8 February 2006
Letter to Joel Bleifuss, Editor
In These Times
Rogers’ False Reasoning Hurts Environmentalism and Civil Engineering
Mr. Bleifuss,
The online publication of Aaron Sarver’s interview with author Heather Rogers on 7 February 2006 has added to the considerable disservice many writers are doing to environmentalism and the movement towards more sustainable civil infrastructures. I don’t doubt that these writers and publishers believe the work is helpful, that it contributes valuable information to our much-needed dialogue—often it does—but their presentation is so often careless, so prone to Red Bull rhetoric, that they defeat the seriousness and value in what they have authored. In These Times’ interview regarding The Hidden Life of Garbage exemplifies this failing.
While Ms. Rogers’ book seems well-meant, her as-published responses in Mr. Sarver’s interview indicate a rather severe bent towards sensationalism when what would be far more useful is a reasoned argument, or, at the very least, the dissemination of supportable facts. Of note, she is quoted as having said something flagrantly misleading about the safety of landfill liner systems. The publication of such an erroneous statement, and one that is further compromised by the ham-fisted, long-trite metaphor of the ticking time bomb, harms the efforts of writers, regulators, engineers and scientists who are working very hard to bring about real change.
Ms. Rogers is quoted as saying that landfill liners (“plastic liners”) have been designed to last only 30 to 50 years. Either Ms. Rogers is missing at least a zero on the right end of both cited numbers, or she has confused the service life of the landfill with the service life of the plastic liner. They have drastically different life spans. The liner, while “plastic,” is designed to function for many generations—for HUNDREDS of years. Manufactured, tested, and installed correctly, it will. The landfill, on the other hand, is designed to collect waste only for as long as its open volume allows the addition of new waste. When it’s full, it’s full. Modern designs predict about 30 years of space.
The plastic liner continues to function. It continues to contain leachate and waste.
How is it that the simple plastics we throw away in droves are written of as long-term if not eternal threats to the environment while the highly engineered plastic liners designed to contain that waste are written of as having all the integrity of a spent snot rag?
These missteps in environmental journalism do not mean that we don’t need to effect some large changes in how we manufacture and use goods. We do. This does not mean that all of Ms. Rogers’ positions are faulty. Clearly, we must reduce our waste, and we must make the waste we have less detrimental to the environment.
But there is no excuse for being so incorrect when writing or speaking about these issues—even when one is trying to sell books.
Sincerely,
Chris Kelsey
St. Paul, Minnesota
