The Problems with Waste
"Recycling. Ho hum. Everybody does it, but what
difference does it make? That was my original reaction … How wrong I was!
…Recycling has morphed into a new concept called "Zero Waste" and suddenly…’recycling’
is posing a fundamental challenge to ‘business as usual.’ Zero Waste has the
potential to motivate people to change their lifestyles, demand new products,
and insist that corporations and governments behave in new ways. This is a very
exciting development.”
- Peter Montague, director of the Environmental
Research Foundation
Solid waste is essentially garbage: waste produced in our homes, businesses and some industrial sources. Solid waste production in this country is growing in volume and in toxicity. More and more of our everyday products contain toxic chemicals, such as mercury or PBDEs (flame retardant chemicals), and these toxic products are combined with a plethora of other chemicals, which eventually impact public health and the environment. There are numerous solid waste facilities in New England, including landfills, incinerators, and a growing number of transfer stations. Many of the older facilities run by municipalities have been closed down because of environmental concerns, paving the way for the waste industry to market their “state-of-the-art” management and facilities.
We
Produce Too Much Waste
In 2007, Americans threw out about 570 billion pounds of municipal
solid waste. Compared to other nations, the United States
has a record of generating waste at an alarming rate. Home to only 4% of the global population, we
are responsible for more than 30% of the planet’s total waste generation. Each American
discards an average of more than 1,650 pounds of garbage every year, or
approximately 4.6 pounds per person each day, nearly double the 1960 average of
2.7 pounds per day.
Municipal Solid Waste Generation Rates, 1960 - 2007
(U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. Municipal Solid Waste Generation, Recycling
and Disposal in the United States: Facts and Figures 2007. Table 3: Materials
Discarded in the Municipal Waste Stream 1960 to 2007.)
We live in a time of throw-away
consumerism- a time when companies are producing one time use DVDs so that
consumers don’t have to deal with the “hassle” of renting and returning. The waste stream grows in volume and
toxicity because corporations continue to profit by producing seemingly useless
products, and they are not pressured to prioritize recycling, reuse, or
substitute less toxic alternatives in their ingredients.
Our
Waste Is Toxic
Due to largely to lax governmental regulation on an ever-growing chemical industry, everyday products that are used and thrown away contain more dangerous and health-affecting chemicals than ever before. More than 60,000 untested chemicals pervade the consumer products on our shelves and in our homes. Even those chemicals whose health implications are at this point clear, such as Biphenyl-A (BPA), commonly found in plastics like toys, are poorly regulated. The unprecedented toxicity of garbage exacerbates the problem that nationally we have no clear solution for dealing with waste.
Total Muncipal Solid Waste Generation,
2007: 254 Million Tons (before recycling)
(U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Municipal Solid
Waste Generation, Recycling and Disposal in the United States: Facts and
Figures 2007. Figure 6.)
Packaging
is the largest and most rapidly growing category of solid waste. More than 30% of municipal solid waste is
packaging, and 40% of that waste is plastic.
Plastics never biodegrade; instead, plastic goes through a process
called photodegradation, in which sunlight breaks it down into smaller and
smaller pieces until only plastic dust remains.
Plastic does not disappear – even as dust it persists for centuries,
wreaking havoc in ecosystems. Given its
lifespan, the quantity of plastic waste we throw away is deeply concerning.
Plastic waste has accumulated to the point where degraded plastic pieces of the
central North Pacific outweigh surface zooplankton by a factor of six to one.
Regulations Favor Special Interests
Because
the waste business has become a commercial, money making venture, citizens are
outmatched at the state house by industry lobbyists. Regulations, therefore, currently make it
difficult for communities or states to effectively regulate waste management
facilities, and difficult to devote resources to recycling or waste reduction
programs.
