$10 million wasted annually in Dutchess through incineration, landfilling-- enough!...

Recall these facts from Mar. 7th Poughkeepsie Journal article regarding Dutchess County:


"The Dutchess County Resource Recovery Agency recycles only 4 percent of Dutchess' 250,000 tons of garbage, a consultant's report says. According to officials and reports, little is done to encourage recycling in the county. When waste recycled by private haulers is included, the county recycling rate is only 11 percent, about half the state rate, agency figures show; an estimated 30,000 tons of paper alone go to the trash heap yearly. An estimated 57 percent to 62 percent of waste produced in the county every year passes through the jaws of its giant incinerator on the Hudson River."
[from "Critics Rip Agency As Recycling Falters" by Mary Beth Pfeiffer
http://www.poughkeepsiejournal.com/article/20100307/NEWS01/3070352/Critics-rip-agency-as-recycling-falters ]


[recall-- "Ulster County's Recycling Rate-- 40 Percent-- Approaches State Goal" by Patricia Doxsey
http://www.dailyfreeman.com/articles/2010/04/28/news/doc4bd7bcd192621739013476.txt
again-- this is similar to Rockland County's success recycling-- see http://www.RocklandRecycles.com ]


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Hi all...


One more reason to come out to join us today 5:30 pm for the first meeting of our new Zero Waste Working Group for Dutchess County at the Retreat at Vassar College (cafe on first floor of Main Bldg.)...


[note, too: scroll down a bit for great article in Southern Dutchess News on Paul Connett talk last Thurs.]


Fact: Dutchess County now flushes well over $10 million down the drain every year by incinerating and landfilling about 90% of our waste/resources-- instead of recycling, reusing, or composting the Clean Dozen-- reuse, textiles, polymers, metals, glass, paper, putrescibles, plant debris, wood, soils, ceramics, and chemicals-- see just below!...(how many more years are we going to wait before we do this here?)...


Joel
242-3571/876-2488
joeltyner@earthlink.net

[thx again tons to colleague Co. Leg. Jim Doxsey for doggedly pressing our colleagues for zero-waste; Jim and I have been debating our colleagues online in Co. Leg. on this issue; need you to help too!...so email all 25 of us now at countylegislators@co.dutchess.ny.us for no further delay: zero-waste here!]


[...and join 66 other Dutchess folks signed up for this too-- at http://www.petitiononline.com/zeroyes !...]


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Extrapolated for Dutchess from http://www.ilsr.org/recycling/zerowaste/hawaii-zero-waste-plan.pdf ...


[from Zero Waste Implementation Plan for County of Hawaii by Richard Anthony Associates Mar. 2009]


Fact: 89% of waste/resources currently generated in Dutchess County is incinerated or landfilled-- while that very material could provide resources, revenue, and jobs needed for our county's sustainability(!).


Estimated Annual Lost Value of Dutchess County Discards Incinerated or Landfilled:


[Hawaii population-- about 200,000; Dutchess population-- about 300,000; so extrapolated < Hawaii]


Categories Percentage Annual Tons $/Ton Annual Revenues Lost


1. Reuse 5% 15,000 $500 $7,500,000


2. Textiles 3% 9,000 $50 $450,000


3. Polymers 8% 24,000 $50 $1,200,000


4. Metals 8% 24,000 $50 $1,200,000


5. Glass 2% 6,000 $10 $60,000


6. Paper 23% 72,000 $50 $3,600,000


7. Putrescibles 17% 50,000 $7 $375,000


8. Plant Debris 15% 45,000 $7 $330,000


9. Wood 10% 30,000 $8 $240,000


10. Soils 2% 6,000 $7 $45,000


11. Ceramics 6% 18,000 $4 $75,000


12. Chemicals 1% 3,000 $15 $45,000


County laws could be passed and enforced as soon as infrastructure can be put in place for:


-- construction and demolition reuse and recycling plans


-- separation of designated organics, reusables, and recyclables (including all haulers being required to provide recycling services as a condition of their county permit)


-- funding for training and social marketing programs


-- retailer and producer take-back of non-recyclable, non-reusable, or non-compostable products and packaging


-- compostable organics out of incinerators and landfills


Dutchess County government should work with towns, cities, and villages (Dutchess County Association of Supervisors and Mayors) across our county to redesign municipal transfer stations into Resource Recovery Parks, including ReStores for recovery and sale of reusables, organic material and rock grinding areas, full signage and demonstration areas, along with mini-MRF's for recyclables.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


[here below-- article in Southern Dutchess News that came out yesterday on Connett talk last Thursday]

"Incinerator Options Recommended for County"
by Rich Flaherty

An international expert on solid waste reduction gave a presentation on Earth Day last Thursday at Vassar College on environmental and cost problems with incineration.

Dr. Paul Connett is Executive Director of AmericanHealthStudies.org. Since 1985, he's given over 2,000 pro bono presentations in 52 countries and 49 states.

In January, he gave a talk in New York at the Division for Sustainable Development at the United Nations, and he's scheduled to return for additional discussion in early May.

Connett's presentation last week was entitled: "Zero Waste: A Key Step Towards Sustainability (and why it is more important than ever to close down the Poughkeepsie (Dutchess County Resource Recovery plant) incinerator."

He said during the 20th century, the goal was how to get rid of waste. In the 21st century, the emphasis is on resource management. "Something has to change," said Connett. "India and China are copying our (U.S.) consumption patterns."

"We cannot run a throw-away society. Our consumption is a waste crisis." He said global warming is "a symptom" of the world's growing consumption and the products that are discarded as waste. "Overconsumption is the crisis," Connett said.

Global advertising contributes to our consumption. He said the average high school student will have watched over 350,000 TV commercials by the time he or she graduates from high school. "We can't sustain this lifestyle til the end of this century."

Connett said the issue can be helped with the use of better technology, resource management and industrial design changes with packaging that can be recycled or reused.

Some communities are "tigers" in the area of recycling, waste reduction, and composting. "Poughkeepsie is a sheep," said Connett. He highlighted that the key is community responsibility that will help drive industrial responsibility.

Connett said the Dutchess County Resource Recovery Facility in the Town of Poughkeepsie, which burns refuse that is converted to electricity and sold to Central Hudson is a waste of energy. The process wastes time, produces air emissions that can be toxic, creates few jobs, and requires landfilling for the fly ash that is the byproduct of burning.

"Over half the money spent on incinerators goes to air pollution controls. Money spent on alternatives goes to jobs that stay in the community." "Even if we make incineration safe, we would never make it sensible. It's toxic mush," said Connett. "A modern incinerator is attempting to perfect a bad idea."

Mass burn incinerators only obtain 75 percent of waste reduction, with 25 percent created by the ash byproduct.


He highlighted San Francisco, with a population of 850,000. That city is ahead of the curve on recycling and waste reduction and is a model municipality for emulating. The city established a goal of 50 percent waste diversion by 2000. In 2009, 72 percent of its waste was diverted. In 2010, the goal is 75 percent, and by 2020, the city anticipates 100 percent of waste diverted.

Los Angeles is looking at zero waste with a population of four million people. Prince Edward Island is on the same path, and Nova Scotia has created 2,000 jobs with its zero waste activities.

Connett said a combination of recycling and composting is 46 times better reducing greenhouse gases than incineration that generates electricity.

His presentation outlined 10 steps toward zero waste. 1) Source separation 2) Door-to-door collection of recycled products 3) Composting (just as important as recycling) 4) Recycling 5) Reuse, repair and deconstruction (about 90 percent of construction and demolition material can be recycled) 6) Waste reduction initiatives 7) Provide economic incentives 8) Residual separation and research 9) Individual responsibility 10) Interim landfill.

The Xerox corporation is an example of industrial responsibility with the company collecting old copy machines from 16 countries and saving $76 million in recycling and reuse programs.

Between 1985 and 1995, over 300 incinerator proposals were rejected in the United States. About 35 incinerators were proposed in California in 1985, with three approved. In New Jersey, 22 incinerators were proposed during that ten-year period; only five were built. In New York City, six were proposed, and none were approved.

