Frances Bula header image 2
← →

How Vancouver will make its garbage disappear: two visions

April 6th, 2011 · 12 Comments

Do you, like Andie McDowell, in sex, lies and videotape, lie awake at night worrying about where all the garbage will go?

I have to confess, I occasionally do. Every bag of trash that I fill seems like another straw on the planet’s back. (A sign that I’m a hopeless liberal, probably.)

So it was anxiety-reducing to talk to people who are garbage geeks about what the future holds. As it turns out, it holds a lot of wrangling about what the ultimate garbage solution is, as I explore in my Vancouver magazine story.

At the end, I don’t think there is one solution and neither does anyone, really. A lot can be recycled — but perhaps not as much as we think. Much of what we now consider to be recycling is just garbage delayed one step. It’s recycled once … and THEN thrown away.

Some can be burned. But not everything. That means that what we’re likely to see in the foreseeable future is considerable pushing and pulling to arrive at the ratios for each, with a lot of new technology and processes and thinking about different ways to change the familiar.

Plus a lot of thinking about what we as humans are ultimately capable of. Can we invent the perfect solution? Can we change our own behaviour? Which is more likely?

 

 

Categories: Uncategorized

  • Giuppi

    Have you read “Cradle to Cradle”? One (the?) solution is in reducing the amount of waste at the source, by designing our products in a smart way, rather than wondering what to do with the waste once it’s there.

  • Chris

    I’m with Andrea Reimer, we need to reduce waste, not burn it.

    Organic waste can easily be handled with composting, what worries me is waste generated by conspicuous consumption, the driving force in our current economy.

    I don’t think we should rely on technological solutions to save us, but there are some long-term trends that give me some hope: 3D printing and virtual goods.

    3D printing has the potential to transform how we consume physical goods. It could drastically reduce transportation and construction waste, and make recycling more attractive.

    Virtual goods (and more standard electronic goods like ebooks and MP3s) give people the opportunity for conspicuous consumption without creating waste. It might seem weird to older generations, but for a lot of younger people owning virtual items has more appeal then physical goods.

  • AnnetteF

    Funny, I was thinking of that Andie McDowell character just this morning-fearing that I was turning into her. (Though my usual line of worrying usually focuses more on access to healthcare for the world’s poor…).

    I agree with Chris and Andrea- there is so much more that we could easily do to reduce waste. That should be the first step. Just when did everything become so disposable?

    I have significantly reduced my garbage production just by refusing to buy take out food or drinks unless I have my own container to put them in. Regulations around over-packaging would also help (Costco is a particularly bad offender).

    My latest focus (see, I really am turning into Andie’s character) has been on reducing my plastic consumption. As you mentioned Frances, recycling is often only a step before the landfill. On a very remote beach in Northeast South Africa a few years ago I was horrified at the amount of plastic bottles and other junk that had washed up on the shore. The world’s oceans are also filling up with our discarded junk.

  • grounded

    One of the more interesting waste reduction ideas I’ve come across lately is called “collaborative consumption”. In essence, it is bartering with a 21st century social media twist. People connect via websites where they post items/ services they are willing to trade with another person for something else. Time Magazine recently profiled it in their “10 ideas that will change the world” feature and there’s a great TED Talk on the topic: http://www.ted.com/talks/rachel_botsman_the_case_for_collaborative_consumption.html?awesm=on.ted.com_8mFE .

    One example where cities are getting involved with collab consumption is by allowing/ encouraging the creation of neighbourhood tool libraries. Portland’s had one for a while now and I’ve heard there will be one opening in Vancouver soon.

  • Ron

    Just like you can’t please all of the people all of te time – I find it hardly likely that you can convert all of the people this time (particularly with increasingly complex recylcing rules – think least common denominator).

    Even for recyclables, there will be people who discard recyclables, maybe based on location – how else do the binners make their money?

    At our office in TD Tower at Pacific Centre, Cadillac Fairview has laid out separate bins for (1) non-recyclables (refuse), (2) recyclables (tin cans, bottles, clean paper, pop cans, etc.) and (2) organic waste (meat, bones, vegetables, fruit, soiled paper, tea bags, coffee grounds, etc.) – but that’s largely only in the main cafeteria – and you should see how the stuff is mixed up between the bins, with plastic wrap and other non-recyclables in the recycling bin.
    Each office/workstation does not have 3 bins (just a refuse bin and recycling bin for clean paper) and neither do each of the coffee stations (2 per floor) which just have refuse bins and organics bins.

  • Creek’er

    Great article!

    The reality of global warming has been clear for decades; so too is the need to move to incineration for non-recyclable/non-compostable waste.

    The key is to ramp up a waste reduction strategy to achieve optimal recycling and composting of organics. What cannot be diverted should be incinerated to capture the stored energy. Burying it in the ground is completely wasteful.

    I’m with Andrew Weaver and Francesco on this one.

    In an ideal world there would be no waste. In the real world there will always be some. Incineration is clearly the most rational means of dealing with our waste as it makes it a useful resource.

  • voony

    It is sad to listen in Vancouver that people believe that “Incineration is clearly the most rational means of dealing with our waste as it makes it a useful resource”.

    It is not, far of it, even in Toronto people knows it.
    A much more rational is anaerobic digestion of waste… and yes they have Anaerobic digester plants for solid waste in Toronto.

    I don’t understand that solution is not even mentioned in the debate in Vancouver: why?

  • Max

    I was at the 125th Birthday Celebrations yesterday and noted that the city had wisely put out continers for not just recyclables, but for organic waste – food scraps.

    It amazed me that people could would stare at the signs on the containers and still dump all their garbage into anyone of the offerings.

  • Bill Lee

    Vancouver will still be one of the filthiest cities in North America, flushing its sewage and storm sewer water straight out to the Fraser River mouth. Untreated, fitfully screened and with almost no chemical treatment, the policy is an outrage.

    Seattle papers always used to go on about Victoria and its 2 km pipes from Clover Point and Macauley point putting out 129 million litres of raw sewage (a day!!!). But at least there is a treatment plant under construction. But the outflow still won’t be suitable for human consumption.

    And you did mention air in your article, but why do we allow cars to spew low priced gasoline, inefficient gas furnaces, whopping huge greenhouses in the valley throwing gas or sulphuric oil heat on exporting tomatoes.
    And the worst air polluters, the monopoly cement plants burning tires for roasting the cement to make concrete.

    There has to be a better way. And if Christy Clark really believes in families, she will put a cork in it today.

  • Bill Lee

    Re: different bins.

    Going along Hastings the other day in the Soviet of Burnaby, I see that they have 4 bin garbage structures in every block, selling ads on the street side.

    Sometimes I think they should run the new almagamated Metro city under Mayor Watt.

  • Ned

    ‘How Vancouver will make its garbage disappear’
    What a great title! Only incomplete. It should read ‘How Vancouver will make its garbage disappear: November Election!’
    How about that?

  • Creek’er

    “It is sad to listen in Vancouver that people believe that “Incineration is clearly the most rational means of dealing with our waste as it makes it a useful resource”.

    It is not…A much more rational is anaerobic digestion of waste… “
    —————————————————————————

    What about the non-biodegradable/non-recyclable waste, that I was referring to in my comment? Bury it in the ground?