Blog 3 - Covanta

Though I thought it was interesting and good that Covanta wanted to address concerns about the plans to build the advanced recycling center to the point of writing a letter in response to a DePauw student’s opinion article, the responses rubs me the wrong way and seems to hold up very poorly against the complaints people have offered. They seem to angle fact only in their favor, glossing over any flaws in the system (I think they should be trying to show both the advantages and disadvantages and then to persuade that the advantages outweigh the disadvantages). For example, they note that the EfW facility has “helped divert 13.5 million tons of waste from landfills by converting trash into clean energy for the city,” making it sound like the waste goes in and simply disappears leaving behind energy. Obviously, we know that this is not the case as ash and air pollutants are left in the waste’s place. When they do mention the ash, they say only that testing has proven that the ash can be safely disposed of; they never mention what sorts of testing have been done though or by whom. Furthermore, one complaint in Price’s op-ed is that burning metals pollutes the air. Covanta, rather than addressing this complaint, simply insists that removing the metals from the incinerated ash makes this facility better than other incinerators. The metals are still incinerated, then, in the EfW facility, which still releases the toxins into the air with which Price had a problem. When they addressed the contamination of recyclable materials, just as when addressing other problems, there were assurances given but no real explanations. Though they say that “this state-of-the-art technology… will minimize contamination…” there are no explanations or details to support this claim. It reminds me a of childish yes-no-yes-no fight, where protestors accuse that the quality of recyclable material will be diminished due to contamination and Covanta promises that this is not true with no further explanation. It feels to me like they respond to questions and concerns without actually answering any of them in depth. I would be much more likely to take their claims seriously if they looked at each complaint seriously and gave an honest, in-depth answer that provided all of the facts (both positive and negative).