Captial Costs – You can’t quote the cost associated with a curbside program, which includes the spreading of any infrastructure costs over a set period of time, and then say that the upfront capital costs are in addition to that figure – but that is exactly what your website does. Double counting those costs, regardless of how they will be spread out in a capital budget, is misleading. Additionally, once those upfront capital costs are paid for, they are no longer “on the books’, effectively bringing down the cost from $8 per household, per month.

Once again, I’m all for a civic debate – but let’s be upfront and honest with Saskatoon citizens.

Difference in numbers between Cosmo/City of Saskatoon – great, I appreciate you providing examples of why those values are different – but, again, provide those facts on your website.

Also, why would you compare a Saskatoon’s projected diversion amounts to the average results of all of Ontario? It makes for a more realistic comparison to use cities of similar size/population as Saskatoon. For example, Durham Region in Ontario currently (as of Oct 2009) captures 80% of recyclables through their curbside recycling program. Hamilton, Ontario (as of 2006) captures 84% of recyclables. Therefore, I’d contend that the use of an 80% capture rate isn’t unrealistic.

Social benefits - I’m all for the social benefits associated with what Cosmo does, but it doesn’t mean that Saskatoon should abdicate its responsibility to increase the amount it recycles and, ultimately, diverts from its landfill. You’re turning the debate into a choice, either Cosmo or Curbside recycling – it’s a dis-service to Saskatoon residents to present it as such. By your own admission, choosing Option 4 does not necessarily mean a co-mingled system; there is ample room to meet both objectives.

“Orange Drop” program - again your being disingenuous with how you present this program. Ontario’s Orange drop is a program for hazardous waste materials. I am not aware of any municipality that actively collects hazardous waste materials (oil, paint, batteries, pharmaceuticals, needles, etc…) using a regular curbside collection system. The depot system may very well be the best method for the collection of some materials such as hazardous waste.

18%. The current depot system is unsustainable as it will not significantly increase the amount of recycling, which directly affects the amount of waste diverted from our landfill. A curbside program can increase that 18% to around 40%, a simple organics collection program (or ensuring residents use composters) increase that to around 60%. That is the crux of what is being presented to Saskatoon residents during this consultation program.

Thanks for the comments and I hope you’ll consider revising your “recycling facts” website to correctly reflect the statistics and examples from other municipalities.

It is beyond dispute that if the city builds a recycling processing facility taxpayers will incur an upfront capital cost. In addition to this there will be yearly operating costs. How accountants choose to annualize these costs are of little concern to most taxpayers who are focused on what is coming out of their wallets.

The tonnage figures used on Recyclingfacts.ca are based on those Cosmo shared with the city in prior consultations. The Environmental Services department came up with a presentation of tonnage figures that are inconsistent at the extremes, it understates current recycling tonnage and overstates the tonnage available in Option 4.

As an easy to follow example, Environmental Services chose to exclude tonnage from the 7% of households who are currently SCR clients for their estimate in Option 1 but those same customers would be serviced by a mandatory curbside recycling system in Option 4 so the estimate for that option includes those households.

The city’s Option 4 tonnage assumes an across the board capture rate of 80% when Waste Diversion Ontario (WDO), with their vast experience, obtains a stated rate of 63%. A prudent estimate of Option 4 would not use the ‘best of all possible cases’ but would use WDO’s experience as a guideline.

It’s also impossible to do comparisons with other jursidictions without including SARCAN for those comparisons as beverage containers would be one of the items collected in other provinces’ mandatory curbside collection systems. While the city doesn’t provide comparables with other jurisdictions, recyclingfacts.ca does.

Cosmo is advocating not only for thoughtful environmental stewardship but also for a system that provides the social benefit of providing adults with intellectual disabilities the opportunity to make a contribution to the community through their efforts and dedication. Anyone who has an interest in social causes can see where that is a worthy mission.

As Mr. Nickel observes in ‘Think Beyond the Blue Box’ the depot system has a vital place in recycling. Ontario is recognizing that with its ‘Orange Drop’ program. It is ironic that people who disparage the depot system now will be advocating for its introduction to take care of other classes of consumer recyclables.

As for solutions to recycling aluminum, other jurisdictions should take their cue from our province as SARCAN is miles out in front of the pack in collection rates.

Again, “recyclingfacts” uses selective statistics and misleading language to overstate the costs associated with a curbside recycling program (Option 4). A good example of this is the sites reproduction of the tonneage associated with each Option, the numbers presented are different from the City’s and the reason for those differences are not indicated or discussed. Coincidently, the numbers presented tilt towards Option 3.

