In my November 17, 2008 blog I posed the question of whether
sequestration should be added to the Waste Hierarchy, receiving a number of
comments, most of which considered it a worthwhile question.
Since that time, we’ve seen recycling taking a lot of flak in
the media because of the collapse of markets…mostly foreign since onshore
markets have been bypassed in favor areas where labor rates are substantially
lower. If indeed the pocketbook is the basis for diversion rather than the
environment, then who’s to say the critics are wrong? But it certainly wasn’t
the basis for the hierarchy, so what’s the situation today? The real question is
what are we willing to do to create an environment in which market-based
recycling can take place?
If
you want to increase recycling you have to convince the marketplace (i.e.. the
folks on the front side of the material equation who live in a just-in-time
environment) that you can meet their strict demands of quality and timeliness
100% of the time with no "gee whiz, we didn't get enough of the stuff in this
past week," excuse for failure allowed. To do this you need guaranteed
processing all the way from receiving to shipping. In the waste world where a
constant supply of specific materials is a pipe dream, this calls for the
maintenance of a reserve. Thus, if you want to convince manufacturers that
you’re a serious competitor to virgin materials suppliers, it’s my belief that
sequestration must be accorded a place in the hierarchy.