Prop 87 may not be the perfect solution but it is a start. We pay now rather than later…what legacy are you leaving your kids. With Bush in office we are already deeper (very much deeper) in dept, problems with social security and medicare as the baby boomers become eligible…and bond payments for who knows what…now global warming. It is time we take some responsibility and pay our for our mistakes and our own way. Invest in the future to help those out who will be paying for your future.

Also I heard today, we are currently paying for so much for the war in Iraq that they need to cut financial aid for our own children for college… a war “with no end in site”…just benchmarks without consequences.

Once again no matter who you vote for Mayor or City Council vote yes for prop 87.

* Sustainable energy, including bio-diesel fuel and solar power”

The city of San Francisco is looking to run emergency vehicles like firetrucks on the stuff. Very low in harmful emisions. Berkeley ran it’s recycling trucks on it until they got some bad batches and lost two engines. There are now quality control standards in place and they are returning to using it. Our public works director has been slow to come around on this one.

I would hate to see bigger trucks as it is they cut the corner to much and run over my yard. I keep replacing the dirt but then they running over it again. The trucks have to get into some tight spaces..I can’t see bigger trucks. But if they can do the same job with the same size truck, and all the points you bring up on your post are address properly I would be for it.

Maybe instead of changing thing in ways they might not work they could pay a little more and get natural gas trucks (which I have here do let off any emissions) or look into something else.

Although it’s true that the same mass of waste would be moved in either case, Ms. Bail is actually correct in concluding that one truck would be more efficient than three, all other things being equal. That’s because there is a fixed amount of energy required just to haul the truck and its driver along for a given distance, even if the truck is empty. Of course, the catch here is the phrase “all other things being equal” . . . in real life, they are not necessarily equal, as I will now attempt to demonstrate.

What if the three types of waste are not destined for the same processing facility? The single truck might have to travel out of its way to hit all three facilities, whereas multiple trucks could each take the shortest route. The energy saved might cancel out the amount used by the extra trucks.

OK, but if there is a single processing facility, then a single truck with multiple compartments might work, right? Maybe, but what happens when one of those compartments fills up? Presumably, the truck would have to go all the way to the processing facility to unload, even if the other two compartments were nearly empty, and such extra trips could well cancel out the energy savings. Of course, this problem does not occur with multiple trucks. The only other way to solve this would be to have compartments whose size could be adjusted to account for variations in the waste stream; for example, there will be more yard waste in the summer than in the winter.

The point I’m trying to make is that even seemingly simple things like picking up waste are often complex problems, and when someone offers you an easy answer to a complex problem, it’s often too good to be true. Our elected representatives need to be able to think through the implications of their proposals, not just conjure up off-the-cuff schemes that sound good.

ACP decided to send this information to the papers and let them do what they wished, which to date seems to be nothing.
It was my job to forward the material and I made the unilateral decision to also send it to Lauren and Don Roberts.

I am glad Greenist had the same immediate reaction I did to Pat’s answers. I complained on the ACP list serve that Pat seemed not to grasp the concept of conservation of mass and I got flak from a slate supporter who supposed there might be some logic to her answer.

Eugenie’s answers lack specifics (so much for a transportation background). Ditto for Ash, lots of coulda-woulda-shoulda!

Lena Tam and Frank have perhaps the most thoughtful answers!