Mandatory Composting Issues in Many

Mandatory Composting Issues

In many modern cities, garbage and waste management have become highly controversial issues for municipalities and administrative agencies. This is particularly true in cities such as Toronto, where ongoing strikes among waste disposal workers have renewed attention to the need to change systems that are susceptible to labor conflicts and other possible disruptions. Critics of current systems and local policies strongly support the implementation of better, more economical, eco-friendly, and safe waste management alternative policies including recycling.

Toward that end, any such changes need not be adopted on an all-or-none basis, and certain components may be more easily implemented than others. Recycling regulations, for one example could enforce mandatory composting on a reasonably small scale for residents and commercial businesses within the city of Toronto. This measure would be designed to reduce waste destined for landfills and consist primarily of regulations designed separate food scraps and other compostable materials out of regular trash and salvage ordinary recyclables such as paper and glass (CBS, 2009). On comprehensive review and analysis, it may be that the many potential advantages of composting would be beneficial for Toronto's waste management sector as well as for the city more generally.

The Purpose of Composting:

In principle, composting is the natural process of reducing organic waste that would otherwise have to be handled as part of community waste disposal at much greater expense. By separating out those organic components of ordinary waste, a significant portion of waste can be reprocessed into beneficial resources, such as nutrient-rich organic soil amendments (City of Toronto, 2009). The term 'composting' specifically refers to the natural process of creating the compost mass or "humus." The combination of reducing the public funds and other resources necessary to dispose of waste with the various beneficial uses of compost byproducts is the principle justification behind the lobby that has supported composting in Toronto most vocally.

Composting is hardly a new concept; it actually dates back to ancient times. The 1911 science book Farmers of Forty Centuries details how Asian countries including China, Japan, and Korea made extensive use of composting throughout ancient and early-modern times (Waste Watch, 2009). In modern usage, the term composting usually refers three main different classes of processes: bin or container composting; trench composting; and EM Bokashi composting.

Advantages and Disadvantages of Composting:

Certainly, composting offers various advantages that are generally beneficial to the community. Composting creates an organic-matter fertilizing product that contains beneficial soil micro organisms and essential plant nutrients, all of which are very useful in gardening and farming. These nutrients improve fertility, soil structure, and they add organic life to the soil. Composting is considered a best plant health care practice because it promotes healthy soil and healthy soil, in turn, produces healthy plants capable of withstanding climate-related stress and pests and parasites (City of Toronto, 2009). More generally, volumes of research have proven that composting is also beneficial to the environment because it is such a good tool for maintaining soil productivity and reducing environmental degradation associated with intensive agriculture (Brown, 2009). These benefits account for the decisions of many countries and local governments to adopt composting into government policies and legislation as a best practice.

On the other hand, one of the strongest objections to composting is that is (naturally) produces offensive odors associated with processing paunch waste and producing organic fertilizer (Goldstein & Goldstein, 2009). Additional disadvantages include the unpleasant nature of handling organic waste matter, issues of increased attraction of insects and rodents, and the fact that compost piles require a significant amount of space, time, and attention devoted to their proper construction, operation, and maintenance.

Mandatory Composting:

Evidence from Nordic European communities suggests that mandatory composting tends to be well accepted by local populations and that even incremental requirements and measures (such as just separating out kitchen garbage) often facilitates a climate of communal cooperation that only makes additional justified regulation easier to administrate (Saft, 2006). However, North Americans have been considerably more resistant to accept mandatory recycling practices. In fact, only San Francisco, which recently became the first American city to implement a mandatory composting law, has managed to do so. The law, enacted by Mayor Gavin Newsom, requires all residents and even businesses in the city to properly compost food scraps. The purpose of the law, which takes effect in the coming fall is mainly to reduce the amount and need for landfills in the city.

Repercussion for breaking the mandatory composting law will consist of fines up to $100 for individuals and small businesses generating less than a cubic yard of refuse a week (CBS, 2009). Likewise, any individuals observed improperly disposing of waste in public are subject to receiving formal official warnings or fines imposed on the spot. While the law may appear harsh -- especially for a lot of San Francisco residents who may not be use to such a strict waste management regime -- it does serve the purpose of reducing landfill problems and ensures that the entire city is collaborating towards the same goal.

