More recycling doesn’t add up for customers
To the editor:
I saw in Wednesday's Review-Journal that Republic Services is at it again. Republic's "new and improved" recycling plan is like being forced to watch a B horror movie that never ends. The company drags out anyone it can find to tout the benefits of its proposal to reduce trash pickups and increase recycling service.
Here is what these purported experts (and most likely hand-picked survey respondents) don't say.
1. By reducing garbage pickup from twice per week to once and increasing recycling to weekly, Republic reduces the number of pickups from five every two weeks to only four. Now your garbage smells while Republic saves money.
2. If recycling actually does increase locally -- and that's a big if -- Republic stands to make more money, especially from recycling metals like aluminum cans. Don't believe it? Recently I saved all of our aluminum cans for two years from my household (two people). The payoff? Averaging 16 cans per week we netted $42 at the recycler.
3. The promised "new and improved" 96-gallon recycling bin that supposedly costs $80 will, in all likelihood, allow Republic to cut its recycling pickup labor costs, and possibly even its transportation costs, in half by better automating the pickup.
4. If you live in one of the 2,700 homeowners associations here in Clark County, keeping your 96-gallon recycling can in plain sight may not be an option unless it's trash day. If you found it difficult to find space to hide those recycle bins, then try storing that new and improved 96-gallon container.
What's the real benefit of this proposed recycling plan to Republic's customers? None that I can think of other than that "feel good" feeling you get from doing the right thing and recycling trash.
But let's get real. Today we have a highly advantageous, low-cost, multi-decade-long trash hauling contract with Republic Services. Why would we want to renegotiate for a "free" 80-gallon trash can to increase our cost and lower theirs?
Moving here from a Midwestern city, where the majority of its 40,000 residents recycled with bins, not cans, taught me one thing: There is evidence, at least anecdotal evidence, that recycling improves as the educational level of the population increases. If Southern Nevada wants to increase recycling, then look to the public school system, not to free trash cans. The school district should be putting together money-making recycling programs at the elementary schools and rewarding kids for recycling with everything from gold stars on their achievement boards to discount coupons from local retailers. Once the kids get the message the grownups will too.
If Republic Services wants to replace their free recycling bins with a free 96-gallon recycling container and nothing else, then I say bravo, let's give it a try. After all, they're the ones who will benefit financially from increased recycling and improved automation, not us. We're just the customer with a good, low-cost and expedient long-term contract.
Why would we want to change it?
Richard Rychtarik
Las Vegas
Energy efficiency
To the editor:
Editor Thomas Mitchell and the Review-Journal have been focused lately on what we don't know about the cost of renewable energy ("Shining a light on future power rate increases," July 4). I'd like to focus on what we do know:
Saving electricity through utility investments in energy efficiency is four times cheaper than generating power using any source of fuel. It's cheaper than coal, cheaper than natural gas, cheaper than wind, cheaper than anything, period.
Why then, has Mr. Mitchell and the Review-Journal given NV Energy a pass on its plans to cut energy efficiency funding levels it promised last July? We already know NV Energy's efficiency programs save more money than they cost to run -- a lot more. Ratepayers would have saved an additional $230 million if not for the drop in funding -- so why cut back?
The Review-Journal owes it to its readers to shine a light on NV Energy's attempt to skimp on energy efficiency. Efficiency is the cheapest way for Nevada to meet its power demands. It saves ratepayers money by lowering energy bills and reducing the need for expensive new power plants and transmission lines, and for buying expensive power on the open market. It also creates good, local jobs in the construction and building supply sectors.
NV Energy spends $1 billion a year buying coal and natural gas from out-of-state sources to fuel its power plants. That's a lot of money spent on fuel and a lot of jobs sent out of state. Money and jobs should be kept here in Nevada and invested in programs proven to save consumers money and create energy and jobs at home.
The Review-Journal, Mr. Mitchell and ratepayers should hold NV Energy's feet to the fire and make sure it makes investments in energy efficiency that we know will pay off.
Steve Wiel
Incline Village
The writer is Nevada representative for the Southwest Energy Efficiency Project.
The next revolution
To the editor:
Recent polls show that most Americans want better enforcement of federal immigration laws, and also support Arizona in its attempt to enforce federal immigration laws. Unfortunately, President Obama disagrees with the majority of American citizens on this issue and, in a misguided attempt to prevent the enforcement of such laws, has ordered his Department of Justice to sue Arizona.
None of this would be necessary if President Obama would order the federal government to effectively do its duty and secure the border.
The Declaration of Independence reminds us that the government derives its power from the consent of the governed, and whenever any form of government becomes destructive, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it.
Many patriots believe that if the government continues to ignore the demands of the people, then maybe it is time to refresh the tree of liberty, just as Thomas Jefferson suggested.
The first American Revolution lasted eight years. I wonder how long the next one will last.
Steven G. Hayes Sr.
Las Vegas