"All over the country, these incinerators were being rejected at a margin of about four to one," Connett said. Of the 300 that were rejected, about 70 were constructed. There haven't been any new permitted incinerator projects since 1995.

"The problem for the incinerator industry is not just that the public doesn't want to live near them, but that the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against flow control in the mid 1990's." The result was that localities could not mandate area refuse haulers to bring trash to resource recovery or burn plants for disposal.

The case involved New Jersey waste haulers that did not want to pay a $90 tipping fee at local burn plants. They wanted to bring their waste to Pennsylvania landfills with a tipping fee of $45 to compete with the landfills. The incinerators could continue to pay their operating costs, but they couldn't pay the debt and capital costs.

Dutchess County provided a $3.5 million subsidy to the Dutchess County Resource Recovery Agency (RRA) in 2008. The agency sought $6.3 million in a net service fee for the 2010 county budget, but county legislators late last year put the issue on hold to be resolved this year. The county legislature also requested a new solid waste plan from the RRA, which is expected to be ready later this year. Presently there is no county funding for the RRA.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Fact: As the Institute of Local Self-Reliance website itself has noted-- "On a per-ton basis, sorting and processing recyclables alone sustain 10 times more jobs than landfilling or incineration."
[see: http://www.ilsr.org/recycling/recyclingmeansbusiness.html ]


Applying these job-to-ton ratios to Dutchess' current volume indicate that literally 18,000 jobs could be created right here in our county with a 100% zero-waste approach to resource recovery-- and 9,000 new green recycling/composting jobs created even with just a 50% recycling rate(!).


From http://www.ilsr.org/recycling/recyclingmeansbusiness.html ...


Job Creation: Reuse and Recycling Vs. Disposal [from Institute for Local Self-Reliance]

Type of Operation Jobs per 10,000 TPY

Product Reuse
Computer Reuse-- 296
Textile Reclamation-- 85
Misc. Durables Reuse-- 62
Wooden Pallet Repair-- 28

Recycling-based Manufacturers
Paper Mills-- 18
Glass Product Manufacturers-- 26
Plastic Product Manufacturers-- 93

Conventional Materials Recovery Facilities-- 10
Composting-- 4
Landfill and Incineration-- 1

TPY = tons per year; figures are based on interviews with select facilities around the country.

On a per-ton basis, sorting and processing recyclables alone sustain 10 times more jobs than landfilling or incineration. However, making new products from the old offers the largest economic pay-off in the recycling loop. New recycling-based manufacturers employ even more people and at higher wages than does sorting recyclables. Some recycling-based paper mills and plastic product manufacturers, for instance, employ on a per-ton basis 60 times more workers than do landfills.

Value is added to discarded materials as a result of cleaning, sorting, and baling. Manufacturing with locally collected discards adds even more value by producing finished goods. For example, old newspapers may sell for $30 per ton, but new newsprint sells for $600 per ton. Each recycling step a community takes locally means more jobs, more business expenditures on supplies and services, and more money circulating in the local economy through spending and tax payments. Recycling has had a major impact on job creation in local and state economies.


In North Carolina, recycling industries employ over 8,700 people. The job gains in recycling in this state far outnumber the jobs lost in other industries. For every 100 recycling jobs created, just 10 jobs were lost in the waste hauling and disposal industry, and 3 jobs were lost in the timber harvesting industry.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


To cut to the chase-- to more fully flesh out what I (and Paul Connett of http://www.AmericanHealthStudies.org and Neil Seldman of http://www.ILSR.org , along with Co. Leg. Jim Doxsey and I believe) suggest below, if we're going to move towards making our county incinerator unneeded and obsolete, we need to help make sure about 60% of our county's waste (at least 150,000 tons or so) are recycled or composted-- instead of being sent to the incinerator each year...


...but don't forget-- as it is already it costs the taxpayers of Dutchess County literally three million dollars a year just to dispose of the ash from our county incinerator...


[...besides the millions necessary otherwise to run that thing...]

.......and again-- recycling/composting is ALWAYS cheaper than incineration or landfilling!...


See below-- if cities in Italy can radically increase their waste diversion (recycling) rate in just a year or so-- there's no reason why we here in Dutchess can't as well!...

Recall these two gems from Paul Connett below-- "Novarra near Turin (pop. 100,000) reached 70% in just 18 months. Salerno, went from 18% to 82 % in one year."
[ http://www.no-burn.org/why-incineration-is-a-very-bad-idea-in-the-twenty-first-century ]

Our task, as I humbly see it, is for us to make real asap three-point plan in count-- hopefully getting as many waste haulers, municipalities, businesses, and homeowners to buy in to this as possible...

Suggested plan (endorsed by Paul Connett, Neil Seldman, essentially all zero-waste experts):

1. Get organics out of the waste stream with curbside collection for food waste/yard waste.
[note-- just this first step alone, together with recycling enforcement could get us to 60%]
http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2010/04/01/hamilton_wenham_blaze_green_trail_with_municipal_composting_program/ (Ithaca, Portland, Seattle, Boulder, Cambridge, and communities across Vt, No. Car., Minn., Michigan, Calif. all successfully food-waste composting; see:
http://www.cool2012.com/community/collection/ http://www.jgpress.com/archives/_free/000525.html ;
http://www.recycletompkins.org/editorstree/view/177 ; http://ccetompkins.org/compost/index.html )

[Shabazz Jackson and Josephine Papagni of Greenway Environmental Solutions should be crucial in our effort to get organics out of wastestream in Dutchess; recall his suggestion as part of our task force:
food-waste composting in county: http://www.poughkeepsiejournal.com/assets/pdf/BK142669916.PDF ;
recall-- Shabazz was recognized in 1992 by the NYS Council of Mayors with an Innovations in Local Government Award-- for getting the City of Beacon up to a verified 72% recycling rate w/transfer station:
http://greenwayny.com/beta/about/?id=bio ; http://www.cbsm.com/public/mma/advanced+training.htm ]

2. Implement incentivizing pay-as-you-throw system for residual trash-- and keep it free for businesses and homeowners to recycle and compost, but charge for collecting residual trash.
[this should get us to 85%; see: http://www.epa.gov/waste/conserve/tools/payt/tools/bulletin/spring09.htm ]

3. Implement Extended Producer Responsibility (stop co.'s from producing waste, as in Ontario)
[see: http://www.hazmatmag.com/issues/ISArticle.asp?ntoken=NOCOOKIE ; stop waste at source]

If Nantucket can have 92% recycling/waste diversion rate-- why not Dutchess?...(no reason at all!).

Remember Oct. 19th NYTimes-- "A New Recycling Strategy Is Catching On" by Leslie Kaufman; see:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/20/science/earth/20trash.html .


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


From Paul Connett's new essay "Why Incineration Is a Very Bad Idea in the Twenty First Century"...
[see: http://www.no-burn.org/why-incineration-is-a-very-bad-idea-in-the-twenty-first-century ]


[notice how quickly communities CAN move towards zero-waste-- huge increases in just a year or so!]


"The alternatives are not pie-in-the-sky-- many communities in California, Canada, Italy, New Zealand, Spain and the UK have embarked on the zero waste strategy (not all call it that) and have achieved some with very rapid and impressive results. San Francisco (population 850,000) has reached 72% diversion from waste disposal. Their goal for 2010 is 75% diversion and their goal for 2020 is Zero Waste. Many other communities in California have also reached over 70% diversion. In Italy over 200 communities have done so. Novarra near Turin (pop. 100,000) reached 70% in just 18 months. Salerno, went from 18% to 82 % in one year. Villafranco d'Asti (population 35,000) has reached 85% diversion and the small town of Ursibil in Spain has reached 86%.


In Brescia, Italy, they spent about $400,000,000 building an incinerator and have created just 80 full-time jobs. While Nova Scotia, a province of Canada, after rejecting an incinerator, has created over 3000 jobs in the handling of the discarded resources and in the industries using these secondary materials.


