blog post 3

           Today we went to visit Covanta and the Indiana Recycling Coalition which was very interesting. We heard different sides of the story concerning the proposed Advanced Recycling Center by Covanta as opposed to expanding curbside recycling to all homes in Indianapolis. Before I was very perplexed by the oversimplification of the issue and what was at stake by this plan moving forward or screeching to a halt. What if Indianapolis decided to forgo their contract with Covanta and encourage a more competitive curbside recycling program? I never realized that there were cities within the borders of Indianapolis which helps explain why it seems so difficult to unanimously agree on this issue. At the same time, I wonder if Covanta is really willing or even able to accomplish all that they say they will or if they are just trying to sell a slightly better alternative to landfills while keeping themselves in business and guaranteeing that all recyclables go to the ARC. At the Covanta plant today they mentioned that it would cut back on transportation costs to use a single-stream recycling program. But I wonder in Indianapolis’ case if that will actually be cost-effective and worth it from an environmental standpoint rather than economic. I also worry about the pervasiveness of the idea that waste to energy incinerators are a sufficient solution to waste management and the tendency to accept that as an undisputed fact which discourages alternative solutions or critical thinking. I guess I'm afraid that everyone in Indianapolis will accept Covanta as the only real option other than landfilling their waste and stop from pursuing other options. 

            The Indianapolis Recycling Coalition brought up that many of the manufacturers that rely heavily upon reclaimed materials were in alarm over this proposal and what it will mean to the quality of materials that come back to them or if they’ll even be able to accept the recycled materials. It seems to me that we need to focus on closing these loops as much as possible without increasing the likelihood of rejected materials based on contamination. Though I suppose it’s impossible to predict or accurately represent all angles and consequences of any of the options available to the city of Indianapolis. However, the point that struck me the most was Covanta seemed to be under the impression that there was nothing wrong with requiring Indianapolis to provide a certain amount of feedstock or face a penalty while only promising 18% recycling. This proposal strikes me as one of a large semi-truck transporting an entire truck full of materials only to forget to lock the doors and have the majority of materials fly out onto the highway. 

             Another thing that worries me is the idea that once people accept Covanta as the best alternative to landfills and the best option for waste management that there will be a blind acceptance of all of their processes and consequences. That's why I think it's important for environmental groups like the Indianapolis Recycling Coalition to exist in the capacity of a watchdog for these types of overlooked industries and policies. Also because no real good comes from decisions without debate and careful consideration into all the costs and benefits from more than the economic point of view. Maybe it's the idealist in me but I'll never stop being suspicious of the rhetoric spouted by large companies like Covanta despite their seemingly good intentions. If we really want to find the best solutions we have to question the validity of everything including those on both sides of the table. We can't place precedence of one value over another but focus on what benefits the entire community as well as business and the environment.

http://www.cnet.com/news/waste-to-energy-green-or-greenwash/