If trash could talk…

First of all, we would like to give full credit to the Cape Cod Times for an outstanding editorial which they published yesterday.

Next, we’d like to make that available to you.

And finally (of course) we have our own editorial comment on their editorial comment.  Bear with us, it’ll be worth it!

So first – on with the editorial.  Note the highlighting – it’s ours.  Pay attention to these areas in particular.

—————————————————————————————————————–

Trash talk

Thinking green keeps us in the black

September 09, 2012 2:05 AM

Every town on the Cape will soon be paying a lot more money to dispose of its trash. Beginning in 2015, the Cape’s contracts with the SEMASS Resource Recovery facility (incinerator) in Rochester will begin to expire, and there is every indication that the charges per ton of trash from each town will more than double. Although no one likes higher bills, this looming increase is an opportunity for individuals and municipalities to better focus their efforts on recycling.

Right now, it costs Cape towns $37 to dump each ton of trash at SEMASS. Brewster, the only local community to negotiate a new contract, will pay $70 per ton. All evidence suggests that Brewster got a bargain: bids from six other vendors ranged from $78 per ton to $90 per ton. When you take into account that the Cape annually generates approximately 200,000 tons of trash, that translates into a price jump of between $8.2 million and $10.6 million per year.

When it comes to trash, the math is more than a little simple: The more trash that goes to SEMASS, the more it costs taxpayers. Therefore, anything that reduces that waste stream heading off Cape reduces the revenue stream heading in the same direction.   And yet, as simple as that is, Cape municipalities continue to struggle to increase their recycling rates.
Last year, Sandwich recognized the need to control waste costs and instituted a pay-as-you-throw policy. Under this approach, residents purchase a transfer station sticker for only $55, half the previous year’s price. They must also buy town-issued trash bags at a set cost. These are the only bags accepted at the town landfill. Recycling remains free. In general, the new system has been a resounding success. Again, the personal math is pretty direct: reduce your trash, reduce your costs.

Certainly, there are those who have tried to get around the system. Some in Sandwich have said that they now bring their trash to friends in neighboring communities who still pay a one-time fee for a sticker and then can dump an unlimited amount of trash. It remains to be seen just how much weekly trash runs might stretch the bonds of friendship.
More importantly, however, circumventing the system simply shifts the problem rather than solves it. The fact is we generate far too much trash and we treat that which we generate far too casually. One could argue that we live in a disposable society, where individual-sized packaging offers us conveniences about which our predecessors could only dream. But such convenience comes with a cost.

Perhaps it is because most of us no longer bury our trash in the communities in which we live, but we are now more removed from the consequences of our waste than at any time in human history. We can look at pictures of SEMASS, but without that direct contact, the scope of trash, and our individual role in the problem, can remain comfortably distant.
What needs to happen is a fundamental shift in terms of how each of us regards our contributions to the waste stream. The old mantra of reduce, reuse, recycle remains the battle cry when it comes to keeping the planet as green as possible. If that is not enough to prompt us to shift our attitudes, perhaps we should recognize that the same phrase will also help keep our communities out of the red.

Copyright © Cape Cod Media Group, a division of Ottaway Newspapers, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

 

The editorial speaks for itself, but we want to make sure you have the PM-Sustainability-Intersection twist that we are always so keen to point out.  Below are some of the lessons learned from this Editorial that you can apply in general to sustainability thinking and in particular to your projects, wherever they fit on our scale of greenality.

 

  1. Sustainability provides tremendous innovation opportunities.  In this case, the towns of Brewster and Sandwich took what could have been a threat and turned it into an opportunity to either innovate or negotiate savings.
  2. The fact that we are separated from our waste – not only physically, but mentally, can be a negative.  We don’t think about efficiency.  We don’t think about ways to stop generating waste in the first place.  Look to your projects with a mindset of a very closed loop and realize that removing waste (think ‘lean’ PM) from your project and ensuing operation is a good thing.
  3. Being green (or thinking sustainably) is not only about altruism, although it is that, too.  It is about moving from the red to the black.

 

What do you think?  How do you feel about the Editorial?  Are you getting from it the same strong messages that we see there?