THE PRESS THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 10, 1983. A cost too dear?

Press, 10 February 1983, Page 16

THE PRESS THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 10, 1983. A cost too dear?

At what point does the cost of a noble experiment become too high? This is a question that the Christchurch City Council must face and answer as it reviews the economic disaster of its scheme to recycle household rubbish. The latest figures show that the council is spending up to $l6 of ratepayers' money to achieve a $1 sale of recycled material. For every SI worth of material that is extracted and sold, the whole scheme goes $l5 further into the red. Household collection of rubbish for recycling w’as one of the promises that Labour candidates made before their landslide victory in the 1980 elections for the council. The scheme was duly implemented, with the assistance of a subsidy of $84,500 from the Government. Costings have proved to be wildly astray, the losses have continued to mount, and support from the public has remained abysmally low. The council still retains its dedication to the scheme as “a public service.” The degree of service is questionable. Because the scheme demands more from householders in preparing and sorting rubbish into different categories suitable for recycling, few households participate. The best council estimates suggest that as few as 5 to 10 per cent of Christchurch households contribute to the scheme. Any benefits of the scheme appear to be largely intangible. The conservation of

reuseable material is a worthy ideal, but it requires public co-operation and financial realism, neither of which are evident in the present scheme. Total income from recycled materials might just reach $32,000 this financial year, well below the $50,000 estimate. Costs, on the other hand, have over-run and, including the Government subsidy, could reach $512,500. The subsidy will not be renewed and, if the scheme continues, the Christchurch ratepayers will be on their own to foot the bill. Markets for salvaged material remain sporadic and unreliable. The result is that all ratepayers are called on to pay for the storage of materials that most of them were content to throw away. These bills are in addition to the cost of the normal rubbish collection that would appear to be adequate for the 90 per cent of households that do not support the recycling scheme. The scheme might well have been born before its time, but the hard truth of the matter is that in Christchurch today most people are not prepared to go out of their way to support it. Half a million dollars a year is a lot to pay to satisfy an urge for conservation. If what is conserved is not wanted, something is amiss; and it is tempting to conclude that, in this instance, the drive to conserve is misdirected. If the council could show that salvaged materials are sought after, the public might respond even if the scheme produced no other savings.