Consider the facts:
- In 2001, Sweden was sending 22% of its garbage to landfills. But, in 2012, the nation was sending 1% of its garbage to landfills, 50% was recycled, and 49% was incinerated, producing 8.5% of the nation's energy. This process is called "Waste To Energy" (WTE). Sweden has 32 WTE plants.
- In contrast, the knuckle-dragging Neanderthal United States sends 54% of its garbage to landfills, burning only 12% in WTE plants.
Why can't the United States, which produces 1.6 pounds of garbage/year/person, implement WTE on a large scale?
Opponents to WTE focus upon carbon emissions. But, the Slate.com article offers some data:
- Burning trash emits ~3k pounds of carbon dioxide/megawatt hour of electricity produced. This is higher than coal (~2.25k pounds/megawatt hour) and natural gas (~1.14 pounds/megawatt hour). However, much of that waste--paper and food, for example--would have released carbon dioxide into the atmosphere naturally.
- The EPA estimates that 33% of WTE carbon dioxide emissions are due to the fossil fuels used to burn the garbage. Thus,WTE emissions approximate those associated with natural gas.
So, why not build more WTE facilities in the United States to extend the good that the 23 already are doing?
The answer: Those who worship at the altar of environmentalism are ideologues who are intolerant of any proposal that advances the ball toward their goal but may have outcomes that aren't 100% in accord with their dogma.
Still, The Motley Monk believes the Slate.com data are worth noting because there's absolutely no reason why the nation should not do a better job with regard to WTE. Any conservative who is interested in greater stewardship of the environment would heartily concur!
Are not those who worship at the altar of environmentalism exactly what they accuse their opponents of--all in the name of their being ritually pure?
- Not very "inclusive."
- Not very "tolerant."
Let the discussion begin...
To read the Slate.com article, click on the followinng link:
"Forbranning for All!"