John Trotti

The zero-waste folks have come out of the woodwork with guns blazing, and you know what? They're delivering some seriously damaging blows to integrated solid waste management without defining exactly what they mean, proposing how they intend to get there, providing some estimate of what the costs might be, or suggesting what benefits from those expenditures we should anticipate. It's time for those of us in the "beaten zone" to sit up and take notice.

The tactic is deceptively simple. "So who could be against zero waste?" they have you ask yourself. But what happens if you're not quite willing to concede that zero–as in zee-row, zip, nada–is truly in today's cards? No problem. They're ready to hit you with the next zinger: "Well, how much waste are you willing to accept?" This, you have to admit, is an imminently more reasonable question, and of course you'd feel horrible saying anything more profligate than "As little as possible." With that seemingly innocent bit of sophistry, the zero-waste contingent has you hooked on its agenda … never mind that it's totally beside the point.

The real message lies in how, from the waste management standpoint, you're supposed to get there from here. It's really quite simple: Put an end to landfilling. And why are landfills the key? They, the dialectic goes, "compete directly with beneficial resource conserving enterprises such as reuse, recycling, composting." When you think about it, it's a little like asking doctors to do away with illness and then putting a few teeth in the suggestion by closing all the hospitals. That way people don't have to get sick. No hospitals, no illness, right?

In fact, why not just pass a law making illness illegal and back it with stiff-enough penalties so that no one would dare harbor a germ, or grow old, or break a bone, or whatever. Problem solved.

I'm being ridiculous, of course. After all, we can't stop illness by decree. But then, pretty much the same could be said about waste, don't you think? As an individual, you might choose to create no waste. You can refuse to let Santa near your chimney, picket Wal-Mart, refuse all mail, and even stop eating and drinking and eventually cease all activity. But even then you will not succeed, simply because nature doesn't work that way.

Successful Waste Management Is in the Marketplace

As citizens, we may make our conscience known in print (as here), via any of the several electronic media, or at the ballot box; and more power to us for the effort. If we want to support the concept of zero waste, we're welcome to pull out all the stops in our own lives to promote our belief, but as waste managers our duty is equally simple: take charge of the public's waste and see to its proper disposition. In this operational capacity, our responsibility is not in its generation; our charge is to deal with it in the most practical, effective, and efficient manner possible.

Over the last several decades we've seen many of our nation's institutions and systems fall prey to the agenda of organizations–public and private alike–whose interests are quite separate from the specific purpose at hand. For better and worse, solid waste management is one of these. While there's little argument that today's collection, processing, and disposal systems are greatly improved over those of the pre—Subtitle D days, at the same time we've allowed for–and often been party to–the erection of barriers that threaten to stifle competition and innovation that are the lifeblood of continued improvement.

I think it is safe to say that most waste professionals believe that integrated waste management offers the best opportunity for meeting the myriad challenges we face both in our custodial and stewardship roles, but what does this mean? Does it mean that we continue to support nonperforming practices for political reasons or try to wring the last bit of success from present systems for fear of offending the beliefs and sensitivities of their supporters? Does it mean that we ought to subsidize some practices in favor of others to fulfill an agenda that might or might not be relevant to the task at hand? I hope not, because these practices are products of a misguided mindset that jeopardize our ability to apply continuous improvement to our various activities.

Were it up to me, I'd dispense with all subsidies that affect waste management: landfilling, recycling, composting, WTE, and–yes–even those that favor the extraction and use of virgin materials in such areas as manufacturing and production of energy. Then, with the guidance of regulating agencies on such matters as national security and preservation of our environment, let the free-enterprise system determine how best to manage our materials, cradle to grave.

Send John an Email