Appalachia--Science in the Public Interest

<< Previous Page Waste: Table of Contents Next Page >>

SUPPLEMENT 1 WASTE RECOVERY

If people reuse a product or byproduct at home, savings
begin to accrue immediately because resources that might
otherwise have been dedicated to manufacturing its replacement or
to facilitating its disposal are freed for other uses. Reducing
wastes liberates us while liberating the environment of unsightly
"waste."

At a workshop in Santa Monica in February of 1992,
California state officials calculated that the cost of removing
an average container of hazardous waste from the home was $100
per carload and an astounding $3.75 per container, small or
large. In many cases the cost exceeded the original price of the
product. At these rates, domestic hazardous waste disposal comes
at a cost many communities cannot possibly afford. Preventing
the material from entering the home in the first place is a far
superior solution to any proposed roundup or other concerted
disposal efforts. Actually, hazardous chemicals should not be
allowed into homes except in cases of extreme necessity, and then
they should be handled only by those trained and experienced in
their use.

Encouraging people change their lifestyles for the sake
of the environment can be just as difficult as convincing
legislators of the need for regulation. Modern technology has
served as handmaiden to our wasteful culture, promoting an "out
of sight, out of mind" attitude. Overcoming this
individualistic, wasteful mindset is a great challenge which must
be met with aggressive yet simple environmental education.
Innovative regulatory procedures and appropriate technology are
also essential if the barriers to establishing a conservation
ethic are to be overcome.

Comparing Minimization Techniques

In setting out to reduce our wastefulness and personal
impact on the environment, we need to weigh different practices
and materials against one another. Lifecycle analysis research
tries to determine the full environmental impact of a product,
from its production through its disposal. However, lifecycle
analyses are time consuming and costly because of the many
factors (chemical, health, economic, social, etc.) that must be
considered. The complexities of lifecycle analysis often cause
delays which work to the advantage of opponents of conservation.
Many aspects of resource use and disposal demand consideration,
including --

* Total resource expenditure: Does the new practice
require fewer materials and energy than another practice? Most
of the methods mentioned above obviously do, but just how much?
These calculations are a major challenge to any waste
minimization analysis.

* Total environmental impact: Are toxic chemicals used in
the manufacturer of this material, or are there hazardous
byproducts of its use or disposal?

* Feasibility: What are the barriers to implementing
potential changes? Are there legal (e.g. local ordinances) or
social (e.g. neighbor's concerns) hurdles which alternative
practices might involve? Must deeper quality of life values be
weighed against convenience.

* Overall investment: Is the device or technique replacing
something that costs less or more? Some compost toilets cost
about $5,000 while other do-it-yourself varieties cost as little
as $500. These are good alternatives to municipal systems, which
cost upward to $10,000 per household for water, sewer lines and
purification plants.

* Maintenance: Is the replacement simpler to keep
operating? Some wood substitutes do not last long thus requiring
continued painting or early replacement. There also may be cases
where it is better in the long run to use new construction
materials than poor quality second-hand articles.

* Space requirements: Does the method or practice require
more space? In many households space is at a premium. A dry
composter may take up space, but so do the garbage containers.
Newsprint is a space consumer if one subscribes to a large
municipal daily.

* Regulatory barriers: Are there hurdles too great to
overcome at this time? Many of the techniques discussed here
face restrictions from a variety of municipal or state
regulations. These could be regarded as challenges to be
overcome. We often need to take an active role in changing laws
to improve our environment.

* Contamination problems: Are the waste materials in the
current or anticipated treatment a source of rodents, flies,
other insects or odors? This may apply to existing or
anticipated practices. In many cases, safeguards that will
preempt these difficulties can be taken (for example a rat screen
at a compost bin).

* Ease of operation: Is the new technique simpler than the
alternatives, both in use and maintenance? Installing a compost
toilet can be easier than putting in a septic tank or sewer line.

* Replication potential: Is the technique one that others
can easily learn and freely imitate?

REFERENCES

Garbage Reincarnation Sonoma County Community Recycling Center,
1982. (P.O. Box 1375 Santa Rosa, CA 95402)

Hayes, Denis. Repairs, Reuse, Recycling: First Steps Toward a
Sustainable Society. Washington, DC: Worldwatch Institute (1776
Massachusetts Ave., NW Washington, DC 20036)

Huls, John and Neil Selman. Waste to Wealth. Washington, DC:
Institute for Local Self Reliance, 1985. ( 2425 18th St. NW,
Washington, DC 20009).

<< Previous Page Waste: Table of Contents Next Page >>