San Francisco Mandatory Recycling and Composting Ordinance

Last updated

The San Francisco Mandatory Recycling and Composting Ordinance (No. 100-09) is a local municipal ordinance requiring all persons located in San Francisco to separate their recyclables, compostables and landfilled trash and to participate in recycling and composting programs. [1] Passed by the San Francisco Board of Supervisors in 2009, it became the first local municipal ordinance in the United States to universally require source separation of all organic material, including food residuals. [2] [3]

Contents

History

Early 1900s

The roots of San Francisco's recycling and composting program can be traced back to the formation of the Scavengers Protective Union in 1879, when loose federations of scavengers began. Most were Italian immigrants from one region of Italy and they hauled municipal waste in horse-drawn wagons and hand-separated valuable discards for resale. [4] [5] The scavengers made a living from materials similar to those salvaged in recycling programs today such as wood, metals, glass, rags, yard trimmings and food residuals. [4] At that time, some of the materials were used as fuel, others were recycled and the yard debris and food residuals were sold to hog farmers in the outlying neighborhoods of the city for use as animal feed.

In 1921, the city began regulating waste collection and around the same time, scavengers, who were fiercely competing for the same materials, began forming associations. Rates were set under the 1932 ordinance, and required voter approval to change. This was modified by an amendment to the 1932 ordinance, approved by the voters in 1954 and effective in 1955, which established a rate adjustment system managed by city staff.

Cooperation amongst the former rivals allowed them to pool their resources. [6] The two loose associations became known as Scavenger's Protective Association and Sunset Scavenger Company. These two entities eventually merged, and as a result all of the permits issued by the city came to be held by one entity. Exclusive refuse collection licenses for the city were issued in 1932—licenses still held today under the parent company, Recology. [6] [7] This steadfast relationship between the city and Recology San Francisco has resulted in a reliable public-private partnership, allowing San Francisco to design experimental pilot programs such as city-wide curbside organics collection. [7]

1950s–1970s

Although San Francisco has the highest diversion rate amongst all large cities in the United States today, [7] in the late 1950s, the advent of packer trucks forced the city's recycling rate to an all-time low. Because separation of compacted materials was unfeasible, by 1967 Sunset Scavenger company and Golden Gate Disposal had scaled back their recycling operations to a mere two programs, metals and paper recycling. [5] However, the 1970s brought a renewed interest in resource conservation. The federal Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act were signed into legislation and the first Earth Day celebration was held on April 22, 1970. In the spirit of these times, San Francisco residents proactively organized to create new volunteer-run community recycling centers. By 1980, San Francisco had a total of ten community recycling centers, offering residents the opportunity to recycle their newspaper, glass and cans. [5]

1980s–1990s

Fantastic Three bins for events Fantastic Three Bins for Events.jpeg
Fantastic Three bins for events

In 1980, under the city's chief administrative officer, the San Francisco Recycling Program (SFRP) was developed as a division of the Solid Waste Management Program. The goal of the SFRP was to facilitate and develop recycling programs throughout the city. After receiving a grant from the state in 1981, the city established three buy-back centers and launched its first curbside recycling program. With the passage of California's Bottle Bill (AB2020) in 1986, all community recycling centers in San Francisco began offering monetary compensation for materials with a California Redemption Value.

While this initial curbside recycling collection was unsuccessful due to scavengers, San Francisco continued to promote recycling efforts. The city formed an advisory council to help design another residential curbside pilot and collaboratively started two new programs targeting bar and restaurant glass collection and city government office paper recycling. [5] In 1988, San Francisco's Solid Waste Management Program set diversion goals, calling for a 32 percent reduction in the city's waste stream by 1992 and 43 percent by 2002. However, in 1989, the California legislature preempted San Francisco's goals by passing the Integrated Waste Management Act (AB 939), which set waste reduction goals of 25 percent by 1995 and 50 percent by 2000. The city's diversion goals were amended shortly after to reflect the new state requirements. [5]

By 1989, the city had begun a series of new curbside pilot programs, collecting mixed paper and containers (glass, aluminum and plastic). [8] This program was fully operational by 1991, and contributed to San Francisco's achievement of 27 percent diversion in 1990. [5] By 1997, the program had led to an additional 15,500 tons of recyclables diverted, yet a 1996 waste characterization study illustrated additional opportunities for reaching AB939 goals. According to the study, 60,000 tons of unrecovered recyclables remained in the waste stream, 26 percent of which were food residuals. Because San Francisco is a dense city, yard waste was found to make up only 5 percent of the residential waste stream. These findings, in conjunction with AB939 diversion requirements, prompted San Francisco to develop new curbside recycling pilots that included the collection of food residuals. [8]

