NationStates Jolt Archive

Should recycling be made mandatory? For instance, if you don't recycle you get fined, and the money from the fine is used to help support the recycling efforts. Do you think a law like that would pass in small town, USA? Or is it only more likely to happen on a state level, in a place like california?

What I am trying to do is draw up an idea for my city to have a recycling plan. Once a week or so, a recycling truck would come by and pick up any paper, cans, plastic, or bottles that people have. I think its a good idea, and since I have worked several years with city beautification projects, I'd be able to garner some support, but there is probably some opposition to it, like cost or something. So do you think its a good idea?

we have recycle bins here, the truck comes on the same day as the trash truck. I don't know what I feel about the cost, since I haven't researched it much, but my trash bill hasn't increased much so I guess they get the money somewhere (probably from me)

I don't agree with making it mandatory or fining people for not recycling, that's just messed up.

I used to live in a town where it was "recommended" but not "mandatory" and there was a lot of pressure, which bothered me, but I guess it got more people to recycle.

We have something similar here. In fact many places have them...

So yeah I think its a pretty good idea.

we have recycle bins here, the truck comes on the same day as the trash truck. I don't know what I feel about the cost, since I haven't researched it much, but my trash bill hasn't increased much so I guess they get the money somewhere (probably from me)

I don't agree with making it mandatory or fining people for not recycling, that's just messed up.

I used to live in a town where it was "recommended" but not "mandatory" and there was a lot of pressure, which bothered me, but I guess it got more people to recycle.

you have a trash bill

we have recycle bins here, the truck comes on the same day as the trash truck. I don't know what I feel about the cost, since I haven't researched it much, but my trash bill hasn't increased much so I guess they get the money somewhere (probably from me)

I don't agree with making it mandatory or fining people for not recycling, that's just messed up.

I used to live in a town where it was "recommended" but not "mandatory" and there was a lot of pressure, which bothered me, but I guess it got more people to recycle.

Well I figure if its mandatory then people will actually do it. We already have a "recommended" recycling program, and VERY few people actually do it (out of 20,000 people, i'd say less than 1,000 actually do it). That's why I want the mandatory idea. And if you make it mandatory, but no fine, then how will you enforce it? So, I think that a fine will enforce the mandatory part.

I severely doubt that law would pass most anywhere, not only due to the cost factor but also because people wouldn't like being told what to do.

Plus, how would you really know if people weren't recycling? They could still throw things out and no one would really know/do anything.

If there was a way to make it practical, I would definately support it.

you have a trash bill


Yes we do. You don't?

I think its mainly for maintenence of trash trucks and so on.

you have a trash bill

it's on with the water bill.

they pick up trash once a week, recycling once a week, big trash* once a month, and hazardous waste once a quarter.

*mattresses, broken furniture, etc.

I have two trash bins, and a recycle bin, I pay $5 a year for the extra trash bin, but I need it.

Yes we do. You don't?

I think its mainly for maintenence of trash trucks and so on.

all that is taken care of by shire rates here

I severely doubt that law would pass most anywhere, not only due to the cost factor but also because people wouldn't like being told what to do.

Plus, how would you really know if people weren't recycling? They could still throw things out and no one would really know/do anything.

If there was a way to make it practical, I would definately support it.


Well..... common good? :p

Well I figure if its mandatory then people will actually do it. We already have a "recommended" recycling program, and VERY few people actually do it (out of 20,000 people, i'd say less than 1,000 actually do it). That's why I want the mandatory idea. And if you make it mandatory, but no fine, then how will you enforce it? So, I think that a fine will enforce the mandatory part.

where do you get your "authority" to fine people for not doing things you think they should? I mean it's the same as the laws that keep liquor stores closed on Sunday right? it's a minority trying to enforce their values on the majority?

maybe you could just educate people better, in the city where there was heavy pressure they had written on the trash bins "no bottles, paper, or plastic in here" and then they sent out a letter every month about what you can recycle and stuff, reminding you not to throw that stuff away.

