No Time to Waste

One can begin to imagine the enormity of California’s waste-disposal problems by just ordering a cup of coffee at a fast-food outlet. If the coffee lover uses cream and sugar, the leftover waste includes a Styrofoam cup, a plastic stirrer, the empty little synthetic cup that held the cream substitute and empty sugar packets. All of this stuff requires considerable energy and fuel to manufacture in the first place. In the end, all of it winds up occupying valuable space in California landfills.

California is a particularly egregious waster. Every year Californians throw away 40 million tons of stuff. By the year 2000, experts predict that California’s trash output will compose fully one-fourth of the nation’s total. Ninety percent of California’s solid waste winds up in landfills and only 10% is diverted to recycling programs. In parts of Japan and Europe, the reverse is true.

The end must come for California’s lazy, wasteful ways because the state is filling up its landfills and running out of new land to fill in many areas. Still, it has made little progress toward development of a modern, integrated waste- management program that will encourage or require simpler forms of packaging, recycling and other actions that will reduce the trash burden with relatively little inconvenience or cost.

The solution is quite simple. Other states and localities, and many foreign countries, have such programs that are demonstrably economical and successful. What California needs is a plan and the political will to put it into effect. A reasonable plan just happens to be in hand today, compiled by the 32-member state Senate Task Force on Waste Management representing business, the environment, governmental agencies, education, the waste management industry and the public at large. After a year’s study and deliberation, the task force has issued a report calling for restructuring the state Solid Waste Management Board and the implementation of an integrated state program that will allow California to get control of its trash.

One object is to embark immediately on a program of 25% reduction in the total waste stream, increasing to 50% by the year 2000, if market conditions permit. Those are reasonable, necessary goals. They can be achieved with a vigorous joint state and local program that attacks waste at all levels. Composting of organic materials such as grass clippings and tree trimmings alone can make a significant impact on landfill volume. All governments must work together to reduce the volume of unnecessary packaging and to cut other waste at the source. And the state can have a major impact on the recycling market by requiring agencies to use recycled materials. Critics always claim the market will not support recycling. It will if governments create the proper incentives.

California must develop such a program as soon as possible to get on top of its trash problem. Failure to do so is a costly, messy and unacceptable alternative.