Landfill space is limited; we must reduce waste
Is Max Borders really telling us that it is not necessary to recycle? (op-ed column, Jan, 13).
He writes that we should not worry about recycling because we have plenty of space. New York City exports all of its 22,500 tons of daily trash to places like Virginia and Pennsylvania because there is no more space. While I am sure that Ted Turner's ranch, as Borders argues, could hold our garbage, I doubt that Turner, nor any of us, would want that. It's a phenomenon called NIMBY — not in my backyard — and it represents our distaste for nasty things in our midst.
Contrary to what Borders would have us believe, garbage is nasty, poses health risks and should be reduced. Rather than suggesting that we simply need more landfills, we should be thinking about how we can change our habits and eliminate waste before it is generated.
Furthermore, any recycling vs. landfilling cost-analysis should include the cost of environmental damage from the initial mining, transport and manufacture of those now ready-for-disposal resources that Borders thinks erroneously are in endless supply.
Sallie Lacy
Frankfort, Germany
The writer is a Greensboro native.
Comments (2)
To report abuse of the comment feature on this site, please use the feedback form at the bottom of any page.
" .. Furthermore, any [X] vs. [Y] cost-analysis should include the cost of ... initial [and long term costs for] mining, transport and manufacture [as well as] disposal ... resources ..."
Bingo. It would sure change the economics, as would removng all the g-man subsidies that so oftern get "overlooked".
Posted on February 3, 2008 5:52 AM
I hope I'm not the only one who chuckled a bit when I read the LTE writer was hailing us from Frankfurt. Is there anywhere better to discuss trash re-use than the place where hot-dogs were invented?
-----
I read your post that has since disappeared, but I'll bet it has something to do with the problems I've had posting. Anyway, agreed, J.D.R.
-----
"...garbage is nasty, poses health risks and should be reduced."
I must be misreading that. Is that your argument for re-introducing recyclables back into our food supply? Not to mention the risks run by the low-wage earners having to handle the trash two, three, or four times in some cases when recycling.
One can't have it both ways.
"The Rascism of Recycling" could be an interesting doctoral topic.
----
And the "not in my backyard" phenomenon has a simple solution. Anyone who has a "backyard" that is to be used by a landfill splits an annual $10 "landfill use fee" paid by each citizen using the landfill throughout its expected life. I'd bet landfill-placement would be fought over once people did the math. Guilford county had a population of 421,048 people in 2000. $10 per person per year for 25 years is $105,262,000. Then let's add up the other counties who might want to use the facility. Find a rural community with a population that didn't want to become millionaires overnight by doing nothing other than just living in the same economically depressed region they'd been living in for years.
Rhetorical, mostly, but I doubt you could find a community even if not.
Not to mention the $4+ million dollars saved by Greensboro City alone by not recycling. Shall we throw that into the pot as well? $4 million x 25 years is $100,000,000.
As I'd said before, section the please-please-pretty-please-put-it-in-my-backyard landfill up so that when recycling finally becomes profitable, or at least less completely wrought with loss, private landfill miners can come in and draw out the goods when there is a demand for them.
Roger
Posted on February 4, 2008 10:10 AM