The problem with incineration is twofold: a) because every object in commerce is likely to end up in an incinerator any toxic element used in these products is likely to end up in the nanoparticles. The nanoparticles from incinerators are the most dangerous of any common source. b) There are NO regulations in the world for the monitoring nanoparticles from incinerators. In most countries the particles regulated are 10 microns and above.In some countries they regulate particles at 2.5 microns. But neither standard comes closer to monitoring nanoparticles. We are flying blind on this crucial issue.


There is a very important paper on this issue from Dr. Vyvyan Howard from Northern Ireland. I know Vyvyan very well and he is one of the brightest people I have ever met. He co-authored a book on nanoparticles in 1999; see: http://www.chaseireland.org/Documents/ProfVHowardBiography.htm ."


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Thx tons to all who came out last Thursday in Poughkeepsie to hear world-class anti-incineration expert Paul Connett speak at Vassar-- Poughkeepsie Co. Leg. Jim McCabe and former Co. Leg. Bill McCabe, Sierra Club's Joanne Steele, Rhinebeck's Marcus Mello (of CAC), Clinton's Patricia Zolnik (of the Cary Institute for Ecosystem Studies) and JP Ferraro (of WHVW), Millbrook's Didi Barrett (Dem candidate for NYS Senate), Nadine Souto of Vassar College's Sustainability Committee and Samantha McClenahan of Vassar, Poughkeepsie's Dick Hathaway & Peg Keiser (of Poughkeepsie Friends Mtg.), Beacon's Tom Baldino (CAC Chair) and Marcia Frahman (of Howland Public Library), East Fishkill's Richard Dennison, Wappinger's Fred Doneit (of the Poughkeepsie Friends Meeting), and many more...


[thx as well to Rich Flaherty of Southern and Northern Dutchess News of media for attending this too]


Paul Connett suggested we start a Zero Waste Working Group for Dutchess County-- so we are...


Come out to our first mtg.-- today Thurs. Apr. 29th 5:30 pm at Vassar's Retreat!...(cafe in Main Building)...


[if you haven't yet join 66 other Dutchess Zero Heroes signed to http://www.petitiononline.com/zeroyes !]


Fact: At the end of this year Dutchess County's current Solid Waste Management Plan will expire.


Fact: Next year Dutchess County Incinerator's NYS Solid Waste Permit expires (time for action: now).


Fact: Dutchess County's contract with the incinerator in Poughkeepsie scheduled to expire in 2014.


Fact: Dutchess taxpayers pay $3 million/yr. for incinerator ash disposal alone after burning 150 tons/yr.


Fact: It's always cheaper for taxpayers & private sector to recycle or compost resources than incinerate.


[don't forget-- Dutchess taxpayers spent $1,167,271 on "Solid Waste" (incineration) in 2006, $5,005,364 on this in 2008, $6,330,612 on this in 2009]


Fact: If Dutchess got organics out of wastestream and implemented PAYT, incinerator unnecessary(!).


[PAYT = pay-as-you-throw; for much more on this see http://www.epa.gov/osw/conserve/tools/payt/ ]


NOW IS THE TIME TO WORK TOWARDS MAKING COUNTY INCINERATOR UNNEEDED, OBSOLETE!


Now we must bring municipal officials, waste haulers, businesses, institutions, homeowners together...


[...but we can't do without you folks-- so please join us today 5:30 pm @ Vassar's Retreat Cafe!...]


[...again-- sign at http://www.petitiononline.com/zeroyes if you'd like to be a Zero Hero in Dutchess!...]


Here's what Paul Connett told us last Thurs. (essentially same thing that Neil Seldman of http://www.ILSR.org told us repeatedly last year-- but good to hear from another world-class expert):


"Getting the organics out of the wastestream is key; a municipality's recycling rate can be doubled with curbside collection of organics like food waste and yard waste; in order to seriously move towards zero-waste the food waste needs to be separated from the wastestream-- otherwise the rest of the wastestream becomes contaminated...Then a pay-by-the-bag (pay-as-you-throw) system has to be instituted to deal with the residuals-- the part of the wastestream that can't be recycled or composted."


[yes-- same thing Shabazz and Josephine of Greenway.com told us last year about this as well; see:
"Hamilton, Wenham Blaze 'Green Trail' with Municipal Composting" (Boston Globe Apr. 1st)
http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2010/04/01/hamilton_wenham_blaze_green_trail_with_municipal_composting_program/ ]


In fact, Paul Connett's been writing and speaking out for communities to follow the successful example of Nova Scotia's innovative, job-creating residual screening and research facilities for four years now--
"Zero Waste-- Not Just Better for the Environment, It's Better for the Local Economy as in Nova Scotia"
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb6685/is_1_32/ai_n29266797/ (by Paul Connett Jan./Feb. 2006)...


Let's not forget-- Neil Seldman of http://www.ILSR.org reminded us of following markets for recyclables:


"The Feb. 1st Waste and Recycling News had these recycling prices for NY region:

soft mixed paper $70 per ton
boxboard cuttings $72.50 per ton
de ink news $55 per ton
corrugated containers $110 per ton
White news blanks $175 per ton
sorted office paper $215 per ton
sorted white ledger $300 per ton
hard white envelope cuttings $445 per ton
aluminum 80 cents per lb
plastics HDPE 19 cents per lb
PET 13 cents per lb"


Neil Seldman (President of the Institute for Local Self-Reliance): "The key to recycling is that it saves money over garbage; the prices on the market are an after-issue. The fact is that markets are there for recycling; material brokers will confirm this, and cities can get contracts for floor prices. It just costs less to recycle than dispose of materials as garbage. Trucks are lighter, payload better. It also allows garbage trucks to cover more houses per day and allows cities to eliminate garbage routes."


Fact: According to the EPA, 98% of wastestream in U.S. are recyclable, reusable, or compostable materials (Dutchess wouldn't be too different from nat.'l ave.)-- food scraps (19%), yard trimmings (7%), paper/paperboard (24%), metals (9%), wood (8%), glass (7%), textiles (6%), and plastics (18%),
[see: http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/non-hw/muncpl/msw99.htm ; also Neil Seldman/ILSR PowerPoint]

Berkeley's Urban Ore Reuse and Repair Center provides a great model for us here in Dutchess if we are to seriously move towards zero-waste (three acres of well-organized used goods)-- we here in Dutchess need a Hudson Valley Materials Exchange-- see Jill Gruber's http://www.HVME.com here)...


Check out http://UrbanOre.ypguides.net for more on Berkeley's Urban Ore-- we need for Dutchess:


Hardware Exchange-- with lighting, locks, tools, motors, bikes, sporting equipment
Building Materials Exchange-- with doors, windows, sinks, tubs, lumber, bricks, fencing tile
General Store-- with collectibles, appliances, furniture, cabinets
Arts and Media Exchange-- with computers, electronics, books, music, art


Also from Urban Ore-- "We do conceptual designs of zero-waste disposal facilities. Consulting clients have included: State of West Virginia; Australian Capital Territory; Sonoma County, CA; Architects Kauai, HI; Humboldt County, CA. We design facilities to receive 12 master categories of discards that can all be recycled. Using these 12 categories, otherwise known as the Clean Dozen (SM), nothing is left out and nothing is left over. The facilities have been called by many names, including: Zero Waste Parks, Ecoparks, Serial Materials Recovery Facilities (Serial MRFs), Discard Malls, Resource Malls."


[send a letter to all 25 of us at countylegislators@co.dutchess.ny.us if you'd like Dutchess to have this!]


Ontario: model for us re: Extended Producer Responsibility http://www.nypsc.org/aggregator/sources/4


Fact: For literally only 1/600th of the current $6.5M cost to Dutchess taxpayers to subsidize the DCRRA (about $6.5 million), the county could hire nationally known zero-waste experts like Neil Seldman, Gary Liss, Richard Anthony to prepare a $10,000 report on cost-saving, green-jobs zero-waste possibilities.




