If you have not already left Cleveland, then get out now.
Chips will be installed inside your recycling bins and they will monitor how often you take your recycling to the street. If you go weeks without taking the crap to the curb, then an official will be sent to dig through your garbage, your WASTE, and fine you 100 dollars if they find materials that could have been recycled.
Let me say this again,you will be fined if you do not recycle.
The money to enforce this new law will come from the taxpayers. No matter what, if you live in Cleveland, your taxes will raise, and you will lose money on top of that if you don't recycle. You just can't win! There is no reward, only punishment. If you have never committed a crime, then understand that you will be treated like a criminal.
If you don't live in Cleveland, then you shouldn't have to worry. Just don't let this law take over your own home town!
I get that you wanted to bring this to our attention and all, but it's like...there's not going to be any debate on this, is there? Of course everyone's going to hate this. *five seconds later, I am proven wrong* Anyway, I think it's entirely excessive and frivolous. Yes, I understand that people should recycle, but I think it's ridiculous that they have to. Even if you wanted to force everyone to recycle, there are just so many better ways to do so! Eh, but what do you expect? It's Cleveland, for Christ's sake. Why are we even surprised? Okay, all states and cities make stupid laws. Soo...yeah. That was just a joke at Cleveland's expense. =P
Just making sure everyone is aware. Yes, Cleveland does a lot of stupid stuff, but why not talk about this? Chances are this will turn into a debate about recycling and how important it is for people to recycle. It might turn into a conversation about Cleveland being corrupt. This thread might die. Whatever the case, it's all good.
I guess my main question is this. If it takes legislation and enforcement to get people to recycle, what's the harm?
Recycling is good for the city, both financially and environmentally. And from the sound of it, it's pretty easy to recycle there. At my house, we have to haul all our recyclables down to the recycling center, which is a huge pain.
Also, and I'm not trying to be nit-picky, just wondering. It sounds like they'll only show up if you don't roll out your can for a few weeks. There's nothing in the article about a requirement for stuff being in the can. But I wouldn't be surprised if the chip was able to measure that as well.
So I guess I'm wondering what your argument is against this practice? I suppose it's somewhat invasive - people digging through your trash and then fining you if more than 10 percent of it could have been recycled. But maybe this is just what we need to get started on a habit we probably should have developed already.
but what if you went to a fast food restaurant the day before you went on a 3-week vacation, and when they come around 100% of it is the carboard box and paper bag D:!
Politicians do what they do if it's stupid choices that they make about 99 percent of the time. It's not really hard to recycle and incorporate it into your life, though what if your disabled or have other reason you can't haul that thing out everyday. Aslo what prevents you just hauling that thing out with no garbage and brining it in. Or just removing that chip and planting it near the sidewalk? Though is does sound dumb to install a chip into recycling bins and monitor people. Advertising and teaching kids would be a better alternative than brute force tactics. Also I doubt recycling should be one of their priorities.
Recycling is good for the city, both financially and environmentally. And from the sound of it, it's pretty easy to recycle there. At my house, we have to haul all our recyclables down to the recycling center, which is a huge pain.
Not financially, if you are spending a lot of money for these chips to monitor peoples' garbage cans, and to have these I dunno, Trash Patrol officers to fine people for their trash being recyclable and not in the recycling bin, then it will cost the city more than it will save, or at least that's my hypothesis. We'll need a little more information, a few months after now, in order to see who's right on this issue. I won't dispute that it's good environmentally though.
Also, and I'm not trying to be nit-picky, just wondering. It sounds like they'll only show up if you don't roll out your can for a few weeks. There's nothing in the article about a requirement for stuff being in the can. But I wouldn't be surprised if the chip was able to measure that as well.
*shrug* Who knows.
So I guess I'm wondering what your argument is against this practice? I suppose it's somewhat invasive - people digging through your trash and then fining you if more than 10 percent of it could have been recycled. But maybe this is just what we need to get started on a habit we probably should have developed already.
