Re: New York Times online forum on waste incineration

[Neil Seldman]

Dear Terry,

I have read the NYTimes article --- here are my comments:

The article focuses on environmental issues almost exclusively. These
are not the primary concerns of those in the US who oppose
incineration of garbage. While environmental concerns ususally wake
people up, the economic and financial issues are paramount.

Cities and counties cannot afford $650 million for a 1500 ton per day
plant. With 20 years of bond payments this is $1.3 billion, PLUS
operating costs.

The differencve between Denmark and USA is that we have landfills
giving us time to implement recycling and comopsting that are 10% the
cost of incineration. Plus the raw materials returned to industry and
agriculture create jobs, (about 5- 10 more jobs vs. incineration in
just processing, much more in manufacturing). Oakland for example has
created 1,000 jobs in the past 10 years by investing in recycling and
composting instead of incineration. Their tax base has expanded
through these jobs and small businesses. JObs are created as value is
added to the raw materials. The country's modest 33% recycling rate
supports over 1 million jobs. Another 1 million jobs are waiting if
the country doubles its current diversion rate. This is easily doable
in the next 5 years, simply by adopting and adapting best practices
that are now state of the art.

That is why cities and counties are building resource recovery parks
to keep materials local. Half the materials in the waste stream if
properly processed have active markets within a 50 mile radius of
cities that generate the materials.

In WW II the country had to make do with local materials or do
without. We were taught, 'to do without is not the American way'. Thus
if you could snap a finger and the waste would disappear without any
pollution, it would be inadequate for this current age of scarcity.
There are 500 million tons of municipal solid waste (MSW) and
construction and demolition debris (C and D) that we cannot waste
without severe econommic pain. US cites and counties have gotten to
70% recycling and composting of these materials. Los Angeles recovers
94% of its C and D materials. New rules, economic incentives and
equipment used in these cities and counties are applicable throughout
the US.

In the US incineration is facing its last gasp. If the industry does
not tie up waste streams for 20 years it cannot survive. But
recycling, composting and anaerobic digestion are emerging so quickly,
and are so much more economical than both incineration and
landfilling, that the industry is desperate. No new plant has been
built since l995. The market place is giving the proper signals.

Hence the media full court press and the investment of millions by the
industry in donations to Congress, state legislatures and local
councils and commissions too gain subsidies and exemptions from
pollution regulations. But it won't work. All the subsidies and
exemptions that the industry is counting on in the Waxman Markey bill
will not overcome the huge cost to build and operate incnerators. The
industry had more subsidies than these in the l970's-90's, and they
still only built 30 of 350 proposed plants. Now the industry has
another several hundred proposed plants. The only ones that will get
built are rebuilds of 20 year old plants. Every other community is
saying no, and they are winnig. Just like decades ago, garbage is a
local issue. The local level is where citizens can gain the most
leverage on their elected officials, and have a proven track record in
determining the outcome of proposed incineration facilities. Lake
County,IL citizens just got their county to remove garbage
incineration from consideration in their solid waste management plan.
The trend is gaining momentum as citizens train other groups throught
the US. A replay of the networks that defeated incinerators inthe
l970-90 era.

In Detroit, Harriburg, Washington County, NY and other locales, poorly
designed and operated incinerators are pushing jurisdictions to
bankruptcy. Even when facilities work, as in Montgomery County, MD,
they need $40 million a year subsidies to cover costs above revenue
from energy sales and tip fees. Citizens pay a surcharge of from
$200-400 per household.

We have the space, time and budgets (now spent on wasting) to make the
transition from waste management to resource management, and a
sustainable ample future.

Thank you for your interest in ILSR's work. FYI, refer to "The US
Recycling Movement l945-95," Encyclopedia of Energy, Technology and
Environment, Wiley Brothers, l995; and Wasting in the US 2000, Grass
Roots Recycling Network, 2000.

