| ||||||||||||||||||
|
Browse our Bookshelf Favorites store for big savings on popular fiction, nonfiction, children's books, and more. |
Product Details
Would you like to update product info or give feedback on images? |
One of the most valuable contributions of the book is that it provides historical data to put garbage in perspective. Contrary to many people's beliefs, the authors argue that garbage and where to put it is not a new problem at all. They point out that one of the characteristics that make us human is that we create garbage, and we always have, back to the very first time a humanoid discovered how to create tools by chipping flint. To those who worry about our non-biodegradable trash, the authors remind us that the pottery shards of ancient archeological sites are nothing more than the indestructible refuse of yesteryear. And yet others worry about burying our trash in landfills which doesn't allow normal biodegradation to occur, but the authors point out that this also isn't new, describing an archeological dig of a putrid 2,000-year-old buried dump in Italy. Of course, the main message that the authors express is not that garbage is benign, but that the problem isn't new, and that garbage issues have been a concern since the dawn of civilization. They also point out that sanitation issues are even getting better. They give an overview of the history of garbage treatment in the US, from burying it under the kitchen floor, to building dumps, incinerators, and sanitary landfills. They point out that cities in the past weren't as clean as they are now. Cities used to produce mountains of coal dust and horse manure, and garbage would often simply sit on the corner, waiting to be dispersed by scavengers or pigs. They point out that "...ever since governments began facing up to their responsibilities, the story of the garbage problem in the industrialized world has been one of steady amelioration, of bad giving way to less bad and eventually to not quite so bad."
Scientists as well as ordinary people have very inaccurate ideas of what's in landfills today and how landfills work. Until the Garbage Project actually studied landfills, many landfill planners believed that trash would biodegrade somehow once it went into the landfill, and that the trash would eventually settle, producing large quantities of methane gas. By drilling into landfills and studying their contents, Garbage Project scientists have found that very little biodegradation actually occurs in landfills at all- -basically, only food scraps and perhaps a few lawn clippings break down. Since food scraps make up only a small portion of landfill volume, then settling and methane gas production is much less than expected.
If you think garbage is a problem, then an obvious way to address the problem is to reduce garbage volume. So what items take up the most space in our landfills? Many environmentalists would guess disposable diapers and plastics. But by meticulously analyzing landfill samples, Garbage Project scientists have determined that diapers comprise less than 2% of landfill volume and all plastics less than 20%. Paper, on the other hand, especially newspaper, doesn't compress well, doesn't biodegrade in landfill any better than plastic, and takes up 40% of landfill volume on average. Think of that next time you need to answer "Paper or plastic?" at the supermarket. By studying what's in our landfills and what actually happens to the stuff once it's been down there for a few decades, we can get better ideas about what the real garbage problems are and how to address them.
The authors suggest that the best solutions to garbage problems may be to ensure that there are economic incentives to garbage reduction. They point out that the weight and volume of packaging plastics has decreased dramatically since the 1960s- - plastic beverage bottles now weigh much less than they used to- -because it's cheaper for companies to pack and ship their items in lighter weight packaging. One of the persistent problems for garbage reduction is cities that charge a flat rate for garbage removal, rather than a per-can rate. In localities where residents pay a nominal fee for each bag of garbage to be disposed of, recycling participation rates are much higher, and garbage volume is less. The worst thing a city can do is to adopt uniform large containers for mechanized garbage collection, since garbage production magically increases to fill the space allotted to it.
After reading this book, I have a new-found respect for the Styrofoam cup and disposable diapers. I better understand why newspapers are so hard to get rid of, even through recycling. But there is one fishy result that leaves me a little suspicious- -at one point the authors argue that processed food creates less garbage than fresh food. The basis for this claim is a cross-cultural study they did in Mexico City and Arizona. They found that Mexican households produce a lot more garbage than American households, and that the larger volume is mostly attributable to the fact that Americans use processed foods where Mexicans use fresh foods. But wait, didn't the authors find in a different study that it was precisely food wastes that biodegrade in landfills, so in the end, isn't it better to produce more food scrap waste than packaging waste? This odd loose end leaves a bit of doubt in my mind that the book is entirely unbiased. But overall, I found the book incredibly informative and quite well written.