Fact: According to Neil Seldman, President of the Institute for Local Self-Reliance, "Worcester (MA), Portland (OR), Seattle/King County (WA), Hawaii County, Oakland, and Los Angeles are all examples of communities that have rejected incineration and invested in recycling and composting, saving tax dollars as the costs of solid waste management have gone down."
[see http://www.ILSR.org ]


Fact: According to Neil Seldman, President of the Institute for Local Self-Reliance, "A zero-waste approach to resource recovery saves tax dollars because solid waste has been reduced in those communities by diverting materials to the private sector which hire workers, pay taxes, and expand the local tax base. For example, Oakland has created over 1000 jobs in the last decade as a result of a rejected incinerator there and invested in recycling and composting."
[see http://www.ILSR.org ]


Fact: "Significantly decreasing waste disposed in incinerators and landfills will reduce greenhouse gas emissions the equivalent to closing 21% of U.S. coal-fired power plants. This is comparable to leading climate protection proposals such as improving national vehicle fuel efficiency. Indeed, preventing waste and expanding reuse, recycling, and composting are essential to put us on the path to climate stability." [ http://www.StopTrashingtheClimate.org ]


Thanks much to the Sierra Club's Joanne Steele and Marie Caruso for their interest and commitment to help us as much as possible move Dutchess County towards a cost-saving, green-jobs, clean-air, less-carbon, zero-waste approach to resource recovery; Joanne and Marie are looking for volunteers to help them put together a local zero waste task force on this-- contact them at sierraclubjoanne@gmail.com and mariehv@verizon.net if you or anyone else you know is interested...


Again-- your letters to all 25 of us in Co. Leg. do matter-- at countylegislators@co.dutchess.ny.us...


[tools ARE in our hands-- MANY communities across planet quickly moving to zero waste; pass it on!]


[...and-- Poughkeepsie Friends Meeting's Fred Doneit is right-- we should have screening soon of Annie Leonard's http://www.StoryofStuff.com soon here in Dutchess-- who would like to help on this?]


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Comments from some signed on to http://www.petitiononline.com/zeroyes -- join us for zero waste!...


66.
Sheila Buff
Please reduce and eliminate waste in Dutchess County/
500 Milan Hill Road, Milan NY 12571
65.
Danielle Falzon
Zero waste!
11714
64.
Emily Svenson
I support county leadership for waste reduction!
12538
63.
Amy Marcus
Zero Waste is the way to go!
Vassar College Box 2984, 124 Raymond Ave, Poughkeepsie NY 12604
62.
George Adams
none
12604
61.
Annie Cai
I support zero waste!
124 Raymond Ave Poughkeepsie, NY 12604
60.
Richard Dennison
If you care about your children, your grandchildren and future generations, "zero waste" is a MUST.
12533
59.
Alyssa Kogon
I totally endorse this policy
7 Stonehouse Road Rhinebeck, NY 12572
58.
richard p. mchugh
a must petition !
154 chelsea rd ,wappingers falls 12590
57.
Kevin Barratt
Zero waste is the most responsible thing we can do now to make a better future for generations to come. Anyone opposed to this is not thinking of others, but only of themselves, and their own prosperity.
96 Sodom Road, Staatsburg, NY 12580
56.
margaret de wys
zero waste. a great step towards our future
12574
55.
Megan J Hastie
An important commitment and not a moment too soon.
96 Station Hill Rd, Barrytown, NY 12507
54.
Susan Quasha
reducing waste (on most levels) is imperative
124 Station Hill Road, Barrytown, NY 12507
53.
George Quasha
zero waste is a no-brainer -- can't believe any non-profiteering folks would be against it
124 Station Hill Road, Barrytown, NY 12507
52.
Louise de Leeuw
Lets reduce our waste as fast as possible.
97 College Ave. Poughkeepsie, NY 12603
51.
Mary James
Better late than never!
12603
50.
Honorable James R. Doxsey
The time is now to begin a Zero waste approach
12601
49.
richard mchugh
go green!
154 chelsea rd ,wappingers falls 12590
48.
Blanche Rubin
I strongly urge the Dutchess county government to adopt a Zero Waste approach. If we each do our own part -- composting, recycling, etc. -- it can be a win-win program.
12580
47.
Vivian Mandala
Do what makes sense and this does.
PO Box 195, Rhinecliff, NY 12574
46.
Mara Farrell
I support this
Fishkill, NY 12524
45.
Joshua Farrell
The future is now. We can't afford to continue to pollute our environment and waste natural resources.
12524
44.
Dan Maciejak
Create sorting/processing jos, make compost, reduce CO2 emissions, stop incineration now!
12572
43.
Natalie Narotzky
less waste, less pollution, less consumption
Bard College, Annandale on Hudson, NY
42.
Shaun Chesley
Zero Waste, Save now, Save the future
12601
41.
Marcia Slatkin
I just moved here, and was shocked to find that the post office doesn't yet recycle paper. On LI, I've always recycled and composted all waste I produce, and have made good garden soil out of kitchen waste, so my garden grows better. I've read that the teamster's union says that recycling of thrown out materials -- i.e. packaging, computers, appliances -- could create 2 million jobs nationally -=- new green jobs that we need so desperately. ANd incineration is dirty, fouls the air, and addes CO2 that causes climate cyhange -- a huge danger to us all. The expansion of reuse, recycle and composting are essential to climate stability. Doing this would reduce CO2 emissions by 7 \% by 2020. Please, then, those of you who will vote against this -- give your reasons! Why are you against stabilizing the earth's climate? I think your constitutents have the right to detailed and clear explanations!
Box 484, Rhinebeck, NY 12572
40.
elizabeth robinson
it's time
hopewell jct ny 12533
39.
Nora Edwards
There is much we could do to reduce waste.
Wingdale12594
38.
suzanne curran
thank you for your work from sue and brian
sue 6 anderson school rd brian in a welfafemotel he is a great recycler
37.
Martha P Humphreys
Please, please let this happen!
10 Jefferson ave, Beacon, NY 12508
36.
laura cullen
must do
23 crumwold place, hyde park ny 12538
35.
Richard and Viola Hathaway
The less is burned, the less CO2 in the air.
141 Fulton Ave. 12603
34.
Connie Hogarth
Dutchess cty can help save our planet and its people!
20 Hartsook Lane, Beacon NY 12508
33.
Steven Mann
Sounds like a smart idea!
43 North Loop, Rhinebeck, NY 12572
32.
Vane Lashua
Why not?
95 Liberty Street, Beacon, NY 12508
31.
Patricia Zolnik
Please get this going , especially for our children's sake ...maybe this will help to start reducing our ever increasing cancer rates too.
93 Deer Ridge Drive, Staatsburg, NY 12580
30.
Fernando R. Valentin
Thank you for your consideration
12601-1515
29.
Scott Patrick Humphrey
It is possible for zero waste to be a reality NOW, please take thoughtful action to promote sustainable living practices. Support our environment and your local Green Party candidate.
12601
28.
Thomas Baldino
We are polluting the planet. We must use all means to protect the planet. We need to shut down burn plants and landfills as a first big step.
19 North St., Beacon, NY 12508
27.
Bryan Kallen

783 Centre Road Staatsburg NY 12580
26.
julia widdowson
i endorse and support zero waste.
juliawiddowson@mac.com
25.
Josh Schlossberg
Zero waste is a necessary goal
5 Cedarcliff Lane, Poughkeepsie, NY, 12601
24.
William E. Lunt
Zero waste is good for the economy and good for the environment. It is a win win solution.
114 Bedell Rd, Poughkeepsie, NY 12603
23.
Barbara Lindsey
yes to zero waste
53 Ferris Lane, Poughkeepsie, NY 12601
22.
Michael West
This has to happen.
595 Route 308 Rhinebeck, NY 12572
21.
Alicia Lenhart
Behind you all the way Joel
12572
20.
Karl J. Volk
no wste
43 Whittier blvd Poughkeepsei Ny 12603
19.
chris 'creek' iversen
Living sustainably is, by definition, the only future
221 Stoneykill Rd; Wappingers Falls, NY 12590
18.
Fred Nagel
zero waste, a way for Dutchess Co. to help save the planet
12572
17.
Doris Kelly
It's about time we strive for zero waste
7 Susan Court, 12538
16.
Edwin A Pell III
we say no to terrorists
clinton, 12572
16.
Edwin A Pell III
we say no to terrorists
clinton, 12572
15.
Ron Ray
keep up the good work
po box 1052 beacon, ny
14.
Dana J. Tompkins
Hey Joel, Sorry to hear about the abuse. I'm proud of you for your veracity. Let me know if you need any help.
73 College lane, Millbrook, NY 12545
13.
Diane Sommer
It's so important to support this... and let it begin in our own households
LaGrangeville, NY
12.
kathleen everett
sensible and long overdue
chestnut street, rhinebeck 12572
11.
Peter Conklin
must be done
Hyde Park NY
10.
tim kleeger
I support the Zero Waste plan.
Hyde Park, 12538
9.
Anthony Henry Smith
Each of the items in this petition merits its own separate petition.
12601
8.
Sara Fletcher Luther
I support the petition
60 S Randolph Ave, Pok, NY 12601
7.
Doug McComb

