The state budget deal that recently was hammered out failed to adequately tackle the worsening climate threat, but it also did little to attack another environmental crisis: the generation and disposal of solid wastes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
But first, some background. The number<\/a> one place that residential trash goes to is a landfill; number two is export for disposal; number three is garbage-burning incinerators; and last is getting recycled. There is no evidence that the problem is getting better. In fact, the state\u2019s residential recycling rate has been dropping<\/a> over the past decade. By the way, these disposal methods can contribute to the climate crisis: Solid waste accounts<\/a> for 12% of statewide greenhouse gas emissions, most of which comes from decomposing waste in landfills. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The state\u2019s capacity to take this problem on is dwindling. Again according<\/a> to the New York State\u2019s Department of Environmental Conservation (\u201cDEC\u201d), \u201cNew York\u2019s 25 municipal solid waste landfills have a combined landfill capacity of between 16 and 25 years.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n If the state\u2019s landfills are filled to capacity in a decade or so, what will happen? Trucking the waste somewhere else is likely to be the option, but that is expensive and uncertain: who knows for how long someone else will be willing<\/a> to take New York\u2019s trash? Already, New York City exports<\/a> nearly all of its trash. Unless something changes, the rest of the state will have to follow that expensive route. Actions taken now could extend the lifespan of the state\u2019s existing landfills, but waiting will make the options even more difficult.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In New York\u2019s final budget, the state appropriated $400 million <\/a>for the Environmental Protection Fund.<\/a> That Fund does \u2013 among other things \u2013 provide funding to spend on projects for \u201cencouraging recycling; providing safe disposal of household hazardous waste; ensuring safe closure of landfills; and developing markets for waste materials.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Is it enough? There is some concern<\/a> that the money appropriated into the EPF is not actually spent directly on environmental projects. In any event, not all of the EPF goes to urgent solid waste issues. About $20 million<\/a> goes to recycling with small amounts going to other programs that could help deal with the mounting trash disposal problems. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Creating a new landfill is not cheap<\/a> \u2013 and certainly landfill siting can be controversial; ditto for attempts to expand existing<\/a> ones. Obviously, the state will want to extend the life of existing landfills as long as they can (although local communities understandably may oppose<\/a> those efforts). In order to do that, programs must be put in place to encourage New Yorkers to reduce the amount of trash that they create.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The DEC is considering<\/a> a trash surcharge that would both generate revenues for dealing with the solid waste disposal problems and encourage New Yorkers to reduce their wastes. Not surprisingly, adding a \u201ctax\u201d to encourage people not to produce trash can be unpopular<\/a> and these proposals raise questions about the impacts on lower income New Yorkers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n So why not tackle the trash at the source? According to the DEC<\/a>, paper and plastics make up nearly half of municipal solid wastes. There are two bills ready to take those two waste materials on.<\/p>\n\n\n\n First, the Packaging Reduction and Recycling Infrastructure Act <\/a>will reduce plastic packaging by 50% over 12 years to dramatically reduce waste, as well as phase out some of the most toxic chemicals used in packaging; improve recyclability of packaging; and slash greenhouse gas emissions associated with plastic. It will also make polluters pay by establishing a modest fee on packaging to be paid by packaging producers, generating new revenue that could help defray waste costs for local taxpayers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Second, an expansion<\/a> of the Bottle Deposit Law<\/a>. That\u2019s the law that requires a nickel deposit on certain carbonated beverages and bottled water. When you return the container, you get your nickel back. The Bottle Law has been the most successful litter reduction and recycling program in New York history. The DEC describes it as a \u201ctremendous success<\/a>.\u201d When the law kicked in 40 years ago in 1983, carbonated beverage containers were found everywhere; now the overwhelming majority<\/a> of these containers are redeemed under the program. But many beverages \u2013 most notably non-carbonated sports drinks \u2013 didn\u2019t exist four decades ago and are not covered by the law today. And the nickel deposit was put in place 40 years ago<\/em> \u2013 that 1983 nickel when adjusted for inflation is worth 15 cents<\/em> today.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Both of these measures would reduce packaging waste and promote the concept of a \u201ccircular economy<\/a>\u201d \u2013 one in which wastes are reduced to a minimum. It is a concept embraced by the DEC in its recent report<\/a>, the \u201cNew York State Solid Waste Management Plan.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Reports are fine, but action<\/em> is what matters. As lawmakers return to the Capitol next week, they must take the solid waste disposal crisis head on. The packaging reduction and bottle deposit law expansion bills are two good places to start.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" The state budget deal that recently was hammered out failed to adequately tackle the worsening climate threat, but it also did little to attack another environmental crisis: the generation and disposal of solid wastes. But first, some background. The number one place that residential trash goes to is a landfill; number two is export for […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-3022","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.nypirg.org\/capitolperspective\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3022","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.nypirg.org\/capitolperspective\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.nypirg.org\/capitolperspective\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.nypirg.org\/capitolperspective\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.nypirg.org\/capitolperspective\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3022"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/www.nypirg.org\/capitolperspective\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3022\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3024,"href":"https:\/\/www.nypirg.org\/capitolperspective\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3022\/revisions\/3024"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.nypirg.org\/capitolperspective\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3022"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.nypirg.org\/capitolperspective\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3022"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.nypirg.org\/capitolperspective\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3022"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}