S.F. mandates composting

[jimmy olsen]

What a pain in the ass.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31265662/

S.F. to impose fines for tossing food scraps
Mandatory composting part of city's plan to eliminate landfill waste by 2020

updated 6 minutes ago

SAN FRANCISCO - Trash collectors in San Francisco will soon be doing more than just gathering garbage: They'll be keeping an eye out for people who toss food scraps out with their rubbish.

San Francisco this week passed a mandatory composting law that is believed to be the strictest such ordinance in the nation. Residents will be required to have three color-coded trash bins, including one for recycling, one for trash and a new one for compost — everything from banana peels to coffee grounds.

The law makes San Francisco the leader yet again in environmentally friendly measures, following up on other green initiatives such as banning plastic bags at supermarkets.
Story continues below ↓advertisement | your ad here

Food scraps sent to a landfill decompose fast and turn into methane gas, a potent greenhouse gas. Under the new system, collected scraps will be turned into compost that helps area farms and vineyards flourish. The city eventually wants to eliminate waste at landfills by 2020.

Chris Peck, the state's Integrated Waste Management Board spokesman, said he wasn't aware of an ordinance as tough as San Francisco's. Many cities, including Pittsburgh and San Diego, require residents to recycle yard waste but not food scraps. Seattle requires households to put scraps in the compost bin or have a composting system, but those who don't comply aren't fined.

"The city has been progressive, and they've been leaders and it appears that they're stepping out of the pack again," he said.

Fines to be enforced in 2010
San Francisco officials said they aren't looking to punish violators harshly.

Waste collectors will not pick through anyone's garbage, said Robert Reed, a spokesman for Sunset Scavenger Co., which handles the city's recyclables. If the wrong kind of materials are noticed while a bin is being emptied, workers will leave what Reed called "a love note," to let customers know they are not with the program.

"We're not going to lock you up in jail if you don't compost," said Nathan Ballard, a spokesman for Mayor Gavin Newsom who proposed the measure that passed Tuesday. "We're going to make it as easy as possible for San Franciscans to learn how to compost."

A moratorium on imposing fines will end in 2010, after which repeat offenders like individuals and small businesses generating less than a cubic yard of refuse a week face fines of up to $100.

Businesses that don't provide the proper containers face a $500 fine.

Proponents: Others will follow SF's lead

Sean Elsbernd, one of the two supervisors who opposed the proposition that passed 9-2, said the measure was "over-the-top" and that calls to his office Wednesday were critical of the new law.

"This is just going to aggravate and aggrieve homeowners who are doing their best," said Elsbernd.

But proponents say it is important to get people's attention about the importance of keeping those biodegradable materials out of landfills.

Ballard predicted that recycling food scraps eventually will seem as ho-hum as saving aluminum cans and newspapers.

"That used to seem like such a chore," he said. "Now we do it every day."

Newsom was expected to sign the measure if the board passes it in a final vote next week.


Copyright 2009 The Associated Press.

[garbon]

I will not be composting. I am not a dirty hippie.

[Ed Anger]

I will not be composting. I am not a dirty hippie.

Fight the power.

[garbon]

From an SF Chronicle blog:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/green/detail?entry_id=41522

The Board of Supervisors has approved a trash law proposed by the mayor that would make it illegal to throw away compostables or recyclables.

As to whether this is a fair law, my feeling is yes, for two reasons. First, garbage costs money, so the city can reasonably fine people who do not follow protocols designed to save money and/or advance social goals related to that service. Second, there's no realistic expectation of privacy in your garbage in San Francisco anyway. The bin is city property, as is the sidewalk. And tweekers search through my old bank statements, anyway. So what's an orange peel to me?

My issue with the law is that it seems to be purely symbolic. Of enforcement, the Chronicle's coverage says:

The ordinance calls for garbage collectors to leave tags on containers when they spot    incorrectly sorted material, but those collectors are only going to view what's on top of the container and have no intention of going through them, said Robert Reed, a spokesman for San Francisco collectors Sunset Scavenger Co. and Golden Gate Disposal & Recycling Co....

It also says:

"In any scenario there will be repeated notices and phone calls before we even start talking about fines," said Jared Blumenfeld, head of the city's Department of the Environment. "We don't want to fine people."

In other words, this is largely an educational program that will cost the city money.

Public education isn't an unreasonable approach: Imagine the trash program replacing advertising about what to do with your trash and kitchen grease. But it's the symbolic law that bothers me, and there's an increasing number of issues the city deals with in this bizarre way: Marijuana. Prostitution. Bicycles. Federal policy on everything from junk mail to the war in Iraq.

Here's why I'm not a fan: Laws to which enforcers generally turn a blind eye are just an invitation to arbitrary and capricious enforcement. I've been stopped by the one cop who clearly hates cyclists and was just itching to one a lecture about not stopping at an unpopulated stop sign. I'd like to see that made legal, because it is unreasonable to ask bikes to stop every block and I don't want to have to deal with Officer Grumpy. And I'd like to see fare jumping made illegal so I don't feel like a chump for paying. And, in general, I want government to be very clear about what is and what is not permissible.

If throwing an orange peel away is illegal, then there must be a fair way to enforce that law. I am not opposed to inspectors going through my trash after I've left it in a city bin on city property. But the city demurs. Well, if there's no fair way to enforce this law, we should be creating other incentives to encourage the noble and politically reasonable goal of limiting our landfill habit.

Also about the part in blue: :nelson at the bike hippie

[jimmy olsen]

Why is it unreasonable to have bikes stop every block when cars have to? More over wouldn't that result in have lots of bicyclists killed? I don't get his argument.

[Malthus]

I will not be composting.

For one, you would not fit inside the box. 

[Neil]

Why is it unreasonable to have bikes stop every block when cars have to? More over wouldn't that result in have lots of bicyclists killed? I don't get his argument.

His argument is that cyclists should be allowed to do whatever they want, because he's a dirty hippie.

[Barrister]

Whitehorse has a completely bullshit composting program.

We were given two large bins on wheels - one for garbage, one for compost.  They'll pick up one bin one week, the other bin the other week.  If you have more garbage than that - too bad, you should recycle more.

It makes me furous, especially because we have essentially unlimited room for landfill!

[C.C.R.]

I would flush my food scraps down the toilet, just to be an asshole...

:

[garbon]

I would flush my food scraps down the toilet, just to be an asshole...

:

I learned from a neighbor that once upon a time there were people who lived on the top floor of my building who would slaughter live chickens in their apartment. They used to flush the feathers and blood in their toilet.  That was all well and good until it backed up the sewage pipes, leading to many tenants finding blood and feathers in their bathtubs.

[C.C.R.]

I learned from a neighbor that once upon a time there were people who lived on the top floor of my building who would slaughter live chickens in their apartment. They used to flush the feathers and blood in their toilet.  That was all well and good until it backed up the sewage pipes, leading to many tenants finding blood and feathers in their bathtubs.

Did they slaughter for culinary purposes or religious?

[jimmy olsen]

I learned from a neighbor that once upon a time there were people who lived on the top floor of my building who would slaughter live chickens in their apartment. They used to flush the feathers and blood in their toilet.  That was all well and good until it backed up the sewage pipes, leading to many tenants finding blood and feathers in their bathtubs.

Did they slaughter for culinary purposes or religious?

Why not both?

[garbon]

Did they slaughter for culinary purposes or religious?

I didn't ask.

[C.C.R.]

I didn't ask.

I don't blame you.  It's generally for the best...

[Monoriu]

My mother's brother claimed he slaughtered chickens in his Vancouver house.  For culinary purposes.