At 09:12 AM 10/25/2007 -0500, Reindl, John wrote:
Neil ~
Why does Zero Waste focus in on two
management techniques and not on the issue of reducing environmental
impacts -- wherever they occur? It seems to me that Zero Waste does not
necessarily lead towards sustainability, since there does not seem to be
much -- if any -- consideration of the environmental impacts of its
decision-making.
Best wishes,
John
John:
I suppose you could be right that "zero waste" does not
necessarily lead towards sustainability, but it seems to me that ending
the most flagrantly unsustainable practices--dumping and burning--is
essential for generating (forcing) progress in better directions.
It is also essential for the communities impacted by these types of
facilities. We have got to start somewhere....
Is "sustainability" becoming a dangerous cliche in its own
right? People are opening new stores to sell "sustainability
supplies" ......
Alan Muller
Green Delaware
- -----Original Message-----
- From: GreenYes@no.address
[
mailto:GreenYes@no.address]On Behalf Of Lindsay
Reopelle
- Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2007 9:05 AM
- To: GreenYes@no.address
- Subject: [GreenYes] Letter sent to Mayor of Albuquerque, Martin
J. Chávez, 9/07
- Dear Martin J. Chávez,
- It is heartening to learn that Albuquerque is yet another US city
focusing on zero waste, the logical extension of the US post World War II
recycling movement.
- Zero waste is defined as 90%, or more, diversion from disposal in
landfills or incinerators. It involves high degrees of source separation
for recycling and composting, as well as clean manufacturing without
toxic materials in our products and packages.
- Incineration is not included in the zero waste calculation as this
process destroys materials requiring new extraction from virgin resources
and the resulting pollution from mining, forestry and transportation.
Thus so-called waste to energy plants are in fact wasted energy plants as
more energy is needed to replace materials than energy is created though
incineration. With regard to air emissions from garbage
incinerators---they are cleaner than years ago, but still emit
pollutants.
- Further, incineration contradicts another key component of the zero
waste paradigm----more good jobs. Incineration creates one job per 10,000
tons processed, while recycling, composting and reuse create from 4 - 250
times more jobs per 10,000 tons of materials, depending upon which
material is considered.
- The city can also recover energy from clean organics that are
currently discarded with alternative technologies operating at low
temperatures, then compost the residue afterwards from those
processes. By not using high temperature systems and clean
materials, you do not volatilize heavy metals that are in the mixed waste
stream, and do not produce dioxins and furans, which are created when
high temperature systems cool down.
- ILSR and other groups, such as Zero Waste International Alliance and
the California Resource Management Training Institute, can help train
your staff to implement a plan that is developed for your city that can
get you to 75%-90% diversion within three years. We can do this without
incineration, which is the most expensive system (capital and operating
costs) you can use to handle discards from households and
businesses.
- Please review the documents prepared by ILSR for the US EPA which
detail case studies of communities that have cut their waste stream in
half, and then continued to recover more and more materials with the same
infrastructure. The URLs for these reports are as follows:
-
http://www.ilsr.org/recycling/recordsetters/index.html and
http://www.ilsr.org/recycling/zerowaste/index.html
- I am available for any questions you may have.
- Sincerely,
- Neil Seldman
- Institute for Local Sel-Reliance
- Washington, DC
-
|