37 Hornbeck Ridge Poughkeepsie NY 12603
6.
Patricia G. Lamanna
I'd like to see Dutchess County be a leader on this...after Berkeley, CA, of course, immortalized in the song on Pete Seeger's latest album
27 Meyer Avenue, Poughkeepsie, NY 12603
5.
Joanna Dupee
I endorse this petition. It is long over-due.
81 La Bergerie Ln, Red Hook, NY 12572
4.
Patti Gordon
great idea.
7575 Old Post Road, Red Hook, NY 12571
3.
Geoffrey Carter
Necessary - start planning immediately
12571
2.
Edward Hernandes
I am for the zero-waste program
144 lime Ridge Rd. Poughquag, NY 12570
1.
Cary Kittner
This is very important for so many reasons
12507


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


More from Paul Connett's "Why Incineration Is a Very Bad Idea in the Twenty First Century"...


(he made this presentation Jan. 12 to UN's Division for Sustainable Development; speaking again May)


[see: http://www.no-burn.org/why-incineration-is-a-very-bad-idea-in-the-twenty-first-century ']


After ending war, sustainability is the most crucial challenge our civilization has faced since the beginning of the industrial revolution. On a finite planet we cannot run a throwaway society indefinitely. We have to ape nature and recycle everything we possibly can. We would need four planets if everyone in the world consumed like Americans. We would need two planets if everyone consumed like Europeans. Meanwhile, both India and China, with their massive populations, are hell-bent on copying our "over-consuming" lifestyle. It was India's Mahatma Gandhi who many years ago said that "the world has enough for everyone's need, but not for everyone's greed." We in the North and the West need to set a better example. We have only got one planet and we must start behaving as if that was the case.


Is incineration safe? This is an issue I have followed for 25 years. The issue that peaked my interest was the incredible fact that simply by burning household trash we make the most toxic substances that we have ever been able to make in a chemical laboratory: polyhalogenated dibenzo para dioxins and furans (PCDDs, PCDFs, PBDDs, PBDFs etc) called "dioxins" for short. There are literally thousands of these substances. There is no question that over 25 years the industry has got better at capturing these pollutants but we are still hostage as to how well the plants are designed and operated, monitored and the regulations enforced. In addition to this, incineration releases many toxic metals from otherwise fairly stable matrices. At worst these metals (lead, cadmium, mercury, chromium etc) go into the air, at best they are captured in the fly ash in the air pollution control devices (APC). But it is a truism to state that the better the APC the more toxic the ash becomes.


There is nothing new about nanoparticles, which are particle of less than one micron in diameter. They are produced in any high temperature combustion which includes vehicles, coal-fired power stations, industrial boilers etc. What is new is nanotechnology where these particles, which have very unusual properties, are being used in many commercial products from shaving cream to tennis rackets. This has raised the question of whether they have any negative health effects. That question has given rise to a new discipline called nanotoxicology. It turns out that these particles have exquisite biological properties which are very worrying. They are so tiny that they can cross the lung membrane and enter the bloodstream. Once there they can enter every tissue in the body including the brain. The problem with incineration is twofold: a) because every object in commerce is likely to end up in an incinerator any toxic element used in these products is likely to end up in the nanoparticles. The nanoparticles from incinerators are the most dangerous of any common source. b) There are NO regulations in the world for the monitoring nanoparticles from incinerators. In most countries the particles regulated are 10 microns and above.In some countries they regulate particles at 2.5 microns. But neither standard comes closer to monitoring nanoparticles. We are flying blind on this crucial issue.


There is a very important paper on this issue from Dr. Vyvyan Howard from Northern Ireland. I know Vyvyan very well and he is one of the brightest people I have ever met. He co-authored a book on nanoparticles in 1999. The attached paper was delivered in 2009 in a hearing on an incinerator proposed for Ireland. It is the most up to date review of the issue of nanoparticles and incineration available. Before any new incinerator is built in India, or anywhere else for that matter, government officials (or the public) should force the project director to produce a scientific response to the key questions posed in this paper. If they cannot do so, then clearly building such a plant is taking a reckless gamble with the public's health. Moreover, if we return to the opening of this statement, such a gamble cannot be justified on either economic or environmental grounds, both local and global.


For more about the nuts and bolts about the zero waste approach see my webpage at http://www.AmericanHealthStudies.org . There you will find a series of videotapes I have shot on Zero Waste around the world and also an essay entitled Zero Waste for Sustainability."


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


From http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb6685/is_1_32/ai_n29266797/ ...


Zero waste wins: it's not just better for the environment, it's better for the local economy. Ask Nova Scotia
Alternatives Journal, Jan-Feb, 2006 by Paul Connett


One approach to dealing with residual materials is to build residual screening and research facilities in front of interim landfills. Already, Nova Scotia has a successful working residual screening facility near Halifax. If this were combined with a research division (possibly provided by a local university), we might find other ways to use these materials and, even better, advise industry on better design that would eliminate their becoming part of the residual fraction.


Since the 1980s, environmental activists and citizens opposed to both incinerators and landfills have argued for a third way: intensive recycling and composting. The result of this debate has come down to the question of what we do with the residuals--the stuff we can't currently recycle or compost cleanly--and how to pay for problematic recyclables.


If the back-end engineers want to make the residuals disappear, then the front-end thinkers want to make the residuals very visible and very unattractive. The residuals represent bad industrial design and should be removed from the beginning rather than destroyed at the end.


With good leadership, the residual screening and research facility is where community responsibility and industrial responsibility can meet.


If the community cannot reuse, repair, recycle or compost it, industry shouldn't be making it--that's the position of zero-waste communities. Zero waste is not merely a call for 100-percent recycling, which emphasizes community responsibility and works at the back end of the problem. Zero waste tries to marry community responsibility with industrial responsibility in an attempt to shift the emphasis to the front end of the problem: bad products, poor industrial design and poor packaging of otherwise desirable products. The battle over waste has focused on the back end for far too long. For over 100 years, engineers and officials have argued over how to get rid of waste (the options are to bury it or burn it). For many engineers, the issue is to find better ways to construct landfills or magic machines that can destroy the material safely.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


From http://myzerowaste.com/2010/02/dr-paul-connetts-zero-waste-and-sustainability/ ...


February 5, 2010 in section: Blog by Mrs Green with 2834 views

Dr Paul Connett gives a compelling talk on zero waste and sustainability

I've just got back from an excellent talk by Dr Paul Connett, Professor of Chemistry, St Lawrence University, New York.


Dr Connett has researched waste management issues for over 14 years and is a world leading expert in incineration. He has given over 2000 talks in 52 countries with the aim of bringing clarity to the issue of incineration and sustainability.


The meeting was hosted by Ian Mean, Editor of our local paper "The Citizen" who opened the meeting by saying that waste was one of the two biggest issues we currently face in Gloucestershire. The meeting was organised by supported of four local campaign groups - Glosain, Glosvain, SWARD and Gloucestershire Friends of the Earth.

