By Laurie Batchelder Adams

Given the general state of reduced tax revenues and down scrap-material markets, many of us in the recycling industry are wondering what strategies we need to keep our waste diversion programs alive and well. Some of the more vocal recycling and environmental groups claim that the tactics are obvious: We should demand disposal bans, clamor for bottle bills, and adopt "zero waste" as our credo. On the flip side, these groups maintain, we should denounce advancements in disposal technologies as irresponsible to future generations.

While noble goals, these philosophies need a strong dose of practicality in order to be successful. It would be wonderful to be able to snap our fingers as soon as we reached some enlightened conclusion about how to save the planet–and make it so. The reality, however, is that tremendous time, energy, and capital are needed to achieve these types of global changes at the local level.

We can all agree on the need for sustainability. This concept is not limited to the environment, however, and should consider political and technological realities as well as–and arguably most importantly–the economics. If we adopt positions prioritizing diversion as the only valid option and these positions are not supported with established infrastructure, markets for end products, and balanced profit and loss sheets, we will have done more harm than good to the advancement of waste diversion. Witness the 2002 Olympics in Salt Lake City, UT, where the pressure to achieve zero waste was so high that contractors made an early prediction of diversion exceeding 90%. Failure to produce this rate (once compost is complete and the final numbers are tallied several months from now) will unfortunately be viewed by many as failure, despite the phenomenal success of such a large-scale effort.

This might sound like heresy from an avowed recycler, but don't get me wrong: To the extent that components of our wastestream can be safely collected and managed in alternative programs, keeping them out of landfills and combustion facilities makes good sense. And zero waste is certainly the goal I'd like to think we are all working for. Until sustainable alternative programs have been developed, however, implementing disposal bans and halting efforts to improve the effectiveness of disposal options are not the answer. In fact, these extremes are akin to shooting ourselves in the foot.

We can't be distracted by pithy word campaigns and emotional articles and presentations that criticize existing management options; dramatics often hide the real issue. For example, is the antibioreactor position adopted by some based on a real threat to diversion or the more likely frustration with our failure to make diversion as attractive an option as the alternative?

Our challenge is to keep our eye on the goal with a focus on substance–i.e., the technical, social, political and economic changes needed to support the best system of waste management alternatives possible. Get over it–we will continue to need landfill and combustion facilities through our lifetime. So let's focus on keeping the pressure on to realistically reduce that reliance–and simultaneously making sure our disposal technologies are the most environmentally protective they can be.

Laurie Batchelder Adams is SWANA's Waste Reduction, Recycling & Composting director and a senior project manager for HDR Inc. in Denver, CO. She can be reached at lbatchel@hdrinc.com.

MSW - July/August 2002