Garbage In, Garbage Out

Peter G. Miller
OurBroker®

Few issues are more important to communities than the somewhat tainted matter of trash. Where it goes, what to reduce, recycle, and re-use, and who pays for such choices are all big-money topics.

Trash has recently been in the news because of harsh words between New York City and Virginia. New York has trash (about 1.6 million tons a year), Virginia has landfill capacity, and so both garbage and cash are moving south -- but folks in Virginia are not too thrilled by some of the remarks emanating from the Big Apple. Trash, it seems, can offend a number of senses.

According to the EPA's 1997 edition of the Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in the United States, we threw out 207.9 million tons of municipal solid waste (MSW) in 1996. On a per capita basis we threw out 4.3 pounds of stuff per person in 1996 -- down from 4.4 pounds in 1995.

You read it right. MSW is in decline. In fact, MSW is a wonderful example of environmental alarm gone astray.

The usual understanding is that MSW equals all the garbage we place in a landfill. This seems logical, given the fact that MSW sure seems to describe the stuff we throw out -- but it's not true.

As EPA explains, "It has been common practice to landfill wastes such as municipal sludge, nonhazardous industrial wastes, residue from automobile salvage operations, and construction and demolition wastes along with MSW, but these other kinds of wastes are not included in the estimates presented in this report."

But the EPA report curiously does not tell us where MSW really fits in the overall waste stream -- so-called "Subtitle D" wastes.

In its MSW report, EPA includes the helpful chart colorized here for easy viewing. In this chart Subtitle D wastes have been divided into seven categories. All the categories appear equally represented, no category weights are shown, and so a reasonable person might think, "I get it. The chart plainly shows that MSW is one seventh of the nation's waste stream."

But that would be wrong.

Okay, look at the chart again. Given the HUGE display provided for MSW, perhaps municipal solid waste is far more than 1/7th of the national trash heap.

Nope. Wrong again.

Buried in the files of the EPA is a "Report to Congress, Solid Waste Disposal in the United States" (EPA/530-SW-88-011). On page 11 of Volume 1 a chart shows all Subtitle D wastes EPA reported to Congress -- that would be 11.387 billion tons. Of this total, less than 2 percent is represented by MSW.

(You can get a copy of this report -- and other federal documents -- through the National Technical Information Service, a part of the U.S. Department of Commerce.)

EPA says that its latest update, the 1997 MSW report, "is useful in assessing national solid waste management needs and policy. The report is, however, of equal or greater value as a solid waste management planning tool for state and local governments and private firms."

Really? Would not the report be far more valuable if it clearly explained that the nation is not drowning in trash? Would not planners and citizens be able to make better decisions if they plainly understood the MSW is less than two percent of what we toss out?

Remember the great landfill scare of a few years ago? Hear much about it today? Why not?

Remember how recycling was such a great idea? Have you asked local officials how much it costs to collect, separate, and recycle?

Remember how newspapers used to brag about recycling? Hear anything lately? A recent cover story in Editor & Publisher ("States Ax Strict Recycling Laws," Nov. 28, 1998) may explain why.

"In state after state," said the article, in reference to newspaper environmental objectives, "strict recycling content and ambitious voluntary goals are being scaled back dramatically -- almost always with the cooperation of the same environmental activists and ecology-minded legislators who pushed for high standards a decade ago."

Maybe there wouldn't be a need to scale back anything if the public, local officials, and those with environmental concerns had the right information in the first place.

Now there's a challenge for the EPA.

Question Of The Week

Q We have had financial troubles in the past two years and would like to get a home equity loan. Is such financing available without an income verification?

A No doubt there are lenders who will provide asset-backed financing based solely on the equity in your home.

But such financing will likely include both steep fees and high interest levels. Equally important, you need to ask if borrowing will resolve the financial problems you face, or just add new debt. Perhaps a fee-only financial planner can assess your needs before a loan decision is made.

Weekly Resource

What to know more about the Internet? Want to see what a real expert thinks? Tim Berners-Lee, a web pioneer with MIT, answers many significant questions at his site.

Published: February 16, 1999

Use of this article without permission is a violation of federal copyright laws.

Editor's Note: This article reflects the opinions of Peter Miller only and not necessarily the views of this or any other publication, organization or Website owner.

Peter G. Miller, also known as OurBroker®, is the author of six real estate books -- including The Common-Sense Mortgage -- and is the original creator and host of America Online's Real Estate Center. Peter's weekly columns appear in more than 100 newspapers nationwide, he is also published in a variety of other media outlets and he is a frequent speaker at national events and conventions. Peter welcomes your questions, comments, and news releases via e-mail at .