[gridlock]

The cost of recycling is high, even if the cost of the labor involved in sorting and handling is not added to the cost. The cost of dedicated collection of sorted materials and transportation and processing of the collected materials exceeds the value of the collected material plus the avoided disposal costs by an estimated $50 million in NYC next year. Aren't there better ways to spend this money?

[Rubber Duckie]

The cost of landfill is not usually considered at full market value when comparing recycling costs because it can be passed on to somebody else, usually a future generation as was done with Love Canal.

Likewise, the cost of extracting new materials is not factored into the equation. For example, the cost of depleting the iron ranges in northeast Minnesota has produced generations of poverty and depopulation.

Within reason, recycling has benefits beyond immediate economics. Giving those on the bottom of the economic rung a chance to work rather than claim a handout is one of those benefits.

The aluminum industry has been very responsible and successful about promoting recycling. The glass industry, on the other hand, has been a case study in irresponsibility refusing to do such simple things as standardize colors. Do we really need 128 shades of green for wine bottles, f'rinstance?

Another cost not recognized by the throwaway mentality is social costs. Again, I'll pick on the glass industry. When someone throws a beer bottle on the parking lot and damages a tire (or someone's bare foot), the cost of not recycling is imposed on a third party which gained no benefit from the transaction.

Therefore, I can support bottle deposit laws much easier than I can those on aluminum cans (the consequenses of stepping on cannot even compare to glass).