*sigh* My personal argument against it is that it's ridiculous, for Cripe's sake. It's not just because it's invasive, I think that a part of it is because encouraging people to do something by punishing them for not doing it is just going to create resentment. Sure, they might do the thing, but the second that the lawmakers remove the law, if ever that happens, more people will not recycle purely out of resentment. If someone's not doing something themselves, it's not a good idea to make them do it. Governing a country of idiots is like being a parent, methinks. And as a kid, I know that when my dad makes me do something, I'll do it with a lot of stomping around and then feel sorry for myself for another half hour, and therefore I will not do other chores of my own volition for hours afterward, because I'm pissed off. However, if he has me do the chore but I'm laboring under the illusion that I've chosen to do it myself, then I will be in a good mood afterward because I feel good because I have done something good, and therefore will do it more often. I think the same basic concept can be applied to this issue. However, if you could somehow make recycling easier for people then more of them might do it.
I guess it's just one of those situations that you can't win. People complain that nothing is being done to combat climate change and that things need to be done, well it seems that people only want it to be done if it is inexpensive to them or if it doesnt effect them. This law seems a bit over the top, but if he gets people on the subject of climate change then let it in. If you think thats over the top in Australia there trying to create a carbon tax.
If we want to save our planet and our natural resources, that's what we have to do. It sucks, I know, but It takes strict rules and some sacrifices to preserve our planet. It may have been better to ease into the new law., and possibly they did, but really, that sort of thing needs to be done everywhere if we wanna keep living the way we do for years to come. same with things such as IM tests for cars. It sucks having to get one, but It's something everyone needs to do if we want to preserve our planet for years to come.
And as a kid, I know that when my dad makes me do something, I'll do it with a lot of stomping around and then feel sorry for myself for another half hour, and therefore I will not do other chores of my own volition for hours afterward, because I'm pissed off. However, if he has me do the chore but I'm laboring under the illusion that I've chosen to do it myself, then I will be in a good mood afterward because I feel good because I have done something good, and therefore will do it more often.
Yes, this is also my main problem. I don't think that the government is really doing anything too awful here, it's just that the way they're doing it will cause problems. Chicago probably won't accomplish too much recycling-wise, given the fact that they're going to be constantly fighting for/against this law.
But making people recycle is not in itself bad, even from a financial standpoint. Nothing is free, and everything has consequences. Obviously, Chicago has some sort of trash problem, or they wouldn't be making this law.
From the article:
Recycling is good for the environment and the city's bottom line, officials said. Cleveland pays $30 a ton to dump garbage in landfills, but earns $26 a ton for recyclables.
This number, $30 a ton, will go up as more and more landfills are filled up. So while this law may cost more to the average citizen now, without recycling the cost of processing trash will just keep raising. In the long run, it may be cheaper for the average person if everyone is forced to recycle, especially when you add in the profits from recycling.
From an ethical standpoint, it's nothing new. My city requires all cars to pass an emission test. We have to pay for the emission test, and if our car doesn't pass, we have to pay to get it fixed or go without driving. If you view our trash as our emissions, it's the same basic concept. People grumble a lot, but pretty much everyone here knows that this law is necessary to keep our air clean.
My city requires all cars to pass an emission test. We have to pay for the emission test, and if our car doesn't pass, we have to pay to get it fixed or go without driving.
My city has something similar, but we don't have to pay for the test(at least not directly), and cars from before I think 1997(maybe 1995, I'm not sure) don't have to take the test.
From an ethical standpoint, it's nothing new. My city requires all cars to pass an emission test. We have to pay for the emission test, and if our car doesn't pass, we have to pay to get it fixed or go without driving. If you view our trash as our emissions, it's the same basic concept. People grumble a lot, but pretty much everyone here knows that this law is necessary to keep our air clean.
It's very necessary. In fact, when I left Alaska, I was really confused when I found that all states don't do that.
...If someone's not doing something themselves, it's not a good idea to make them do it...
If we want to save our planet and our natural resources, that's what we have to do. It sucks, I know, but It takes strict rules and some sacrifices to preserve our planet. It may have been better to ease into the new law., and possibly they did, but really, that sort of thing needs to be done everywhere if we wanna keep living the way we do for years to come. same with things such as IM tests for cars. It sucks having to get one, but It's something everyone needs to do if we want to preserve our planet for years to come.
I have same point as you have, WE MUST FORCE people to do so, becouse then they have no other choice.If human kind want survive we must live more `greenly` and its easier to force people to do so than just advice them.
No matter if the law is supposed to help the planet, there's just some things you can't force.
Oh yea, here's another law that may go in effect soon.
If you see an elderly person, you MUST hold the door open for them or you will be fined 50 dollars.
What would you do if the government made it illegal to smoke inside all public ar... oh wait... that's already a stupid law in many different locations!
