Should Lakewood pledge to go Green?

sharon kinsella · Post by **sharon kinsella** » Wed Jan 30, 2008 7:38 pm

Where did you put it for them to pick up? I look out on a parking lot. There is no treelawn.

If there was a bin somewhere convenient like around the Drug Mart parking lot, I'd do it. But I'm not going to spend the gas money to bring it to Berea Rd.

dl meckes · Post by **dl meckes** » Wed Jan 30, 2008 11:26 pm

Sharon, your apartment building may not have its refuse picked up by the City. You can always call Refuse and Recycling to find out.

Meanwhile, you can save aluminum cans for recycling at any of the fire stations and sometimes the schools have a separate bin for newspapers. Some churches have them, too.

But a trip to the Recycling Center is worth the gas!

Ivor Karabatkovic · Post by **Ivor Karabatkovic** » Thu Jan 31, 2008 12:00 am

LHS has a newspaper recycling bin behind the East Gym. If you're heading south on Bunts, turn into the parking lot between the baseball and football field and you'll see a big green (?) dumpster for newspapers.

sharon kinsella · Post by **sharon kinsella** » Thu Jan 31, 2008 4:33 am

Thanks Bryan, DL, and Ivor - I'll call the fire station over here about the cans.

I really don't have newspapers. When I do I find things to do with them.

Bryan Schwegler · Post by **Bryan Schwegler** » Thu Jan 31, 2008 6:14 am

sharon kinsella wrote:Where did you put it for them to pick up? I look out on a parking lot. There is no treelawn.

Ah that could be the problem then. On Edgewater, all the apartments had treelawns so I just put mine out there. It still may be worth an e-mail to the refuse dept, there may be a way for them to pick it up from your building. It's worth a shot.

Brad Hutchison · Post by **Brad Hutchison** » Thu Jan 31, 2008 9:49 am

I think one of the main points of the MRF is to have it centrally located so people don't have to drive all the way across town - because they won't. As mentioned in the text I quoted, the city could also sell used furniture and appliances that people didn't want. It's not supposed to be a huge industrial building that needs to be out of the way. It - and recycling - should be central to our daily lives.

Why do those paper recycling dumpsters always forbid phone books? That never makes sense to me.

Valerie Molinski · Post by **Valerie Molinski** » Mon Feb 04, 2008 9:28 am

Brad Hutchison wrote:
Why do those paper recycling dumpsters always forbid phone books? That never makes sense to me.

Phone books need to be light...or as a light as possible. So the paper they use has very short fibers. They are very difficult to recycle andmust be kept separate. If they are found in the bin with regular paper and newsprint, they are actually considered contaminants.

There is a phone book recycle box in Bay Village in the parking lot across from the beach... forget the name, but is the public beach. That's where we drop ours.

Valerie Molinski · Post by **Valerie Molinski** » Mon Feb 04, 2008 9:31 am

Also, those people in this thread who have said that LEED certification for a building is difficult and costly... have you ever been through the process? What do you do for a living that are familiar with the certification process?

David Lay · Post by **David Lay** » Mon Feb 04, 2008 9:36 am

Valerie Molinski wrote:Also, those people in this thread who have said that LEED certification for a building is difficult and costly... have you ever been through the process? What do you do for a living that are familiar with the certification process?

This might help shed some light (PDF):

http://tinyurl.com/yw55u2

Valerie Molinski · Post by **Valerie Molinski** » Mon Feb 04, 2008 9:48 am

David Lay wrote:
Valerie Molinski wrote:Also, those people in this thread who have said that LEED certification for a building is difficult and costly... have you ever been through the process? What do you do for a living that are familiar with the certification process?
This might help shed some light (PDF):

http://tinyurl.com/yw55u2

Dont see how this sheds any light....Did you write this article? Which is also 5 years old, by the way.

I have actually worked on at least two LEED projects and walked one completely through certification by myself. While it does 'add cost' to the project, a lot of it is stuff we should be doing anyway to make our buildings more efficient not only to save operational costs, but to not be energy hogs. Since that article was written, building codes have been re-written, and some municipalities are requiring projects to have many energy saving techniques incorporated and are no longer special.. like lighting controls, for example, occupancy sensors...I could go on.

