Al­ter­na­tive ap­proach to im­prove re­cy­cling

The Day - - OPINION -

I read the article, “New Lon­don coun­cil to vote on pay-per-bag trash pro­gram later this month,” (June 2). I do not feel that the mayor’s and Pub­lic Works Di­rec­tor Brian Sear’s rec­om­men­da­tions are prac­ti­cal.

First of all, us­ing the ex­ist­ing green garbage bar­rels as re­cy­cling con­tain­ers makes no sense. They are not de­signed for that.

In ad­di­tion, us­ing yel­low plas­tic bags for garbage col­lec­tion is im­prac­ti­cal. They could break or be bro­ken into, in­clud­ing by for­ag­ing an­i­mals.

The city is look­ing for greater re­cy­cling, ap­par­ently there is some abuse go­ing on of peo­ple putting re­cy­clable ma­te­ri­als in the green bar­rels. Why not of­fer res­i­dents some form of fi­nan­cial credit for re­cy­cling a des­ig­nated min­i­mal amount of re­cy­clable ma­te­ri­als? Surely folks would re­cy­cle more and they wouldn’t have to be pun­ished by a new, more im­prac­ti­cal re­cy­cling sys­tem. If there were a greater flow of re­cy­clable ma­te­ri­als from res­i­dents fol­low­ing my pro­posal, doesn't that sur­plus of re­cy­clables rep­re­sent some kind of sur­plus of wealth that pro­duces more rev­enue for the city?

If busi­nesses don’t pull their weight with re­gards to their greater dis­posal of waste, why not im­pose a sur­charge for their greater flow of waste?

Does any of this make sense? Martin Fuller New Lon­don

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from USA

© PressReader. All rights reserved.