Pilot programs are commonly used as a mechanism for determining prospective infrastructure investments and educational tactics including, "collection containers, vehicles, outreach needs, processing needs and the impact of neighborhoods with different demographics." [9] In 1999, San Francisco and Recology rolled out their most recent pilot, a dedicated color-coded cart system called the Fantastic Three. [10] The color-coded cart system was designed to make recycling and composting easy for residents, with each color signifying the type of materials accepted (blue=recycling, green=organics, black=landfill). The Fantastic Three also integrated financial incentives for participation. The program's pay as you throw framework allowed residents and businesses to reap savings as their trash volumes decreased. [9] Within seven months, the Fantastic Three helped to increase diversion by more than 90 percent amongst participating businesses and residents and generated a 73 percent satisfaction rating. [9] [10] With this success rate, Recology, in collaboration with the city, invested in a plan to further expand the program. [9]

2000s to present

Having invested in the infrastructure to increase the diversion of organics and recyclables from landfills, San Francisco realized a 50 percent diversion rate shortly after the Fantastic Three program was officially introduced. However, the city decided to pursue higher diversion rates than those required by the state for several reasons. First, the 1997 Sustainability Plan adopted by the Board of Supervisors included a long-term goal "to maximize sustainable uses of natural resources and to eliminate solid waste generation in the City and County of San Francisco." [11] Additionally, Alameda County adopted Measure D which, "set a goal of achieving a 75 percent waste diversion rate by 2010 and as a condition of the Waste Disposal Agreement for disposing San Francisco waste in the Altamont Landfill in Alameda County, the City was required to recycle or divert waste at the same or greater level than that of East Bay (Alameda County) jurisdictions using the Altamont landfill." [11] As a result, the Board of Supervisors passed the Zero Waste Goal (Resolution No. 007-02-COE) in 2002, requiring San Francisco to divert 75 percent of its waste by 2010 and to achieve zero waste by 2020. [11]

While the city's investment in the Fantastic Three program demonstrated its ability to achieve high diversion rates and encouraged the creation of new goals, the Zero Waste resolution built the framework from which new waste reduction legislation could be drafted. Shortly after the Zero Waste Goal passed, the city began to adopt a series of waste reduction policies as a means to meet its goal of zero waste. A timeline of select waste-reduction legislation is listed below:

There were a number of other San Francisco waste reduction policies passed during this time; most of them focus on city government operations. For example, the Mayor's Executive Order on Bottled Water bans the purchase of bottled water with city funds, while the Precautionary Purchasing Ordinance "requires city departments to purchase products that maximize post-consumer recycled content and recyclable or compostable materials, and that favor durability, repairability, and reuse." [12] All of the aforementioned policies have had large impacts on diversion rates and by the end of 2007, the city had reached 72 percent. However, it was clear that increased participation in the residential curbside collection program was desirable if San Francisco were to reach zero waste by 2020. According to Jack Macy, Commercial Zero Waste Coordinator for the City of San Francisco, if everyone in San Francisco participated in the program by separating all the materials accepted, a 90 percent diversion rate would be achievable. [13] San Francisco realized that voluntary participation would not suffice, and in 2009, the Board of Supervisors passed the Mandatory Recycling and Composting Ordinance, requiring all persons in San Francisco to separate their recyclables, compostables and landfilled trash and to participate in recycling and composting programs.

The mandatory ordinance represents further investment in recycling infrastructure and in San Francisco's goal of zero waste. It has provided the leverage of law and participation rates have increased as a result. Since the mandatory ordinance went into effect, "composting has increased by 45 percent, and the City is now sending nearly 600 tons of food scraps, soiled paper, and yard trimmings to Recology's compost facilities daily, up from 400 tons a year ago." [14] In August 2010, San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom announced the city's diversion rate had reached 77 percent. [14]

Key requirements

Opposition

Since construction and demolition sites already possessed a high diversion rate prior to the mandatory ordinance, the initial impact of the ordinance was mostly on homes and businesses. Landlords expressed early concern over the challenge of finding space for bins, as well as over possible odors. Despite these concerns, the ordinance remained popular overall, polling 85% prior to passing. [16] Before passing, the cap on fines was also lowered from $1,000 to $100 to address opposition to the possible size of fines. [17]

Of the Board of Supervisors, only Carmen Chu and Sean Elsbernd opposed Gavin Newsom's proposal. Elsbernd was concerned about the preexisting problem of scavengers in trash cans and that the ordinance would worsen this problem. He was also concerned about fines being pursued heavily despite the assurance they would be lenient.

