Statesman story on zero waste diversion is, itself, a diversion

The goal of zero waste diversion is to eliminate landfills
and convert them into clean energy-producing facilities like this

I’m willing to bet my last dollar that the lead story in today’s Austin-American Statesman about zero waste was planted by a public relations firm or possibly even a law firm representing Waste Management. Private waste haulers like Waste Management and the fossil fuels industry, which dominates the Texas and the national political landscape, are opposed to zero waste diversion and their main tactic is to attempt to turn the conversation into one involving the cost of recycling, which is what the Statesman story is all about.

Here’s the bottom line: The goal of zero waste diversion, along with bioreactor technology (which the Statesman story conveniently ignored, along with the concept of Flow Control, also anathema to private waste haulers), is to prolong the life of landfills and, ultimately to completely eliminate the need for landfills. Once achieved, this alone with save consumers untold millions in sanitation collection fees. But the ultimate by-product of zero waste diversion, which is what drives the private waste haulers and the fossil fuels industry up the wall, is that zero waste diversion will provide an extremely low cost alternative energy source.

Bioreactor technology alone has extended the life of McCommas Bluff, the state’s largest landfill, 35 years beyond its original expiration date and provided enough energy to provide low-cost electricity to more than 60,000 homes.

As the name implies, landfills eventually fill up with trash. And when that happens, the government entities or the private companies that operate these facilities have to build another one to handle the trash. Landfills are not only incredibly expensive to construct to meet established environmental standards (as much as $800,000 an acre, according to this study), finding land to accommodate a landfill is a dicey proposition. Thus, they are usually located as far as possible from any population centers, which translates into additional costs to transport the garbage. All these costs are eventually passed down to consumers in what they pay for trash collection. It is estimated that, if things aren’t changed, within 50 years, consumers will pay three times as much for trash collection as they pay for water services.

However, all those problems are solved if you eliminate the need for landfills and that’s the goal of zero waste diversion.

Countries that are members of the European Union are way ahead of us on this subject (as they are way ahead of us on transportation). The EU expects to achieve zero waste diversion in five years. That’s because at least two companies that I am aware of (both German concerns) have developed the technologies to convert trash into energy. And these facilities are being installed where the landfills used to be located. McCommas Bluff sent representatives to visit these German firms five years or so ago and plans to install one of these plants on the site of — and ultimately to replace — the landfill.

There is a catch, however. Huge amounts of trash deposits are required to make these operations economically feasible. That’s the purpose of Flow Control, which directs all collected trash to a single site. Private waste haulers have been fighting Flow Control since its inception (the Supreme Court has actually ruled twice on Flow Control, saying it’s constitutional at landfills operated by municipalities but not constitutional at privately owned landfills). The private haulers have been fighting this for two reasons. The first is obvious: Flow Control would divert product, thus income, from their smaller, independently owned landfills. The larger haulers, like Waste Management, have been the major opponents but their motive is to delay Flow Control until such time as it has developed the same technology as the European firms. They see the huge profit in this energy source and hope, within the next decade at least, be able to bid to build and operate these facilities on various municipal landfills, as well as their own.

So the fossil fuels industry and the private waste haulers will spare no expense at trying to change the subject when it comes to zero waste diversion. They even fund the research of college professors and get them to get their students off the subject. All these companies care about is their profit margins. And they don’t profit by caring about the environment or reducing the cost consumers pay for commodities and services.

Which brings me back to the opportunity the Kyle City Council missed by not addressing these subjects during the presentation by Texas Disposal Systems as Tuesday's meeting.