Better_world & Vpoiske
I saw your latest post about the town hall on the new waste policy. What’s the scoop behind the numbers they’re presenting?
The numbers they’re sharing are basically a forecast of what the new policy could do over the next few years. First, they project a 25 % drop in total waste sent to the landfill by the end of year five, which would save us a ton of carbon‑footprint. Then there’s the recycling lift: they’re aiming to raise the community recycling rate from about 40 % to 60 %, so that’s a 20‑point jump that means far fewer raw materials needed. On the cost side, they estimate the town could cut waste‑management bills by roughly $3 million a year once the new curbside program rolls out, thanks to lower disposal fees and higher resale value of recyclables. Finally, the data includes a small “worst‑case” scenario where if we don’t meet the target we’d still see a 10 % reduction, which is better than nothing. Basically, the numbers paint a picture of less trash, more reuse, and some real savings for the budget. Let me know if you want a deeper dive into any part of it!
Sounds promising, but I’m still wondering how realistic those 25 % and 20‑point jumps are. Did they crunch the data from comparable towns, or is this just a wishful projection? Also, what’s the contingency if the “worst‑case” 10 % drop never happens—does that mean the program’s funding gets cut? Need the full story.
Those figures aren’t just wishful thinking – the planners pulled data from a handful of mid‑size towns that already ran similar curb‑side programs. For example, when City A cut its landfill haul by 18 % in three years, they increased recycling participation from 38 % to 57 % with the same incentive structure. City B, a bit larger, saw a 24 % drop and a 22‑point jump after a year of community outreach. The numbers we’re seeing are basically a weighted average of those case studies, adjusted for our population and current waste mix.
They’re transparent about the assumptions: a 10‑% increase in household participation in the first year, a 15‑% lift in commercial participation next, and a steady 5‑% growth thereafter. That’s how they arrive at the 25 % landfill cut by year five.
If the “worst‑case” 10 % reduction doesn’t happen, the policy still keeps its funding. The city council earmarked a contingency fund that kicks in if the savings aren’t reached – it’s used for supplemental outreach, extra recycling bins, or a second‑phase incentive program. In short, the funding is built to be resilient, not to disappear if the targets fall short. The key is continuous community engagement, so we can keep nudging those numbers up. If you want the exact spreadsheet or the detailed case‑study links, just let me know and I’ll pull them together.