Trash Talk: Finding a More Effective Solution to the Growing Garbage Problem
Every year, Americans generate more than 251 million tons of garbage (Richman 522). This means that each person in the United States generates more than 4.5 pounds of trash every single day (Lerner, 522). This is a lot of waste. Fortunately, there are facilities which arte equipped to recycle much of this waste, making it available for reuse. Unfortunately, much of the recyclable material is thrown away and wasted. According to Lerner’s Environmental Science: In Context, recycling rates in the United States were at only 10 percent as recently as the late 1980s (694). According to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the rate as of 2006 was 32.5 percent (Richman 522). While this rise in recycling is encouraging, and has certainly aided in the containment of trash, there are still 162,648,000 tons of trash which are not recycled annually. The question as to how to properly deal with this waste quickly arises. Some of this garbage is burned at extremely high temperatures in incineration facilities, but only about 12 percent, according to the EPA (Richman 522). These facilities are expensive; especially considering that such a small percent of garbage is disposed of through them. The only other major method of disposal currently is burying waste in landfills. In the United States, there are 1,754 approved landfills (Richman 522). Fifty-five percent of waste is buried in these landfills, accounting for more than 138 million tons annually (Richman 522). These options are not sufficient for long-term disposal.
The use of landfills, the method by which a majority of garbage is disposed of, is not a sustainable means of removal. According to Allied Waste Industries’ 2006 Annual Report, the average operating life of a landfill is about 38 years (7). After this time, the landfills will have to be closed, and others would have to be opened in order to accommodate newly generated garbage. There is simply not enough space to continue this process indefinitely. In addition to concerns about the practicality of continuing to extensively use landfills, there are concerns about the environmental impact landfills can have. There were regulations put in place by the United States government in 1991 in an effort to minimize negative effects of landfills, however, many sites were exempted from these regulations, and many more were established before the regulations were enacted (Eldridge 11). Modern landfills are required to have plastic linings, which protect surrounding soil and groundwater from potentially hazardous liquid. These linings, however, can tear and leak, violating the protective barrier (Richman 522). One major concern related to these linings deals with leachate, the substance created when a landfill encounters precipitation and the water mixes with waste that has broken down into liquid (Eldridge 12). Leachate is thinner than liquid waste alone, and therefore it is easier for this substance to leak into surrounding land. This poses a major threat to soil and water around landfills, which in turn poses a major threat to the integrity of crops and drinking water (Eldridge 12). America cannot afford to continue to rely on landfills as the premier waste disposal method.
One solution which would help reduce America’s dependence on landfills would be to improve on existing, more preferable systems. As previously mentioned, incineration is responsible for the disposal of 12 percent of American waste (Richman 522). This number could be greatly increased with changes to the process. There are some who do not agree with using incineration as a major form of disposal. This is because the ash would still need to be stored, and so minimal use of landfills would still be necessary. Also, others are concerned with air pollution from incineration facilities. These arguments are not substantial reasons to discontinue the use of incineration, however, because landfill usage would be greatly reduced and less hazardous, and all forms of waste disposal carry some risk of pollution. In order to improve the incineration process, first of all, incineration facilities would have to be more cost-effective. This is not difficult to achieve. A typical incineration facility can dispose of 550 tons of waste per day. The process also generates about 16 megawatts of electricity. Two to three megawatts would be used to power the plant, but the other thirteen or fourteen could be sold to surrounding areas, meaning that over time, much of the cost could be recovered (Freedman 2267).
Another system which could be improved upon as an alternative to landfills is the recycling system. Recycling accounts for the second highest percentage of waste disposal in America (Richman 522). The current problem with recycling is that it is often inconvenient and confusing (Evans 109). Also, there are concerns about the energy it takes for a recycling facility to operate (Lerner 693). A solution to the trouble concerning the confusion associated with recycling would be to send out informational brochures to community members educating people as to what to recycle and how. These brochures may not be the most preferable way to get information out, as many people would not have the time or interest enough to read it, however, it would be the most cost-effective method for cities. As far as inconvenience to recyclers, communities could offer incentives for recycling. A simple and effective incentive could be tax cuts or garbage fee waivers. San Francisco has a very efficient recycling program which helps to recoup energy costs by not breaking glass containers, which means that the fragments do not end up in recycled paper, meaning that the paper can be sold for more money (Richman 523). This model could be the inspiration for other programs concerned with energy costs of recycling.
