RecycleBank in Newsweek
This week’s Newsweek magazine has an article about RecycleBank. In Everett, Massachusetts, the article says the program has resulted in a 10x increase in recycling. It quotes the mayor as saying, “The recycling buzz is out there; it’s fun filling that thing up to the top.”
As described in the article, the company’s current push to expand into the South and Midwest is about establishing a “conservation culture” in these regions, and keeping trash out of landfills.
The article also says that RecycleBank was still operating at a loss in the most recent financial reporting period, which is consistent with my theory that recycling doesn’t generate big revenues.
5 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
Is it a recycling buzz Ellen? This story makes it sound like a Recycle Bank Points Buzz.
With $10Million a month burn to start and to be out of it by 2010 doesn’t sound optimistic. What this story doesn’t offer is how much tonnage is considered to be an increase caused by more items being accepted for recycling. I feel this to be a short lived company, but the ability to have less garbage in my black cans is a delight, while more recyclables in my green cans is working for it without a soft cost that I have no control of.
I still cannot get over how a homeowner whose community was under water restriction had the greenest grass in the neighborhood. He was using his household bath water to water his yard. And the hard costs were a one time charge. Funny how those around him just wanted to complain and fine the homeowner, but when they found out what he was doing, none of them joined in the conservation effort. Ellen, even when the grass is greener on the other side of the fence, doesn’t mean people will go there.
Comment by Ray Kircher — October 1, 2008 @ 10:13 am
Oh yeah, where was the charge to homeowners stated in this story?
Comment by Ray Kircher — October 1, 2008 @ 10:15 am
It is Waste Connections that would increase its charge to the City; neither homeowners nor the City would be sending money directly to RecycleBank. The City would pass the $2 increase along to homeowners as a fee, instead of including it in the property tax. Apparently the fees associated with RecycleBank vary in different cities, depending on what services are provided before the RecycleBank program is added. The overall cost for trash collection in Oak Ridge ($11.22 per month per household now, to increase to $13.22 if we add RecycleBank) is actually lower than what people pay for household collection in much of the country. That’s partly due to the fact that the disposal of the waste that goes to the landfill is not included — the county pays that cost separately (from our county taxes), but the collection costs are still low.
Comment by Ellen Smith — October 5, 2008 @ 4:04 pm
Low costs is a goal, but to meet your goal of more homeowners to recycle can be met with better incentive plans. I believe Oak Ridgers are just tire of being led with small fake carrots.
Comment by Ray Kircher — October 6, 2008 @ 6:10 am
Ellen, if this recycle incentive costing us $2 per household is not mandated, does the city keep the $2 if a household chooses to not be a part of the Recycle Bank program?
We here have decided the time online and the responsibility of a $100 trash can is not inline with our future goals. No hard feelings to Recycle Bank, but we would rather have our $2 stay in Oak Ridge.
Comment by r a y k i r c h e r — October 28, 2008 @ 7:20 pm