EDITORIAL
The myth of resource recovery Editor James J Morgan WASHINGTON EDITORIAL STAFF Managing Editor Stanton S Miller Assistant Editor H Martin Malin Jr Assistant Editor Carol Knapp Lewicke Assistant Editor William S Forester M A N USCR I PT REV I EW I NG Manager Katherine I Biggs MANUSCRIPT EDITING Associate Production Manager Charlotte C Sayre ART AND PRODUCTION Head Bacil Guiley Associate Production Manager Leroy L Corcoran Art Director Norman Favin Layout and Production Dawn Leland Advisory Board P. L. Brezonik, R F. Christman. G. F. Hidy, David Jenkins, P. L. McCarty. Charies R O’Melia. John H. Seinfeld. John W . Winchester Published by the AMERICAN CH EM I CAL SOCIETY 1155 16th Street, N . W . Washington. D . C 20036 Executive Director: Robert W . Cairns PUBLIC AFFAIRS A N D COMMUNICATION DIVISION Director: Richard L. Kenyon ADVERTISING MANAGEMENT Centcom, Ltd. For offices and advertisers, see page 974 Please send research manuscripts l o Manuscript Reviewing, feature manuscripts to Managing Editor. For author’s guide and editorial policy, see June issue, page 51 7. or write Katherine I. Biggs Manuscript Reviewing Office, E S & T In each paper with more than one author, the name of the author to whom inquiries should be addressed carries a numbered footnote reference
From an age of abundance to an age of scarcity. Now, nearly four years after the dawning of the environmental decade, the U S . produces more solid waste and recycles less. Yes, the “buzz” phrase resource recovery captured the public’s enthusiasm; everyone seems aware of the potential and need for RR. So too did it capture the enthusiasm of Congress when, in fact, the Resource Recovery Act of 1970 was enacted. But RR hasn’t happened yet. U.S. resources are limited, but little is done to spur RR. Also, the business climate is not ripe for RR. There are few, certainly not enough, markets for recycled products. The recyclables simply don’t find their way into today’s commodities whose production relies on the use of virgin materials. Leadership is a burning issue. The Federal Government must do something. The legislative solution in 1970 was not the answer. Solid waste legislation must be the No. 1 environmental priority for this new session of Congress. A main thrust must be elimination of the freight rate disparity and encouragement of federal procurement policies favoring recycled materials-in other terms, removal of inequities in the marketplace. As Sen. Marlow W. Cook (R-KY) pointed out in a recent NASM I (National Association of Secondary Material Industries) luncheon address, the Interstate Commerce Commission of the Federal Government has responded in precisely the opposite way-by licensing five successive rate increases for recyclables in the past four years. What to do with trash, urban ore, postconsumer waste -garbage by any other name-in high-density urban areas is a real challenge. Optimistically, Richard Lesher, chief executive officer of the National Center for Resource Recovery reports that within the next five years the technical options of RR will have been debugged and 10 years from now most cities will have solved their RR problems. Heat recovery technology-i.e., burning the combustion fraction of the solid waste and recovering the energy as’heat-appears to be the most promising answer so far. But many NASMI members are far from being that optimistic about RR. So too are a growing number of RR watchers.
Volume 7 , Number 10, October 1973
877
