Advocating a new Recycling Center

Shakespeare’s forgotten question: to recycle or not to recycle

I hope to convince the local government of my small community that it would be advantageous to develop and expand the nascent recycling program currently in operation. Presently, the program accepts only cardboard and certain forms of paper. Given that much of the available products sold in the community are packaged in some form of plastic, or use plastic containers it appears that expanding the program at least slightly would have a tremendous impact. Unfortunately, there are tremendous budget constraints. How can one convince the local government that over time the recycling center would be less capital intensive and more beneficial than the current waste management process?

Arguments for a recycling center:
· A state of the art recycling center could potentially attract new industry to the region. Specifically targeting firms that use recycled materials in their products could attract these industries
· A state of the art recycling center might also attract firms specializing in specific technologies i.e. technologies used in recycling
· The presence of a recycling center in the region might further develop the market for recycled goods in the region
· The initial capital for development could be defrayed by sharing resources, costs, and benefits with surrounding counties and communities
· Likewise the capital for development could be defrayed by sharing technology, research, internship opportunities, and costs with the local university
· Alone the recycling center has the potential to create new jobs
· A recycling center combined with public education could potentially mitigate additional harm to the local air and water quality
· Landfills are temporary solutions that eventually fill and close, must be monitored for perpetuity, and require the opening of new landfills
· A recycling center would prove cost effective over time, by limiting dependence upon a landfill including: transport fees, tipping fees, operation, maintenance, and monitoring of the landfill

However, there are viable arguments against pursuing an enlarged recycling program:
· High initial capital costs for construction of the center. Who pays for the development and building of the center?
· Limited impact. Would the center be used? According to Hans Tammemagi, author of The Waste Crisis, few communities achieve even a 50% rate of recycling consumer products (Tammemagi, 1999, p. 41) The local community does not have a conserver culture. Presumably, the recycling rate would be well below 50%
· Could a rural area attract the necessary industry to create a market for recycled material to support the center
· Would other counties and communities be willing to help defray the costs of building the center

In essence it appears that the important issues surrounding the building of a new recycling center would be economic. Would the new center have enough economic impact to offset the initial large investment of capital required to open and operate such a facility? Moreover, would it attract the necessary industries that would expand the market for recycled goods? It appears that a recycling center is a long term solution both economically and environmentally to the waste management issue. However, with budget constraints being what they are, how likely is it that I can convince local politicians that the total economic and environmental costs of landfill use is high enough to merit consideration of a new waste management plan?

Hypocrisy and the Pledge

My wife introduced me to methods of protecting the environment. Previously, I had been a proponent but not a practitioner of strategies to limit harmful incursions on the environment. I brought a critique of modern, capitalistic culture into the relationship and she brought the knowledge necessary to mold thought into action. I was relatively ignorant of practical problems and solutions, and she educated me about the harmful effects a consumer society had on the environment, including the production of massive amounts of solid waste and harmful chemicals. She introduced me to tactics for a healthier less intrusive lifestyle. We eat organic foods, avoid purchasing products with excessive packaging, use our own shopping bags, avoid using harsh synthetic chemicals, and recycle as many consumer products as we can. We limited our landfill impact to approximately two small bags each week.

Recently we moved from a small college town to an even smaller rural town in Kentucky. The town we now live in does not have adequate recycling facilities. In fact the town transports its solid waste to a neighboring town for disposal. Unfortunately for our family, the move has caused us to revert to former easier behaviors. In fact, I recently removed a truckload of garbage from the house that we are currently remodeling totaling nearly 800 pounds. Included in the refuse were plastic bottles, glass, cardboard, and paper, all easily recyclable consumer products. As I stood above the massive transport dumpster throwing garbage bags onto the already overflowing pile I felt like a hypocrite. I advocate recycling, I believe firmly in recycling, and yet I am not recycling.

My pledge is that over the next few weeks I will calculate my family’s approximate impact upon the environment, and develop strategies to mitigate that impact. Further, I hope to push for a larger recycling center in the town as a way of encouraging responsible sustainable development for the larger local community.

Potential Solutions to the waste management problem

Waste management cannot just be addressed at the disposal level to be effective, but must encompass the entire process seeking means of eliminating waste in the production process. One solution is to produce products that are long-life products designed for multiple uses, rather than products designed to be thrown away after a single use. Similarly, designing products to be easily repaired and refurbished, rather than deliberately producing products that quickly becomes obsolete reduces waste. Lastly, curtailing the use of extensive packaging would significantly limit waste. Excessive packaging in the production process creates potential excessive and unnecessary waste which is disposed of in landfills.

What can consumers do to reduce dependence upon landfills?

• Become educated: learn more about the waste management process and alternatives such as incineration and recycling. Learn about the pros and cons of each process
• Become educated consumers, and seek additional information on the products they purchase
• Push companies to produce and sell eco-friendly products
• Do not purchase single use products
• Repair, refurbish, and reuse old products
• Compost organic wastes rather than dispose of them in landfills

Waste Management and the Landfill Crisis

Humans generate tremendous amounts of waste. Much of this waste is currently disposed of in landfills. Unfortunately the use of landfills poses multiple problems.

• Permanent loss of necessary living, working, and recreational space


• Permanent Loss of vital resources due to disposal of items that could be reused, repaired, refurbished, or recycled


• Costly operation due to stricter laws governing operation, and the rise of energy costs resulting in higher usage fees


• Potential for harmful leaks into the atmosphere or into groundwater despite the development of new technologies; landfills are still relatively low tech solutions to waste management; permanent risk of leakage, necessity of monitoring

According to Hans Tammemagi, author of The Waste Crisis (1999), North Americans generate over 200 million tones of refuse each year! Prior to the spread of global consumerism and urbanization trash was simply disposed of in a convenient location and forgotten. Unfortunately this practice of dumping was adopted and legitimized in the form of the landfill, which has become the principal method of trash disposal. This practice, coupled with the production and use of toxic chemicals, mass consumption, and urban sprawl has led to a myriad of interrelated problems. Despite advances in landfill technology, landfills remain low-tech, transient, and very problematic solutions. Most landfills currently in operation leak, exposing the environment to harmful chemical cocktails: a 1990 U.S. EPA estimate asserted that approximately 75% of the operating landfills leaked (Tammemagi, 1999, p.27).

Further, all landfills represent permanent structures containing dangerous materials that ultimately will fail and leak. “It was also recognized that even state-of-the-art municipal landfills with double liners and other modern leachate containment systems would fail eventually. The increased use of engineering techniques would only postpone, not prevent, the onset of water contamination” (Tammemagi, 1999, p. 27). Accordingly, landfills represent permanent dangers to the environment.

Stricter laws, higher operation costs, and the efficacy of public opposition means that there are fewer landfills opening, and those that are open have dwindling space. A new solution to waste managment is needed.

Tammemagi, Hans. (1999). The Waste Crisis: Landfills, Incinerators, and the Search for a Sustainable Future. New York: Oxford University Press.