Well I figure if its mandatory then people will actually do it. We already have a "recommended" recycling program, and VERY few people actually do it (out of 20,000 people, i'd say less than 1,000 actually do it). That's why I want the mandatory idea. And if you make it mandatory, but no fine, then how will you enforce it? So, I think that a fine will enforce the mandatory part.


There's another way depending on how trash is collected. For us, a truck comes by and pick up a standardised bin for normal rubbish; if you reduce the volume of that bin, you'll force people into classifying their rubbish right.

where do you get your "authority" to fine people for not doing things you think they should? I mean it's the same as the laws that keep liquor stores closed on Sunday right? it's a minority trying to enforce their values on the majority?

maybe you could just educate people better, in the city where there was heavy pressure they had written on the trash bins "no bottles, paper, or plastic in here" and then they sent out a letter every month about what you can recycle and stuff, reminding you not to throw that stuff away.

Do agree with getting speeding tickets?

The same goes here. Its something that NEEDS to be done. I don't know about you, but I value my earth, and aren't we to be stewards of it? Just like speed limits are to protect people from harm, and the fines are there to enforce the law, recycling is needed to protect the only home we humans have, and the fines are needs to enforce it.

Yes, it should be mandatory, and people should be fined because of it.

Its so easy to recycle. And it can get a lot of money for the people involved.

When you think about all the usefull material throw away to rot for hundreds of years just because people dont want to have two garbage bins, it makes you pissed off.

http://www.stirling.gov.uk/index/services_homepage/waste/bins_info.htm

My local government have rolled out a recycling service. every house has a brown bin for garden waste and cardboard, a box (or three) for cans, tins, glass, paper, clothing, plastic and a grey bin for anything else. we also have a composting bin thing in the garden.

whilst its not compulsory, there is a lot of work and information encouraging people to recycle wherever they can.

its all good.

Yes, it should be mandatory, and people should be fined because of it.

Its so easy to recycle. And it can get a lot of money for the people involved.

When you think about all the usefull material throw away to rot for hundreds of years just because people dont want to have two garbage bins, it makes you pissed off.

Yeah, we have recycling bins on every floor in our dorm, and its sooooo easy to just lift up the lid and put the crap in there, but people would rather just dump it down the trash chute. It makes no sense to me.

we have something like that, if you don’t put your trash in the right boxes they stop picking up your trash (for a week I think)

For some reason this drives me up the wall so I put my tin lids in the regular trash in protest :p

Oh and if you ever pass this through make sure the bins have lids on garbage day trash is blown everywhere

A couple of municipalities in the Greater Toronto Area have a form of mandatory recycling.

We have the blue box (plastic, glass), black/grey (paper) and the much loathed green box (organic waste). These are picked up once every two weeks. I agreed with everything up until the green box. That one made me repulsed. It's so gross having to keep organic waste for up to two weeks! ICK!!

A better way to get people to see the benefits of being proactive rather the disadvantages of not cooperating.

Meaning, show them how the town can save money (and maybe reduce rates) if the town recycles. Recycling is profitable otherwise it wouldn't be done commercially. The more you recycle the more money the town gets for recycling, the less it has to spend on disposal of normal waste and so on.

Fines just make people resent what they're being forced to do.

What works better 'if you clean your room then I'll give you an allowance' or 'unless you clean your room you will be grounded'.

Do agree with getting speeding tickets?

The same goes here. Its something that NEEDS to be done. I don't know about you, but I value my earth, and aren't we to be stewards of it? Just like speed limits are to protect people from harm, and the fines are there to enforce the law, recycling is needed to protect the only home we humans have, and the fines are needs to enforce it.

Haven't there been studies done that show that it takes more energy to recycle something than it does to make a new thing?

it's on with the water bill.

they pick up trash once a week, recycling once a week, big trash* once a month, and hazardous waste once a quarter.

