Where should all this garbage go?

By Laura Bohnert

The Trump win has a lot of people cringing—or full out weeping in the streets—but while advocates for minority groups are doing their best to bring awareness to the extent of damage that threats and acts of violence and hate are causing human beings, there is one consequence of the election that stands to threaten a much greater number of people—and it is getting a lot less news coverage than it should be: the environment.

“The Donald,” who has tweeted more often than most would care to read about his skepticism over the idea of global warming and climate change, has declared his intentions of breaking away from the U.S.’s current climate agreements.  After declaring climate change to be a hoax perpetrated by the Chinese— “The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive”—in a 2012 tweet, Trump has announced his intention to cancel billions of dollars in payments to UN climate change programs (like the Paris Agreement) as a part of his first 100 days’ plan.

It is a plan that is creating a good deal of anxiety—especially since its announcement has been followed by the news that President-Elect Trump had chosen blatant climate change skeptic Myron Ebell to lead his EPA transition team.  Ebell is currently the chairman of the Cooler Heads Coalition, who are a group of non-profit organizations brought together in opposition of “global warming alarmism” and energy-rationing policies.

The idea that the EPA is being led by someone who doesn’t believe in climate change policies and is operating under a president who doesn’t believe in climate change itself is anxiety-inducing enough, but factor in also a break from climate agreements with countries who are already making significant progress in climate change initiatives and we have a recipe for disaster.

In fact, Canada and the U.S. have already proven to be falling behind other countries in their climate change and green energy efforts, and evidence of that is in the landfill.

While countries like Austria, the Netherlands, and Germany have essentially eliminated landfilling as a result of strong recycling and energy from waste (EFW) models, 69% of the U.S.’s waste is still landfilled, along with 67.2% of Canada’s waste.  The European Union’s efforts enabled them to cut down 20% of the waste sent to landfills and reduce 34% of their greenhouse gas emissions from the waste sector.  Austria recycles 70% of its waste and uses the remaining 30% for EFW.  Only 1% of waste in Belgium and Sweden go into landfills.  Then there is the U.S., whose technologies for transferring landfill gas into electricity create almost as much methane emissions as the natural gas and agricultural sectors.

It is clear that a lot needs to change if Canada and the U.S. are going to do their parts to tackle climate change, and despite Trump’s ambition to “Make America great again” by declaring independence and breaking away from the “other” countries, the global need may actually be better served by a cooperative effort.  Pollution isn’t going to stay on one side of the wall or the other.