 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
Tamuning, Guam; June 25, 2000
Commentary By Paul E.R. Packbier
Today's
Pacific Sunday News "Rekindles
the Waste Wars," as they encouragingly headlined the front-page. I was
called by Mr. Kent Douglas, Editorial
Page Editor for the paper, earlier in the week to solicit my input for the
newspaper's public forum which, once again, was to take on the issue of waste-to-energy
versus recycling.
I declined and informed him that I was not willing to partake in the "beating of a dead horse" since the PDN has been using this issue ad nauseam over the past couple of years to generate controversy. I don't fault them for this, it sells newspapers and that's the business they're in.
I do have a problem with people, including Mr. Douglas, that choose to ignore certain facts after they have been pointed out to them, or self-proclaimed experts on an issue that lack the fundamental background or knowledge, but spout-off half-truths, innuendoes, and plain old lies.
There is a relatively new acronym for this which was coined by the Internet community. It involves people that try to further their cause, be it either political, business, religious, or moral ones, through the spread of FEAR, UNCERTAINTY and DOUBT (FUD).
Mr.
Douglas was given an outline two years ago (which was also disseminated to
the Legislature and other members of the media) which spelled out exactly
what the costs associated with landfilling, with and without a waste-to-energy
plant, are. Yet in today's editorial he keeps beating the same old drum and
repeating his mantra that the "Incinerator backers still owe him costs."
To keep with the horse analogy: You can lead one to water ...
Another prominent local business person, with a huge stake in Guam's solid waste issues through ownership of a local hauling company and the wish to become the next landfill operator, frequently sends out FUD e-mail messages claiming everything from a corrupt government to toxic waste Armageddon if the waste-to-energy project is allowed to go forward. Completely unsubstantiated are his claims, but it makes for good press-copy and incites the
that wants to dictate that 87% of our waste is recycled, no matter what the cost is.
Even
more FUD is ladled on by a University of Guam
professor, who must have forgotten the basic chemistry classes he should have
taken for his Marine Biology degree, when he declares that "incineration
does not destroy matter [but] simply changes solids to gasses." That's
right, this Ph.D. scientist proclaims that we'd just be evaporating our waste
(a physical process) rather than employing the basic
laws of chemistry which state that irreversible reactions take place that
actually can destroy materials. The same professor keeps referring to "toxic
ash" even though he has been given scientific data in the past that refutes
this nomenclature.
Finally, the aforementioned recycling enthusiasts completely loose sight of reality in their quest to push their self-imposed mandate of recycling every shred of paper, aluminum, glass, and plastic that's shipped on-island, feasible or not. Their blinders are on tight while proclaiming that recycling saves more energy than is produced in a waste-to-energy plant. To the contrary, recycling uses energy, especially on Guam where everything has to be shipped off-island. They also truly believe that recycling is environmentally friendly and does not use resources (such as energy, water, acids, bleaches, and solvents) to turn our waste products into useful raw material again.
What
really irks me is the holier-than-thou attitude and almost religious fervor
of the mostly stateside recycling activists that want to change the local
population's "perception" and "attitudes." This smacks
of social engineering.
The media loves to pick up on theories of dubious accuracy because they are more sensational. It may be irrational, but those who make the first and often sensational claim get much wider attention and are credited with more credibility than those who come later with calm facts.
For an objective view of waste-to-energy as part of an Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan, visit the following links: The Onondaga County (NY) Resource Recovery Agency's website is a great resource to evaluate what an actual community's experiences with waste-to-energy are. They include an emissions scorecard for their waste-to-energy plant. Notable: "Dioxins/furans emissions are so slight that it is almost incomprehensible. The total amount of dioxins/furans emitted from the Facility in all of 1998 was 0.000122 pounds. This is the equivalent in weight of three regular size paper staples." Over a one year period, a waste-to-energy plant that is three times larger than the one proposed for Guam, emits 1/10,000th of a pound in dioxins/furans!
Closer to home, the City and County of Honolulu, Refuse Division launched a new website a month ago. "On Oahu, waste-to-energy works in partnership with recycling efforts to significantly reduce the amount of waste going to landfills." "Moreover, H-POWER reduces our dependence on imported oil. One ton of trash produces saleable energy equivalent to 60 gallons of oil."
The National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) website states that: "According to the EPA, if half the solid waste generated annually in the United States was used to generate electricity, 1.4 billion fewer pounds of pollutants would be discharged into the atmosphere compared with energy generation from burning coal or oil."
Finally, local media personality and talkshow host Rlene Steffy seems to be getting the point. You can follow Rlene's investigative reporting on her "What's Happening" page.
