Back at the beginning of the
decade I asked the question, "Is It Time to Dump the Hierarchy?” looking forward
to the variety of reactions the notion might elicit. I was not disappointed, but
in some cases I was caught off guard. On one hand I found solid support for the
proposition and its basis from people I would have expected to stand foursquare
behind the hierarchy, and I found opposition from some I would have expected to
line up in the "Amen" corner. And, of course, there were a few who called for my
head on a platter - [Wait until you see the upcoming November/December issue to
see how my September fared.]
Predictably, much of the
opposition to the concept made reference to the benefits of an institution aimed
at establishing a workable relationship between the lofty vision of
environmental stewardship and the day-to-day reality of MSW management. To the
extent that the hierarchy contributed to a meaningful nexus, I too join in the
applause, but I don't see that as the end of the story. In fact, I would like to
reiterate my prior belief that "The present-day hierarchy has had a profound
effect on waste management strategies, structure, politics, and certified
authority - a self-perpetuating aristocracy claiming a sort of moral high ground
that, until recently, has held at bay those who would challenge that
authority."
To me the heart of the
problem lies in the notion that rather than being an articulation of what a few
people at USEPA thought made sense in most cases, it is somehow worthy of
elevation to divine status as The Hierarchy. Thus, some proponents of the
hierarchy have become increasingly rigid in their interpretation of what methods
constitute diversion, insisting that what was written down less than two decades
ago is cast in concrete -- the pinnacle of rational thought on the management of
wastes.
But whoa! Stop for a moment
and ask yourself just how rational it is to reject the value of cost-benefit
analyses on which informed public policy and program decisions rely. Rather than
the result of logical development, the hierarchy is in fact a conclusion posing
as a major premise, lacking any mechanism for weighing alternatives that take
into account the complex interaction of investment and overall environmental
returns.
If anything has become
apparent in our diversion efforts over the past several years it is that
mandating the use of a growing supply of marginal materials does not lead to the
efficient use of resources, yet today we see authority becoming increasingly
resistant to the development and exploration of new ideas, as evidenced by the
vice-like grip of the belief in the hierarchy of otherwise-acceptable diversion
approaches. Instead of open dialog on the value of new approaches to diversion,
we have confrontation by people who feel that waste management is a moral rather
than pragmatic issue where, if you don't believe in a particular solution,
you're wrong.
For some it seems that the
preservation of the hierarchy is more important than the pursuit of the goal for
which it was instituted. Nowhere is this more apparent than in objections to
alternative technologies at or near commercialization, such as anaerobic
digestion, pyrolysis, gasification, and hydrolysis, all of which hold tremendous
potential for converting residual wastestream materials into valuable
commodities. These and other innovative technologies are laying the foundation
for new industries that could complement traditional recycling and help make
giant strides toward both disposal and pollution abatement.
So I’ll ask for the umpteenth
time, “Is it time to dump the hierarchy?” hoping that rather than hardening
positions on the matter, this time discussion will lead to some measure of
accommodation.