The following appeared in the editorial section of a local newspaper:
“In order to avoid the serious health threats associated with many landfills, our municipality should build a plant for burning trash. An incinerator could offer economic as well as ecological advantages over the typical old-fashioned type of landfill: incinerators can be adapted to generate moderate amounts of electricity, and ash residue from some types of trash can be used to condition garden soil.”
Discuss how well reasoned you find this argument. In your discussion be sure to analyze the line of reasoning and the use of evidence in the argument. For example, you may need to consider what questionable assumptions underlie the thinking and what alternative explanations or counterexamples might weaken the conclusion. You can also discuss what sort of evidence would strengthen or refute the argument, what changes in the argument would make it more logically sound, and what, if anything, would help you better evaluate its conclusion.
While it is generally true that landfills are an ecologically unsound method of waste disposal, it is dangerous to assume that all incinerators are equally bad for the environment. Energy generation, especially from incineration, does have the potential to be a positive by-product of the practice, and some types of trash, as mentioned in the argument, have value as fertilizer. However, there are serious disadvantages associated with incineration, which negate the benefits. The economic advantage is debatable as well. In a city the size of Chicago, where the cost of doing business is high, the prohibitive cost of an incinerator could adversely affect the municipality’s finances. The amount of energy generated through incineration is also believed to be limited, meaning that municipal garbage would have to be incinerated constantly to keep pace. Another potential economic loss is posed by the ash residue. As a waste product, it is not valuable, and if it were to be deposited in landfills, it would degrade over time. For this reason, many municipalities are using incineration as a stop-gap measure while awaiting the construction of long-term landfills. Still, the argument has valid points, and should be taken under consideration before a final decision is made
Incineration is an efficient method of waste disposal on a large-scale. The incineration process consumes up to 90% of the energy contained in the garbage, thereby preventing pollution from escaping into the atmosphere. Since most garbage contains only 10% to 15% combustible material, the remaining 85% to 90% could be kept as fuel, reducing the cost of incineration. So, while it is true that an incinerator could be a more expensive method of waste disposal than a traditional landfill, it has the potential to produce electricity. The Chicago example, mentioned above, has been considering the incinerator issue for nearly two decades, and the city has yet to make a decision. The city council has cited the high cost of building and maintaining an incinerator as the major stumbling block. The estimated cost of one incinerator would be approximately $3.5 billion, which is more than four times the amount that the city saved by dumping garbage in landfills from 1995 to 2010. Furthermore, the cost could rise as the city expands, due to the necessity of expanding facilities to accommodate more garbage
The ash residue, while dispensable, does hold some value. Recycling the ash could provide an alternative method of disposing of it. Some municipalities have experimented with recycling the ash, either by mixing it with soil or using it in the construction of buildings and roads. If this method proves successful, it could save the city money on dumping the ash in landfills. However, this method is not widely used at present, as the cost of processing the ash is high. A more efficient solution would be to find a way to use the ash in the manufacture of products such as concrete, but it would require further research. Additionally, the ash may also be useful as a soil conditioner. The ash from municipal incinerators contains small amounts of lime and phosphate, which can improve the soil’s drainage and fertility. However, the ash must be processed in a sterile environment, without the presence of bacteria, fungi, or insects, so as not to contaminate the soil
Incineration does have its limitations. The ash residue, while useful in some applications, is not valuable, and it can be a health hazard if released into the surrounding environment. Because of this, the ash residue must be stored in sealed containers until it can be disposed of properly. The ash residue can also contaminate groundwater if it is allowed to accumulate, and it can also clog up city waste-water treatment facilities, rendering them ineffective. For these reasons, the ash residue must be disposed of in landfills, but landfills themselves are also a source of pollution. Incinerators, in addition to producing electricity, have the potential to produce harmful by-products. These by-products can be released into the air, causing breathing problems and the release of toxic gases. Furthermore, the ash residue, when mixed with soil, can release toxic gases and leach heavy metals into the soil. Incinerators also emit sulfur dioxide, which can contribute to acid rain and smog. Incinerators, therefore, are not entirely environmentally safe, and there are still grave concerns about the long-term safety of incineration technology
Incineration is an effective method of waste disposal on a large-scale, but its use should not be encouraged until more environmentally-friendly technologies are developed. Until then, landfills are the safest method of waste disposal, and incineration should only be considered as a last resort.