INCINERATION: A POOR SOLUTION

DR Connett's opening line was "Incineration: A poor solution for the twenty first century" and I knew we're in for a riveting 1 1/4 hours.

One and a quarter hours is a long time to talk, and an even longer time to listen, but this flew by and before we knew it, people were queuing up to shake his hand, ask questions and Little Miss green had her head resting on my lap for sleep.


Paul covered the arguments against incineration, told us why gasification (and other technologies) were not the answer and covered the zero waste strategy solution.


SOLUTIONS

The talk was compelling; not one to dwell on the negative, the thrust was to focus on the solution - a call to action for a zero waste future. The message bought to us was that what we do as individuals has an impact on the world. Paul pointed out that during the 20th century, the focus was on waste management and how to get rid of waste efficiently and with minimal damage to our health and the environment. The 21st century focus needs to be on RESOURCE management and sustainability for future generations.

CONSUMPTION IS KEY

The real problem, as Paul sees it, is fighting everyone's over consumption. By the time a child is 16, they have watched 350,000 TV adverts; all telling them they can be sexy, intelligent, popular and happy if they buy x,y, and z. He pointed out that Development is measured by how quickly we can extract, produce, consume and waste something. See Annie Leonard's "The story of stuff" below for a dynamic 20 minute talk on this.


INCINERATORS STILL NEED LANDFILL!


Incinerators don't challenge our consumption and they sabotage genuine moves towards sustainability. Incinerators also stifle innovation because you have to feed it. The shocking statistic I wasn't fully aware of was that for every 4 tonnes of stuff you burn in an incinerator, you still have to LANDFILL 1 tonne of toxic ash.

DIOXINS AND TOXINS


We were then told about dioxins, and all the other toxins given off by incinerators such as mercury, cadmium, lead and arsenic and shown that dioxins accumulate in animal fat. This means you don't even need to be living near an incinerator to suffer some of the negative effects. You simply need to eat the animals that have been grazing on nearby land to ingest dioxins. Once you get these dioxins in your system you can't get rid of them; except for women, who can get rid of them by having a baby. Apparently any dioxins stored in your fat goes into your baby when you get pregnant.

ZERO WASTE SOLUTIONS


After all the facts about why we should avoid incineration, the rest of the talk was on the solution - the zero waste model. Comprising of things you would expect such as kerbside collections, home composting, recycling, reusing, repairing and moving into other lesser thought of areas such as de-constructing, economic incentives, waste reduction initiatives and better industrial design, Paul showed us how a zero waste future was possible.

He talked about many inspiring communities all across the world in Nova Scotia, Japan, Spain, California and Italy who were virtually sending zero to landfill and incinerating nothing. Areas where recycling programmes were in place, community composting was commonplace, refills were the norm and new parents were given free reusable nappies! To see some of these inspiring stories visit the American Environmental Health Studies videos page.

QUALITY OF LIFE

The message we were left with was that we had to teach the future generations how to separate their quality of life from material consumption; reiterating that if we continued as we are living now we would need another 2 - 4 planets to sustain us. He also optimistically told us that a threatened community is a strengthened one if people work together. He reminded us that change begins with every person talking to their friends and neighbours.

SPREAD THE MESSAGE


I hope you all feel great about that, because I know many of you talk to your friends and colleagues and you must keep doing that - you have no idea how far those ripples will spread in time.

At the end of the talk, Ian Mean called Dr Connett's talk "Inspirational" He said "We really know why the UN wants him back and what I got was that we can all do something."


Indeed we can all do something; right now. What will you do today to make a difference?


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Towns blaze 'green' trail with composting service
By David Rattigan
Boston Globe Correspondent / April 1, 2010
http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2010/04/01/hamilton_wenham_blaze_green_trail_with_municipal_composting_program/


A grass-roots effort has brought curbside collection of garbage in Hamilton and Wenham, and area environmentalists say they will follow the progress of the East Coast's first municipal organic-waste pickup program.

Starting yesterday, more than 500 families in the two towns were to begin leaving tamper-resistant containers with food waste on the curb alongside their trash and recyclables.

The curbside-composting initiative is being spearheaded by the Hamilton-Wenham Recycling Committee, and follows a 74-family pilot program run in Hamilton last year.

"With the feedback we got from those participants, we felt it was worth it to go ahead,'' said Gretel Clark, the committee's chairwoman, who credits 70 neighborhood captains with enlisting the families joining the collection program this week. Clark said it is the first of its kind on the East Coast.


The organic waste will be turned into compost for use by local gardeners rather than being incinerated with the household trash. Peter Britton, of Brick Ends Farm in south Hamilton, runs the composting operation for the collection company, whose other clients are restaurants, markets, and other places with large amounts of organic waste. As an incentive, Britton will allow participants to take unlimited amounts of composted material.

In addition to the environmental benefit, the program should reduce costs for the towns, which pay a tipping fee for trash pickup and disposal based on the tonnage of refuse collected from residents.


Increased recycling efforts have already reduced the trash-collection budgets for area communities by reducing the amount of paper, plastic, glass, and other items thrown away.

"Food waste is one of those items in the waste stream that could be recycled at a higher rate,'' said Ed Coletta, spokesman for the state Department of Environmental Protection, which has supported the program both financially and with technical advice.

"According to our most recent figures, 13 percent of the waste stream has been identified as food waste, but only 3 percent of food waste is recycled,'' he said. "Obviously, we've got quite a distance to go to see that food waste gets recycled and composted.''

Nantucket has required residents to compost organic waste since the mid-1990s, according to its Department of Public Works director, Jeff Willett, but they are responsible for getting the material to the town composting facility.
Statewide, recycling programs have reduced the waste stream by 38 percent, Coletta said.

In Hamilton, household-waste collection has been cut by more than half since 2008, when the town implemented a pay-as-you-throw disposal system aimed at increasing recycling. While the old average was 55 pounds of trash per week per household, Board of Selectmen chairman David Carey said, the current recycling figure is 30-35 pounds, leaving 20-25 pounds of trash to be hauled away.

Based on a disposal cost of $70 per ton, he said, if every one of Hamilton's approximately 2,400 families recycles 10 pounds of organic waste each week, the town would save $43,000 annually. The same rate of savings would hold true in Wenham, which has approximately 1,200 families.

"People like it, because they feel they can have a positive impact in doing small things, when big things aren't necessarily under their control,'' Carey added.

To join the program, residents also had to support the cause with their wallets. With limited funding - the state Department of Environmental Protection provided a $7,000 grant, and approximately $7,000 came from private donors - participation comes with a price tag. Each family pays $75 for the year, and the first 500 to sign up received a free compost bin. Subsequent participants paid $29 for a set of bins, including one for the counter to collect the organic waste and another for its disposal.

Nearly 600 families have signed on, and Clark said, "We're averaging two to three calls per day'' from others wanting to join.


Hamilton Selectwoman Jennifer Scuteri, who said she intends to participate in the program, said it is a reflection of residents' sensibilities.

"They identify themselves as 'green,' '' she said. "I think people move here for the open space, and have an appreciation of it.''

People also find other benefits for being involved, Clark said.

"There are a variety of reasons,'' she said. "A lot of people just liked not putting that mushy stuff into their solid waste, by sequestering it with a countertop collector and our little bin. A lot of other people were entranced at the idea of getting unlimited compost from Brick Ends Farm.''

While Hamilton and Wenham will be the pioneers, other communities may join the program, or start their own.

"We're very interested in it," said Ipswich Selectwoman Ingrid Miles, adding that her board will monitor the program's progress.


"We hope that it's a great success, and hope that other communities implement it as well,'' the DEP's Coletta said.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


From http://www.greenpeace.org/italy/campagne/inquinamento/rifiuti/inceneritori/connett ...


Autore
Dr. PAUL CONNETT
Professor of Chemistry
St. Lawrence University, Canton, NY 13617

Febbraio 2006

Since 1985, in the US, over 300 trash incinerators, have been defeated or put on hold. In 1985, California had plans for 35 incinerators, only 3 were built, the rest were cancelled. In 1985, New Jersey had plans for 22 trash incinerators, only 5 have been built. A sixth planned for Mercer County was finally defeated after many years of struggle, in November 1996. Since 1994, more incinerators have been closed down than those that have gone on line.


