EXCERPT: …. Starbucks and McDonald’s have emerged as leaders in the green fast food movement. For the past few years, the two companies have been working on improving their sourcing, cutting down on their packaging, and lobbying the FDA to increase the amount of recycled fibers that are allowed in fast food packaging.
________________

When you think of green companies, fast food chains don’t exactly top the list. Fast food, after all, takes ingredients grown in monocultures around the world, transports them in gas-guzzling trucks and ships, then prepares them in air-conditioned kitchens before swaddling them in piles of plastic and paper that will eventually find their way into landfills. Overall, not an Earth-friendly process.

But what if fast food companies could find ways to chip away at those problem areas?

Some, like Chipotle, have started using solar cells and hyper-efficient plumbing to cut down on their carbon footprints. Others have installed recycling bins and segregated trash, to ensure that compostable materials and recyclables get disposed of properly.

But perhaps most impressively, some fast food chains are taking aim at their packaging.

To anybody whose memory stretches back to the 1980s, a company like McDonald’s might feel like the least-green business on the planet. After all, it spent decades packing its billions and billions of burgers into petroleum-based Styrofoam containers.

For that matter, fast food coffee can be similarly un-green. Between Styrofoam cups, plastic lids and cardboard sleeves, your basic latte is eight ounces of rainforest-destroying caffeine surrounded by another few ounces of Earth-killing waste products.

But it doesn’t have to be that way. Starbucks and McDonald’s have emerged as leaders in the green fast food movement. For the past few years, the two companies have been working on improving their sourcing, cutting down on their packaging, and lobbying the FDA to increase the amount of recycled fibers that are allowed in fast food packaging.

Recently, Starbucks took the trend a step further with its reuseable cups. Sold for $1 apiece, the cups last for about a month, cut down on the company’s paper waste, and offer customers a low-cost way to improve their own carbon footprints. Not surprisingly, they’re also profitable: By reducing waste, Starbucks trims its trash hauling costs. Beyond that, it also drives sales — customers save 10 percent on their refills if they use the cups, a factor that seems likely to lure them in more often. Starbucks isn’t the only chain hopping on the reusable trend. Many companies offer pricey reusable mugs, but a growing number are bringing in inexpensive, semi-disposable, reusable vessels. For example, Just Salad, a New York-based chain, offers reusable salad bowls. When customers bring them back in, they get free toppings on their salads.

The key to these sorts of initiatives is that they don’t just benefit the environment: They also benefit the companies that employ them. After all, while Just Salad’s bowls ensure that less plastic makes its way into landfills, they also give customers an added incentive to walk back through its doors at lunchtime. As an increasing number of restaurants discover the profit potential in going green, it will only become easier for consumers to cut down on their own waste.

Read more…

You can download a pdf of the report here:

http://ccgovernment.carr.org/ccg/pubworks/sw-workgroup/SWWG-Rpt-Nov2012.pdf

Go to Slideshow >>

Read the Entire post (PDF)…

See entire Article on The Frederick News Post Website

Only about a third of those who signed up to speak had their voices heard Wednesday night at a public hearing on the water permit being considered by the state for the proposed waste-to-energy incinerator in Frederick.

The two-hour public hearing scheduled by the Maryland Department of the Environment started with more than an hour of comments by state officials. The hearing was held at the C. Burr Artz Public Library, and had to end when the library closed at 8 p.m.

Read Full Article

As a retired accounting professional and Carroll County resident, I was interested in looking carefully at this issue by examining the contracts between NEA and both Counties. Here is what I found.

The NEA is working under contract for Frederick and Carroll Counties. The NEA will issue the bonds and they will be responsible for paying the bond holders. The Counties will be contractually obligated to pay NEA for whatever NEA bills them.

There is a contract titled "Energy Recovery Agreement between Frederick County, Maryland and the Northeast Maryland Waste Disposal Authority" dated July 29, 2009 that identifies very clearly the financial obligations of Frederick County. At the bottom of page 11 it says the county must pay to the NEA the energy recovery fee which includes Debt Service, Facility Fee, Alternate Disposal Costs, Operating Costs, NEA Administrative Costs, Variable Costs minus NEA Component Revenues.

When an expense is an obligation of the County, taxpayers of that County are obligated to pay. I invite you to see for yourself. Here is the link to the Energy agreement between Frederick County and NEA http://www.nmwda.org/fcqa/pdf/fredrick_agreement.pdf.

Please read pages 11 & 12 so you can find out the whole truth about the bond financing.
In addition, on page 57 of the contract between NEA and Wheelabrator, it clearly states under item (B) Flow of Funds that the general order of priority is payment of facility operating expenses first and payment of debt service second. This increases the possibility that Frederick taxpayers will be "on the hook" for the bonds because plant revenues will be used to pay the contractor first.

Did you really think that somebody else would be paying off the bonds for Frederick County?

Bruce Holstein

Carroll County

See: Company Profiles (HTML / PDF)

Related: Google Search – Resource Recovery Parks

Austin Resource Recovery also provides trash and recycling collection for some small businesses located in residential areas that do not require Dumpsters and manages contracts for the collection of trash and recycling in the Downtown Austin Recycling & Trash Service District. In December 2011, the Austin City Council approved the Austin Resource Recovery Master Plan, which is the City’s roadmap to Zero Waste. The City of Austin is committed to reducing the amount of waste sent to area landfills by 90 percent by 2040 or sooner.