>There is no other reasonable option, mathematically speaking, given the realities on the ground.
Of course you would conclude that. You only looked at like, three countries. Do you see how e.g. Sweden has no river leak and also no landfills? Of course you didn't, because you only care about America. You have looked at and compared two d…
>There is no other reasonable option, mathematically speaking, given the realities on the ground.
Of course you would conclude that. You only looked at like, three countries. Do you see how e.g. Sweden has no river leak and also no landfills? Of course you didn't, because you only care about America. You have looked at and compared two different places - one of which has a GDP around 55 times higher than the other - and found that the richer one handles trash better. Golly, I could never have seen that coming.
It bares mention that the developing world can't even use the "burn trash to make electricity" option the Swedes use even though that option would be nice for them, because they don't have the garbage collection element to be able to make it work. They'd need to filter it out of the rivers and then burn it.
I also doubt that the environmental lobby in the US can be stronger than in Sweden, but backing this point with data would take too long on both sides.
What's the true number? I don't know, but I do know it's a heck of a lot bigger than here. I saw an interesting youtube video recently where they used RFID trackers to track plastic put in recycling bins in the UK, and it ended up being used in incinerators to power concrete manufacturing in eastern Europe.
There are points against the energy conversion of waste, the most convincing I've heard is this: given that the best thing to do with waste is not producing it at all, if a city/county/state invests in building an incinerator, it won't try to educate its citizens in reducing waste or it will lose its money.
I think this can happen in theory but not in practice (but still, no data to bring on future hypothetical scenarios).
"If we build an incinerator then they won't reduce waste" is putting a social manipulation agenda in front of a today-workable solution. We see this all the time with agencies like the CDC and FDA, which will conflate smoking and vaping statistics on purpose to supposedly reduce nicotine use, when in fact they scare vapers back onto cigarettes and kill people. Or when they obscure the fact that the IFR for Covid among teens and younger is orders of magnitude smaller than ordinary influenza, in an attempt to scare people into getting vaccinations they don't need.
I am categorically against policy decisions predicated on social manipulation.
AIUI, one of the major concerns with trash incineration are its "byproducts [which] include bottom ash, which [in Sweden] is sorted for metals and then recycled as fill for road construction or other projects, and fly ash, which is toxic and deposited in a landfill certified to handle hazardous materials."
So having a set of scrubbers and filters capable of capturing nearly all of that material, as well as conscientious handling of those byproducts, might be among key concerns – perhaps more than any "social manipulation" fears?
Also, one big advantage that Sweden apparently has is its widespread "district-scale heating," which improves the economics of trash burning. Something the USA likely lacks in most places?
>There is no other reasonable option, mathematically speaking, given the realities on the ground.
Of course you would conclude that. You only looked at like, three countries. Do you see how e.g. Sweden has no river leak and also no landfills? Of course you didn't, because you only care about America. You have looked at and compared two different places - one of which has a GDP around 55 times higher than the other - and found that the richer one handles trash better. Golly, I could never have seen that coming.
Sweden incinerates 86% of their plastic. I'm fine with us taking this option, but I doubt you'll get the buyoff from the environmental lobby.
It bares mention that the developing world can't even use the "burn trash to make electricity" option the Swedes use even though that option would be nice for them, because they don't have the garbage collection element to be able to make it work. They'd need to filter it out of the rivers and then burn it.
Which is your source? I found that Sweden incinerates 60% of their plastic according to this source. https://plasticseurope.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/PlasticsEurope-CircularityReport-2021_28022022.pdf
I also doubt that the environmental lobby in the US can be stronger than in Sweden, but backing this point with data would take too long on both sides.
Source on 86%.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-08-14/how-would-burning-rubbish-like-sweden-work-in-australia/10115694#:~:text=Sweden%20built%20its%20first%20waste,levels%20than%20most%20renewable%20energies
What's the true number? I don't know, but I do know it's a heck of a lot bigger than here. I saw an interesting youtube video recently where they used RFID trackers to track plastic put in recycling bins in the UK, and it ended up being used in incinerators to power concrete manufacturing in eastern Europe.
There are points against the energy conversion of waste, the most convincing I've heard is this: given that the best thing to do with waste is not producing it at all, if a city/county/state invests in building an incinerator, it won't try to educate its citizens in reducing waste or it will lose its money.
I think this can happen in theory but not in practice (but still, no data to bring on future hypothetical scenarios).
"If we build an incinerator then they won't reduce waste" is putting a social manipulation agenda in front of a today-workable solution. We see this all the time with agencies like the CDC and FDA, which will conflate smoking and vaping statistics on purpose to supposedly reduce nicotine use, when in fact they scare vapers back onto cigarettes and kill people. Or when they obscure the fact that the IFR for Covid among teens and younger is orders of magnitude smaller than ordinary influenza, in an attempt to scare people into getting vaccinations they don't need.
I am categorically against policy decisions predicated on social manipulation.
AIUI, one of the major concerns with trash incineration are its "byproducts [which] include bottom ash, which [in Sweden] is sorted for metals and then recycled as fill for road construction or other projects, and fly ash, which is toxic and deposited in a landfill certified to handle hazardous materials."
So having a set of scrubbers and filters capable of capturing nearly all of that material, as well as conscientious handling of those byproducts, might be among key concerns – perhaps more than any "social manipulation" fears?
https://energynews.us/2013/10/17/is-burning-garbage-green-in-sweden-theres-little-debate/
Also, one big advantage that Sweden apparently has is its widespread "district-scale heating," which improves the economics of trash burning. Something the USA likely lacks in most places?
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/21/climate/sweden-garbage-used-for-fuel.html