The Other Side of the Story: A Covanta Produced Informational Video

After reading part 1 of Paul Connet's The Zero Waste Solution, I am quite convinced that incinerators are not the solution to our waste issues and the negative effects of incinerators heavily outweigh any possible effects that may come from them, both economically and environmentally. This led my curiosity to wonder, if the number and popularity of incinerators has dwindled from thousands to about sixty incinerators worldwide, what could Covanta's argument possibly be in support of their incinerators over alternative sources of waste management? I figured since we will soon here both sides of the argument while touring the facility and speaking with Anti-Covanta enthusiast Carey Hamilton, it would be interesting and beneficial to research Covanta's marketing techniques for their proposal of their recycling plan for Indianapolis. I came across a youtube video (I've listed the link below).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o0_0ePXlJ44

Covanta claims that they effectively recycling all possible recyclables while only burning excess waste in order to produce energy for profit. Although after speaking with Professor Pope about the matter during our brunch, I learned that they do not necessarily recycle paper and instead burn that in order to sell for profit. Another question that came over me was; who is to monitor Covanta that they are in fact recycling everything possible that comes their way? In other words, who is to say that they wont simply mistakenly allow recyclable matter into the incinerator while energy production numbers are down, in order to compensate for a lack of waste that is produced for them to burn? This is especially possible if a zero or lesser waste lifestyle becomes more popular amongst citizens near Indianapolis.

Additionally, I actually attended a speech given by Carey Hamilton this past semester as I recall her stating that if the notion for the Covanta recycling plan for indianapolis were to pass, the contract is binding for 7 years and the city of Indianapolis would be disallowed to seek out other more effective or more sustainable alternatives to Covanta's incinerator. Resonating with the Connet reading, he stated that it takes over 30 years and a fixed amount of waste (converted to energy and sold) for an incinerator for cover its own costs. It seems to me that the incineration plan is simply a quick and dirty (hence, dirty-murf) fix to a problem that requires a much more sustainable solution.

While watching the video I thought it was funny how simple, upbeat, and user friendly Covanta makes the video seem, a clear product of greenwashing as they state "(waste) doesn't have to go to a landfill,"even though Connet explains 25% of incineration turns into ash which eventually ends up in a landfill. They also label their methods as a "clear gas system" which creates another greenwashed illusion for people to be persuaded by. Connet effectively pokes holes in this video that could deceive Indianapolis voters into signing themselves to their own economic and environmental demise.