*mattresses, broken furniture, etc.

I have two trash bins, and a recycle bin, I pay $5 a year for the extra trash bin, but I need it.

same here but we don't get a trash bill,we get a water bill from the water company and water rates from the shire

I don't agree with the idea of that law at all. Forcing people to do things isn't right.

Where I live recycling is encouraged by providing you with a bin and having a monthly recycling fee on your bill...whether or not you recycle. So people tend to recycle since they would have to pay for it either way. We are not told we HAVE to recycle or else...most people hate being told what to do and will protest.

Recycling is a great idea, fining people if they don't recycle is a terrible idea.

A couple of municipalities in the Greater Toronto Area have a form of mandatory recycling.

We have the blue box (plastic, glass), black/grey (paper) and the much loathed green box (organic waste). These are picked up once every two weeks. I agreed with everything up until the green box. That one made me repulsed. It's so gross having to keep organic waste for up to two weeks! ICK!!Why? Most organic waste collection I know of is quite unsmelly as it doesn't include any meat or any cooked food. This basically means you only put in things like garden waste, potato peelings, and other stuff. And if you keep it dry then it virtually no rotting occurs.

Haven't there been studies done that show that it takes more energy to recycle something than it does to make a new thing?

But what about all the waste the we don't recycle? And eventually we will run out of materials to make things with. Sure it might not be in our lifetime, but thinking in that sense is selfish.

But what about all the waste the we don't recycle? And eventually we will run out of materials to make things with. Sure it might not be in our lifetime, but thinking in that sense is selfish.

what materials will we run out of?

Well I figure if its mandatory then people will actually do it. We already have a "recommended" recycling program, and VERY few people actually do it (out of 20,000 people, i'd say less than 1,000 actually do it). That's why I want the mandatory idea. And if you make it mandatory, but no fine, then how will you enforce it? So, I think that a fine will enforce the mandatory part.

Then rather than just using a stick you should use a carrot as well. Recycling implies that the materials are reused (sold to industry etc) so if the people who recycled got some money back that for what they recycled would help.

An example:
Here in Scotland we have a drinks manufacturer, Barr, who sells alot of their drinks in 750ml glass bottles. These cost (depending on shop) about 75 pence, however the consumer has the option to return the bottle to any shop that sells these drinks and get 20 pence back for each bottle, The shops then I assume get a little bit more back when they return the bottles to Barr for reuse. This certainly encourages me to recycle their bottles and I certainly buy more of their drinks than other drink brands because I can get money back and also because I get better value for money.

Coca Cola and Pepsi drinks usually cost about 75 pence for 500ml while with Barr I can get 750ml for the same price (not including the option of getting 20 pence back when I return the bottle).

If more recycle schemes gave an incentive rather just just penalties or guilt trips then you would get a much higher involvement rate. You have to be realistic and accept that a lot of people will only get involved if they see a direct benefit to them or their family.

Hopefully I haven't repeated someone, as I have not read the whole thread yet.

what materials will we run out of?

Well, for instance plastic..Isn't that made from petrolchemicals(or from oil)? Well aren't we seeing peak oil soon? What abouot paper? It comes from timber. Have you seen the ineffiecient ways they make paper when cutting down trees? I don't know about glass or aluminum, I'll have to look into that.

Then rather than just using a stick you should use a carrot as well. Recycling implies that the materials are reused (sold to industry etc) so if the people who recycled got some money back that for what they recycled would help.

An example:
Here in Scotland we have a drinks manufacturer, Barr, who sells alot of their drinks in 750ml glass bottles. These cost (depending on shop) about 75 pence, however the consumer has the option to return the bottle to any shop that sells these drinks and get 20 pence back for each bottle, The shops then I assume get a little bit more back when they return the bottles to Barr for reuse. This certainly encourages me to recycle their bottles and I certainly buy more of their drinks than other drink brands because I can get money back and also because I get better value for money.

