In “Incinerators in Disguise”, a number of proposals and case studies for new waste conservation technologies are mentioned from around the world – each with their own pros and cons. However, none of the technologies mentioned have to do with the New York City area. After reading the New York City Department of Sanitation’s Request for New and Emerging Solid Waste Management Technology, based on some of the technical, NYC-specific information mentioned in the request and the examples of existing new technologies mentioned in “Incinerators in Disguise”, which, if any, of these technologies do you think would be a good fit for New York City? What characteristics should a NYC-specific solid waste management technology proposal have?
Engage: Best Waste Conservation Route for NYC?
This entry was posted in 2/26 - Old and New Waste Conversion Technologies; Italian Futurism (Week 5). Bookmark the permalink.
After reading “Incinerators in Disguise” and learning that New York is requesting proposals for “new and emerging solid waste management technologies,” I believe that rather than using the technologies mentioned in “Incinerators in Disguise,” New York should instead examine the failures of the mentioned projects and learn to be extremely cautious when implementing its own waste management technologies. The failures of the projects outlined in “Incinerators in Disguise” seem to be more worthy of analysis than its unsuccessful technologies accompanied with dangerous emission levels and hazardous wastes.
The failures of the projects summarized in “Incinerators in Disguise” does bring ironic insight into what characteristics a solid waste management technology proposal should possess, especially in relation to New York City. First of all, the government should take measures in ensuring that the proposed technology will not have any negative consequences towards anyone around the neighborhood. If the company claims to have “no emissions” in its proposal, the government should ensure that that claim could actually be achieved and is continually achieved once the technology is implemented. The proposal should also provide a thorough explanation on how they plan to achieve its “no emissions” claim and convincing evidence that their claim is actually valid. The government should also thoroughly investigate into any claims the proposal mentions and require trustworthy “environmental impact reports.” The environmental impact reports should happen before the implementation, and not after its implementation.
Finally, the proposal should be transparent. By transparent, I believe that the residents of New York City should have an active say in whatever solid waste management technology the government wants to implement in the city. The proposal should be made available to the public for scrutiny, objection, and debate. Public hearings should be held before any implementation begins, and the opinions of the residents cannot be overlooked. The company’s actions should be transparent to the government at all times as well as to the residents of New York City. Judging by the unsuccessful technologies mentioned in the reading, continuous interaction among the city, the company, and the residents is also crucial for the flourish of any waste management technology facility and its nearby communities.