Incineration is not an appropriate waste management solution in the twenty first century. They are formidably expensive and very few jobs are created for this massive economic investment. On the other hand, if the community puts its efforts into source separation, reuse and repair, recycling and composting, a very large number of jobs are created, both in the actual handling of the waste and in the secondary industries which utilise the recovered material.


Fortunately, the public's fears about the pollutants released and those captured in the residues, as well as incineration's enormous economic costs, when made visible, have dramatically slowed down the building of these facilities in both northern and southern countries alike. If one avoids the beguiling but inaccurate label "waste-to-energy" one can see that these facilities do not belong in a future in which sustainability will become the key issue for survival.


In my view, when you build an incinerator in your community you are advertising to the world that you were not clever enough, either politically or technically, to recover your discarded resources in a manner which is responsible to your local community or future generations.


Simply put incineration represents business as usual when the planet cannot afford business as usual. Incineration is simply not sustainable. It does not make sense to spend huge amounts of money destroying resources we should be sharing with the future.

Incineration puts the focus on the wrong end of the problem. Our task is not to get more and more sophisticated about destroying waste but to stop making those things which inevitably become waste. Thus the front end of the problem is bad industrial design: badly designed products and packaging. The concept of throwaway objects and packaging has no place in a sustainable society.

It is this need to shift the focus from the back end to the front end which has led to notion of a "Zero Waste strategy" currently being practised in Nova Scotia; Canberra. Australia; throughout New Zealand and San Francisco and other Californian communities, with remarkable results. Many cities have now achieved diversions from landfill of over 50%, some over 60%, without resorting to incineration. In addition to the familiar source separation programs (particularly door-to-door) resulting in composting of clean organics, reusing and repairing of many household items; recycling of materials back to industry; special collection of household toxics and smaller and safer interim landfills which receive only non-toxic materials and biologically stabilised organics, is the concept of the "Residual Screening and Research Facility". Such a facility - without the research component - has its prototype in Nova Scotia. This facility - built in front of the landfill - receives the residuals (the stuff not currently composted or reused or recycled or poorly separated) and examines them carefully on conveyor belts, where well protected workers remove bulky objects, more recyclables, more toxics and leave the dirty organic fraction for shredding and biological stabilisation.


I envisage a research component being added to this, where perhaps an adjunct from the local University or Technical School, is located in the Facility. The purpose of this component is that faculty and students study the composition of the residuals and work on two things: a) develop new uses for some of these discarded materials and where that is not possible b) offer better industrial design of such objects to industry.

It is interesting to compare the two different approaches: with incineration you convert three tons of waste into one ton of toxic ash that no one wants. With the zero waste approach you convert three tons of waste into one ton of compostables, one ton of recyclables and one ton of EDUCATION! We educate ourselves, we educate our decision makers and we educate industry. The education is simple: if we can't reuse it, can't reuse it, or can't compost it, industry shouldn't be making it!


One of the reasons I have now come to Italy 21 times since 1996 and given several hundred presentations in practically every region and major city, is that I believe Italy can make a huge contribution to the Zero Waste approach. It is no secret that Italy has some of the best designers in the world. I believe if they were challenged they could lead the world in designing waste out of the system. Italy has also had some of the most creative and inventive people in the world (Leonardo, Galileo, Michelangelo, Botticelli, Avogadro, Cannizaro, Modiglianni, Dali, Vivaldi, Verdi, Puccini Š the list could go on and on). What we have found in numerous places around the world is that a little creativity at the front of the problem can save millions at the back end. It is already beginning to happen in Italy. Your supermarkets are introducing equipment where customers can refill their own bottles with shampoo, detergent , water and wine. Think of the millions of plastics bottles that could keep out of landfills!


Sadly, this amazing potential for positive change is being thwarted by an Italian law which gives massive energy subsidies to incinerators. The international group Greenpeace has done an excellent job drawing attention to this short-sighted law and educating the public to the dangers of incineration and providing information about the more sustainable alternatives described above. I salute the brave young men and women of Greenpeace who often put their own lives in peril to draw attention to environmental abuse which stretches from the hunting of whales to the contamination of our food chains with dioxin. Essays I have authored on these issues can be found at www.no-burn.org and www.grrn.org


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Three crucial essays on all this posted online to The New York Times "Room for Debate" website:


http://roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/04/13/should-the-u-s-burn-or-bury-its-trash/?src=mv#neil


* Neil Seldman, Institute for Local Self-Reliance


* Laura Haight, New York Public Interest Research Group


* Ananda Lee Tan, Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives

A Bad Economic Deal


by Neil Seldman

Neil Seldman is co-founder and president of the Institute for Local Self-Reliance. He is the author of "The U.S. Recycling Movement 1945-95," and "Wasting in the U.S. 2000."


Environmental questions are not the primary concerns of many in the U.S. who oppose garbage incineration. While environmental concerns usually wake people up, the economic and financial issues are paramount.

Cities and counties cannot afford the cost of building waste-to-energy plants, which typically cost $650 million per plant. With 20 years of bond payments this would amount to $1.3 billion, plus operating costs.


The difference between Denmark and the U.S. is that we have landfills giving us time to carry out more recycling and composting that are 10 percent the cost of incineration. Plus the raw materials returned to industry and agriculture create jobs, (about 5 to 10 more jobs vs. incineration in just processing, and much more in manufacturing).

Oakland, for example, has created 1,000 jobs in the past 10 years by investing in recycling and composting instead of incineration. Their tax base has expanded through these jobs and small businesses. Jobs are created as value is added to the raw materials.
The country's modest 33 percent recycling rate supports over 1 million jobs. Another 1 million jobs are waiting if the country doubles its current diversion rate. This is easily doable in the next 5 years, simply by adopting and adapting the best state-of-the-art practices.

That is why cities and counties are building resource recovery parks to keep materials local. Half the materials in the waste stream if properly processed have active markets within a 50 mile radius of cities that generate the materials.


In World War II the country had to make do with local materials or do without. There are 500 million tons of municipal solid waste (MSW) and construction and demolition debris that we cannot waste without severe economic pain. Los Angeles, for example, recovers 94 percent of its construction and demolition materials. New rules, economic incentives and equipment used there and in other cities and counties could be applied throughout the U.S.


If the incineration industry does not tie up waste streams for 20 years it cannot survive. But recycling, composting and anaerobic digestion are emerging so quickly, and are so much more economical than both incineration and landfilling, that the industry is desperate.

Hence the investment of millions by the industry in donations to Congress, state legislatures and local councils and commissions to gain subsidies and exemptions from pollution regulations. But it won't work to overcome the huge costs to build and operate incinerators. Every local community that has investigated the issue is saying no to new incinerators.

Even when a facility works, as in Montgomery County, Md., it needs $40 million a year in subsidies to cover costs above revenue from energy sales and tip fees. Citizens pay a surcharge of from $200 to $400 per household.


We should - given the space, time and budgets we have - make the transition from waste management to resource management.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Start With Waste Reduction


by Laura Haight

Laura Haight is senior environmental associate with the New York Public Interest Research Group.


Ever since the ill-fated journey of the infamous Long Island garbage barge in 1987, Americans have been acutely aware that there is no place called "away" where the garbage all goes, and there are no magic bullets to solve our waste problems.

Recycling saves three to five times the amount of energy that incineration generates.

In 1988, in the aftermath of this embarrassment, New York adopted its first state law mandating source separation of recyclable materials, and set an ambitious goal of 50 percent waste reduction and recycling by 1997. But according to the state's recently released draft Solid Waste Management Plan, New York is achieving a paltry 20 percent recycling rate of its mixed household waste. This is unacceptable.


Where there's a will, there's a way to achieve far more successful recycling rates than the dismal performance in New York and most of the country. San Francisco, for instance, has set a goal of sending zero waste to landfills or incinerators by 2020, and is already achieving an impressive 72 percent recovery rate through aggressive recycling, reuse, and composting programs.


