E-mail communication

Below is an email sent from the recycling program manager of the South Bayside Waste Management Authority to a Frederick County resident in June 2009. As you will see, not all waste authorities are created equal, and most do not recommend incineration. Hundreds of communities have declined incineration strictly for financial reasons (as Frederick County itself has done in the past), but the San Francisco Bay area is a progressive place that we should try to emulate for its comprehensive recycling and composting programs.

* * * * *

It's hard to fathom that with all the technological and social advances regarding the scientifically confirmed urgency to address the issue of climate change, that a community would consider incineration as the preferable solid waste management priority. Simply put, incineration encourages consumption which is counter to any reasonable strategy to divert waste from landfill and mitigate one of our key impacts on climate change. While there may be a place for incineration of non-recyclable resources in the hierarchy of responsible solid waste management strategies, it surely should be viewed as a last resort. There are numerous points to be made in opposition of incineration and by no means am I trying to be comprehensive, including:

Financial — What are the capital requirements and how is the project funded? $500+ million paid for through rates? Is this equitable and prudent? Would this level of capital investment be otherwise needed to develop an infrastructure to handle the waste stream in a cost effective and environmentally responsible manner? Is this a prudent investment given the current uncertainties in our economy and the inherent need to ensure materials flow through a facility of this type to ensure the debt service needs are met?

Environmental — A fundamental precept of responsible solid waste management is adherence to a hierarchy of how materials should be handled. Burning readily recoverable or recyclable commodities for their BTU value is surely the lowest and worse use of resources, whereas reuse of these materials is the highest and best use and recycling the next highest, followed by composting. (This is but one of a lengthy list of issues that need to be taken into account: public health - air quality, ash disposal, continued harvesting and consumption of resources, etc.)

Social — In order to responsibly plan for an ever growing population faced with diminishing resources, is it conscionable to simply disregard these realities and encourage, in the form of required debt service and lack of otherwise meaningful strategies to institute behavior change, continued ignorance of more responsible and cost effective approaches to solid waste management?

Jobs — A responsible approach to development of viable solid waste management alternatives (or any public works or similar project) includes the overall impact on jobs and the quality of these jobs and the impact of such on the community. While building an incinerator would surely result in construction jobs over a relatively short time frame, developing or supplementing a sustainable, free market infrastructure to collect and process recoverable materials would generate significantly more jobs and increase the value to the local communities that reap the benefits of this infrastructure.

Any one of these and too many to count other points should be explored prior to relying on incineration as an option. So, what is the solution? One approach may be to:

This is but one perspective and I hope it is helpful.

Please keep me posted on your progress.

Thanks,

Cliff

Cliff Feldman
Recycling Program Manager
South Bayside Waste Management Authority
ph: 650.802.3502
fax: 650.802.3501
www.RethinkWaste.org


 

Bookmark and Share