After clauses making apartment owners responsible for their tenants' sorting were eliminated, the San Francisco Apartment Association took a neutral stance on the ordinance. [18]

Implementation assistance and enforcement

To aid San Francisco residents in a smooth transition to the new ordinance, the city and San Francisco's municipal solid waste collector, Recology, offered free services including consultations and multilingual training sessions to educate residents. They also offered materials to aid the physical collection process: pails to collect compost, signs, and labels to instruct others on how to separate their recyclables, trash, and food scraps. [19]

There are also financial incentives for reducing waste thrown in the trash bin. Both composting and recycling are less costly per month than the trash bill. [20] The city newsletter highlighted this fact and suggested diverting more waste to recycling and composting bins, lowering trash bills by requesting less frequent trash collection, and using smaller trash bins to lessen the financial burden on residents. [21]

In the event of "egregious" cases of noncompliance, or failure to separate recyclables, compostables, and trash, fines up to $100 for single-family homes and up to $1000 for large businesses are issued. [22]

Connections to state and local statutes and initiatives

California Assembly Bill 32

San Francisco's mandatory ordinance supports California's greenhouse gas reduction goals as expressed in the scoping plan for the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32). Commercial recycling, composting, diverting waste from landfill sites (with an eventual zero waste goal), and addressing methane release at these sites are all stated goals of AB 32. Recycling makes use of the embodied energy in recovered materials. Using recycled material in the manufacture of products thus saves energy that would be consumed in the materials-extraction, pre-manufacture, and manufacture lifecycle stages of products. Diversion of organic matter for other uses similarly reduces greenhouse gas emissions (see Food Waste Treatment section). The AB 32 scoping plan also lists organics diverted from the waste stream as a potential source of biofuel production, which could further reduce greenhouse gas emissions if substituted for fossil fuels.

AB 32 further directs that the California Air Resources Board (ARB) will work with the California Department of Resource Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) to create a mandatory commercial recycling program, and partnerships between California and local government recycling and composting programs such as San Francisco's mandatory ordinance. Statewide, such diversions from the waste stream are expected to conservatively produce the following greenhouse gas savings in millions of metric tons (MMT) of carbon dioxide equivalents:

San Francisco's Climate Action Plan

San Francisco's Mandatory Recycling and Composting Ordinance also contributes to the San Francisco Climate Action Plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Most greenhouse gases attributed to waste are the result of energy consumed in lifecycle stages upstream from the landfill (materials extraction, pre-manufacture, manufacture, and transport), not from the landfill itself. In 2001, San Francisco's actions to divert materials from Altamont landfill into recycled products reduced greenhouse gas emissions from these upstream lifecycle stages by the equivalent of 768,000 tons of carbon dioxide, vs. manufacturing these same products from virgin materials. This shift away from virgin materials represents a 75–80% savings in net greenhouse gas emissions for paper, glass, copper, and steel, and a 97.5% savings for aluminum. The recycling of paper has an additional carbon sequestration effect through forest conservation. Diversion of organic material into composting also reduces greenhouse emissions, since applying compost as a soil amendment helps to sequester carbon. In this vein, San Francisco's mandatory recycling and composting ordinance supports the city's 2002 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Resolution to reduce emissions to 20% less than 1990 levels by no later than 2012.

