Tuesday, February 4, 1997
The costs of recycling efforts may exceed the monetary benefits,
but who can put a price on Mother Nature? By Monica Paknad
Daily Bruin Contributor
What do you plan to do with this newspaper after you finish
reading it? One option is to dispose of it in one of those blue
"newspaper only" bins scattered around campus. But where does the
paper go from there? Are your efforts to recycle having an
impact?
In recent years, environmentalists and the media have encouraged
the public to help reduce the amount of waste deposited into
landfills and protect dwindling resources. But is recycling really
a worthy cause, or have its benefits been overrated by so-called
"tree-huggers" and politically-correct journalists?
Eric Lamoureux, spokesperson for the California Integrated Waste
Management Board, said that recycling efforts have lengthened the
life span of landfills. But for truly positive results, he stressed
that environmental programs must continue because "we could easily
fall back" into a pattern of abusing our resources.
University officials seem to feel a moral obligation to
implement recycling programs on the UCLA campus, despite their high
cost.
Jack Powazek, director of Facilities Management at UCLA, and Jay
Goss, Associated Students of UCLA (ASUCLA) Student Union Operations
manager, agree that campus recycling programs are not designed for
profit, but rather because "it’s the right thing to do."
Although Facilities Management  which handles campus
recycling with the exception of ASUCLA territory in Ackerman,
Kerckhoff and the Plaza building  has experienced budget
cutbacks, Powazek says that they have ensured that lack of funds
would not affect recycling programs.
According to Goss, ASUCLA generates approximately $400 to $600
per month in revenue from recycling during the school year.
However, labor and supply costs for the program have exceeded the
revenue by $800 to $1,000 for the past one-and-a-half years,
clearly not a profitable endeavor.
Back in 1989, ASUCLA launched one of the biggest recycling
programs in the country, Goss said.
"We were one of the only environmentally conscious campuses at
the time," he said.
Until Spring 1995, when recycling became the responsibility of
the university and consequently Facilities Management, ASUCLA
handled all of the campus newspaper recycling.
"It was a great day when the university took that over, because
a lot more got recycled," Goss said.
Powazek says that his program "captures and recycles" an average
of 50,000 pounds of white paper, 60,000 pounds of mixed paper and
40,000 pounds of cardboard per month. Additionally, UCLA tries to
keep recycled compost  trees, grass, shrubs and pine needles
 on campus for use as ground cover.
UCLA also recycles rock and metal collected from construction
and demolition sites, crushing it for use in road paving.
"Anything we can avoid putting into landfills helps," Powazek
said.
Landfills have expanded their capacity in the last seven years
from a life of about 13 to 18 years in 1990 to about 28 years
today, Lamoureux said.
He attributes this capacity expansion, in part, to the passing
of Assembly Bill 939 in 1989, requiring California to divert 25
percent of its waste by 1995 and 50 percent of it by the year 2000.
He says that the current 26 percent diversion rate is due to
recycle, reuse and reduction programs as well as less initial waste
generation.
According to Powazek, half of the unrecycled waste at UCLA is
taken to landfills and the other half is converted to energy.
Essentially, all of the waste taken to the Southern California Air
Quality Metropolitan District-approved waste-to-energy plant is
efficiently used, he said. The trash is converted into energy and
even remnants, such as ash, are used in road-making.
"We’re doing the most environmentally responsible thing we can,"
Goss said. "Just to make sure our (waste hauling) company was
actually doing it, we used to follow them to the plant."
Since 1990, Powazek says that a 10 percent reduction in waste
generation has been observed due to conveniences such as e-mail and
two-sided photocopying.
Instead of putting efforts into recycling, Goss said that ASUCLA
programs center around prevention, by discouraging students from
using containers in the first place. For example, ASUCLA offers
discounts on beverages if students purchase a refillable mug.
Goss added that ASUCLA doesn’t use what he describes as "the
dish washing way of doing things," as they do in the dorms, because
in Southern California, people want to eat outside. He explains
that "it would be too costly to lose all of that expensive
silverware."
Despite their belief that recycling is "the right thing to do,"
Goss and Powazek also agree that some programs are simply too
costly when evaluated on a cost-benefit scale. Currently, ASUCLA
does not recycle glass, plastic or aluminum.
"If something is less than 1 percent of your waste stream, it’s
not efficient to (recycle it)," Powazek said. Also, when ASUCLA
tried aluminum recycling in the past, they experienced problems
with theft by what he calls "entrepreneurs."
According to Goss, ASUCLA recycled poly-styrene, the material
that disposable plates and cups consist of, until two years ago.
The materials apparently were not coming in adequately clean.
Labor expenses, such as costs of sorting, make recycling
expensive, according to Powazek. But he finds recycling at UCLA
important because the university serves as an example for the
community.
"We want to help lead in the community," he said.
Robin Pendoley, chair of the California Public Research Interest
Group (CALPIRG) chapter at UCLA, said of Los Angeles, "the culture
down here has not allowed for recycling.
"Society sees recycling as more of a chore," he says.
Lamoureux supports this comment with the example of curbside
recycling.
"The easier local governments make it for people, the more
they’ll do it" because they won’t have any excuses why they’re not
participating, he said.
According to Christy Leavitt, CALPIRG campus organizer at UCLA,
there is currently a national encouragement, focusing on
institutions, to buy products made with recycled materials. But to
become a plausible goal, recycling must continue.
"The more people recycle, the more recycled material will be
used because it’ll be cheaper," Pendoley said.