(This is part of an April Fool's blog tradition, and I hope no one took it personally)
Small Northeast State Solves E-Waste Recycling Glut Profitably, with New Validation Procedures
[Middlebury, VT April 1 2014] It turns out there are two ways to solve the E-Waste Recycling Crisis. In a stunning turn of developments, Vermont has validated a brand new way to recycle CRTs.
1. Charge manufacturers more (42 cents per pound rather than 28)
2. Demand less (allow land application)
3. Profit!
Suppose there are two ways to do something. One way takes a lot of labor hours, and then costs a lot to transport and treat the material. The other way takes fewer hours of labor, but creates a mixed mess that is even more extremely expensive to transport and treat the material. Normally, this is called "getting what you paid for".
But with an online thesaurus tool, Vermont "recyclers" are now "solving" this "e-waste" "problem".
"We were as stumped as the next state with the need to change our award winning state recycling program," said Vermont ANR Commissioner David Mears. "But we made lemonade."
John Obfusca of Cali Waste Systems described the new development. "One of our guys, at the end of the shift, just goes 'Hey, what if we just don't recycle it, but we call it something kinda alternativey?' It turns out, you just have to name the process right to get it approved."
Diverting waste from a landfill into another landfill? Land cover that fits the defination (per RFP) of "no land application"? There's an app for that.
Small Northeast State Solves E-Waste Recycling Glut Profitably, with New Validation Procedures
[Middlebury, VT April 1 2014] It turns out there are two ways to solve the E-Waste Recycling Crisis. In a stunning turn of developments, Vermont has validated a brand new way to recycle CRTs.
1. Charge manufacturers more (42 cents per pound rather than 28)
2. Demand less (allow land application)
3. Profit!
Suppose there are two ways to do something. One way takes a lot of labor hours, and then costs a lot to transport and treat the material. The other way takes fewer hours of labor, but creates a mixed mess that is even more extremely expensive to transport and treat the material. Normally, this is called "getting what you paid for".
But with an online thesaurus tool, Vermont "recyclers" are now "solving" this "e-waste" "problem".
 |
| Inequation disproved in 6 month study |
John Obfusca of Cali Waste Systems described the new development. "One of our guys, at the end of the shift, just goes 'Hey, what if we just don't recycle it, but we call it something kinda alternativey?' It turns out, you just have to name the process right to get it approved."
Diverting waste from a landfill into another landfill? Land cover that fits the defination (per RFP) of "no land application"? There's an app for that.