The trash problem in the United States is growing, with more trash being generated per capita every year (Richman 522). A more sustainable method of disposal must be implemented. The solution which maximizes benefits and minimizes cost is that of improving the incineration process. With improvements, the process is self-sustaining and has little impact on the environment in comparison to other methods. This would be especially beneficial if an improved incineration system were used in conjunction with an improved recycling system. Recyclables could be made reusable while non-recyclables could be disposed of in the least invasive way possible. It is important that Americans understand the problems with the current disposal system, and that swift action to improve the process is taken.
Every year, Americans generate more than 251 million tons of garbage (Richman 522). This means that each person in the United States generates more than 4.5 pounds of trash every single day (Lerner, 522). This is a lot of waste. Fortunately, there are facilities which arte equipped to recycle much of this waste, making it available for reuse. Unfortunately, much of the recyclable material is thrown away and wasted. According to Lerner’s Environmental Science: In Context, recycling rates in the United States were at only 10 percent as recently as the late 1980s (694). According to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the rate as of 2006 was 32.5 percent (Richman 522). While this rise in recycling is encouraging, and has certainly aided in the containment of trash, there are still 162,648,000 tons of trash which are not recycled annually. The question as to how to properly deal with this waste quickly arises. Some of this garbage is burned at extremely high temperatures in incineration facilities, but only about 12 percent, according to the EPA (Richman 522). These facilities are expensive; especially considering that such a small percent of garbage is disposed of through them. The only other major method of disposal currently is burying waste in landfills. In the United States, there are 1,754 approved landfills (Richman 522). Fifty-five percent of waste is buried in these landfills, accounting for more than 138 million tons annually (Richman 522). These options are not sufficient for long-term disposal.
The use of landfills, the method by which a majority of garbage is disposed of, is not a sustainable means of removal. According to Allied Waste Industries’ 2006 Annual Report, the average operating life of a landfill is about 38 years (7). After this time, the landfills will have to be closed, and others would have to be opened in order to accommodate newly generated garbage. There is simply not enough space to continue this process indefinitely. In addition to concerns about the practicality of continuing to extensively use landfills, there are concerns about the environmental impact landfills can have. There were regulations put in place by the United States government in 1991 in an effort to minimize negative effects of landfills, however, many sites were exempted from these regulations, and many more were established before the regulations were enacted (Eldridge 11). Modern landfills are required to have plastic linings, which protect surrounding soil and groundwater from potentially hazardous liquid. These linings, however, can tear and leak, violating the protective barrier (Richman 522). One major concern related to these linings deals with leachate, the substance created when a landfill encounters precipitation and the water mixes with waste that has broken down into liquid (Eldridge 12). Leachate is thinner than liquid waste alone, and therefore it is easier for this substance to leak into surrounding land. This poses a major threat to soil and water around landfills, which in turn poses a major threat to the integrity of crops and drinking water (Eldridge 12). America cannot afford to continue to rely on landfills as the premier waste disposal method.
One solution which would help reduce America’s dependence on landfills would be to improve on existing, more preferable systems. As previously mentioned, incineration is responsible for the disposal of 12 percent of American waste (Richman 522). This number could be greatly increased with changes to the process. There are some who do not agree with using incineration as a major form of disposal. This is because the ash would still need to be stored, and so minimal use of landfills would still be necessary. Also, others are concerned with air pollution from incineration facilities. These arguments are not substantial reasons to discontinue the use of incineration, however, because landfill usage would be greatly reduced and less hazardous, and all forms of waste disposal carry some risk of pollution. In order to improve the incineration process, first of all, incineration facilities would have to be more cost-effective. This is not difficult to achieve. A typical incineration facility can dispose of 550 tons of waste per day. The process also generates about 16 megawatts of electricity. Two to three megawatts would be used to power the plant, but the other thirteen or fourteen could be sold to surrounding areas, meaning that over time, much of the cost could be recovered (Freedman 2267).
