Tag Archives: government waste

Economics of Recycling in Houston

Waste Management, a company started in Houston, Texas and now serves more than 20 million customers around the United States and Canada, started its business with commodity prices at an all-time-high and made contracts with municipal governments based on a deal that required a commodity price floor of $65 a ton. However, when the revenue falls below $65 a ton, the city of Houston does not make any money and Waste Management takes a loss.

  • The sorting process at a recycling facility costs between $75 to $150 on average, depending on how contaminated the recycling load, while Waste Management sells the recycled material for just $80 on average.
  • Contracts were made when average recycled commodity prices rose 20 percent in 2011 and received as much revenue as $140 per ton.
  • The city of Houston gets 70 percent of any revenue over $65 per ton.
  • Last March, Houston’s recycling process contamination rate was 17.4 percent.

The Waste Management contracts with municipal governments have been profitable for both over the past few years. However, with recycled commodity prices as low as they now are, Waste Management’s contracts might have to expire. Cities like Houston could lose their popular recycling programs due to hasty decisions that were made a few years ago.

What can you recycle curbside in Houston?

Paper: Newspapers, magazines

Cardboard: Broken down to no more than 3-feet-by-3-feet and clean. No soiled pizza boxes, for example.

Plastics: Nos. 1-5 and No. 7 only

Metals: Tin, aluminum, empty aerosol cans

Glass: Only on routes with 96-gallon bins

Laminated cartons: Milk cartons, for example.

Yucca Mountain Now Deemed Safe

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission recently found that the nuclear waste disposal site meets the commission’s requirements. According to the long waited and held-up-in-court report from the commission, the design of the site had the required multiple barriers that assure long-term isolation of radioactive materials.

Currently:

  • There are more than 70 reactor sites around the country accumulating nuclear waste.
  • The Energy Department has collected tens of billions of dollars in fees from reactor owners.

From the New York Times:

The stalemate, combined with delays because of technical problems, has become costly for taxpayers. Under the terms of a 1982 law, the Energy Department collected tens of billions of dollars in fees from reactor owners and was obligated to start taking the wastes in January 1998. Because it has not done so and has no prospect of taking wastes for years to come, the courts have assessed billions of dollars of damages against the Energy Department for the contract failure, and the potential liability runs well over $20 billion.

The current federal government has amplified partisanship and increased setbacks for the nuclear waste site and reactors around the country. A political party flip in the senate could give Yucca Mountain and our nuclear facilities the much needed funding and support.

NE Expanding Waste Management Program

In places like Nebraska, a city’s trash could become one group’s treasure. A new project from Nebraska Organic Waste Energy (NOW) and Uribe Refuse Services Inc. is looking to turn a portion of the city’s organic waste into energy, compost and fertilizer.

The project will take 1,450 of the 52,000 tons of organic waste produced by Lincoln residents and convert it into electricity, as well as compost and liquid fertilizer for lawn care, gardens and golf courses, reports The Journal Star.

Uribe Refuse predicts that the project will save them $39,000 in landfill gate fees and $20,000 in electricity bills per year. The overall return from the 20-year project is estimated to total $1.2 million.

Currently, Nebraska is a net-exporter of energy. But the state’s energy expenditures have been steadily rising over the last decade, from $4.4 billion in 2000 to $9.1 billion in 2008. The total cost for the Lincoln project is unknown, and the verdict on the efficiency of waste-to-energy programs is still out. If the profits outweigh the costs, the program could be a good way to generate clean energy and eliminate waste.

The project intends to target commercial customers, including restaurants, schools and corporations, and will offer sign-up incentives to customers who commit to becoming “zero waste” businesses.

Another aspect of the project excites city planners: the corporate involvement. As part of the state’s energy plan, Nebraska is seeking to address more energy issues through public-private partnerships. Gene Hanlon, Lincoln’s City Recycling Coordinator, says he’s pleased to see private companies taking initiative.

“Local governments can’t do it alone,” says Hanlon. “We need to work in full partnership with the private sector to develop innovative efforts to conserve resources and reduce waste sent to the landfill.”

To get the project up and running, NOW Energy has applied for a $735,000 grant from the Nebraska Environmental Trust to cover its start-up costs. Uribe Refuse and NOW intend to push through with a scaled-down version of the project if the grant doesn’t come through.

Megan Simons is a research associate at the National Center for Policy Analysis

China’s New Urbanization Plan

The Prime Minister of China, Li Keqiang, hopes to see 60 percent of the Chinese population living in cities by 2020 as a result of his “National Plan on New Urbanization.”

  • In 2013, 712 million Chinese residents were living in cities while 600 million were living in rural areas. The urbanization plan seeks to coordinate the development of cities and towns, expecting 100 million new urban residents by the end of the decade.
  • Because those living in China’s cities earn 3.23 times more than those living in rural areas, the state hopes that the plan will boost consumption spending, raising China’s consumption from 34 percent of GDP up to 45 to 50 percent by 2020.

China’s economy is complicated, because it uses central planning along with free markets. Real estate is China’s most popular industry, and land developers lease land from the Chinese government for a leasing fee, then develop it privately. There have been problems, however, with such government involvement. For example, when the city of Ordos in Mongolia built 100,000 apartments with government support, 90 percent of the buildings remained entirely empty because the government misestimated demand for housing in the area.

