STAR T H ER E
Menu
Search
BLOG
SU P P OR T OU R P R OJE CT S
An Open Letter to the Citizens of King County HOME - ALL POSTS - ... - AN OPEN LETTER TO THE CITIZENS OF KING COUNTY
©Ashley Cooper
February 17th 2022 In December of 2021, after months of questioning the King County Solid Waste Division ( KCSWD) about their plans to expand the Cedar Hill Landfill, the Institute for Energy, Waste and Resource Management sent a challenge to the Director of the SWD. In it we t ook issue with their decision to expand, their claim of a recycling rate of better than 50%, their plans to impr ove that rate, their failure to take action on recommendations for improvement provided by consultant reports that they commissi oned, and, last but most important, their claim that they capture more than 90% of the methane generated by the solid waste in the landfill. You can read the letter exchange here. For years we have heard from experts that capture of more than 50% is just not possible . The USEPA recently announced that methane from landfills is underestimated by a factor of two, and that methods for estimating emission s via computer models are outdated and based on faulty assumptions. And so, we issued a challenge: measure the methane escaping fro m the landfill, using proven, peer-reviewed technology, and see the results. We pointed out that this could be done for a very modest cost (less t han $50,000) and in a very short time (less than amonth). And it would show the County government, and the citizens and taxpayers, what is really happening. The letter we received in reply was nonresponsive and condescending. It merely restated the claims that we had questioned, n oted that the most recent Comprehensive Plan included goals for improvement (although not the im provements their consultants had recommended), and declined our challenge to measure, rather than estimate, the methane emissions, sayin g that the KCSWD was “following the procedures.” In other words, they didn’t care that recycling rates can’t be proven, that their collection m ethods decrease the amount of material fit for recycling, and that methane emissions are probably much higher than they claim. But th ey’re “following the procedures,” so everything is okay. Our response to this letter pointed out its errors and called out the SWD for its failures, p articularly its failure to take the advice of its consultants to begin moving away from landfilling. Why is this important? For three reasons: 1.) The Environment. Municipal Solid Waste includes toxic materials and chemicals such as flame retardants and that can accumulate in body tissue. They can pollute the air, water and soil. The methane generated is a greenhouse gas, much more potent than carbon dioxide in its potential for trapping heat, and it has become the focus of the US effort to reduce global warming. 2.) Resource Conservation. According to SWD’s own statements, much of what ends up i n the landfill could be recycled. Further, their collection method – all recycling in one bin – contaminates some of the materials, rendering them unusable. Reuse and recycling saves virgin materials and the energy needed to produce finished goods. 3.) The Economy. When the true costs of landfilling are considered – the need for maintenance and mitigation for hundreds of years, the impacts of pollution on human health and the environment, the waste of energy and materials – burying our trash in the ground is by far the most expensive means of disposal. You, and your children, and their children , will pay this bill for generations. The SWD’s own consultants told them this, and were ignored. So what is the alternative? Many other countries, as well as some communities in the US, h ave adopted an Integrated Waste Management Plan, based on the international waste hierarchy followed by the USEPA and the Europe an Union. The five principles are, in order of application: 1) prevention, 2) reuse, 3) recycle, 4) recover, and 5) disposal. By following thi s plan, the amount of waste is reduced, reuse and recycling are increased, valuable metals and materials are recovered for sale, and only a small amou nt of inert material needs to be disposed of. By adopting this system, countries in Europe have greatly increased their recycling rate s, prevented millions of tons of methane from entering the atmosphere, created thousands of familywage jobs, and saved the taxpayers millions if not billions of dollars. We could do the same here, if the SWD would get out of the way of progress. Sincerely yours, The Institute for Energy and Resource Management Contact: Stephen Gerritson, contact@ie-rm.org
What's your reaction?
0
0
0
0
COOL
UPSET
LOVE
LOL
P RE V
N EXT
A major Atlantic current is at a critical
One way to combat Russia? Move faster
transition point
on clean energy
F E B R U AR Y 1 7 , 2 0 2 2
F E B R U AR Y 2 6 , 2 0 2 2
Related Posts
Open Letter to Bill
The Misguided Politics
Gates:
of Senator Joe ...
S E P T E M BE R 30 , 20 21 / BL OGS
OCT OBE R 1 9, 20 21 / BL OGS / CL IM AT E CHA N GE / E N E RGY / E N V IRON M E N T / E N V IRON M E N TA L JUS T ICE / L E GIS L AT ION
1 Comments Ricky Vancleaf AP R I L 1 3 , 2 0 2 2
Oh my goodness! Incredible article dude! Thank you, However I am experiencing troubles with your RSS. I don’t understand why I cannot join it. Is there anyone else getting similar RSS problems? Anyone that knows the solution can you kindly respond? Thanks!!
R E P LY
Add Comment
Your Name *
Your E-mail *
Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.
Your comment *
I agree that my submitted data is being collected and stored. For further details on handling user data, see our Privacy Policy
S EN D Y O UR C O MMEN T
About
Services
Legacy
Contacts
Vision & Mission
IeRM Team
Privacy Policy
12623 SE 83rd Ct. NewCastle, WA 98056 contact@ie-rm.org (206) 313-9774
Copyright © 2022 IeRM, All Rights Reserved.
Powered by