About four years ago, yours truly and his sweetheart embarked on a little hike down a forested pathway to one of the many beaches that line Puget Sound in Washington State. Between the forest and the beach stood a set of Burlington Northern railroad tracks, under which one had to pass to reach the beach.
As we made our way back under the tracks, a train passed overhead. When we reached the other side, yours truly turned to observe the massive metal beast as it clickity-clacked along the tracks in a southerly direction. Painted on the side of rail car after rail car was the word "Rabanco."
Suddenly a light bulb flicked on inside my head. "You know what that is?!" I told my spouse, in a voice that indicated that I'd just experienced an epiphany of sorts. "It's garbage! Whistler's garbage!"
That's right. For the past few years, the über-sustainable Resort Municipality has been shipping its trash - some 17,000 cubic metres of it per year - to a Rabanco regional mega-landfill in south central Washington State, where the drier climate makes it much less environmentally problematic than landfills in wet climates such as ours. It has always been intended as a temporary solution -and not a very sustainable one at that. To us, shipping trash over long distances is way more expensive than disposing of our society's waste needs to be, and every litre carbon we burn to get it there is harmful to the planet's atmosphere.
It makes sense to ship trash, if it is to be shipped, as short a distance as possible. It makes even more sense not to ship it at all, if we can find another solution.
According to the District of Squamish's 2010 Comprehensive Solid Waste Strategy, Squamish residents generate 900 kilograms per person each year, compared to the national average of 500 kilograms. That's embarrassing and unnecessary, as generating trash at that rate significantly hastens the need for our community to find more sustainable long-term solutions. Squamish could certainly help Whistler save some money and the trouble of shipping its trash hundreds of kilometres across an international boundary - but again, it would significantly shorten our landfill's life span, making it necessary for us to find a better option.
Reducing our own waste generation by redoubling our efforts to reduce, reuse and recycle is undoubtedly part of the solution. While "zero waste" is certainly a target to shoot for, though, we suspect there will always be a need to simply trash at least a small percentage. If waste-to-energy incinerators are the answer, then what are their impacts on air quality and human health, where should they be built, and how large or small should they be?
There's no stopping this train, fellow Squamoleans. We seriously hope waste solutions are an issue on the minds of candidates and the public during this fall's municipal elections.
- David Burke
