The solid waste crisis in America is real . . . make no mistake. In a recent survey of mayors, solid waste disposal surfaced as the Number One municipal headache.
One reason is sheer cost: Garbage collection and disposal constitutes the single largest expenditure in most local budgets. Another (perhaps even greater) cause for concern, however, is simply the fact that, increasingly, there are fewer and fewer places to put trash once it's been collected. Experts predict that in two years' time, fully half our cities will run out of landfill area.
High-technology resource recovery plants-using complicated and expensive machinery-were supposed to have solved the country's waste disposal problem by now . .. but hightech solutions have already failed in Baltimore and Nashville and have been canceled in Seattle and St. Louis. Many city officials are at a loss for what to do: They see no answer in sight.
Perfectly viable solid waste collection and recycling systems have been established, however, in over 100 cities and towns across the U.S. These systems-which are based on the presorting of recyclables and on curbside collection-not only reduce solid waste disposal costs, but are environmentally sound and maintain jobs threatened by high-technology solutions. Publicly owned, privately owned, subsidized, or profit making, these innovative programs point the way toward permanent relief of the country's municipal waste disposal problem.
In Santa Barbara, California, a recycling program is responsible for collecting half of the 110 tons of newsprint delivered to the city (i.e., discarded by residents) each week. Although it began with a number of convenient drop-off sites, the program has expanded to include an experimental pickup system in the city's flat areas. Now more than 170 different participating organizations make some money for themselves by collecting recyclable paper and delivering it to the city's recycling center.
Solid waste planners in Hillsborough County, Florida have gone one step further and prepared a county wide recycling strategy. At present, workers sort recyclables by hand from the county landfill. Soon, however, color-coded plastic bags will be given to each household so that glass, paper, and metals can be presorted before the garbage is collected and taken to the landfill.
A third program that promises both to alleviate garbage problems and improve community life is that of Residents' Recycling, Inc., a recycling operation associated with four public housing projects in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Residents' Recycling a non-profit corporation owned by the tenant councils of the four projects-not only collects and recycles aluminum, glass, and paper, but also provides after-school employment (at $2.301hour) for thirty young workers.
Resident participation at the four Cambridge housing projects averages about 80%. (At one project Lincoln Wayit's a remarkable 99%.) Since July 1976, when the recycling program began, the volume of wastes going to the city has been cut in half. When you consider that the city figures its trash removal cost at $69.50 per ton, it's apparent that Residents' Recycling, Inc., is saving the city a tidy sum.
As these examples clearly show, low-technology programs for the collection and recycling of solid wastes represent a viable option . . . if only city dwellers (and municipal officials) will avail themselves of it.
One reason is sheer cost: Garbage collection and disposal constitutes the single largest expenditure in most local budgets. Another (perhaps even greater) cause for concern, however, is simply the fact that, increasingly, there are fewer and fewer places to put trash once it's been collected. Experts predict that in two years' time, fully half our cities will run out of landfill area.
High-technology resource recovery plants-using complicated and expensive machinery-were supposed to have solved the country's waste disposal problem by now . .. but hightech solutions have already failed in Baltimore and Nashville and have been canceled in Seattle and St. Louis. Many city officials are at a loss for what to do: They see no answer in sight.
Perfectly viable solid waste collection and recycling systems have been established, however, in over 100 cities and towns across the U.S. These systems-which are based on the presorting of recyclables and on curbside collection-not only reduce solid waste disposal costs, but are environmentally sound and maintain jobs threatened by high-technology solutions. Publicly owned, privately owned, subsidized, or profit making, these innovative programs point the way toward permanent relief of the country's municipal waste disposal problem.
In Santa Barbara, California, a recycling program is responsible for collecting half of the 110 tons of newsprint delivered to the city (i.e., discarded by residents) each week. Although it began with a number of convenient drop-off sites, the program has expanded to include an experimental pickup system in the city's flat areas. Now more than 170 different participating organizations make some money for themselves by collecting recyclable paper and delivering it to the city's recycling center.
Solid waste planners in Hillsborough County, Florida have gone one step further and prepared a county wide recycling strategy. At present, workers sort recyclables by hand from the county landfill. Soon, however, color-coded plastic bags will be given to each household so that glass, paper, and metals can be presorted before the garbage is collected and taken to the landfill.
A third program that promises both to alleviate garbage problems and improve community life is that of Residents' Recycling, Inc., a recycling operation associated with four public housing projects in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Residents' Recycling a non-profit corporation owned by the tenant councils of the four projects-not only collects and recycles aluminum, glass, and paper, but also provides after-school employment (at $2.301hour) for thirty young workers.
Resident participation at the four Cambridge housing projects averages about 80%. (At one project Lincoln Wayit's a remarkable 99%.) Since July 1976, when the recycling program began, the volume of wastes going to the city has been cut in half. When you consider that the city figures its trash removal cost at $69.50 per ton, it's apparent that Residents' Recycling, Inc., is saving the city a tidy sum.
As these examples clearly show, low-technology programs for the collection and recycling of solid wastes represent a viable option . . . if only city dwellers (and municipal officials) will avail themselves of it.
.
St. Louis, Mo is clearly not in this group of cities with disposal concerns. The Weber Landfill alone, has space that will last 50 years or more, depending on expansion. On the Ill, side of the river, there are 2 very large disposal sites, both permitted for 20 plus years, and in surrounding counties, there is plenty of unused permitted space that will hand St. Louis waste for many years. St. Louis may be the exception to the rule, but landfill air space is NOT running out in the St. Louis region.
ReplyDelete