The
waste industry itself is a commercial business. Large corporations like Casella Waste
Industries and Waste Management dominate all aspects of the market and benefit
from operating landfills and incinerators, along with recycling
facilities. Since the waste management
facilities have become big businesses, the corporate need to make a profit
outweighs the community’s need reduce waste and to protect health and the
environment from potentially destructive waste management practices. In fact, even if a community designed and
implemented a zero waste program in their own town, they would not be able to
prevent waste from other municipalities or states from coming into a commercial
facility in their borders.
In
spite of local objections, government officials continue to work hand in hand
with waste industry officials to permit massive expansions to landfills,
increase waste tonnage in incineration, and develop new facilities-like trash
transfer stations-to increase their profits.
Governments are so pressured to find places to dispose waste that they
devote very few resources to developing functional programs for recycling, and
instead rely on short-sighted, quick-fix solutions. As a result, we have become reliant upon
dying technologies to deal with waste.
We are less creative and committed to developing new technologies to
reduce waste and devoting resources to these programs. Problems with solid waste regulation include
a lack of enforcement of environmental regulations at solid waste facilities by
federal and state officials and a tendency of approving expansions once an
initial permit has been granted. Furthermore,
state and federal officials devote few resources to new solid waste programs
that would reduce volume and toxicity of waste or increase recycling.
Landfills
Read more about our work on waste in communities:
Somerset residents take on an incinerator
Northampton halts landfill expansion over aquifer
Activists Work to Strengthen Solid Waste Plan
The
EPA says that all landfills eventually leak, so claims that “state of the art
technology,” will protect our groundwater and our communities by waste industry
representatives are never true. In
addition to threats to groundwater, landfills give off potentially harmful
gases, and odors will often permeate the neighborhoods. Some studies show that birth defects increase
in communities surrounding landfills.
Landfills are often classified by the type of waste they can accept: Municipal waste, medical waste, special
waste, or hazardous waste landfills are four common types. Because even our household waste contains
toxic chemicals, it is not significantly safer to live near a municipal or
special waste landfill than one that accepts more toxic waste. The types of waste accepted at any particular
facility are not regulated or monitored adequately by state agencies, therefore
the companies often have broad discretion regarding what waste is deposited in
the landfill even if the law specifies otherwise. One particular concern with landfills is the
post-closure period, in which many facilities are used as base for athletic
fields, playground, parking lots or other facilities after their active period
is over. Post-closure uses such as this
can lead to cracks in the cover, and subsequent leakage. In addition, waste industry companies are
responsible for the liability for such problems for often no more than 30
years. People living near landfills
suffer loss of quality of life during operation: the facilities cause horrific odor, decreased
property value, and high traffic in their neighborhoods.
For
more information on landfills, see our report Casella:
Coming To A Community Near You?
Waste incineration is a technology
that is virtually impossible to regulate.
Incinerating our waste releases toxic chemicals, such as lead and
mercury, from the smoke stacks, and even produces additional byproducts in the
stacks at certain temperatures (dioxins and furans). Because of a constantly changing waste stream
and the need to maintain very high temperatures, incinerators can rarely
maintain a specific consistent combustion rate over time. They may pass a stack test one day, and be
out of compliance the next day. In
addition, incinerators produce toxic ash when the toxic chemicals and heavy
metals in the waste concentrate in the left over waste at the bottom of the
stack. This waste then has to be
disposed of in a landfill. Incineration
does not eliminate waste; it simply redistributes toxic chemicals into the air
and produces another form of waste (ash) to be landfilled. Another problem with incineration is that
fugitive emissions are often released by “tipping floors,” or the areas where
the waste collects before it goes into the stack. The waste begins to decompose and releases
toxic chemicals into the open air, threatening worker health and safety and
impacting nearby neighborhoods. Quality
of life is also impacted by incinerators, which are plagued by odors, increased
truck traffic and reduced property values.
Trash Transfer Stations: Temporary holding centers and sorting centers
have been developed, called transfer stations, because many states are no
longer opening new landfill facilities.
