Position Statement Mbruce

1. (Question) How should Ashland's waste be dealt with?

2. (Question) What will be the cost (monetary or otherwise) to taxpayers?

3. (Question) Will there be other sources of financial support?

4. (Question) Aside from the general public, who will benefit from this plan?

5. (Question) What do you think are the major merits of your plan?

6. (Question) What do you think critics will say in response to your plan?

1. (Answer) I find the best way to deal with the waste is to recycle it. With an incinerator, harmful gasses are put out into the air. The air that we breathe will be polluted more and more with incineration. That, along with cars are huge pollution problems, so if we can eliminate as much as possible, we will have less of a problem. Landfills are a huge environmental problem. They can immensely damage the soil and water quality. Along with that, the air is also affected by landfills because landfills contribute to the greenhouse effect. Landfills produce methane which is a gas that is 20 times more effective in trapping atmospheric heat than carbon dioxide. Recycling is the best of these three options for a few reasons. For one, we are reusing materials that are already being used so we don't have to use as many excess resources. For two, by recycling, we keep so much waste out of the atmosphere, and out of the landfills. Bethany Wieman states that, "Americans recovered 61 million tons of municipal solid waste through recycling in 2009, and that by composting, American's also kept another 21 million tons of materials out of the landfills and incinerators. The amount of material recycled and composted also kept 178 million metric tons of carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere which is equivalent to taking 33 million cars off of the road for one year."

2. (Answer) The actual cost of source reduction is $0. It's free. It doesn't cost money to use less of something. However, the process of getting people to learn about source reduction costs money. It costs money to promote source reduction. Examples of this are fliers, advertisements, teachers to inform people about source reduction, and things like that cost money. What it doesn't cost is resources. We actually gain resources which are worth more than the money used to promote an entirely good thing. By saving resources, money would be saved, and our environment would be better off.

3. (Answer) The best way to pay for this program and promotion would be by government grants. It would save a lot of money in the long run to use less resources. The less waste we have, the better off we are. The more resources we have, the better off we are. I fully believe that the government will recognize this and have no problem funding this.

4. (Answer) The environment will benefit the most from source reduction. Less waste will be put in the ground, less waste will be burned and put into the air, and more resources will be available for necessary things that our society needs.

5. (Answer) I find that the main merits of source reduction will be how much we save all around. It may cost a bit to get the awareness going, but find me one free program. In the long run, we save on everything. By using less paper in packaging, many many trees will be saved, and there will be less waste to have to deal with. Let's be honest, even if there is an easier and more efficient way to deal with the waste, it's still a hassle. If we use less, there will be limited struggles in finding what to do with the waste! Landfills and incinerators cost a ton of money to keep running, and they are very harsh on the environment.

6. (Answer) I think the main the critics will ask is, "Even with this program, there is still waste. Where will this waste go?" My answer to this that recycling is the best option, referring back to what I said earlier.

Why Ashland Should go for Source Reduction

I find the best way to deal with the waste is to recycle it. With an incinerator, harmful gasses are put out into the air. The air that we breathe will be polluted more and more with incineration. That, along with cars are huge pollution problems, so if we can eliminate as much as possible, we will have less of a problem. Landfills are a huge environmental problem. They can immensely damage the soil and water quality. Along with that, the air is also affected by landfills because landfills contribute to the greenhouse effect. Landfills produce methane which is a gas that is 20 times more effective in trapping atmospheric heat than carbon dioxide. Recycling is the best of these three options for a few reasons. For one, we are reusing materials that are already being used so we don't have to use as many excess resources. For two, by recycling, we keep so much waste out of the atmosphere, and out of the landfills. Home Guides' Recycling Vs. Landfills or Incinerators says that Americans recovered 61 million tons of municipal solid waste through recycling in 2009, and that by composting, American's also kept another 21 million tons of materials out of the landfills and incinerators. The amount of material recycled and composted also kept 178 million metric tons of carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere which is equivalent to taking 33 million cars off of the road for one year.
The actual cost of source reduction is $0. It's free. It doesn't cost money to use less of something. However, the process of getting people to learn about source reduction costs money. It costs money to promote source reduction. Examples of this are fliers, advertisements, teachers to inform people about source reduction, and things like that cost money. What it doesn't cost is resources. We actually gain resources which are worth more than the money used to promote an entirely good thing. By saving resources, money would be saved, and our environment would be better off. The best way to pay for this program and promotion would be by government grants. It would save a lot of money in the long run to use less resources. The less waste we have, the better off we are. The more resources we have, the better off we are. I fully believe that the government will recognize this and have no problem funding this.
The environment will benefit the most from source reduction. Less waste will be put in the ground, less waste will be burned and put into the air, and more resources will be available for necessary things that our society needs. I find that the main merits of source reduction will be how much we save all around. It may cost a bit to get the awareness going, but find me one free program. In the long run, we save on everything. By using less paper in packaging, many many trees will be saved, and there will be less waste to have to deal with. Let's be honest, even if there is an easier and more efficient way to deal with the waste, it's still a hassle. If we use less, there will be limited struggles in finding what to do with the waste! Landfills and incinerators cost a ton of money to keep running, and they are very harsh on the environment.
I think the main the critics will ask is, "Even with this program, there is still waste. Where will this waste go?" My answer to this that recycling is the best option, referring back to what I said earlier.


Works Cited

Wieman, Bethany. "Home Guides: Recycling Vs. Landfills or Incinerators." SFGate. Demand Media. Web. 6 July 2015.

Unless otherwise stated, the content of this page is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License