Coca Cola and Pepsi drinks usually cost about 75 pence for 500ml while with Barr I can get 750ml for the same price (not including the option of getting 20 pence back when I return the bottle).

If more recycle schemes gave an incentive rather just just penalties or guilt trips then you would get a much higher involvement rate. You have to be realistic and accept that a lot of people will only get involved if they see a direct benefit to them or their family.

Hopefully I haven't repeated someone, as I have not read the whole thread yet.

I hadn't thought of bringing that up yet ;)

I recycle my cans and bottles because I get money for it (selfish me)

Well, for instance plastic..Isn't that made from petrolchemicals(or from oil)? Well aren't we seeing peak oil soon? What abouot paper? It comes from timber. Have you seen the ineffiecient ways they make paper when cutting down trees? I don't know about glass or aluminum, I'll have to look into that.

so using more oil to recycle plastic bags to make more plastic bags to recycle to use more oil will solve the problem?

as far as the paper, it is actually one of the things that really does recycle well, so I do that.

Then rather than just using a stick you should use a carrot as well. Recycling implies that the materials are reused (sold to industry etc) so if the people who recycled got some money back that for what they recycled would help.

An example:
Here in Scotland we have a drinks manufacturer, Barr, who sells alot of their drinks in 750ml glass bottles. These cost (depending on shop) about 75 pence, however the consumer has the option to return the bottle to any shop that sells these drinks and get 20 pence back for each bottle, The shops then I assume get a little bit more back when they return the bottles to Barr for reuse. This certainly encourages me to recycle their bottles and I certainly buy more of their drinks than other drink brands because I can get money back and also because I get better value for money.

Coca Cola and Pepsi drinks usually cost about 75 pence for 500ml while with Barr I can get 750ml for the same price (not including the option of getting 20 pence back when I return the bottle).

If more recycle schemes gave an incentive rather just just penalties or guilt trips then you would get a much higher involvement rate. You have to be realistic and accept that a lot of people will only get involved if they see a direct benefit to them or their family.

Hopefully I haven't repeated someone, as I have not read the whole thread yet.


Well we do have rewards. For instance, we have a tire recycling program where you get some money back for that, but only a few people use it. We also give money back for aluminum cans, but only bums use that(seriously, not lying. They find cans, get money for it, and then buy booze). So we have a failed system of rewarding here.

A better way to get people to see the benefits of being proactive rather the disadvantages of not cooperating.

Meaning, show them how the town can save money (and maybe reduce rates) if the town recycles. Recycling is profitable otherwise it wouldn't be done commercially. The more you recycle the more money the town gets for recycling, the less it has to spend on disposal of normal waste and so on.

Fines just make people resent what they're being forced to do.

What works better 'if you clean your room then I'll give you an allowance' or 'unless you clean your room you will be grounded'.

You beat me to it

I hadn't thought of bringing that up yet ;)

I recycle my cans and bottles because I get money for it (selfish me)

you get good money for cans ,i know this as i get around $200 for a wool bag full of them

You beat me to itYou were able to give a concrete example though. Mine was pretty generalised.

Coca-cola doesn't buy back glass bottles in England any more. It used to, but now it's stopped, and they coke is sold in plastic bottles.

Reusing glass bottles is so much better than recycling as there is no cost involved in having to reform the glass. The bottle just needs to be sterilised before it can be used again.

We also give money back for aluminum cans, but only bums use that(seriously, not lying. They find cans, get money for it, and then buy booze).

what do you mean when you use the word "bum"? homeless people? and they are all alcoholics?

what do you mean when you use the word "bum"? homeless people? and they are all alcoholics?

Everyone wanting to be technical today? They are the people the live on the east side of my town, and they are mostly alcoholics, in their late 30s-40s. Not necessarily homeless, but one wouldn't consider their living places as houses, persay. Maybe rundown shacks.