I understand that Cosmo feels the need to protect their interests, but by doing so they are advocating for a system that is ineffective at meeting the full recycling and waste diversion potential present for Saskatoon. What would be more constructive would be for Cosmo to offer up some solutions regarding the recycling of aluminum, glass, and plastics which are not being captured by the current depot system and also how to ensure that the City can maximize collection of all materials from across the City. Numerous studies and examples from countless cities demonstrate that the only way to effectively do so is through a mandatory curbside recycling program.

You are up-to-date on the ineffectiveness of co-mingled systems but that method is still a possibility in spite of its problems. If Environmental Services is set against the practise then Option 4 should have stated that mandatory curbside service would definitely be source separated. As long as co-mingling is a possibility, how can Cosmo support an option that would eliminate the involvement of their participants in the sorting process?

I notice that a few times you’ve made the comment that, “Cosmo has refused to sit at the table with the City, SARCAN, and Saskatoon Curbside Recycling,” and whoever is giving you that information is mistaken. Cosmo entered into negotiations and signed a contract with the city only last year which formalized a relationship that had been informal for a couple of decades. That hardly sounds like a failure to sit around the table. Cosmo also has a continuing relationship with SCR where participants have placements at SCR and, of course, Cosmo is a member of SARC.

As for the costs for Option 4, the 2007 Saskatoon Waste Reduction and Recycling Plan has the annual cost of a recyclables processing facility as over 4.5 million dollars and the annual cost of collection being 3.2 million to 3.5 million, depending on the collection method used. Add these annual costs from the city’s own document together and you get (a 3 year old) estimate of about 8 million per year. The estimated initial capital cost for the recyclables processing facility is over 5 million dollars (probably way over.)

Recyclingfacts.ca took a very close look at the city’s own figures. We have been very clear that our numbers don’t include the provincial MMRP as those funds would be available to the city no matter which of Option 3 or Option 4 were adopted. (However in an effort to completely inform the public, a best estimate of MMRP funding has been provided.)

It’s interesting that the argument is being made that there will be cost savings from revenue from recyclables. As Mr Nickel alludes to in his article, with SARCAN getting the beverage containers and Cosmo getting the paper, which other recyclable materials are so valuable as to reduce the expenses to the city taxpayer? Steel, tin and most plastics will require subsidization as the market for these materials don’t begin to cover the costs involved.

Recyclingfacts.ca does not provide false and misleading information. It provides information about recycling which is an industry pioneered by the differently-abled citizens of this province. All analysis is from a recycling point of view. That is its focus, not waste diversion.

I agree, a co-mingled (everything in one bin) system could occur under Option 4; however, there are numerous studies and many examples (given Saskatoon is one of only 2 cities without curbside in Canada) from other cities that demonstrate the ineffectiveness of such a system.

It is my understanding that the Environment Branch has always preferred a user-sort system (where residents sort their recyclables prior to collection) precisely because it would not exclude Cosmo or SARCAN and because it is a more efficient system. These two options are laid out in the 2007 waste and recycling report. It is also my understanding that since that report was adopted by City Council Cosmo has refused to sit at the table with the City, SARCAN, and Saskatoon Curbside Recycling on numerous occassions, which was instigated by the city in order to find that made-in-Saskatoon solution. The question, if this is true, is why?

The depot system doesn’t work because it isn’t diverting/recycling the amount of the material that is available. With a properly run curbside program the diversion rate can be increased from 18% to around 40%. Add in a properly run organics diversion/composting program and you increase the residential diversion rate to 60% plus. So while the depot system may work specifically for paper and refundable beverage containers, as a solution to residental waste diversion/recycling as a whole it is severely lacking. That isn’t even getting into the issue of requiring everyone to drive their recyclables to a depot – this discriminates against low-income people and seniors primarily, not to mention it goes against the City’s commitment to lowering greenhouse gas emissions.

Finally, a point of contention with Cosmo’s “recycling facts” (as printed on your website) – the costs estimated by the City in their recycling information guide ($7-11 per household, per month; 7-11 million per year) includes the cost associated with infrastructure. Infact, I have demonstrated (using the city’s own numbers from their 2007 waste and recycling report) that this cost is closer to $8 per household per month. Moreover, once you include the cost-savings associated with an extended landfill life, revenue from recyclables, and Provincial MMRP funding, that cost is decreased to between $3 and $5 per household, per month. Again that includes the required infrastructure.

On the Cosmo “recycling facts” website you specifically state that infrastructure costs are in addition to this amount. I am all for debate over the 4 options, but the public would be much better served if the proponents would provide them with factual arguments, instead of providing false and misleading information.