Jeremy Irons Quotes

Starbucks has stores in America in many, many communities that are governed by many, many different municipalities. Starbucks cannot dictate to a municipality in Cincinnati or Kansas City or Sacramento how or why or when there should be a recycling program.

Increasing recycling in Delaware is an idea whose time has come and, if put off, may not come again.

Number one I think we should impose a fee or a tax on the transportation of trash per mile.

Gramacho is the last landfill that allows people in. Brazil is the leading nation in recycling due to its poverty. There are people there surviving from what they find in the garbage.

The cheap and easy days of waste disposal are over.

We can't have landfills forever, and we can't ask others to accept our trash.

When you have all these traces of trash moving around, you can ask yourself how can we make the system more efficient. Then we can make better decisions. And perhaps we will not throw away the plastic bottles that go every day to the dump.

But in the long run we're not going to be able to keep out of state trash away from Pennsylvania.

I think a moratorium probably is legal, and we should probably for a short period of time impose a moratorium so that we don't permit any additional landfill permits for the time being, so we don't exacerbate the problem.

It's hard to get everybody to recycle paper and plastic, let alone.

Obviously, waste disposal is an enormous and fantastic industry.

If you file your waste-paper basket for fifty years, you have a public library.

And secondly, I would impose a significant state landfill tipping fee and use that tipping fee to fund the billion dollar bond issue that I want to create to produce the funds for all of the environmental challenges that we just went over.

People mean well. But there is an unintended consequence of giving people bigger recycling bins and more opportunities to recycle—soon they want to recycle everything.

Unmanageable waste has turned into a worldwide crisis. No matter how much local authorities do, no matter the level of public cooperation, no matter how much is recycled, the problem continues to grow.

If recycling is the future, then we must focus our efforts on mitigating negative impacts to our community while protecting our environment.

The truth is that it was local councils who asked for the power and the freedom to try different ways of encouraging residents to reduce the amount they throw way away, and it was Labour that gave them these powers.

The Puente Hills Landfill, about sixteen miles east of downtown Los Angeles, serves 5 million people in seventy-eight California cities, one of six landfills operated by the Sanitation Districts of L.A. County.

Seoul will build more resource recovery facilities and establish new recycling facilities with the aim of achieving zero landfills of domestic waste.

Pollution is a problem, and there's the whole problem of the spoiling of the commons, but we've addressed the pollution problem on a variety of different levels in a variety of ways, and it's worked pretty well.

We subsidize the disposal of waste in all its myriad forms — from landfills, to Superfund cleanups, to deep-well injection, to storage of nuclear waste. In the process, we encourage an economy where 80 percent of what we consume gets thrown away after one use.

Waste is only waste if we waste it.

Recycling is a good thing to do. It makes people feel good to do it. The thing I want to emphasize is the vast difference between recycling for the purpose of feeling good and recycling for the purpose of solving the trash problem.

If we can recycle a valuable product that serves an important purpose - and create jobs in the process - then why wouldn't we? Well, that's exactly what fly ash offers.

A Smart City cannot be imagined without proper recycling.