Academy of Local Politics

Garbage... Garbage... Garbage... It never stops...Garbage.

Where do we put our garbage?

I know from personal experience, as a Mayor who had to deal with two abandoned/ contaminated landfills, the biggest problem with garbage doesn't appear for decades.

Newstalk Radio 1310 explains how Dane County (WI) is facing that issue now.

With the Dane County Landfill nearing its capacity faster than expected, officials are poised to install a controversial system to speed garbage decomposition and extend the facility's operation by as much as 15 years.

Speed garbage decomposition? Sounds like trying to fool Mother Nature to me.

Dane County engineers are preparing to build a $2 million "bioreactor" at the local landfill, which would fill up within six years at its current rate of use.

The term 'bioreactor' refers to a system of pumps and pipes to circulate water and air through the landfilled garbage, speeding its decomposition and freeing space for more waste, said Gerald Mandli, the county's public-works director.

It is trying to fool Mother Nature. That isn't good. Something bad always happens when we try to do that. I wonder what it could be this time?

One possible problem could be the increased production of methane, a greenhouse gas produced by decomposing garbage, according to Peter Anderson, owner of Recycleworlds Consulting in Madison.

Bingo...there it is. Methane. Not good.

Another significant problem with the bioreactor approach is that it delays discussions of more forward-looking ways to get rid of garbage, Anderson said.

Two-thirds of what goes into a landfill is recyclable organic material such as soiled paper and food wastes, Anderson said. That's the type of long-term planning the county should be considering, he added.

"I think we could get very close to zero waste," Anderson said. "But maybe the next thing is for us to get the organics out."

I've written about this before. San Francisco is leading the way and Austin, TX is attempting to do the same. Zero Waste Plans.

I still can't believe I am actually endorsing an action of San Francisco and Austin and now maybe Madison... but if they can actually achieve or even come close to Zero Waste Landfills more power to them.

Then teach the rest of us how to do it, because our present methods of disposing of garbage really stink.

I just detest reading and writing and talking about garbage. But, garbage is an integral portion of every local government's agenda. Can't get away from it.

What brings up the subject today is the new .05 cent/plastic bottled water tax in Chicago.

The fact I am opposed to a municipal tax on such a retail item is a given.

What fascinated me about the Chicago Tribune article was the very last paragraph.

The Earth Policy Institute estimates manufacturers use more than 17 million barrels of oil in making polyethylene terephthalate plastic bottles. Only 23 percent of those bottles are is recycled, according to the Container Recycling Institute. The rest are tossed into landfills.

The rest are tossed into landfills? That is the last sentence in the article.

Is it reasonable for me to assume that was one of the issues to determine if this tax would be levied? It is the last sentence in the article.

Or, did the reporter on this article throw something on her own, into the discussion?

Either way...

What happens to the 23 percent of the bottles that are recycled?

If 17 million barrels of oil is used in making new bottles, if we increased the percent recycled bottles by 100%, up to 46 percent, how many less barrels of oil would be needed?

If the number of barrels is substantial, why isn't there a more concerted effort of education on this issue?

Why instead of education, is a .05 per bottle tax levied, that doesn't even encourage recycling?

If the goal is to increase recycling, it should be a deposit, not a tax.

By the way... all the plastic bottles in the Pontificator's home are placed in the recycle box. 

One of the classic "problems" every municipality faces is garbage. It is a problem because there is no good solution. But, you have to do something with it.

According to Statesman.Com, the City of Austin, TX wants to drop the amount of their garbage going into landfills to 0% by 2040. That is Zero percent. Wow?

The city has hired a California firm, Gary Liss & Associates, to spend six months writing a zero-waste plan: a long-term strategy to reduce to zero the amount of garbage sent to landfills by reusing, recycling and composting materials instead.

I understand by reading the article,  San Francisco is leading the way in zero-waste plans. That isn't surprising. I wish these cities the best of luck in this endeavor.

Personally, I have been  involved in the "closing" of two landfills. Neither were easy, or pretty. They were both down right ugly processes.

There has to be a better way to dispose of our garbage. I have no idea what it is. But, I'm willing to listen to any other ideas. Even if they are originally more costly.

Because, the cost of cleaning up landfills, generations down the line, are outrageous.