How to improve waste management
California passed the Electronics Waste Recycling Act of 2003 (SB 20) the first of its kind of legislation in the nation to address the growing electronics waste problem.
Authorized collectors and recyclers of monitors may be reimbursed for expenses for collecting and recycling monitors from the Electronics Waste Recovery and Recycling Account portion of this legislation after July, 2004 in California. This account is expected to be in the tens of millions of dollars. You do not have to be a California Business to participate. California generally leads the nation on innovative programs and trends in waste management and environmental issues, with other states soon following like Florida.
The EPA, environmentalist, computer manufacturers, waste industry, state government and local government are looking at the California model.
The book Computer Recycling For Education will assist you in setting up your computer recycling business or training program. This book used by companies doing junk removal in Pensacola is ideal for recyclers, jurisdictions, municipalities, waste haulers, refurbishes, non-profits or school computer repair training programs. It may also be used as a reference for college environmental studies departments.
Metro Manila residents are not recycling-conscious as shown by the level of recycling activities in the Metro area which is a low of six percent. According to a Metro Manila Development Authority (MMDA) report on waste management, recycling is the second most preferred activity in the hierarchy of waste management practices.
Source reduction, or the minimization of garbage by residents and other garbage-generators, is the first, according to the report. Recycling of wastes brings environmental, socio-economic, financial and institutional benefits to those who engage in recycling activities, the report also said.
In the Metro area, recycling of wastes is carried out in different levels, namely, at home by residents, on the streets (door-to-door) by eco-aides, on the collection vehicles by the garbage collection crew, and at the open dumps by the scavengers, the report pointed out.
All the recovered items are taken to the junk shops (about 1,000 in Metro Manila) who in turn sell these either to the middle businessmen or directly to the factories. Despite these, the report stressed that of the estimated 6,000 metric tons of garbage generated daily in Metro Manila, only about 327 tons of wastes are recycled daily.
In view of this, the MMDA is pushing for recycling, specifically community-based recycling, as part of its master plan for solid waste management in the Metro area. Waste recycling, according to the MMDA, has become necessary and urgent in the light of high costs of collection and transport, the very limited landfill space, and the extreme difficulty in finding new landfill sites.
In the light of the latest garbage crisis which occurred last January when residents of San Mateo and Antipolo City, in Rizal province, blocked portions of the Marcos-Sumulong Highway to prevent Metro garbage trucks from reaching the San Mateo sanitary landfill, waste recycling, among other strategies, will be pushed strongly by the MMDA.
Again you let your own advocacy get in the way of your credibility. There are real and serious problems associated with nuclear reprocessing. I agree that nuclear opponents are trying to block reprocessing efforts, but I don’t agree that the only reason is to make the waste problem unsolvable — there are real and valid concerns with reprocessing itself. Nuclear supporters would do well to address those concerns constructively, instead of attempting to hide then, dismiss them, or pretend that they don’t even exist. I respectfully disagree.
Nuclear proponents have yet to demonstrate to the public at large that continued expansion of nuclear power would result in less problems overall rather than more problems overall, particularly since they either didn’t foresee or weren’t forthcoming about the creation of current problems.
It’s not enough to just say, “we may have been wrong and/or fooled you in the past, but it’s all better now.” I don’t think so. The above is an accurate statement of the actions and motivations of anti-nuclear activists.
The article from the NAP magazine agrees:
“One might think that opponents of nuclear energy, especially among the activists who make it their business to probe nuclear programs for weaknesses, would be deploring the lack of consolidated spent fuel storage. But neither the activists here in the United States nor those in Europe are doing so. Indeed, as part of their strategy for stopping work at Yucca Mountain, the U.S. activists insist that all spent fuel remain at the nuclear stations, for the next half century if need be. For them, the unresolved problem of long-term storage and ultimate disposal of nuclear waste should be left hanging around the neck of the nuclear enterprise in order to hasten its demise. Activists acknowledge that sooner or later safe disposal of such waste will be necessary, but in their perspective the radiation hazards are for the ages and what is urgent is to shut down nuclear power.”