These centers are designed to facilitate better sorting and transport of
waste. However, they often are built
when they’re not needed, under poor siting conditions, construction of new
stations is driven by profit, and waste is mismanaged on site.
“Tons of imported trash required to feed the Claremont incinerator have
directly competed for and destroyed resources that could be reclaimed through
effective reduction, diversion and reuse efforts. Incineration has consumed
millions of dollars of public funds that could have supported development of
safer, more effective and sustainable waste management policies."
-Jackie
Elliot, activist opposing Wheelabrator incinerator in Claremont, New Hampshire
Gasification,
Pyrolysis, Plasma Arc Technologies
Gasification, pyrolysis, and plasma
arc technologies are marketed by industry as a “green” method of waste
management, but this is not true. These facilities
burn waste with little or no oxygen, making them very similar to traditional
incinerators. Also like incinerators,
gasification facilities release ash into the air that contaminates our health
and environment with toxins. Gasification
and pyrolysis are considered to be “green” because they allow energy to be
produced from burning waste, instead of fossil fuels. Burning waste, however, is not
environmentally sound since toxics are still released into the air. There are safer energy alternatives that produce
energy at lower prices, such as wind and water energy. Gasification diverts energy and resources
away from cleaner energy sources and recycling efforts.
For more information on
incineration, gasification, pyrolysis, and plasma arc technologies, see An Industry Blowing
Smoke: 10 Reasons Why Gasification, Pyrolysis & Plasma Incineration Are Not
"Green Solutions".
The
Solution to our Waste Problems: Move Towards Zero Waste
The
solution to waste rests in reducing the volume and the toxicity of our
garbage. Zero
Waste aims for the elimination of, rather than simply the “management” of,
waste. "Waste" is something cast off
with little to no value - but many items individuals throw away have value
to other people, businesses, and communities. For instance, organic
"waste" is the feedstock of a commercial composting operation, which
turns food, leaves, brush, and manure into compost to feed the soil at farms
and residential and business landscaping projects.
Zero Waste is not any single
technology, program, or policy. Zero
Waste is a goal, a process, and a vision that shifts how we think about and use
resources: it is a whole-system approach that targets a major change in the way
materials flow through our economy. It
is the opposite of an end-of-pipe solution.
Instead, Zero Waste is a bold approach to waste management that looks at
both the both the front end (production and design) and the back end (reuse and
reprocessing) of material flow, and solutions to connect the two. Zero Waste centers around reducing needless
consumption, minimizing waste, maximizing recycling, and incentivizing the
manufacturing of products that can be intentionally reused, repaired, or
recycled back into the marketplace.
Practically, common Zero Waste models
include many of the following initiatives:
- Devote
resources on the state level to recycling & reuse programs, and
increasing recycling incentives for companies and consumers alike.
- Ensure that recycling
facilities are widely available and mandate recycling programs where
possible (especially for institutions, businesses, etc.)
- Create a market for recycled
materials. Jobs are created for sorting materials and creating goods to
re-enter the economy.
- Require companies to produce
products with minimum packaging, and phase out toxic ingredients in favor
of safer alternatives.
- Mandate manufacturer take-back
provisions, to reuse components in new products. Companies should be responsible for
their waste.
- Reduce the number of landfills
and incinerators, restrict expansions, and strengthen the environmental
review, compliance and ongoing monitoring at these facilities. Strict, well- funded enforcement is
absolutely necessary.
- Provide increased citizen
participation in solid waste management permitting and policy.
- Dissolve corporate waste industry,
eliminating the economic incentives for disposing of waste in an
environmentally destructive way.
- Make the waste regulations more
citizen friendly and shift the burden of proof to companies.
- Put in place safety provisions for workers at
solid waste management facilities.
For
more information on recycling, reuse, and Zero Waste see our reports Moving Towards Zero: From
Waste Management to Resource Recovery, Trash or
Treasure,