Another system which could be improved upon as an alternative to landfills is the recycling system. Recycling accounts for the second highest percentage of waste disposal in America (Richman 522). The current problem with recycling is that it is often inconvenient and confusing (Evans 109). Also, there are concerns about the energy it takes for a recycling facility to operate (Lerner 693). A solution to the trouble concerning the confusion associated with recycling would be to send out informational brochures to community members educating people as to what to recycle and how. These brochures may not be the most preferable way to get information out, as many people would not have the time or interest enough to read it, however, it would be the most cost-effective method for cities. As far as inconvenience to recyclers, communities could offer incentives for recycling. A simple and effective incentive could be tax cuts or garbage fee waivers. San Francisco has a very efficient recycling program which helps to recoup energy costs by not breaking glass containers, which means that the fragments do not end up in recycled paper, meaning that the paper can be sold for more money (Richman 523). This model could be the inspiration for other programs concerned with energy costs of recycling.
The trash problem in the United States is growing, with more trash being generated per capita every year (Richman 522). A more sustainable method of disposal must be implemented. The solution which maximizes benefits and minimizes cost is that of improving the incineration process. With improvements, the process is self-sustaining and has little impact on the environment in comparison to other methods. This would be especially beneficial if an improved incineration system were used in conjunction with an improved recycling system. Recyclables could be made reusable while non-recyclables could be disposed of in the least invasive way possible. It is important that Americans understand the problems with the current disposal system, and that swift action to improve the process is taken.
Works Cited
Eldridge, Audrey. "Landfills: Impact on Groundwater." Water: Science and Issues. Ed. E. Julius Dasch. Vol. 3. New York: Macmillan Reference USA, 2003. 11-14. Gale Virtual Reference Library. Web. 7 Feb. 2010
Freedman, Bill. "Incineration." The Gale Encyclopedia of Science. Ed. K. Lee Lerner and Brenda Wilmoth Lerner. 4th ed. Vol. 3. Detroit: Gale, 2008. 2266-2269. Gale Virtual Reference Library. Web. 7 Feb. 2010.
"Nonhazardous Materials Recovery—Recycling and Composting." The Environment: A Revolution in Attitudes. Kim Masters Evans. Detroit: Gale, 2008. 105-117. Information Plus Reference Series. Gale Virtual Reference Library. Web. 7 Feb. 2010.
"Recycling." Environmental Science: In Context. Ed. Brenda Wilmoth Lerner and K. Lee Lerner. Vol. 2. Detroit: Gale, 2009. 693-698. Gale Virtual Reference Library. Web. 7 Feb. 2010.
Richman, Vita. "Landfill." The Gale Encyclopedia of Science. Ed. K. Lee Lerner and Brenda Wilmoth Lerner. 3rd ed. Vol. 4. Detroit: Gale, 2004. 2269-2273. Gale Virtual Reference Library. Web. 7 Feb. 2010.
Eldridge, Audrey. "Landfills: Impact on Groundwater." Water: Science and Issues. Ed. E. Julius Dasch. Vol. 3. New York: Macmillan Reference USA, 2003. 11-14. Gale Virtual Reference Library. Web. 7 Feb. 2010
Freedman, Bill. "Incineration." The Gale Encyclopedia of Science. Ed. K. Lee Lerner and Brenda Wilmoth Lerner. 4th ed. Vol. 3. Detroit: Gale, 2008. 2266-2269. Gale Virtual Reference Library. Web. 7 Feb. 2010.
"Nonhazardous Materials Recovery—Recycling and Composting." The Environment: A Revolution in Attitudes. Kim Masters Evans. Detroit: Gale, 2008. 105-117. Information Plus Reference Series. Gale Virtual Reference Library. Web. 7 Feb. 2010.
"Recycling." Environmental Science: In Context. Ed. Brenda Wilmoth Lerner and K. Lee Lerner. Vol. 2. Detroit: Gale, 2009. 693-698. Gale Virtual Reference Library. Web. 7 Feb. 2010.
Richman, Vita. "Landfill." The Gale Encyclopedia of Science. Ed. K. Lee Lerner and Brenda Wilmoth Lerner. 3rd ed. Vol. 4. Detroit: Gale, 2004. 2269-2273. Gale Virtual Reference Library. Web. 7 Feb. 2010.
No comments:
Post a Comment