I hadn't thought of bringing that up yet ;)

I recycle my cans and bottles because I get money for it (selfish me)

I wish I had that option for other things other than just Barr drinks

so using more oil to recycle plastic bags to make more plastic bags to recycle to use more oil will solve the problem?

as far as the paper, it is actually one of the things that really does recycle well, so I do that.

That just means more of an incentive to find power sources other than fossil fuels, then materials can be recycled and so less mining, timber cutting, etc has to be done so puts less pressure on the environment (as mining etc usually occurs in unexploited areas)

That just means more of an incentive to find power sources other than fossil fuels, then materials can be recycled and so less mining, timber cutting, etc has to be done so puts less pressure on the environment (as mining etc usually occurs in unexploited areas)

I was just about to say something similar to that.

You were able to give a concrete example though. Mine was pretty generalised.

Coca-cola doesn't buy back glass bottles in England any more. It used to, but now it's stopped, and they coke is sold in plastic bottles.

Reusing glass bottles is so much better than recycling as there is no cost involved in having to reform the glass. The bottle just needs to be sterilised before it can be used again.

I wished they had carried that on in England, though when I came up to Scotland I was happily surprised that they still use glass bottles and reuse them (though plastic is making an encrouchment up here as well). The only example of glass being reused widespread in England now would be milkbottles from delivered milk though that is falling in popularity as well now.

Our local recycling centre is very well organised. They have a seperate container for waste topsoil, but provide spades and bags for people that want to come and take it. We've made some planting areas from other peoples 'waste' soil.

Everyone wanting to be technical today? They are the people the live on the east side of my town, and they are mostly alcoholics, in their late 30s-40s. Not necessarily homeless, but one wouldn't consider their living places as houses, persay. Maybe rundown shacks.
I am cranky today, it's not your fault.



That just means more of an incentive to find power sources other than fossil fuels, then materials can be recycled and so less mining, timber cutting, etc has to be done so puts less pressure on the environment (as mining etc usually occurs in unexploited areas)
you stole my next point.......I will give you a ;) this time, but next time, you get a red smiley.










:p

what do you mean when you use the word "bum"? homeless people? and they are all alcoholics?

i never see them around the city so i cant tell you if our ones are alcoholics or pick up cans

Well we do have rewards. For instance, we have a tire recycling program where you get some money back for that, but only a few people use it. We also give money back for aluminum cans, but only bums use that(seriously, not lying. They find cans, get money for it, and then buy booze). So we have a failed system of rewarding here.

Here in the UK most tyres are taken by the car shops when you go in to get new tyres so over here you wouldn't expect many private individuals to have tyres to recycle. You would have to target industry instead.

I don't see why you are complaining about the 'bums' as they are still getting the cans recycled even if the original owners aren't.

Also how much money do they get back, if the incentive is too small then poeple won't see it as worthwhile the effort.

I am cranky today, it's not your fault.



Aww I'm sorry you are cranky :(

and now for smunky, a series of Fluffles!


:fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle:

I'm surprised nobody's brought up the Penn and Teller's: Bullshit! on recycling.

I'm not sure on their facts, so let's start a discussion among those of us who've seen the episode.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7734998370503499886&q=recycling

For those of you who haven't.

Here in the UK most tyres are taken by the car shops when you go in to get new tyres so over here you wouldn't expect many private individuals to have tyres to recycle. You would have to target industry instead.

I don't see why you are complaining about the 'bums' as they are still getting the cans recycled even if the original owners aren't.

Also how much money do they get back, if the incentive is too small then poeple won't see it as worthwhile the effort.

TIRES.


Sorry, I couldn't resist.

I am cranky today, it's not your fault.




you stole my next point.......I will give you a ;) this time, but next time, you get a red smiley.










:p

Thankyou, it is rare that I can be bothered to get involved in a thread, usually I am late to it and just end up reading other peoples posts.

