Editor:
As one of the founding members and a former director of SCRAPS, I would like to respond to the recent letter from Ed Lands (Coast Reporter, Aug. 28).
Ed uses many "green" buzzwords and phrases such as "diversion from landfill" and "reduction of greenhouse gas emissions" in his defence of curbside recycling. Source separation is the best way to divert recyclables from the landfill, as it reduces contamination. Curbside recycling is not going to be source separated.
Where do the items collected at curbside go after being diverted from the landfill? I have learned that recyclables from some communities end up being sorted by child labour in China. Sometimes they are incinerated. And how can we reduce greenhouse gases if recyclables are trucked and shipped off to distant destinations? What of hard-to-recycle items?
When I learned that the Gibsons Recycling Depot made a point of knowing where their items go and took more items than do the bins at the IGA, I began taking recyclables there, often on foot, in a back pack. Yes, curbside would be nice, but not if it involves mixing items together.
I have brought these concerns up in letters to the Regional District, but I have not been given answers. I resent the fact that competition from the RD has caused Gibsons Recycling Depot to have to stop taking some items. (They have never asked for a government subsidy, as Ms. Kenny's paid ad implies; they have simply asked the RD to get out of their way in Gibsons.) Now, though Gibsons Recycling Depot has a Styrofoam machine, the IGA depot is littered with Styrofoam. Where is this Styrofoam ending up?
Anne Miles, Gibsons
