Page 8 RAIN November 1978 :s 400 300 200 CAPITAL ~'-''R£0 ib CREA-re ONE. M.lLL • TiME. Joe o~-------.........--~-- MIGir!G#>.DIM& l'\ECltAAIZt'.O RUOURIA UC.OVERY EN~RCa'}' REQw~0 To ~~ 0KE TON Of" M,-.TUt~ • lo ZD 10 0----,--~----~--~--- Ml~Ga .:.:..,... c--- C: ~ - ... 0 u C: 0 Q projects cou_ld be earmarked for capitalizing impro\:ements in recycling techniques and ,tools, thus easing the chronic credit shortage 'in t hat sector and further accelerating growth in the materials recovery sector. • • Contracts and Conservatism Those of us who want to change the dominant technologies must realize that this kind of analysis can only go so far, for ultimately the practical symbiosis between capital and government is a matter of contractual obligation. The siz~, design complexity and time dimensions of these relationships are all very imposing, and this helps to structure in an unwillingness to change even when reason, research and logic dictate otherwise. The result is that appropriate technology people who venture into local government with questions about,how and why things are done, or with suggestions for better ways, are confronted again and again with the same sort of argument that appeared during the middle phases of the war in Vietnam: It's too late to stop or even to look things over carefully before we get to the next step; the design is too far along; we've already got too much invested to get out now; Phase I require~ Phase II, and if we don't build Phase III the whole system will be useless. The General Pattern in Other Sectors Is Much the Same Similar stories could be told in the case of a number of other high-tech public works projects underway in our locality. For example, a much larger bond issue for a mechanized sewage treatment plant was passed last year with little informed citizen input. Here, composting toilets, land disposal systems and experimentally promising aquaculture systems provide the counterpoint. Or consider the economics of passive solar _ heating and cooling, or ev~n active solar air-heating systems with native rock storage, as against remote generntion of · electricity by nuclear or coal-fired generating plants to pro- / vide resistance heating and air conditioning in housipg-a necessary back-up to the continued expansion of the "allelectric home" industry. • Again and again, we see the same pattern of continued credit expansion and large-scale subsidy of uneconomic and inefficient, albeit technically "sophisticated" and "advanced" machine systems while systems nhat take their energy from people or from cheaper, less environmentally disruptive sources are delay~d, resisted, underfunded and undercapitalized. 1 Whether this pattern can long persist is dou-btful, given the very real eeonomic advantage now enjoyed by small-scale, labor-intensive systems and the financial and technical difficulties of 'the larger systems. It seems certain, though, that continuing along the current path of error will increase costsand deb_ts that must be retired or forgiven eventually, somehow-when the large-scale capital and energy intensive systems are finally abandoned or their use curtailed. On Governments l:md.Corporations •After subsidizing loser technologies like these mechanized garbage processors for so many years, why does the EPA continue to inJist on lining the pockets of the big corporations even more? We are not so bothered with the many millions of dollars that have already gone ·into the experiment; these plants have a certain value in that they tell us what we ought_ not to do. But the continued support by the EPA a,nd (soon) by the Department of Energy, for schemes where still-more • of our bonding capacity a_nd future tax dollars are skimmed off to support these unprofitable (unless you build one of them), environmentally unsound garbage machines has many people upset-to say the least. It is not hard to see why the corporations are moving aggressively in this field: garbage is one of the top categories in local government spending, profit margins in a subsidized field like this can be la,rge, and the whole thing is legitimate and legal and even morally right. After all, who can be opposed to "resource recovery," "enetgy from waste," "cleaning up the.environment"? . But the fact remains that local communities will be asked to pay the economic and environmental costs that these plants bring with them. And remember that there are no federal subsidies for-. operating and maint'enance expenses, and if the ' facility has to be abandoned, as some already have, the locality will still be asked to pay. ,,: We therefore call upon the EPA to reexamine their motivations and their practice. In the ·area of resource retovery, we need studies of alternatives based on diversity of approach rather than either/or., one-best-option logic. Labor-intensive approaches based on labor-saving materials handling and • storage systems should receive the, same care and loving attention to detail as is now lavished on the mechanized, centralized systems. A program for control of toxic; and hazardous wastes is urgently necessary now. There should be funding available to capitalize.efficient, state-of-the-art highgrad}ng systems, integrating them, with traditional recycling systems. Credit should be made available to set up production facilities based on reused materials. Mechanized processing systems should be regarded as experihi.ental rather than operational. The emphasis should shift to efficient sorting and handling methods, decentralized processing systems, exchange of surpluses rather than mere dumping or burning. □
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy NTc4NTAz