Spring Break
Recyling a waste for the economy, environment
Kris Noneman
Issue date: 3/13/09 Section: Forum
In the United States, more people recycle than vote.
Eco-minded Americans want to save the environment and natural resources, support the economy and conserve landfill space; but most importantly, people recycle because they feel good when they do.
Too bad these good feelings are grounded in a lie.
This way of thinking was introduced to us by a 1989 report by the Environmental Protection Agency and Jay Winston Port "The Solid Waste Dilemma: An Agenda for Action," which makes several horrifying claims that detail our lack of landfill space and our impending doom due to an over-production of waste.
The report ushered in the goal of recycling 25 percent of our nation's garbage.
Today we have surpassed this goal by recycling an estimated 30 percent of waste materials, proving that when Americans are scared of something, we will do almost anything the government "experts" tell us.
The lack of space in landfills is a legitimate worry. However, the EPA's report does not mention the increasing sizes of the landfills still functioning, a classic bureaucratic oversight.
The U.S. produces about 220 million tons of garbage per year, but with modern waste management techniques, we could store the next 1,000 years of our garbage in a space 35 miles square and 200 feet high.
I am not suggesting that we move all our garbage into one giant brick of refuse - but if we do, I see no problem in burying Hollywood, since it's already full of garbage.
Recycling enthusiasts would argue that landfills are dangerous, a risk to the environment and incredibly disgusting.
Yes, large piles of trash are unattractive, but are soon buried, and when a landfill reaches capacity, it can be covered and made into a public park, golf course or another failing Disney park.
In regards to environmental dangers, the EPA, in a moment of ingenuity, has instilled a vast number of regulatory practices to maintain safety for the community and environment surrounding landfills, including almost eight feet of solid barriers between garbage and underlying soil to protect water tables.
Eco-minded Americans want to save the environment and natural resources, support the economy and conserve landfill space; but most importantly, people recycle because they feel good when they do.
Too bad these good feelings are grounded in a lie.
This way of thinking was introduced to us by a 1989 report by the Environmental Protection Agency and Jay Winston Port "The Solid Waste Dilemma: An Agenda for Action," which makes several horrifying claims that detail our lack of landfill space and our impending doom due to an over-production of waste.
The report ushered in the goal of recycling 25 percent of our nation's garbage.
Today we have surpassed this goal by recycling an estimated 30 percent of waste materials, proving that when Americans are scared of something, we will do almost anything the government "experts" tell us.
The lack of space in landfills is a legitimate worry. However, the EPA's report does not mention the increasing sizes of the landfills still functioning, a classic bureaucratic oversight.
The U.S. produces about 220 million tons of garbage per year, but with modern waste management techniques, we could store the next 1,000 years of our garbage in a space 35 miles square and 200 feet high.
I am not suggesting that we move all our garbage into one giant brick of refuse - but if we do, I see no problem in burying Hollywood, since it's already full of garbage.
Recycling enthusiasts would argue that landfills are dangerous, a risk to the environment and incredibly disgusting.
Yes, large piles of trash are unattractive, but are soon buried, and when a landfill reaches capacity, it can be covered and made into a public park, golf course or another failing Disney park.
In regards to environmental dangers, the EPA, in a moment of ingenuity, has instilled a vast number of regulatory practices to maintain safety for the community and environment surrounding landfills, including almost eight feet of solid barriers between garbage and underlying soil to protect water tables.
Note: writers will not reply to comments.
Viewing Comments 1 - 4 of 5
Will
posted 3/13/09 @ 5:26 PM PST
This article is sorely in need of citation to back up these claims.
It also fails to analyze the externalities created by making new products. For example, to make plastic you need to use oil (http://science. (Continued…)
Michael Cunningham
posted 3/14/09 @ 10:37 AM PST
This poorly-conceived piece belongs on Corvallis' Craigslist "Rants and Raves".
Echoing the first comment, you need to give some grounding and citation to these claims. (Continued…)
Steve Cook
posted 3/16/09 @ 8:46 PM PST
Mr. Noneman needs to take Geo 300. There are seats available.
sur de tenerife
posted 3/20/09 @ 5:17 AM PST
Recycling sounds worthy. The trouble is that when you compare the energy needed to transport and recycle waste paper with the energy that could be produced by burning it in power stations, it becomes clear we could cut carbon emissions by abandoning recycling and instead building incineration plants. (Continued…)
Post a Comment
Comments by registered users are approved by default.