I read an article in the New York Times about Europe burning trash for clean energy.  There is a new type of plant that burns trash and turns it into heat and energy.  I know what you’re thinking, burning trash, that can’t possibly be a good thing.  Especially since you’ve seen your neighbor throwing crap in a burning pile in his backyard and that’s not good for anyone, in so many different ways!  These plants use filters to catch pollutants instead of them being released into the air like in previous years.  Instead of hauling thousands of tons of trash to landfills per day, it gets burned and the energy is harvested.  Sounds like a good plan I think. Unfortunately, the U.S. is not jumping on board.  All this talk about saving our planet and yet the choice of a landfill is cheaper.  But really, don’t we all pay a higher price in the end?

Laura Haight with the New York Public Interest Research Group is a big opposer of these plants.  I’m not sure what to think about someone who describes garage as a green resource as “perverse.”  That seems extreme and not open minded at all.  Mandating recycling is her stance.  Her point, which I can see, is that if we build plants that feed on waste, then we have to continue to create that waste when the goal for many environmentalists is zero waste.  But is zero waste realistic?

Zero waste  seems like a bit of a green pipe dream.  Saying no to alternative solutions and holding out to accomplish zero waste might not give us that cheery birds twittering sun is shining result.  I think it’s definitely something we can continue to work on, but thinking that everyone will no longer produce any waste is just silly.  I could tell you why, but I think if you reference your own life experience you have your answer.

Now getting one of these plants going is costly, but not when you read this.  Harrisburg, PA spent $300 million to refit a public incinerator.  New York spent $307 million hauling millions of tons of waste to other states.  Hmmmmm.  So $307 million in one year to pile up garbage OR $300 million to use garbage to harvest heat and energy.  So less garbage, less greenhouse gases and a cleaner energy source.  Seems like it’s worth checking out, but according to the article we are not pursuing any waste-to-energy options.  I’m not saying I am a firm believer in these types of plants, but I’d like to know more and would like our country to at least be strongly considering all possible options.  I don’t think we have time to wait on zero waste.  What do you think?

NY Times Article - Read it and tell me what you think!

Filed under: Uncategorized