I truly believe that we have an
obligation to reduce our footprint on the planet’s resources to the lowest
reasonable level possible, but I find that the mounting use of the term
“sustainability” is having a curious effect on me. I feel myself becoming
“greener” with each encounter, though this seems neither the result of an
elevated environmental quotient nor the product of jealousy. Instead this
verdant adventure stems from the uneasiness I feel when confronted by
pronouncements that sound great but leave a lot to my imagination as to what
their true import may be.
Let me put this into a context with
which we’re familiar: “Recycling is good because it promotes sustainability.”
But where’s the good when the markets for many of the materials we’re recovering
from the wastestream either don’t exist or are too weak to cover the cost of
diversion without the addition of monies taken from other
sources?
It was back when we smothered
ourselves with accolades for “making money” from the export of low-value
materials without factoring in the costs already incurred by the public in
diverting and processing them, that my gizzards began to churn. To me, such
activities had to do neither with sustainability nor even recycling, but rather
an outsourcing of our wastes in a way that allowed us to qualify for diversion
credits.
Today, with the collapse of many
overseas markets for low-cost materials, the realization that the environmental
penalties incurred in sending them elsewhere rather than developing the
infrastructure to deal with them locally presents us with the opportunity to
redress some of our errors in the past and develop alternatives that already
exist close at hand. Given that two-thirds of MSW still going to landfills can
be used for any of several energy-from-waste activities, isn’t it time we stop
trying to jam materials where they’re not needed, and let them go to meet a need
that truly exists?