San Francisco's 2004 Climate Action Plan recommended mandatory residential and commercial recycling and composting policies to increase diversion of material from landfills. The Climate Action Plan projected estimated reductions in tons of emitted carbon dioxide equivalents from specific economic sectors and actions:

Alameda County landfill ban

As stated in the history section, landfill limitations placed on San Francisco by Alameda County influenced San Francisco's decision to move toward greater diversion. Alameda County has continued to move towards greater diversion, and on January 1, 2010, Alameda County implemented a new landfill ban targeted at professional landscapers. This ban prohibits garbage contaminants (such as bottles or plastic film) in plant debris brought to plant debris disposal facilities, since these contaminants may require the organic waste facility to reject the entire contaminated load. Similarly, the ban forbids plant debris to be disposed of in garbage. The ban is backed by fines of up to $500 per offense for repeat offenders. [25]

Plastic bag ban precedent

Plastic and styrofoam contamination in municipal compost Plastic and Styrofoam Contamination in Municipal Compost.jpg
Plastic and styrofoam contamination in municipal compost

One of San Francisco's waste reduction measures, the city's Plastic Bag Reduction Ordinance (described in the history section), has achieved national and international attention. Within a year of its implementation, Boston, Portland, and Phoenix were investigating such plastic bag bans, and city supervisor Ross Mirkarimi had fielded inquiries from Paris and London. However, the Marin County suburb of Fairfax retreated from a similar ban when the plastic bag industry threatened legal action. Mayor Mary Ann Maggiore stated that the city was too small to fight the suit. [26] On April 26, 2011, the San Francisco Bay Area county of Santa Clara also passed a plastic bag ban in unincorporated areas of the county, but this ban excludes restaurants and non-profit organizations. [27]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Recycling</span> Converting waste materials into new products

Recycling is the process of converting waste materials into new materials and objects. This concept often includes the recovery of energy from waste materials. The recyclability of a material depends on its ability to reacquire the properties it had in its original state. It is an alternative to "conventional" waste disposal that can save material and help lower greenhouse gas emissions. It can also prevent the waste of potentially useful materials and reduce the consumption of fresh raw materials, reducing energy use, air pollution and water pollution.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Waste management</span> Activities and actions required to manage waste from its source to its final disposal

Waste management or waste disposal includes the processes and actions required to manage waste from its inception to its final disposal. This includes the collection, transport, treatment, and disposal of waste, together with monitoring and regulation of the waste management process and waste-related laws, technologies, and economic mechanisms.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Zero waste</span> Philosophy that encourages the redesign of resource life cycles so that all products are reused

Zero waste, or waste minimization, is a set of principles focused on waste prevention that encourages redesigning resource life cycles so that all products are repurposed and/or reused. The goal of the movement is to avoid sending trash to landfills, incinerators, oceans, or any other part of the environment. Currently 9% of global plastic is recycled. In a zero waste system, all materials are reused until the optimum level of consumption is reached.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Recycling bin</span> Container used to hold recyclables before they are taken to recycling centers

A recycling bin is a container used to hold recyclables before they are taken to recycling centers. Recycling bins exist in various sizes for use inside and outside of homes, offices, and large public facilities. Separate containers are often provided for paper, tin or aluminum cans, and glass or plastic bottles, with some bins allowing for commingled, mixed recycling of various materials.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Municipal solid waste</span> Type of waste consisting of everyday items discarded by the public

Municipal solid waste (MSW), commonly known as trash or garbage in the United States and rubbish in Britain, is a waste type consisting of everyday items that are discarded by the public. "Garbage" can also refer specifically to food waste, as in a garbage disposal; the two are sometimes collected separately. In the European Union, the semantic definition is 'mixed municipal waste,' given waste code 20 03 01 in the European Waste Catalog. Although the waste may originate from a number of sources that has nothing to do with a municipality, the traditional role of municipalities in collecting and managing these kinds of waste have produced the particular etymology 'municipal.'

Pay as you throw (PAYT) is a usage-pricing model for disposing of municipal solid waste. Users are charged a rate based on how much waste they present for collection to the municipality or local authority.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Kerbside collection</span> Household waste collection service

Kerbside collection or curbside collection is a service provided to households, typically in urban and suburban areas, of collecting and disposing of household waste and recyclables. It is usually accomplished by personnel using specially built vehicles to pick up household waste in containers that are acceptable to, or prescribed by, the municipality and are placed on the kerb.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Green waste</span> Biodegradable waste

Green waste, also known as "biological waste", is any organic waste that can be composted. It is most usually composed of refuse from gardens such as grass clippings or leaves, and domestic or industrial kitchen wastes. Green waste does not include things such as dried leaves, pine straw, or hay. Such materials are rich in carbon and considered "brown wastes," while green wastes contain high concentrations of nitrogen. Green waste can be used to increase the efficiency of many composting operations and can be added to soil to sustain local nutrient cycling.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Biodegradable waste</span> Organic matter that can be broken down

