Until realization of true cost of trash, landfills will remain easy to waste

The discussion about Casella Waste Systems Inc. taking over Lewiston’s landfill reflects our careless energy use and “throwaway” society. Landfills are quickly filled because we have made it easier to demolish, than remodel.

It is easier to throw yard waste and organic matter into landfills, rather than compost it. It is easier to throw away paper, tin cans and bottles than recycle them. It is easier to throw broken items away rather than repair them.

How many, including those in attendance during recent meetings in Lewiston about the Casella proposal, give sufficient consideration to the amount of waste they generate? How would lives change if families became responsible to take care of their waste, instead of disposing it out of sight and, consequently, out of mind?

As a youngster, I would spend time with my aunts and uncles on Webster Street. There was no curbside trash collection – everything was composted or burned, old clothes became quilts and furniture was made to last forever.

In the weekly trash pick-up mentality, it doesn’t matter if the waste smells, as long as it’s removed and doesn’t assault our olfactory senses. It does not matter if a mountain of waste is generated, as long as we don’t see it. This has made us callous about what gets thrown away.

Under the deal with Casella, the people from out-of-state wouldn’t care about recycling, as long as discards could be exported to L-A. Only by giving communities the individual responsibility to handle waste, will citizens become aware of the real costs of a duty now foisted upon others.

Nevermind that waste must be transported for many miles, increasing energy use and consequent degradation of the environment. It was with this same point of view, that as a member of the Vermont State Nuclear Advisory Panel, I consistently opposed shipping high-level radioactive waste to a national repository, rather than storing it on-site.

Construction waste also constitutes a considerable portion of generated waste, and deserves considerable thought. If builders were held accountable for the real costs of dealing with discarded toxic waste, wouldn’t they minimize their use of such materials, and pressure manufacturers to be more environmentally friendly?

If demolishers had to pay the true price for dealing with the toxins generated by razing buildings, would more buildings be renovated instead? If structures were built stronger, would we all benefit from reduced demolition waste?

Many of us have seen homes built centuries ago, yet homes built today seem to have an inevitable demise within a half-century. In remodeling my 50-year-old home in Auburn, I practiced what I now preach.

I removed a breezeway from the structure; the outside consisted of upright cedar logs, while the floor was made of Douglas Fir. I carefully removed the logs and flooring, sold the logs to someone who wanted them for solidifying a dirt embankment and recycled the fir as flooring for a new porch.

Many businesses have substantial waste streams that should be addressed, yet to my knowledge, no there is no cost to toxic waste generators that truly reflects the long-term cost of dealing with these products.

There must be an up-front cost at purchase that guarantees return of surplus or degraded toxic products to the seller. This could result in the possible reduction or re-use of such products.

In addition to the above, communities are responsible as well.

At present, many communities separate and compost yard waste and other organic matter. In Burlington, Vt., near where I lived for many years, a self-supporting project accepts yard and food waste where it is turned into compost available for sale. In Cupertino, Calif., where my son lives, a special container for yard waste is collected each week at the curb for composting.

Many communities also have locations at their transfer stations for items no longer useful to their owners, but could become treasures to others. Once when I was at our local incinerator, I saw a pair of skis with great bindings. I was told they were scheduled to be burned in the incinerator.

I put them into my truck with the intention of finding someone who might want them. A few days later, a young man spotted the skis and was glad to take them. He even commented on the quality of the bindings. It would be nice to have a facility where these skis could have found a new home, like a swap shop, instead of incineration.

We must be willing, as a society, to cease being global polluters, moderate our energy use and recycle, repair and re-use. These important steps, if taken locally, could lengthen the life and improve the quality of our landfills.

Yes, it is easier to live in a energy consuming, throwaway society.

But the consequences are too dire.

Dominique P. Casavant is professor emeritus of physics from St. Michael’s College, a former mayor of Winooski, Vt., former Vermont legislator, and former member of the Vermont State Nuclear Advisory Panel. He lives in Auburn.