John Trotti

Nearly two years ago I used this column to ask the question, "Is It Time to Dump the Hierarchy?" (www.forester.net/mw_0109_editorial.html), 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 four-square 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 - hardly a first.

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."

At that time I pointed to the decline in container recovery as an indicator that recycling had passed its high-water mark through its insistence on a "one-size-fits-all" approach, going on to say that the real damage of the hierarchy lay not in its inability to align waste management with the larger issues of social responsibility and resource sustainability but in the institutionalization process itself. Since that time we've seen continued erosion in a variety of recycling efforts, coupled with reevaluation of and, in some cases, a reduction in existing programs.

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 Š 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.

Moving From Supply Side to Market Driven

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. Moreover, judging by the current record, it seems unlikely that present programs can be expected to rekindle the public's interest in recycling. What they've accomplished over the past decade is truly impressive, but now we need to acknowledge the limits of existing systems and look for new approaches in order to move ahead.

No nation on Earth has been quicker to embrace change when it makes sense - it's been part of the magic of our success - yet today we see authority becoming increasingly resistant to the development and exploration of new ideas, as evidenced by the vicelike 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.

The underlying issue in solid waste management is the proper stewardship of materials and the husbanding of Earth's resources, which though limited are not static. Some resources, such as biomass, are in fact renewable, able to meet a host of basic energy and chemical needs for the future. The key to tapping the potential wealth within these residual materials lies in removing chains that stifle ingenuity - beginning with a recognition of the limitations implicit in a static hierarchy.

Send John an Email

MSW - July/August 2003