in me. Wondering what your connection > was a few decades ago. Garbagio's? > > As an operator in my 31st year of a barely-4-profit paper recycling > business, I appreciated your insights. > And I loved your bringing in the sanipacs of the world. This is gonna > sound like I'm dissing them and nothing could be farther from the truth as I > have an active and healthy business relationship with the local > incarnation--but they've been shielded from the market reality of recycling > ever since they got into it years ago. And they would not have gotten into > it at all if not forced to do so by a well-meaning but naive city of you > gene. > "Let's maintain our stereotype of a hip city by doing what we can to divert > recyclables from the waste stream: let's make it a condition for the > continued issuance of a license to do business in town that garbage haulers > now provide curbside recycling." > They did not bring to the table the most important player in this game: > the folks who buy recyclables. In their myopic way, they never calculated > that--though vast amounts of material would be diverted from our > landfills--the overall market value for these substances would plummet > because of the sudden flood. The handful of haulers who for years had made a > living providing recycling would almost all be put out of business. (Mine is > the only independent paper recycling business still operating in Eugene). > > And the sanipacs of the world immediately shielded themselves from the > resultant plunge in value by "adjusting their fee schedules." Nearly all the > rate increases in the past twenty years have been to shield them from the > high cost of providing recycling. (When expensive vehicles driven by > Teamsters and with many thousands of dollars per year maintenance protocols > are picking up and delivering cargoes with a value less than straw, > something's gotta give). > > What I'm talking about is socialism--but surely it was half-assed socialism > to mandate that private sector businesses offer "free" recycling without > also calculating--and making some accommodation--for the impact of such a > supply flood on the market place. > > Jimmy Carter was the last President who gave any serious consideration to > recycling by giving tax incentives to businesses who engaged in it--and of > course all of that went away under ronnie ray gun. Ever since, though > recycling becomes more and more a matter of course and not of choice, its > credibility as a viable business model loses ground every day. > > Witness the result of International Paper's recent purchase of all of > Weyerhauser's paper recycling business: their stock value plummeted while > Weyerhauser's soared. (Obviously recycling is NOT a good investment--more's > the pity). > > Point of this tirade is to echo Paul's sentiment: all hail those who > struggle to keep recycling viable. > > marbux wrote: > >> Nice post, Chris. >> >> I'll add a note from my own experience working as a board member on a >> non-profit recycling organization a few decades ago. >> >> One of the harsh realities of the recycling scene is that non-profits >> are absolutely essential to build markets for recyclables. Until the >> markets are grown for the recyclables, no profit-making business is >> interested. >> >> >> > _______________________________________________ > EUGLUG mailing list > euglug@euglug.org > http://www.euglug.org/mailman/listinfo/euglug >
_______________________________________________ EUGLUG mailing list euglug@euglug.org http://www.euglug.org/mailman/listinfo/euglug