Haven't there been studies done that show that it takes more energy to recycle something than it does to make a new thing?

Its possible. But energy can be renewable, while materials usually arent.

Around here there are companies who are specialized in recycling soda and beer cans, because they can make quite a profit out of it.

There are beggars who hunt cans so they can sell them to recycling companies.

Its possible. But energy can be renewable, while materials usually arent.
but they aren't using renewable energy, they are using the same energy that they are "trying to save" by recycling.

Around here there are companies who are specialized in recycling soda and beer cans, because they can make quite a profit out of it.

There are beggars who hunt cans so they can sell them to recycling companies.
I have those here too, I use them, I pick up cans when I go on my afternoon walk to add to my stash and get money for.

and what's with the term "beggar" I mean surely they are doing something to help themselves if they are hunting cans.

Recycling will eventually be mandatory everywhere. At least, if we want humanity to survive as a species. It's simple ecology. Everything that nature produces is somehow used by nature to continue. Nature operates at much more efficient rate than human technology, i.e. 100%.

If you count synergistic aspects of nature, than ecosystems often operate at an even higher rate.

If we want to live, we have to attain that same efficiency. If we don't, we create garbage. Garbage that can be reused by nature is what we call compost, or dead things that once were alive. Garbage that can be reused by humans is all recyclable materials. Now, garbage that cannot be reused by human beings or nature is simply matter that is now useless, and most likely toxic.

There is a finite amount of matter on the planet. The more useless garbage we create, the less resources we ultimately have.

Recycling is demanded by the fact of simple survival. And this demand will increase with our population.

Having said all that, I don't think laws will work simply because you have no way of enforcing it without going through people's garbage. There are other methods.

Jaime Lerner, the (former?) mayor of Curitiba, Brasil has some ideas you might like: (http://www.globalideasbank.org/site/bank/idea.php?ideaId=2236)
Curitiba's citizens separate their trash into just two categories, organic and inorganic, for pick-up by two kinds of trucks. Poor families in squatter settlements that are unreachable by trucks bring their trash bags to neighbourhood centres, where they can exchange them for bus tickets or for eggs, milk, oranges and potatoes, all bought from outlying farms.

The trash goes to a plant (itself built of recycled materials) that employs people to separate bottles from cans from plastic. The workers are handicapped people, recent immigrants, alcoholics.

Recovered materials are sold to local industries. Styrofoam is shredded to stuff quilt for the poor. The recycling programme costs no more than the old landfill, but the city is cleaner, there are more jobs, farmers are supported and the poor get food and transportation. Curitiba recycles two-thirds of it garbage - one of the highest rates of any city, north or south.

Curitiba builders get a tax break if their projects include green areas.

The carrot will work faster than the stick. Besides, one must realise that to keep the revolution going in this capitalist world, you have to show everyone how social justice and ecological awareness are capable of generating profit.

Well, I cant talk about the US or Europe, but here in Brazil most of our energy comes from river dams where the energy is almost free.

And I never thought the objective of recycling was to save energy, but to diminish the amount of waste and diminish the need to gather these resources from the nature, like paper for example.

I'm surprised nobody's brought up the Penn and Teller's: Bullshit! on recycling.

I'm not sure on their facts, so let's start a discussion among those of us who've seen the episode.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7734998370503499886&q=recycling

For those of you who haven't.

I don't trust any serious subject as analyzed by either of them. (thus I won't watch that link)

I don't think recycling should be mandatory...my town is proof that it doesn't need to be.

We instituted a city-wide recycling program about ten years ago. Paper, glass, plastic, metals. We didn't even bother with a new garbage can for everyone...the city just gave everyone a purple sticker to put on a regular garbage can.

You don't even have to seperate much. Paper has to be by itself, but glass, plastic and metals don't even have to be sorted before you put them out on the curb. The recycle collection is every other week (as opposed to weekly for regular trash), but it is rarely an issue, at least at my house.

