In the interest of balancing a budget deficit in excess of $4.75 billion, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg has suggested, among other measures, an 18-month suspension of glass recycling in the five boroughs. If the hiatus succeeds in saving the intended $57 million, New York may face the loss of its recycling programs altogether.
The recycling of glass and other materials does indeed cost more than simple disposal, but many environmental advocates believe that preserving resources merits the extra investment. Environmental issues pose a major concern for community leaders, who have already been facing the problem of excess garbage in the city and how to handle its disposal.
The proposed cuts, according to official statements made by Bloomberg and his associates, stem from a simple need to reduce the city's annual budget. Bloomberg argues that recycling programs, while well-intentioned, do not make a significant enough impact on the environment or get used at a high enough rate by city residents to warrant a large portion of city funds.
How much the proposed hiatus on recycling will affect specific neighborhoods depends on current use of the recycling system. According to Community Board 9 Chair George Goodwill, discrepancies already exist in collection of recycled materials above and below 96th Street. He and several other residents of lower Harlem cited a decline in recent months of observance by city employees of recycling collection dates.
This lack of service, Goodwill said, has worsened under Bloomberg and has rendered the recycling system far less effective than in previous years. Residents have registered complaints to Goodwill and other members of Board 9 regarding the collection of their recycling.
"Recycling is valuable and part of our behavior," said Ron Hoffman, who serves treasurer and is a member of the Board of Directors for the 106th Street Block Association. "With certain buildings above 96th Street, recycling collection isn't enforced properly, but that doesn't mean we should cut the programs. Instead, we should look at ways to make recycling more marketable to the community."
The proposed cuts are not likely to drastically alter recycling efforts on campus.
"If Bloomberg's program cuts bottles and cans for 18 months, we would generate solutions to take the remainder of bottles and cans waste to keep it out of landfills," Jeremiah Stoldt, director of Special Projects for Facilities Management, said.
"I can see Bloomberg's point of view, but if more people recycle, the city would make a profit," said Joseph Moreno, CC '02, who is the environmental intern in Facilities.
For some, the concern over losing recycling is more monetary than environmental. Many residents have raised the possibility of recycling elimination costing the city more money than the recycling programs themselves. In an official news release following Bloomberg's proposal earlier in the year, New York State Green Party Chairperson Craig Seeman said that New York already pays a considerable amount of money to export its trash to other states for handling and disposal, and that increased outflow of garbage would drive these costs up beyond the cost of recycling the same materials.
Goodwill summarized Bloomberg's proposals on recycling with the assertion that, despite possible benefits cited by the mayor and his staff, "there's a lot more bad than good." In his view, New York City already generates more than a manageable amount of non-recyclable waste, and the reduction of recycling options would further overload the city's garbage disposal systems.
Hoffman echoed this sentiment. "I think Bloomberg is being short-sighted," he said, "in terms of both cost-efficiency and the environment. In the long run, it will cost us more to get rid of recycling, and I think it will have a negative impact on our community."
COMMENTS