Issues Involved with Mandatory Composting:

Because gaseous contamination is a legitimate potential issue with the compost process, many local governments have begun considering stringent regulation of composting facilities. Specifically, the emissions from the compost piles are thought to mix with nitrogen oxides from gasoline-powered vehicles (and other combustion processes and by-products), thereby further exacerbating ground-level ozone levels (Horowitz, 2009). Compliance with appropriate safety regulations and air quality standards would generally require large composting facilities (i.e. those processing more than 100,000 tons/year) to construct expensive aeration systems (Horowitz, 2009). Generally, large facilities would be required to capture and destroy 80% of the emissions produced by composting processes. Appropriate concessions for smaller (and other less harmful) facilities would be exempting those that handle only green or wood waste and permitting compliance with process regulation standards in lieu of reduction of gaseous byproducts through aeration systems (Horowitz, 2009).

While mandatory composting can prove to be beneficial for a whole region, its implementation can prove very difficult to actually administer and uphold. For example, the regulation passing in San Francisco received 9 'yes' votes, and then 2 'no' votes from cabinet members who thought the proposition was "nonsense." Supervisor Sean Elsbernd, who was one of the dissenters, stated that the law was "over the top of government regulation that isn't going to come anywhere close to achieving the goals that proponents want….. This is just going to aggravate and aggrieve homeowners who are doing their best" (CBS, 2009). Elsbernd raises a valid point about residents losing the autonomous freedom to manage their waste inside their homes and being forced to dedicate considerable time and energy to composting.

Furthermore, successful regulation would require the governments to spend large amounts of resources on educational campaigns to publicize composting regulation standards. Mandatory composting also raises complications for residents living in apartments and for business owners who are not in charge of their building's waste management procedures, as well as other general issues associated with sanitation. While Mayor Newsom's law does not address how his government plans to fully cope with these issues, it is apparent that similar considerations will have to be resolved before mandatory composting becomes more accepted in many communities.

Remediation:

One of the primary benefits of composting includes remediation, which refers to the process of mitigating environmental exposure to contaminants among people and animals by reducing, isolating, or removing contamination. (Coker, 2006). The beneficial microorganisms produced through composting can be used to degrade specific types of contaminants in soil by amending the biological structure of the contaminant. After compost is mixed with contaminated soils, the contaminants destructive structure will become ineffective; and then the entire soil will no longer be toxic. Particularly high risk of human or ecological health damage may result in regional waste management authorities utilizing compost retrieved from resident's homes to be dispensed into areas with contaminated soil (Coker, 2006).

Pollution and Erosion Prevention:

Composting can also be instrumental in preventing pollution and water erosion. People who partake in small scale composting within their homes are inadvertently playing a big role in pollution prevention because any compost material diverted from landfills reduces the total production of methane and leachate formulation in landfills (EPA, 2008). The lack of producing these harmful toxins stops the possibility of them entering and polluting the air system. In addition, compost also inadvertently stops pollutants in storm water runoff from getting into surface water resources. Studies have shown that compost also "prevents erosion and silting on embankments parallel to creeks, lakes, and rivers, and prevents erosion and turf loss on roadsides, hillsides, playing fields, and golf courses." (EPA, 2008)

Economic Benefits

The aforementioned benefits of composting can bring about significant cost reductions -- especially for farmers -- as the compost material can be used to replace pesticides, fertilizers or water. This presents a cost reduction for people who need to purchase items for their farming and gardening needs. On a larger scale, composting is a marketable commodity that can be used by a region's government for artificial soil amendments and a low-cost alternative to standard landfill cover. Less need for more landfill space reduces the cost and resources needed to secure new landfill space. "Composting also extends municipal landfill life by diverting organic materials from landfills and provides a less costly alternative to conventional methods of remediating… contaminated soil." (EPA, 2008)

Discussion

It is evident that the advantages and benefits of composting are quite substantial, and arguably outweigh the disadvantages or issues involved with the process. Nevertheless, the previously discussed issues can be impeding to achieving the full benefits of composting, and thereby need to be dealt with suitably. For a government intending to implement a mandatory composting regulation, it would be necessary for them to also ensure that all residents within the region are properly educated on the procedure. Also, the government would need to make appropriate arrangements for residents living in apartments, business owners who are not in charge of their building's waste management, and issues related to sanitation. On a micro level, all residents would need to utilize the educational information and tools received from the government to ensure they are correctly maintaining their compost system and avoid problems such as odor or attracting insects and rodents.