I would estimate that the percentage of people who recycle in my city runs at least 75%. Every house on my block does it, and most of them on my street and in my neighborhood. Buisness is also immensely compliant, as I have yet to see a buisness that doesn't utilize at least two dumpsters, or even three (Trash, Paper, Other Recyclables).

There are absolutely no incentives, and no penalties if one does not take part in the recycle program. It took a while to get people involved, but now it's like clockwork for most of us.

The success of the recycling program over the last decade is one of the few things about my town that I take pride in. Cities in the area now look to us when looking to establish similar programs of their own.

We proved that you can get people involved and interested in city-wide recycling, even if there is nothing in it for them but a slightly higher trash-removal fee.

:)

I don't trust any serious subject as analyzed by either of them. (thus I won't watch that link)

They're just the hosts. They have writers and researchers and experts and everything else to convince people to consider their side of the story.

Recycling is a crock. The only positive thing I can say about it is that it creates jobs.

I'm surprised nobody's brought up the Penn and Teller's: Bullshit! on recycling.

I'm not sure on their facts, so let's start a discussion among those of us who've seen the episode.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7734998370503499886&q=recycling

For those of you who haven't.

I don't have a sound card on my computer so I can't watch it. Mind you, Penn and Teller do not have the best track record when it comes to environmental issues:
http://home.houston.rr.com/skeptical/arc20030401.html

I'm surprised nobody's brought up the Penn and Teller's: Bullshit! on recycling.

I'm not sure on their facts, so let's start a discussion among those of us who've seen the episode.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7734998370503499886&q=recycling

For those of you who haven't.That show presents some very good arguments, but the conclusion they come to is very biased. They're trying to be sensationalist so they can get ratings. 'Recycling is stupid' grabs more attention than 'some recycling is ineffcient'. What the show gets across very effectively is that there is a lot of misinfomation about recycling. The show almost completely ignores the issue of resource management. It's covered briefly by paper recycling, but they have chosen an issue that suits their purposes - paper is made a from a renewable resource.

What they don't examine is that we only have a finite amount of some resources, such as fossil fuels, metals and just about everything - water management is a very important subject in places of water scarcity. If we consider trees for a moment. They are part of many natural cycles, such as the oxygen cycle, the carbon cycle, and the nitrogen cycle.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/9/96/Oxygen_Cycle.jpg/350px-Oxygen_Cycle.jpg
http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/images/carboncycle.jpg
http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/images/nitrogencycle.jpg
These cycles are exactly that - cyclic. No materials are lost out of the system. Whereas human resource use is more linear. We extract a resource from one location use it and then dump it in another with no thought as to how we will do when current extraction techniques can no longer keep up with demand. Hence, by recycling you are making a cycle which can continue indefinately, so long as there is enough of the resource in the system to sustain demand.

Finally they do they comment of other forms of resource management such as waste reduction. For instance instead of pondering over whether to use single-use plastic bags or paper bags at your grocery store, you should consider using multi-use bags. A stronger thicker bag that is able to function on a long term basis and so producing significantly less waste, using significantly less fuel to transport said bags to the shop and so on.

Why? Most organic waste collection I know of is quite unsmelly as it doesn't include any meat or any cooked food. This basically means you only put in things like garden waste, potato peelings, and other stuff. And if you keep it dry then it virtually no rotting occurs.

Actually, the way that Thornhill and Richmond Hill are doing it is having people make pseudo-compost.

Even still... I despise the Green box, and will never use it.

If I have to use it, I will deface it and throw it in the middle of the street with my neighbour's address on it! Now THAT'S a statement! :p

Recycling is a crock. The only positive thing I can say about it is that it creates jobs.

That's not a bad thing...anything that creates added value for the economy is usually a good thing. Personally, I'd rather burn the garbage to produce electricity and use the CO2 for biodiesel farms.