back

Garbage-To-Energy- Burning Versus Recycling

Editor’s Note: Last year I told you we were going to do a series about the history of recycling. In order to fully explore the history of recycling we have brought in one of our old friends, Tanya Lipshutz (her last name has changed now, but we always think of her as Lipshutz!), to tell more of the tale. Tanya was with GRI for many years and was instrumental in overcoming the garbage burning mania in the seventies and early eighties. She will be writing more in future issues. Tanya now works for the City of Berkeley in its recycling department. Pavitra.
 

The idea of Garbage to Energy began  in the late 1970’s. when consumer  recycling was in its infancy.  Foresighted citizens were carefully sorting their material and bringing it to dropoff centers run by community-based groups, such as Garbage Reincarnation. Few paper mills were equipped to handle recycled fiber.  Recycling was considered a volunteer activity. (The sane and honest people thought that most people would never recycle, and that 10% was the most we’d divert.  The people who talked about 25-75% were considered dreamers.
 
At the same time, environmental awareness was rising, bringing criticism of wasteful packaging.  OPEC had formed, and energy prices were rising. Nuclear energy was discredited, military purchases dropping, and engineering firms were looking for new services to sell to governments.  And cities were running out of landfill space and seeking a home for their trash.  So firms like Raytheon invented “garbage to energy” systems. They would burn garbage and make steam, or grind it into fuel pellets.  Pull out scrap metal that would jam the works, and call it recycling.  They used  technology designed to sort wheat from chaff.
 
Sounds great!  Take one problem - worthless garbage - and solve another – energy.   Garbage then becomes a good thing – a fuel.  Funny how fast the packaging industry jumped on the bandwagon.  Public works directors, usually engineers, liked it because they could get rid of their trash without asking  people to change their behavior. Cities bought it – especially Northeast cities with the greatest landfill problems.
 
130 plants were proposed in California, to burn 70% of its garbage. The Solid Waste Management Board funded its first feasibility study for a plant to be built in Healdsburg, supplied by garbage from Mendocino, Solano, Marin and Napa Counties to provide electricity for Healdsburg homes.
 
Mike Anderson (with his Masters degree in Futurism and Marketing) and Dan Cotter, early directors of Garbage Reincarnation, saw the problems right away.  Garbage to Energy Plants were expensive, and to finance them, cities signed (were asked to sign) long term contracts to deliver and pay for a guaranteed supply of garbage.  If the city didn’t have enough garbage, it had to pay anyway.  The incentive to recycle would be gone.  Also, the energy calculations started with garbage = 0.  But Garbage wasn’t worthless – it was full of stuff that could be reused and recycled.  You could save more energy and other resources by recycling paper than by burning it, and then cutting trees to make new paper.  They were joined by other ”radicals”  - Neil Seldman of the Institute for Local Self Reliance in Washington D.C., Dan Knapp of Urban Ore in Berkeley
 
Tania Lipshutz, an environmental studies student at Sonoma State, showed up one day, fresh from training in whole-systems analysis.  She had heard of the 4-county study and smelled a rat.  Mike turned her loose on their files and taught her some lobbying skills.  Mike and Dan had already been lobbying the Board of Supervisors, and Tania did a cost benefit analysis and presented it at the supervisors’ meeting.    Recognizing that the study had a foregone conclusion,  (the consultant had presented the benefits but none of the drawbacks) and that they would be pressured to act on the recommendations of a flawed  study, Sonoma County opted out, and Tania signed on full time (half time driving trucks, half time as a researcher and lobbyist).
 
Tania and Mike researched and wrote “Garbage to Energy, the False Panacea” – a 100 page document describing the problems.  A consulting engineer whose firm helped repair  garbage burners volunteered to review the document for technical accuracy, and provided some good examples.   Mike sent the false Panacea to every California legislator and to Federal legislators.  It was advertised in the first Whole Earth Catalog and ecology  journals. Citizens’ groups from around the country, and as far away as the Philippines and Australia, requested copies and advice
 
Many grassroots recyclers thought they could “peacefully coexist” with incinerators. The “resource recovery” firms promised to let the recyclers keep their newspaper out of the burners – at least at their current recycling rate.   There was much discussion about how much paper could be allowed to be recycled, and whether to regulate paper that was already being diverted.
 
Meanwhile, existing recycled paper mills were very concerned that they would lose their source of material if garbage-to-energy became prevalent.  Officials of Consolidated Fibers – a large cardboard recycling firm based in Chicago, and Garden State Paper – a pioneer newspaper recycling mill, flew in to meet with Mike.  Michael was a businessman, as well as an environmentalist, and so  gained their trust.  Their voices added breadth and power to the debate, and this relationship would prove valuable in promoting recycling legislation in the future.

Lobbying Against Burning

While Michael and the crew struggled  to keep GRI financially afloat and providing services,  they continued to fight the overriding battle for recycling’s survival. Tania, Mike, Dan, and others testified at hearings, spoke at citizens meetings, wrote articles and in general helped support and inform. Dan Knapp  recruited doctors who were concerned about the air pollution, and particularly dioxin, that would come out of the stacks when plastic and other unpredictable garbage was burned together.  Richmond citizens formed an environmental justice group, protesting another polluter in their midst.  .  In addition to pointing out all the problems with the plants – their cost, pollution, perpetuation of garbage – they argued that recycling should be given a chance first.  In 1984 Berkeley citizens passed an Initiative requiring that city to implement programs to recycle 50% of its waste before it could put any money into an incinerator. (This legislation was the forerunner of AB 939 with its statewide 50% goal.)

Curbside Recycling Begins

From 1977 to 1986  San Francisco, San  Jose, Richmond, Los Angeles and San Diego each spent $10-15 million on feasibility studies and consultant fees, attempting to put together contracts, while recycling struggled for a pittance of city support.   Sonoma County spent no money chasing garbage burners, thanks to GRI. and the intelligent Board of Supervisors.  Instead Santa Rosa (and El Cerrito) got the first California state grants to support curbside recycling. Grassroots recyclers throughout the state were working to improve the visibility and viability of their programs
 
Around the country, one by one other plants exhibited the problems that GRI had predicted.  Long Island citizens rebelled against soot on their windows; Sweden found dioxin in its pastures and imposed a moratorium.  One plant blew up when a container of gasoline hit the shredders.  Refuse derived fuel didn’t behave as promised, and customers stopped buying it.  Air pollution equipment couldn’t handle the variations in trash. Cities sued to break their garbage supply contracts, and the Supreme Court agreed.
 
And one by one, by ballot initiative, vote of joint powers’ committees, or election of burner opponents to City councils, San Francisco, San Jose, Richmond, Los Angeles and San Diego gave up on burning their garbage.  Immediately, these cities switched funding to recycling, hired recycling coordinators, and wrote recycling into their garbage collection contracts.  It wasn’t easy, but the gate was open.  Supportive legislation followed – see your next issue -  and California is now approaching a 50% recycling/reuse rate, with food waste and construction debris being the next challenges.   We’re well ahead of the rest of the country, partly because we didn’t take the burner detour.
Tanya