20. February 2005 • Murph
Email this article
Michigan is currently the third-largest importer of trash in the nation, with over a quarter of landfilled trash coming from out of state, but the State legislature may act to stop that. From the Detroit News
In a plan that has already drawn fire from business interests, House Democrats want to scare Canada and other trash exporters from Michigan by making dumping costs among the highest in the nation. The plan would increase tipping fees for all trash to $7.50 a ton from 21 cents a ton.
Canadian waste has become Michigan’s most-discussed environmental issue since Toronto began trucking all its household trash to Wayne County in 2003.
Still, the tax plan could test residents’ resolve. Higher fees have slashed waste imports to other states such as Pennsylvania, but the Michigan plan would cost households about $12 a year in increased disposal charges.
The Michigan Waste Industries Association is apparently calling the plan “unconstitutional”, and the Michigan Chamber of Commerce has also lined up against the measure. Interesting that business is opposing an environmental plan that uses market forces (increasing the cost of dumping) to achieve its goals, isn’t it? One would think that they would laud such a move as giving people and businesses the choice of paying to continue to throw things away or to become more efficient and generate less waste.
« Previous Article Prisoner Art Show Now in its 9th Year
Next Article Washtenaw County Jail Millage vote today »
|
That would send the insurance soaring, and make sure that Michigan taxpayers would subsidize as little as possible the eventual outcome of the dumping. (And, it has the advantage of being a backdoor cost, which makes it look more palatable to business).
—js Feb. 21 '05 - 12:23AM #
—Murph Feb. 21 '05 - 02:25AM #
—js Feb. 22 '05 - 07:29PM #
Holding folks liable for future damages, even presuming we can accurately assess the cost of damages caused by landfilling, would be a way to make efficient use of landfill space vs. environmental impact on the area around the landfill.
Making it more expensive to dump up front is a way for us to say that, regardless of what the direct environmental impact of landfilling is, we don’t like it much, and want to provide an incentive to change behavior by taxing trash dumping at more than the cost of dealing with the dumped trash – not a truly “free” market in trash dumping, but a market-style intervention.
Of course, that leaves the problem that the “behavior change” induced by the intervention could very well be to just dump stuff on the side of the road…
—Murph Feb. 22 '05 - 09:03PM #
Yep. My Grandma has a cabin across from a large piece of state land, which is full of old junk people didn’t want to pay to dump—since all garbage service up north costs money. If the dump was free, it might mitigate this problem (but probably wouldn’t eliminate it, considering that people are also lazy).
—Scott Feb. 23 '05 - 10:24PM #
—Leah Jul. 13 '05 - 01:15AM #
—js Jul. 13 '05 - 02:17PM #
—Dale Jul. 13 '05 - 02:31PM #
In general, I support both high tipping fees (what this plan was about, to raise the price of landfill use) and better liability-tracking, which js was mentioning. I don’t see either of these as perfect; higher tipping fees brings the mentioned possible unintended consequence of increased roadside dumping, and liability fees tend to be underassessed. (With Jared Diamond’s Collapse still sitting a foot from my computer, I refer to his example of liability insurance for resource extraction companies (the opposite of landfills?) which he concludes to have been an almost total failure as an environmental protection measure.)
What about better materials reclamation and consumption reduction? Anybody know the status of the idea to extend bottle deposits to water and iced tea and juice and other non-carbonated beverages? (In Maine, I noticed, wine bottles all had “15 cent deposit” stickers slapped on them. I approved.) Or putting a deposit on grocery bags? (Worked for Ireland, though I’m sure somebody will jump in to call that idea highly regressive…)
—Murph. Jul. 19 '05 - 12:54PM #
Surely if the city can provide recycling totes to every household, they or some private group can provide a few free canvas shopping bags to those who can’t afford them.
However, grocery bags are not a significant landfill space concern. The issue there is litter, impact on wildlife, and non-renewable resource use. The non-carbonated beverage container deposit would address the landfill issue in addition to those others.
Still, I think following Ireland’s lead would be wise. Among other impacts it would positively change our way of thinking about resources through the daily reminder of carrying our own bags.
—Steve Bean Jul. 19 '05 - 02:47PM #
Does the City have any sort of ability to levy something like a bottle deposit? My thinking is not.
These are, of course, pretty minor actions, but better to approach for lots of directions at once, and I think that, as you mention, things like bottle/bag deposits have a greater impact than just expanding free recycling, in part due to the awareness of value contained/wasted in “waste”.
—Murph. Jul. 19 '05 - 04:03PM #
Leah
—Leah Jul. 20 '05 - 12:10AM #
89408-,00.html (textile doesn’t want to make that a link)“For example, the new laws would require any solid waste going into Michigan landfills to not include certain beverage containers, whole tires, oil, lead acid batteries, low-level radioactive waste, and hazardous waste – all items prohibited in Michigan landfills. The new laws also give county and municipal governments the right to enforce solid waste laws, require inspections of solid waste imported from Canada, enhance the inspection of landfills, and provide increased penalties for violations of solid waste laws.”
Go Township by Township working for zoning changes to prevent new landfills or landfill expansions, ensuring that, once the current ones are full, no more will be built. This would have to be done regionally – 30-some zoning change pushes in Washtenaw alone, and then moving into Wayne County. Then work to shut down the ones currently in operation: provide testing for air, soil, and water contamination around existing landfills, and help the neighbors bring nuisance suits against the landfills, to stop dumping, and sue for damages related to health or reduced farmland productivity, etc. Make landfills much more scarce, and force the ones that remain to spend more money on settlements, containment, and liability insurance, and costs will go up, just as if the State had imposed the increased taxes on tipping.
—Murph. Jul. 20 '05 - 01:12PM #
—Murph. Jul. 20 '05 - 07:33PM #
Thanks
Leah
—Leah Jul. 26 '05 - 05:48PM #
Is there any procedure you can follow to make sure Wayne doesn’t build any more landfills? I’d say probably not, at least as far as “procedure” indicates some sort of formal process. The only ways to stop landfill construction are to either make it unprofitable for the landfill operators (e.g. stricter environmental regulations requiring higher expense for compliance) or else convince the local governments that it’s not beneficial, but in fact harmful to their populations to host landfills, so that the individual governmental units all decide not to allow further landfill construction. I’d advise you talk to your local city or county planner for a better researched answer, though.
—Murph. Jul. 26 '05 - 06:34PM #
The reason why I am concerned about the topic is because I fear that the underground water will become contaiminated. According to this article I researched, the landfills will leak even if they are constructed properly. Do you think the EPA can protect Michigan citizens from contaimination, when the leakage in a landfill occur? What about the old landfills that are built differently?
—Leah Aug. 2 '05 - 02:46PM #
Alex Roudinski
alexwithail@hotmail.com
—Alex Roudinski Jan. 5 '06 - 12:41AM #