First of all Jim posts an article on NY trash, lamenting the sorry state of
trash disposal in NY city. The article was a wide ranging 'opinion' piece
about how environmentalists overstated the utility of 'reducing, recycling,
and re-use'. The intent of the 'criticism' was to suggest that the numbers
that the
environmentalists used was not cracked up to what they should be. The
analysis is based on old data and old analysis. The important premise was
ignored by Jim's opinion piece. In my opinion the incinerators will costs
billions to operate, construct and maintain...but the potential benefits of
a total solution are much less costly.

The real issue is that trash needs to be reduced, or re-used or recycled to
effectively lower the environmental and economic costs of trash disposal.

The facts should be clarified in a major premise which may be (a) that
better management is required [ei. statement of the 'formal ethical
question'.]
All parties agree to this (b). This consensus
is clear: the premise is plainly: reduce it...both in total volume and in
total costs. We have agreement on one issue.

Restatement: (a) something needs to be done and (b) all agree that something
needs to be done. Which necessitates rules....to reach a solution, a total
solution.

The next thing that is required in critical thinking is that some rules have
to be stated and agreed apon. They would have to be rules that are developed
through consensus. The first rule may consist in a statement that all the
trash must be disposed of which is toxic with neglible harm to the
environment. Another rule may be that the energy costs of waste must be
reduced.
The various methods are then assessed for the total costs, not
simply economic costs, but social and environmental costs as well.  The
problem with incineration is obvious:

1. The incineration solution is a partial solution in that it does not
totally solve the issue of environmental contamination nor energy
consumption.
Incineration does not remove all of the most toxic substances. It does
not remove all the dioxins that potentially may be formed from the
combustion
of plastic. Plastics often contain heavy metals.

It is implicit to those that support incineration is
the belief that all toxics can be disposed of safely, but experience shows
that incinerators do not remove heavy metals, nor does incineration remove
the halogenated hydrocarbons completely. Controversy is not resolved by
beliefs, or opinions, but rather by facts, empirical facts. The controversy
does not address macro economic dislocation associated with consumerism
typified by packaging simple items in plastics nor any other non-useable
form of materials.

2. Source reduction is the cheapest and most environmentally efficient way
to remove wastes from the waste stream. Source separation is one very cost
effective way to remove trash from the waste stream. Some cities have source
separation: the paper goes into one box and is recycled, and in another bin
goes the compostibles, and in another goes the plastics, and all re-useable
or re-cycleable materials go into another bin. The various collectors take
these bins and use them for profits or break even. In Canada we have here a
range of methods which allow the small business or consumer to seperate the
materials that are potential raw materials for new products. Even
compostibles are valuable for fertilizer and organic soil amendments.

3. The out of sight and out of mind solution that the incinerator presents
is not a total solution because it does not provide any incentives to allow
for valuable materials to be used again. The environmental impact of
incineration is evident in other ways. For instance the energy that is
consumed and the carbon that is released adds to climate change. The energy
is also wasted, and the new virgin materials are relied on which have to be
imported from out of the country. There is a huge transportation cost, and
roads have to be maintained to support the transport of the wastes.

4. Making packaging that reduces the amount of pure waste is another way to
reduce the waste. There are many ways to reduce the amount of packaging:
bulk packaging, the use of re-useable containers, et cetera. In Japan during
previous decades up to 97% of all paper was re-used or recycled. Japan did
this to reduce the import of paper so as to improve the countries reliance
on domestic products and thus improve it's balance of trade. Where does half
the paper products come from in the NY trash? It is imported from Canada
which contributes to negative trade balance in the US. Where does the
petroleum come from consumed in the US?
Half of the petroleum comes from imports from OPEC and non-OPEC nations.
Petroleum is a finite material and world oil and gas production is expected
to peak in 2005 [University of Calgary, 2001]. Us oil and gas production
peaked a long time ago in about 1977. Oil and gas production also peaked in
the late 1980's in Canada. Clearly the addition or more waste through a
total reliance on incineration is not going to help in the end but will
excerbate the reliance on US imports of energy and forest products. With the
growth in demand for forest products in the US estimated to be about 2.7%
over the next decade both the trade balance and the cost of virgin materials
that are finite will rise. Essentially the supply of forest products is
finite since supply cannot continue to increase. One way to reduce the
demand for paper in telephone books is to supply 'online' telephone numbers
like Sympatico does in Canada. You don't need a telephone book anymore
because with the internet you can look up any number that you want for free.
With internet phones therefore there is absolutely no need for huge
telephone book. So the concept of reducing the demand for paper begins
through a comprehensive analysis of total solutions that look primarily at
the individual consumer and small business. Paper will soon be obsolete.
With the development of 3G cell phones [antennae guards] there will also be
the potential to read books, watch the news, and so on without ever having
to go to a book store to purchase the New York Times, The Village Voice, et
cetera. With the development of video screens using light emitting diodes
the consumer can even telecommute. There will be no need to be at a 20
minute meeting across town....

The issue must be analyzed through a systems approach. And to do this
requires the ability of experts to classify where there are economic and
environmental alternatives to each potential form of waste. Wasted human
energy and time is the greatest form of waste. It costs a lot of money to
buy a New York Times or a Telephone book ...we all pay for it through
adverstizing and through lower water quality, reduction in recreation and
wildlife habitat, and there is the enormous problem of disposing of the
waste. I know that many newspapers are recycled, but if they end up in the
kitchen garbage bag no one is going to remove them from the waste that
ultimately ends up in the incinerator.

The 3 R's....

john foster



----- Original Message -----
From: Jim Tantillo <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Friday, July 13, 2001 2:46 PM
Subject: Fwd: Fat of the land: Movement's prosperity comes at a high price