Biodegradable waste includes any organic matter in waste which can be broken down into carbon dioxide, water, methane, compost, humus, and simple organic molecules by micro-organisms and other living things by composting, aerobic digestion, anaerobic digestion or similar processes. It mainly includes kitchen waste, ash, soil, dung and other plant matter. In waste management, it also includes some inorganic materials which can be decomposed by bacteria. Such materials include gypsum and its products such as plasterboard and other simple sulfates which can be decomposed by sulfate reducing bacteria to yield hydrogen sulfide in anaerobic land-fill conditions.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Landfill diversion</span>

Waste diversion or landfill diversion is the process of diverting waste from landfills. The success of landfill diversion can be measured by comparison of the size of the landfill from one year to the next. If the landfill grows minimally or remains the same, then policies covering landfill diversion are successful. For example, currently in the United States there are 3000 landfills. A measure of the success of landfill diversion would be if that number remains the same or is reduced. In 2015 it was recorded that the national average of landfill diversion in the United States was 33.8%, while San Francisco had implemented the most effective policies and had recorded a landfill diversion rate of 77%.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Green bin</span> Container for biodegradable waste or compostable materials

A green bin is a large, movable, rigid plastic or metal container that contains biodegradable waste or compostable materials as a means to divert waste from landfills. In some local authorities, green bins are also used to contain unsorted municipal solid waste.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Recycling in Canada</span>

This article outlines the position and trends of recycling in Canada. Since the 1980s, most mid to large municipalities in most provinces have recycling programs, relying on curbside collection with either bins, boxes, or bags. These systems are not standardized, and the specific process differs for each province. Certain provinces have container-deposit systems in place for bottles, cans, and other beverage containers.

There is no national law in the United States that mandates recycling. State and local governments often introduce their own recycling requirements. In 2014, the recycling/composting rate for municipal solid waste in the U.S. was 34.6%. A number of U.S. states, including California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, New York, Oregon, and Vermont have passed laws that establish deposits or refund values on beverage containers while other jurisdictions rely on recycling goals or landfill bans of recyclable materials.

The California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery is a branch of the California Environmental Protection Agency that oversees the state's waste management, recycling, and waste reduction programs. CalRecycle was established in 2010 to replace the California Integrated Waste Management Board. It is known for administering the California Redemption Value (CRV) program, among other responsibilities.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Recology</span>

Recology, formerly known as Norcal Waste Systems, is a waste management company headquartered in San Francisco, California. The company collects and processes municipal solid waste, reclaiming reusable materials. The company also operates transfer stations, materials recovery facilities (MRFs), a number of landfills, and continues to spearhead renewable energy projects. Recology is the largest organics compost facility operator by volume in the United States.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Source-separated organics</span>

Source-separated organics (SSO) is the system by which waste generators segregate compostable materials from other waste streams at the source for separate collection.

Game day recycling is the idea that having large crowds of people in a small, concentrated space will generate a great deal of refuse and products that require recycling. A home football game at a college with a high-capacity stadium can attract up to 110,000 people. However, because colleges only play a limited number of games at home throughout each season, the game-day recycling programs are usually specialized and separated from the school’s regular recycling program.

The City of Oakland, California, adopted a Zero Waste Strategic Plan in 2006, detailing a road map for the city to follow toward the implementation of a Zero Waste System by 2020. As stated in a City Resolution, introduced by then Mayor Jerry Brown, Zero Waste principles:

Statistical data shows that waste management in Winnipeg during the COVID-19 Pandemic.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">New York City waste management system</span> New York Citys refuse removal system

New York City's waste management system is a refuse removal system primarily run by the New York City Department of Sanitation (DSNY). The department maintains the waste collection infrastructure and hires public and private contractors who remove the city's waste. For the city's population of more than eight million, The DSNY collects approximately eleven thousand tons a day of garbage, including compostable material and recycling.

