Lessons of trash story

Press, 16 August 1988, Page 20

Lessons of trash story

From a correspondent for the “Economist” in New York

REMEMBER the round-the-world garbage barge? Last northern summer’s pollution horror story was about a barge that sailed 8000 km in search of a dumping ground for its rotting cargo of rubbish. The story may yet have a happy ending. Stung by the notoriety is gained as the filler of the barge, the town of Islip, on Long Island, has raised its environmental consciousness. It now has high hopes of solving its rubbish problem by recycling the stuff instead of exporting it. Since the garbage barge set sail, Islip has more than tripled the amount of rubbish it recycles, to nearly 10 per cent of the total. And it is mounting a concerted drive to increase this proportion to half by 1990. For good reason. If Islip falls too far short of its recycling goal, it may have to resort to disposal methods more than twice as expensive as recycling. The root of Islip’s problems is a 1983 state law designed to

clean up municipal rubbish tips in New York. On Long Island, the law proposes to close municipal dumps by 1990. Islip reckons it can incinerate about half the rubbish it produces. But if it cannot recycle the other half (at a cost of about SUSSO a tonne), it will have to ship it off Long Island by means more reliable than barge (which may cost over SUSIOO a tonne). To boost recycling, Islip has given each of its households a beige and green recycling bin for glass, paper and metal. This stuff is collected separately from other rubbish. And roving recycling inspectors sniff about to make sure that Islip residents do not mix their refuse. Those who do are given educational literature, warnings and repeated visits from the inspectors. Eventually, they may be hit with fines ranging from SUS2S to SUSSOO. Next step in Islip’s recycling campaign is to give residents another bin (colour as yet un-

determined) for garden waste and compost. The city has set aside several acres for a municipal composting site, which it hopes will take 60,000 tonnes of rubbish a year, a sixth of Islip’s total. Local gardeners are to be the beneficiaries.

Much more still needs to be done. Even if the composting scheme works as planned, the amount sent for recycling will have to double if Islip is to reduce its rubbish to quantities that can be dealt with locally.

So far, simple education and moral suasion have encouraged recycling. Should that falter, however, the logical next step would be for Islip to start charging its residents the real costs of disposal. If householders start paying disposal costs for non-recyclable waste two or three times higher than that for recyclables, recycling’s popularity will get yet another boost.

Copyright—The Economist