We give this week's Rogue,
plastic bottle manufacturers who do business in Oregon, an A for effort but an F for execution.
A Jan. 2 state report reveals that Oregon's recycling rate for rigid plastic containers fell to 24.3 percent in 2005, and is projected to remain below the state's 25-percent requirement. That marks the first time Oregon's recycling rate for rigid plastic containers has fallen below the 25 percent minimum since the law was established a decade ago. The consequence, under state rules: It's largely up to manufacturers to address the problem.
But manufacturers blame Oregon's commingled recycling, which allows consumers to mix recyclables, resulting in wasteful sorting of recyclable materials.
"When it's the failure of the system to actually achieve the recycling of the materials that are actually put out on the curb, it doesn't seem just to be holding the product manufacturers and consumers responsible," says Pat McCormick, a spokesman for manufacturers such as the Grocery Manufacturers of America.
The manufacturers' Roguish solution?
A semantic stunt that petitions the Department of Environmental Quality to "redefine" what it means to recycle in Oregon.
DEQ estimates about 1,700 tons of rigid plastic containers left on the curbside for recycling aren't actually recycled but are instead "lost" in sorting.
The petition filed by 11 groups, including Associated Oregon Industries, proposes including that discarded waste in total recycling calculations. If that happened, voilà, the recycling rate could climb above 25 percent, though nobody has an exact figure.
So if Oregonians tried to recycle a bottle, but it still wound up in the landfill, technically, they still recycled it. Sounds a little fishy, right?
No doubt the state's commingled recycling system could be more efficient—but hey, the law's the law.
"The manufacturers that are responsible for this problem, instead of working toward real, physical solutions, proposed something much simpler, which is to move the goal posts," says Jeremiah Baumann, an environmental advocate for the Oregon State Public Interest Research Group. "Basically, this petition is absurd."
—Lance Kramer
.nar.jpg)
In contrast, where I work at as career firefighter, is for a 1000 sq acre plant, owned by a mutli-trillion dollar (most likely more) corporation that employs about 10,000 people at this site. We have three shifts 21 persons total, not all of us our certified firefighters or emt's, we provide fire, security and medical. We have 1 engine, 1 hazmat and 2 ambulances, we had 1 ladder, but the company sold that, because of lack of manpower. They have cut the staff to bare minimum to operate, there is overtime every week, due to a hole in each shift schedule. Most of the budget, covers payroll, for the senior staff, most of whom, have let their certs lapse and are on b-status. Our engine is from 1973, the hazmat 1980's era, the ambulances 1980's and 1990's. The company does not allow us to transport the injured off-site to a hospital, due to liability. We are to triage and hold inn the ambulance and wait to tranfer to a metro ems ambulance upon arrival. Most times, for any major fire or hazmat situation we have to call outside agencies, due to NFPA & OSHA, because of staff shortage. The company finds ways to to get out of the "Mutual Aide Response Agreement" that is for all certified fire departments and ambulance services within our city/county. MAINLY BY SAYING "WE DO NOT HAVE THE STAFFING". Because they are worried about liability, by the way did I mention, they own an insurance company and are self insured... This is an international corporation that spans the entire globe and owns a little of everything and alot of somethings. They have the money to staff and equip us with the best. Instead, they are too worried about the bottom line. They just spent over 10 million dollars 150k on a fountain! to redo the visitor center here, but they cannot spend 50k to buy us a more modern & up-to-date pumper-engine (fire engine). I was hired with 3 others and the company complained about having to buy us new bunker gear, until I pointed out that the old gear they wanted us to have, was not up to current safety requirements and would enjoin a fine if we were injured while using said gear upon their orders. The only thing I can really say good about the job, is that it pays $3 more an hour, than where I last worked as a outside contract firefighter, it is union and the benefits are decent. Other than that, when it comes to emergency response & safety, in my opinion, we are just here to provide the appearance of that, not the actual duties of such, just the appearance.
Too worried about the bottom line instead of whole circle. That is why I am already seeking a new job. That is my analogy of the recycling story.