Neil Seldman

On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 9:20 AM, Tang, Terry <ta...@nytimes.com> wrote:
> Dear Neil Seldman,
> I'm an editor at The New York Times. We're putting together an online
> discussion on new technologies in waste-to-energy garbage incineration in
> Europe. Here's a Times article by Elisabeth Rosenthal published today on
> this issue:
> http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/13/science/earth/13trash.html?ref=world
>
> The article compares the broad use of new generation waste-to-energy
> incinerators in Denmark, Germany and other countries, with the lag in
> acceptance of such facilities here in the United States.
>
> We're asking some experts: What stands in the way of adopting this
> technology here? What kinds of economic or political factors prevent
> communities from considering an incineration alternative to trucking garbage
> to landfills, which has high environment costs, too?
>
> I read an interesting commentary you wrote for Emagazine.com on "Debunking
> the Waste-to-Energy Scheme." I was particularly intrigued by this thought:
>
> "Citizens in Los Angeles seem to have put the proper parameters on their
> city, which is evaluating these new alternative technologies. L.A. citizens
> will only allow consideration of waste-to-energy technologies if they are
> scaled at not more than 10% of the waste stream and no materials set aside
> for recycling are incinerated. Citizens have shown their support for
> modestly scaled (300 tons per day) biological systems, which generate
> methane from organic matter. To its credit, the city is listening to its
> citizens and has implemented diverse programs to reduce the materials placed
> in the waste bin and increase materials going into the compost and recycling
> bins."
>
> Can you expand on that point? Is this what it will take for WTE technology
> to be used in the U.S.?
> Would you be available to send a short response -- just a few paragraphs
> would be fine -- by later this afternoon or evening, if possible?
> We'll publish the comment on our discussion forum, Room for Debate, which
> covers all topics in the news:
> http://roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes.com/
>
> Thank you for considering this. Please let me know if you can
> contribute. Apologies for the very short notice!
>
> all best,
> Terry Tang
> Web Commentary Desk
> (212) 556-7745

--
Neil Seldman
President
Institute for Local Self-Reliance
2001 S Street NW, Suite 570
Washington, DC 20009
202 898 1610 X 210
nsel...@ilsr.org

[Mary Lou Van Deventer]

Thanks for this excellent discussion, Neil.  

First, there is no way any new or old form of garbage incineration can satisfy environmental concerns.  There are serious technical problems related to toxins and hazardous ash released into the air, land, and water over both the short and long terms.  Also, burning resource materials for their lowest value, heat, means that new products must be made from virgin resources.  The demand structure increases pressure on the planet's already dwindling resources.  Many renewable resources are already approaching the tipping point for nonrenewability.  

Second, to build on your excellent economic focus, it would also be useful for Ms. Tang to read the February/March 2008 "Progressive Investor," which featured a special report on the recycling industry's development and finances.  I've copied the story's introductory paragraphs below.  

Mary Lou Van Deventer 

From "Progressive Investor," February/March 2008 

See www.sustainablebusiness.com/index.cfm/go/progressiveinvestor.about  

"The recycling industry is a sterling example of how grassroot initiatives can spur the creation of bonafide industries. We've come a long way since the 1960s, when tiny non-profits drove around in vans collecting recyclables from prescient individuals who didn't want to throw their "waste" away.  

"In less than 40 years, the U.S. recycling industry has become a backbone of our economy. In 1968, the fledgling industry pulled in $4.6 billion in annual sales; today, revenues are roughly $236 billion [National Recycling Coalition]. The industry provides employment 

for 1.1 million people, up from just 79,000 in the late 1960s, and 56,000 public and private facilities processing recyclables. Our research partners Cannacord Adams estimate the industry accounts for about 2% of the $12.36 trillion U.S. gross domestic product as 

of last year. 

"The recycling industry generates more than twice the revenue than the $100 billion waste management industry [National Solid Wastes Management Association] even though much more garbage is thrown out than recycled. That's because recycled materials 

generate economic value - waste disposal doesn't. 

"Indeed, at the current rate of resource depletion, the world literally can no longer satisfy demand for paper and steel from virgin materials alone. Recycling has become an absolute necessity for industrial growth and stability. We couldn't print a newspaper, build a 

car, or ship a product in a cardboard box without recycled materials. 

"Although we usually think of the benefits of recycling as reducing waste and protecting forests and habitats from mining and clearcutting, it is also a key solution for climate change. Making new materials from old ones is a classic example of energy efficiency - 

it vastly reduces the amount of energy and emissions required to support our economy."  

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to Google
Groups "GreenYes" group.
To post to this group, send email to Gree...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
GreenYes+u...@googlegroups.com
To change email delivery options visit   http://groups.google.com/group/GreenYes?hl=en

To unsubscribe, reply using "remove me" as the subject.