ALTERNATIVES TO INCINERATING TRASH
By Dr. Paul Connett
Chemistry Department
St. Lawrence University
Canton, NY 13617

About the Author. Paul Connett is Professor of Chemistry at St. Lawrence University, Canton, NY, where he has been teaching since 1983. Since 1985 he has been engaged in research on waste management, with a particular academic interest in the generation of dioxins by incinerators and their build up in the food chains. He has shared knowledge on waste management with communities in several ways. He has given over 1500 presentations in 48 states in the US and 40 other countries. With his wife Ellen he has co-edited the newsletter Waste Not, which is published 48 times a year and is now in its twelfth year of publication. With Roger Bailey, a colleague from the Fine Arts department at St. Lawrence University, he has produced 40 videotapes on various aspects of waste management, including a series of ten on dioxin. Over 6000 copies of these videotapes have been distributed. With Tom Webster, a researcher in the Department of Public Health at Boston University, he has co-authored 7 published papers on dioxin. Paul Connett has played a crucial role in the grassroots movement which has seen over 300 trash incinerators proposals defeated in the US, with virtually no new proposals in the offing. Ralph Nader said Paul Connett, "He is the only person I know who can make trash interesting."

 1. INTRODUCTION

Frequently, after giving a blistering attack on the idea of burning trash, I am asked, "Well, if we can't burn it, what can we do with it?" Such a question becomes more emphatic when it is coupled with a statement about how scarce available landfill space is in the area. Often, the questioner is after an alternative "technology," because they have become accustomed to the salesmen that offer them "turnkey" solutions. Give us this much money and we will solve the problem for you, is what they are used to hearing. At the outset, I have to stress that there are no "magic machines" which can solve the trash problem.
<back to top>

 2. THE REAL SOLUTION BEGINS WITH SOURCE SEPARATION

Trash is a not high tech problem. Technology has a role to play but only when judiciously applied to carefully selected components of the waste stream. The real solution has more to do with organization than it does with machines. Solving the trash problem takes a lot of hard work from municipal officials plus a little daily effort from our citizens. From the citizens' perspective, trash is made by the ten things at the end of our hands, and if we want a solution that we and the planet can live with, it is those ten things that have to be co-opted from the very beginning. In essence, the solution begins with source separation. Trash is made by mixing. Trash is avoided by separating. Avoiding expensive and potentially dangerous incinerators and huge regional landfills requires keeping our discarded items in several well defined categories:

1) avoidables

2) reusables

3) compostables

4) recyclables

5) toxic materials, and

6) materials which are currently non-recyclable or compostable.
<back to top>

 3. FIVE KEY PRINCIPLES

Before I get into the nuts and bolts of the alternatives, in my view there are five key principles that need to be satisfied to make the source separation approach successful. There are to make sure that the program:

A) Be kept simple. Do not bring on complicated machinery until you have exhausted the low tech alternative.

B) Be kept local. Do not export or import trash. Exportation of trash means the exploitation of distant communities who are usually too poor or too politically weak to resist the process.

C) Be integrated with the local community. In each community there is usually a large number of people who are eager to help solve this problem. Their services and goodwill need to be harnessed effectively. Moreover, many of the solutions to waste can be integrated well with other community gardens and other community building activities. In my view, which makes the waste stream unnecessarily large.

D) Be integrated with the local economy. Handled well, source separation strategies and affiliated activities can generate many local jobs and local business opportunities. A key question for decision makers is: "How can I make sure that every dollar we spend on trash beyond what we spent on the local landfill is made to work twice. Once to solve the trash problem, and twice to generate local economic activity?" It is here, especially in developing countries, where the latter leaves the community and probably the country. Money spent on reuse, repair composting, recycling stays in the community. A study in North Carolina has documented the enormous impact recycling has had in their economy. (1)

E) Move in a sustainable direction. We are not going to reach sustainable societies overnight. However, it is important to move in the right direction. A policy which moves to minimize the amount of material that is burned or buried in the right direction. From a planetary perspective, sustainable development requires the throughput of matter and energy through our economy, while looking for other ways of generating satisfying lives. This principle relates strongly tot he stimulation of community development as discussed in the principle C) above.
<back to top>

 4. COLLECTION SYSTEMS

Figure 1 is a schematic illustration of a three container collection system. There are many variations on such scenarios. A key point to remember when a community is embarking on a source separation system is to organize the separation around the existing collection system. If the community is used to curbside collection of trash then it is best to organize the collection of recyclables and compostables at curbside. If, on the other hand, the community is used to taking the trash to the landfill (this is often the case in small rural communities) or a transfer station (sometimes the case in suburbia), then it is best to organize the collection at these facilities.
<back to top>

[ next >>> ]