4 to 12% is a pretty broad stroke. And it is usually upfront costs that can often be recaptured over the life of the building. And think about it, 4% of a millon dollar project is a drop in the bucket. As energy costs get even higher, this will work out to be an even better trade off.

David Lay · Post by **David Lay** » Mon Feb 04, 2008 11:15 am

Valerie Molinski wrote: Dont see how this sheds any light....Did you write this article? Which is also 5 years old, by the way.

No. A simple Google search turned that up.

Valerie Molinski · Post by **Valerie Molinski** » Mon Feb 04, 2008 11:24 am

David Lay wrote:
Valerie Molinski wrote: Dont see how this sheds any light....Did you write this article? Which is also 5 years old, by the way.
No. A simple Google search turned that up.

My original question was if anyone here saying the process was cost prohibitive had actually gone through the actual certfication process or was familiar with it through their profession.

That article is pretty accurate about the actual process but not the cost issues. A lot has changed in the last five years with LEED and how it is implemented during construction. I have been working with LEED since before 2003 and it has changed dramatically since that article was written. Their costs estimates are out of date.

Bill Call · Post by **Bill Call** » Mon Feb 04, 2008 2:37 pm

Instituting mandatory recycling might save some small amount of money but the positive affects on the environment would be less than negligible.

Most "green" solutions are feel good solutions that feel good and do little.

Sometimes the "green" solutions merely make products more expensive but sometimes the green solutions do real harm. Like turning food into gasoline.

See:

http://www.newsweek.com/id/107575

And since none of Lakewood's problems will be solved by any green solution any minute spent by City officials on "green" solutions is a wasted minute.

If you really want to help the environment build a nuclear power plant.

Shawn Juris · Post by **Shawn Juris** » Mon Feb 04, 2008 3:49 pm

Valerie,
I think that your points are good. It'll be interesting to see if there are further supporting arguments for why implementation is considered "cost prohibitive". In reading through the wording from the policy that was put in place by city council a number of years ago, they noted that upfront cost should be weighed against long term savings. It's like they got it right in 2003 then when the opportunity presented itself to back up their words with action they got cold feet. I would like to understand what it is that is in place that is considered green.

Bill,
That could be the greatest generalization I have ever read from you.

Valerie Molinski · Post by **Valerie Molinski** » Mon Feb 04, 2008 4:34 pm

Shawn Juris wrote:Valerie,
I think that your points are good. It'll be interesting to see if there are further supporting arguments for why implementation is considered "cost prohibitive". In reading through the wording from the policy that was put in place by city council a number of years ago, they noted that upfront cost should be weighed against long term savings. It's like they got it right in 2003 then when the opportunity presented itself to back up their words with action they got cold feet. I would like to understand what it is that is in place that is considered green.

Bill,
That could be the greatest generalization I have ever read from you.

Mr Call, I am glad that few people share your view on such items. You are indeed part of the 'Greatest Generalization.' Did Tom Brokaw write about book about you?

As far as recycling saving money, well.. it does. It saves a city in dump costs and can actually turn a profit if done right. Negligible affects on the environment? Ok, well let's keep filling up those landfills and shipping our waste to third world countries instead. Let those poor people deal with our trash that wont degrade for thousands of years.

No doubt that 'green' is a new buzz word and there is a lot of 'greenwashing' going on. But everyone doing a little bit makes a huge difference. So we can feel good and do little as one, but it does a lot when we all do it.

To be fair, I am not disagreeing with you about biofuels. They are not the answer either, for many of the reasons that George Will writes about. But it is the HOT thing now because the president is pushing it to make it appear like he is doing something to ease our dependence on foreign oil. The current administration is backing all of this to appear as if they have some sort of active policy on the environment when they have been ignoring these issues since 2000.

Again, since our city is in a budget crisis, 'wasting time' on 'green solutions' might actually help ease costs... implementing a better recycling program cuts down on trash, metals can be sold back for recycling, etc... Personally, due to recycling and composting, my family of four only generates 1-2 kitchen bags of trash each week. Im taking up less space and weight in the landfill that the city pays for. What are you doing?

And I also dont disagree with you on looking at nuclear power either... but it has its own host of issues. Nothing is perfect, but we do need to get out from under all of our coal plants around here because they are neither operational or environmentally sustainable.

Should Lakewood pledge to go Green?

Bio