Waste-to-energy competes with recycling and composting programs for many of the same materials, such as paper, plastic, textiles and organic wastes. Over 85 percent of New York's municipal solid waste (MSW) is recyclable. Recycling saves three to five times the amount of energy that incineration generates.

In addition, burning garbage is a dirty and inefficient way of producing energy. As a fuel source, garbage incinerators release more CO2 emissions than coal-fired plants.


Incinerators are extremely costly to build and to operate, and consequently they rely heavily on the revenue stream from power generation. This means there needs to be a steady supply of waste to feed the plant, which is in direct conflict with the "3 R's" -- reduce, reuse, recycle. In contrast, landfill life can be extended significantly through aggressive waste reduction programs.

Finally, significant health concerns remain regarding incinerator emissions and the disposal of toxic ash residue. In addition to potential releases of dioxins and other cancer-causing emissions that have been a long-standing concern in the U.S., new research indicates that modern incinerators in Europe are a major source of ultrafine particle emissions, which can cause lung disease, heart disease, cancer and premature deaths.


It is a waste of energy to be discussing burning our garbage versus burying it -- our focus needs to be on waste reduction, reuse, recycling, and composting, which is where the real environmental, economic, and energy-saving benefits can be found.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Incineration Remains a Serious Threat


by Ananda Lee Tan


Ananda Lee Tan is the U.S. and Canada coordinator for the Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives.


From http://www.no-burn.org/gaia-raises-serious-concern-on-new-york-times-article-on-incineration ...


GAIA Raises Serious Concern on New York Times Article on Incineration

To the Editor, NY Times

Re: NY Times article: "Europe Finds Clean Energy in Trash, but U.S. Lags", 4/12/2010


Dear Editor,

I would like to raise some serious concerns about yesterday's article by Elisabeth Rosenthal: "Europe Finds Clean Energy in Trash, but the U.S. Lags". This piece fails to reference any credible information sources regarding waste incineration and the risk posed by incineration technologies.


Introducing Danish incinerators as "Far cleaner than conventional incinerators..", the article cites the website of Ramboll - a Danish incinerator vendor, whose public relations department must be delighted by such careless reporting. In covering controversial issues where public interest and industry practices are widely known to be in conflict, I would expect the NY Times to conduct more thorough research to ensure balanced journalism.

The following points address a range of public concern, which Ms. Rosenthal has failed to examine.

For decades the tobacco industry told us that cigarettes were safe. Now the waste incineration industry wants us to believe they are coming clean?

Despite the latest industry spin, there is nothing better about burning garbage today, whether in the U.S. or in Denmark (1). Attempts to peddle "waste to energy" haven't gained wide acceptance around the world because people are growing increasingly aware that:

1. Incineration poses a serious threat to public health. Burning garbage is a primary source of cancer-causing dioxins and other pollutants that enter the food supply and concentrate up through the food chain. Installing of scrubbers and filters to reduce the smokestack emissions only serves to increase the amount of residual fly ash that needs to be disposed in landfills, contaminating groundwater and generating similar risk.

2. Incineration produces more carbon dioxide (CO2) per unit of electricity generated than coal power plants (2). Current atmospheric carbon loads cannot safely bear additional emissions from incinerators and landfills. Howevere, zero waste practices such as recycling and composting has the potential of mitigating up to 42 % of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions.

3. Incineration represents a massive waste of energy. Due to its low calorific value, burning garbage to produce energy is highly inefficient (3). Conversely, recycling recovers three to five times more energy than incineration produces.

4. Incineration creates an economic burden for communities. Billions of taxpayer dollars are spent subsidizing the construction and operations of incinerators. For a fraction of this cost, investments in recycle, reuse and remanufacture, create significantly more business and employment opportunity.

5. Incineration represents the destruction of valuable resources and jobs. Zero waste practices create over 10 times the number of jobs than burning or burying the same waste. Over ninety per cent of municipal solid waste in the U.S. can be recycled, re-used or composted, to create thousands of long-term, family-supporting jobs and community resilience.

As part of their marketing efforts, incinerator industry lobby groups have even recruited the same "expert" witnesses that once testified for the tobacco industry. Fortunately, citizen groups today are not easily deceived by such masquerades and are familiar with the real solutions.

The next time the NY Times looks at gleaning information from industry websites, I would encourage your colleagues to diligently question the source.

For more information on waste incineration and the latest reports on the economic, public health and environmental risk associated with incinerator technologies, please check our website or contact me directly.

Respectfully,

Ananda Lee Tan
North American Program Coordinator
Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives
1958 University Avenue, Berkeley, Ca 94703
Phone: +1 510 883 9490 Ext 102
Email: ananda(at)no-burn.org
Website: www.no-burn.org

Footnotes:

1. According to Eurostat in 2007, Denmark produces the highest waste per capita (over 1762 lbs. per person each year) in the EU - clearly an unsustainable level of waste generation. Additionally, over 80 % of what is burned in Danish incinerators is recyclable/compostable.

2. http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-and-you/affect/air-emissions.html


3. State of the art incineration plants in Denmark achieve only 25% energy efficiency with heat and power

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

today's Times-- two letters for zero-waste; more here...
[join 50 Dutchess folks signed on for zero-waste-- carbon-cutting, clean-air, cost-saving, green jobs now; don't forget to come out for Paul Connett Thurs. 8 pm Earth Day!...(Vassar Taylor Hall Rm 203)...
see: http://dutchessdemocracy.blogspot.com/2010/04/paul-connett-vassar-for-earth-day-dont.html ; time is NOW-- this week-- Earth Week-- to send letters to all 25 of us: countylegislators@co.dutchess.ny.us!]

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Recall these two great letters to the editor in the April 18th Sunday New York Times...(see http://www.no-burn.org ; http://www.ILSR.org !)...

[...and again-- check out entire http://www.StopTrashingtheClimate.org report if you haven't yet...]

From http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/18/opinion/l18trash.html?ref=opinion ...

To the Editor:

It is alarming to see The New York Times buying into the garbage industry greenwashing of incinerators as "clean energy."

Around the world, there is a growing citizen backlash against incinerators that burn garbage and trees. The resulting electricity is dirtier than burning coal on a per megawatt basis. Garbage-burning emissions can cause cancer, heart disease, asthma and more.

In Massachusetts, there will be a statewide referendum in November to remove these incinerators from the state's renewable portfolio standard, which requires a certain percentage of energy from renewable sources.

Taxpayers and ratepayers are outraged about paying billions in subsidies for this so-called green energy. The laws subsidizing these toxic incinerators must be changed.

Margaret E. Sheehan
Chairwoman, Stop Spewing
Carbon Campaign
Cambridge, Mass., April 13, 2010

[see http://www.StopSpewingCarbon.com ;

http://www.stopspewingcarbon.com/facts/environmental-impacts

http://www.stopspewingcarbon.com/the-media/76-press-alert-massachusetts-air-pollution-ballot-initiative-targets-biomass-incinerators.html ]

To the Editor:

There are significant differences between European and United States waste combustion markets and regulations that merit deeper examination.

European countries, including Denmark and Germany, have stronger regulations governing combustion plants, higher landfill taxes, carbon-based energy costs, higher levels of recycling and composting, national container deposit laws and laws that require product manufacturers to pay for municipal waste disposal.

All of these policies play a role in defining their waste management systems, and the lack of all of these policies in the United States plays a role in whether waste combustion should be considered here.

Moreover, in the United States, waste combustors are disproportionately sited in minority and poor communities, which justifiably leads to local opposition to combustion plants.

The energy benefits of waste combustion plants compared with landfills are not in dispute.

The more relevant comparison is between combustion plants and recycling. Recycling is the more energy-productive choice for the vast majority of materials found in the municipal waste stream, and the broader ecological winner as well.

Therefore shouldn't increasing the recycling rate, not combustion, be the primary focus of our waste management policies?

Allen Hershkowitz
Director, Solid Waste Project
Natural Resources Defense Council
New York, April 13, 2010