By N.C. Vasuki

All over the world, the talk is about various ways of handling garbage. Rich nations and most economically developing nations are worried about the daily discards of solid wastes. Many simple solutions are offered; waste reduction being an obvious one. No one really wants to create waste; yet it appears that waste generation is unavoidable. Why? Because no system can be 100% efficient, and the product mix on the market is constantly changing. Reuse of materials, a partial solution, is not definable. And then there is recycling, which is often confused with waste diversion. On top of this confused mess, we all seem to want a "sustainable society."

Solid waste collection and disposal have become a global business. The merger and acquisition activity across the continents (after chemical, oil, automobile, banking, insurance, and telecommunications) is now hitting utilities and the solid waste industry. The French companies are particularly active all over the globe. Our own giants in the industry are ceding territory because of poor planning, overanticipation of profits, and general mismanagement.

The general wealth of nations is increasing in most of Asia (except the former Soviet Republic), the Pacific Rim, Eastern Europe, and some areas of South America. As a result, the amount of solid waste discarded is also increasing. In this global discussion of garbage, there are several schools of thought.

The European school is rather dominated by policies initially espoused in Germany and later modified by the 15-member European Union (EU). The underlying principle is "Polluter Pays." The companies that manufacture and sell products are the "polluters," not the "consumers" who purchase the products. Therefore, the EU has decreed that polluters should pay to collect and recycle all the packaging materials. The infamous DSD System of Germany was set up to resolve the problem. In addition, the German school of thought insisted that placing organics (carbon) in landfills was not acceptable and, therefore, landfilling of materials containing more than 5% carbon would not be allowed after 2005.

The most likely technology to deliver that end result is the thermal treatment process with energy recovery. In the United States, environmental advocacy groups derisively call it incineration. Energy recovery is not of concern to them. Germans receive multiple benefits by using that technology: reduction in landfill volume, energy recovery by displacing fossil fuels, recovery of metals, and some reduction in global-warming gases. Among the other 14 members of the EU, Sweden, Denmark, the Netherlands, Austria, and Switzerland are also actively encouraging energy recovery with thermal treatment. The remaining nine are following variations of the same theme and their timetables are more forgiving and flexible.

In contrast, the American school of thought is perhaps more pragmatic and less dependent on Government. The relatively free market in the US is expected to deliver the same results as anticipated in Western Europe, but at a lower cost. The American system is not bound in tradition and is consequently accustomed to rapid changes in materials and markets. Because of land availability, good transportation systems, US Supreme Court decisions, and waffling regulatory agencies, landfilling has been accepted as the most cost-effective process in the short run.

Japan, with the world’s second-largest economy, has been using thermal treatment for obvious reasons: lack of available land for landfilling and to reduce the need to import fossil fuels. It is now embarking on a system yet to be clearly defined. The industrial sector will be required to partner in the national effort to recover packaging for recycling and energy recovery. The system may not be as rigid as the German system, and energy recovery is considered as a recycling activity.

Australia and New Zealand are pondering which system they should pursue: the free-wheeling American model or the restrictive European model. Both nations have very low population. Australia, in particular, has a very large, sparsely populated land mass, a plentiful supply of fossil fuels, and very low energy costs. Australia will continue to landfill all of the solid wastes remaining after recyclable materials have been diverted. Composting yardwaste makes sense for them because their agricultural and silvicultural land can benefit from infusion of humus. The Australians might look at what Canada is attempting to do with packaging.

New Zealand is improving its landfills and encourages composting of yardwaste. The country does not have a large-enough population to support a large recycling infrastructure. Exporting some recyclable materials to other Pacific Rim nations makes more economic sense.

The economically developing nations, such as Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, Malaysia, Thailand, and Indonesia, have started developing a regulatory framework for encouraging better solid waste collection and disposal systems. Singapore and Taiwan, both island nations with high per-capita incomes, have accepted energy recovery from thermal treatment as environmentally beneficial. Taiwan needs more such plants to keep up with the increasing solid waste discard streams.

Other large nations, such as India and China, have also started to look at solid waste discards as a societal and environmental problem. In India, a unique situation has arisen (by a strange coincidence) from a ruling by India’s Supreme Court. That court (and not the government) has directed all cities with a population exceeding 100,000 to plan and implement systems for proper collection and disposal of solid wastes. The court has ruled that India’s citizens have an inherent right to a clean environment and the government’s claim of impoverishment is not an acceptable excuse!

Both India and China have to develop thousands of modern landfills to safely dispose all nonrecyclable solid waste discards. Recycling metal, glass, rags, and paper products has been a way of life for hundreds of thousands of people. Consumer packaging (e.g., plastic bags, fast-food containers, and cups) is a growing problem. In India, nongovernmental organizations are playing a vital role in goading central, state, and local governments to accelerate cleanup efforts.

South and Central America are also dependent on dumps, and there is progress in developing modern landfills in some nations, such as Argentina, Brazil, and Chile. In Africa, South Africa is the leader in modern landfill development.

The US has a unique opportunity to be the world leader in environmental programs, especially in solid waste management. The US government, however, is relinquishing its leading position by failing to support professional and commercial organizations in its global outreach.

More than a decade ago, the US Environmental Protection Agency was a strong supporter of international activities, and now it is hardly seen or heard in international meetings.

In the world market, planning, design, construction, supply of equipment, operations, and training of personnel are business areas worth billions of US dollars. Governments of smaller nations, such as the United Kingdom, Denmark, Sweden, Netherlands, Japan, and Germany, are actively supporting global activities, especially in pushing higher standards of performance in solid waste management. Such government support helps their commerce in providing environmental services. On the other hand, and we are thrilled to ship thousands of tons of solid wastes hundreds of miles to the cheapest landfill without regard to long-term environmental problems!

As the world’s leader in science and technology, we should be touting our strengths rather than ceding leadership. We, the professionals in solid waste management, should speak up and be heard on this issue. Silence and inaction is the way to lose our status.

N.C. Vasuki is the chief executive officer at the Delaware Solid Waste Authority.

MSW
Elements 2001