References

  1. ↑ "Mandatory Recycling and Composting Ordinance" (PDF). San Francisco Department of the Environment. Retrieved 25 April 2011.
  2. ↑ Coté, John (10 June 2009). "S.F. OKs Toughest Recycling Law in U.S." San Francisco Chronicle . Retrieved 25 April 2011.
  3. ↑ "Case Study: San Francisco Fantastic Three Program". CalRecycle . Archived from the original on 29 October 2011. Retrieved 25 April 2011.
  4. 1 2 Perry, Stewart (1978). San Francisco Scavengers: Dirty Work and Pride of Ownership . Berkeley and Los Angeles California: University of California Press. pp.  19. ISBN   9780520035188.
  5. 1 2 3 4 5 6 "In-Depth Studies of Recycling and Composting Programs: Designs, Costs, Results". United States Environmental Protection Agency . Retrieved 25 April 2011.
  6. 1 2 "History: Enterprise and Innovation". Recology . Archived from the original on 28 June 2011. Retrieved 10 May 2011.
  7. 1 2 3 Tam, Laura (3 February 2010). "Toward Zero Waste". The Urbanist. No. 489. San Francisco Planning and Urban Research Association . Retrieved 25 April 2011.
  8. 1 2 Assmann, David (September 1998). "Making Recycling Collection More Effective". Resource Recycling: 1–3.
  9. 1 2 3 4 Liss, Gary; Brenda Platt (March 2001). "San Francisco's Triple Play". Resource Recycling.
  10. 1 2 Macy, Jack. "San Francisco Takes Residential Organics Collection Full-Scale". BioCycle Magazine. Archived from the original on 7 August 2011. Retrieved 30 April 2011.
  11. 1 2 3 "Zero Waste Goal (Resolution No. 007-02-COE)" (PDF). San Francisco Department of the Environment. Retrieved 30 April 2011.
  12. ↑ "Zero Waste Legislation and Initiatives". San Francisco Department of the Environment. Archived from the original on 22 July 2011. Retrieved 30 April 2011.
  13. ↑ Yepsen, Rhodes. "Food Waste Diversion Promoted on the Street". BioCycle Magazine. Archived from the original on 28 September 2011. Retrieved 30 April 2011.
  14. 1 2 "SF Attains 77 Percent Recycling". San Francisco Department of the Environment. Archived from the original on 4 June 2011. Retrieved 1 May 2011.
  15. ↑ "San Francisco, California - Environmental Code". Municipal Code Corporation. Archived from the original on 19 December 2010. Retrieved 19 March 2011.
  16. ↑ Charles, Jacoba (15 April 2009). "San Francisco Closes the Lid on Garbage". Mother Nature Network . Archived from the original on 29 January 2013. Retrieved 18 April 2011.
  17. ↑ Coté, John (8 August 2008). "S.F. Mayor Limits Recycling Violation Fines". San Francisco Chronicle . Retrieved 18 April 2011.
  18. ↑ Cote, John (10 June 2009). "S.F. OKs toughest recycling law in U.S." SF Gate. Hearst Newspapers. Retrieved 29 November 2017.
  19. ↑ "Zero Waste Toolkit - Businesses". San Francisco Department of the Environment. 15 October 2011. Retrieved 29 November 2017.
  20. ↑ McClellan, Jennifer (3 August 2017). "How San Francisco's mandatory composting laws turn food waste into profit". AZ Central . Retrieved 29 November 2017.
  21. ↑ "San Francisco Mandatory Recycling and Composting Ordinance" (PDF). San Francisco Department of the Environment. Retrieved 29 November 2017.
  22. ↑ Wollan, Malia (11 June 2009). "San Francisco to Toughen a Strict Recycling Law". The New York Times . Retrieved 29 November 2017.
  23. ↑ "Climate Change Scoping Plan: A Framework for Change". California Environmental Protection Agency Air Resources Board. Retrieved 24 April 2011.
  24. ↑ "Climate Action Plan for San Francisco: Local Actions to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions". San Francisco Department of the Environment. Archived from the original on 27 May 2011. Retrieved 30 May 2011.
  25. ↑ "Professional Landscapers and Gardeners in Alameda County Must Keep Plant Debris Garbage-Free". Alameda County Waste Management Authority & Alameda County Source Reduction and Recycling Board. Archived from the original on 19 July 2011. Retrieved 1 May 2011.
  26. ↑ Gorn, David (27 March 2008). "San Francisco Plastic Bag Ban Interests Other Cities". National Public Radio . Retrieved 1 May 2011.
  27. ↑ Bigler, Matt (26 April 2011). "Santa Clara Country Approves Plastic Bag Ban". KCBS San Francisco. Retrieved 6 May 2011.


This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.