As more people move to China’s cities, demand for government investment and development will increase. The government could limit its involvement and allow the free market to work.

Xinyuan Zou is a research associate at the National Center for Policy Analysis.

New White House Climate Change Initiative and Wrong Priorities

While the President barely lifts a finger to protect and strengthen our border with Mexico by announcing a new border initiative, the White House is still very actively promoting their climate change initiatives with yesterday’s latest big announcement.

The White House commitments to the new initiative include:

  • Convening Agriculture and Technology Leaders at the White House.
  • New Features on climate.data.gov.
  • Hosting Agriculture-Innovation Workshops.

The White House also includes a good number of “private sector” commitments to the initiative. The entire initiative revolves around data processing and sharing efficiencies that would benefit many of the companies that exist, especially all that can benefit from all of the “global warming” and “climate change” hysteria that the White House continues to throw at the public through their propaganda channels.

Just another example of misplaced priorities. How long will it take for the White House to realize that they are still going down the wrong road (climate change)?

The Other Side of Solar Trash Cans

Do solar trash cans save time and money?

Solar trash cans are popping up all over some of America’s largest cities. Their popularity with local governments has turned it into the latest fad as it seeks to combine waste and recycling with energy conservation and carbon emission reductions. Some city leaders are claiming the solar trash cans, like the ones from BigBelly, are saving the cities millions.

However, a 2010 report from the Philadelphia Controller Allan Butkovitz claims that the $4,000 solar trash cans are wasteful and unkempt:

  • Pictures of trash cans with overflowing garbage
  • Trash cans still sitting in in warehouses long after purchase
  • Trash cans lacked damage and repair warranties from the manufacturer
  • Crews said they were not trained to operate and care for the new machines, which replaced $100 wire baskets
  • Crews did not have operating manuals or tools and were not performing the recommended maintenance
  • The night trash collection crews did not have access to the system that wirelessly reports when each trash can is full and serviced trash cans anyway
  • Daytime crews that responded to trash can full alerts said the alerts are often wrong and hours old
  • Clouded solar panel covers
  • Malfunctioning alerts
  • Physical damage

During a two-month observation, crews collected trash from Big Bellies 10 times a week on average, more than double the anticipated frequency. Moreover, it takes more time to empty the machine compared to the old-style baskets. The solar trash cans have also invited more graffiti, meaning a burden on the city to clean it up. Altogether, the extra time and costs associated with having solar trash cans were not factored into the overall savings.

Just from this one report, there is a good chance that the cities that have introduced solar trash cans may actually be exaggerating the benefits. Those cities should rethink their plans to waste more money on these trash cans and other cities that are thinking about making this change should also reconsider.

How The West Was Won – By The Feds

Well sometimes feels like we never won it when so much of our land and resources are under the direct control of the U.S. government and tribal authorities. If you take a look at the American “west”, you will see a very big difference from the other half of the country in terms of land owned by the government and land that is “free” to own by the public.

The federal government owns approximately 29% of the land area in the United States, more than 653 million acres. The U.S. General Services Administration’s report on Federal Real Property Profile, 2004 shows how much land the government owns in each state. The top 10 federally owned states:

  • Nevada 85%
  • Alaska 69%
  • Utah 57%
  • Oregon 53%
  • Idaho 50%
  • Arizona 48%
  • California 45%
  • Wyoming 42%
  • New Mexico 42%
  • Colorado 37%

Out of the top 10 states (all are in the American “west”), the federal government owns 505 million acres or 77% of the total land area owned in the United States by the federal government.

The White House acknowledges the fact that not only is the United States government the largest property owner in the country, but also a major source of government waste because of this fact. Efforts to make much of this property available to the public for purchase have been minimal. The White House Federal Excess Properties site shows the federal government’s effort in selling off properties.

The Federal Government is the biggest property owner in the United States, and billions of taxpayer dollars are wasted each year on government properties that are no longer needed. The President has proposed an independent Civilian Property Realignment Board to help the Federal Government cut through red tape and competing stakeholder interests to sell or get rid of property it no longer needs. Over time, this could save taxpayers billions of dollars and help to reduce the deficit.

This map shows just the tip of the iceberg in terms of opportunities for downsizing the Federal real estate portfolio. Under the President’s proposal, more properties, in some cases with significant market value, would be added to this map and dealt with more quickly and effectively than they are today.

President Obama and Vice President Biden launched the Campaign to Cut Waste to eliminate misspent tax dollars in every agency and department across the Federal Government. Getting properties like those highlighted below off our books is a key first step in this effort.

The Civilian Property Realignment Board was cancelled by congress and a very painful and slow process for eliminating this waste is still in place.

Before any agency sells a surplus property, it is required by federal law to ensure that no other U.S. agency wants it. It must then offer a right of first refusal to state and local governments as well as nonprofits. Buildings must be assessed as potential homeless shelters and reviewed for environmental contamination and historic significance.

All of these federally owned properties have the potential to be transferred to state/local governments or to private interests. Benefits could include:

  • less government waste of resources and taxpayer dollars
  • increased efficiency of remaining federal properties
  • greater use of agriculture, energy and natural resources for private use

The bipartisan Federal Real Property Asset Management Reform Act of 2013 is intended to expedite the sale of federal property that is underutilized. A greater effort in this direction is very obvious and needed.