Quote:
|
Originally Posted by UStwo
There are a lot of questions to ask, but I'd much rather see something like this market driven instead of social engineered for the obvious reason of sustainablity.
|
I understand profitability varies by material. Metal has a huge market since it's largely re-usable as raw. Throw it into the smelter and sell it to expansion countries. Paper and plastic are subsidized to some extent as their products don't convert as completely or cost more to return to "new" condition than do "new" product. Hopefully someone who knows this better will clarify.
Obviously scrap/salvage/processors are only motivated on the profitable items. Cities end up footing the bill between items that sell and those that don't, plus the overhead. (transport, storage, separation) They are motivated however by reclamation laws and landfill availability/costs, and at some point voters.
The situation becomes more complex as private companies have taken over service from municipalities. Our own city-run disposal operation sold to a national company about a decade ago in the interest of reduced costs and complexity. Of course, community benefits were also lowered. Away went the free spring cleaning days. Up go the disposal rates, dump rates, even for things that can be sold without processing. Hello to new service charges for things that were previously seen as neighborhood beautification services. Hello to all the other cities who now have their trash hauled to our little landfill (now far beyond its original "hillside restoration" profile) with profit going to the national who'll step out when they no longer have a free landfill to support their habit. (Do I have a bone to pick?
)
Many sides to this thing.