Sir - Your three-day feature on "Sorting out the Rubbish" would more aptly be titled "Accept incinerators or opt for chaos - an advertisement for the incinerator industry". The vast majority of the articles contained a selected presentation of the facts, and continual quotes from so called "experts"/consultants.
Waste management consultants draw much of their expertise from an engineering background and therefore have a natural tendency towards a hightech or "back-end" solution which is the most problematic, most expensive and most contentious alternative to landfilling. They giving little credence to "front-end", low tech solutions in which organisation and education must play a dominant role. As a consequence, the net result of your series of biased articles is a seriously flawed conclusion.
Municipal waste is a low tech problem. It is made by mixing. It is unmade by separation. Both problem and solution are at our fingertips not on the drawing boards of incinerator engineers. Dictates of space do not allow me to fully expose your orchestrated campaign undoubtedly designed to negate "irritating" public opposition to incinerators; so I will consider three articles (March 7th) in which you attempt to discredit recycling:
1. "Waste spaced" (aptly named for the article's lack of substantive content) leads with Pepsi and Fanta cans transformed into table lamps. As these type of novelty items would probably have very limited purchase appeal to the majority of your readership, this article conveys the impression that recycling is a fringe/eco-warrior type activity. These types of novelty items are anything but mainstream recycling. Although they may rate a line or two for curiosity sake, they certainly do not deserve the disproportionate amount of coverage they received (including a photograph, half the page) when there are clearly far more substantial and meaningful issues in the area of recycling to address.
2. "Germany gets it sorted": the first paragraph states that in Germany (and by implication elsewhere) recycling is an "intricate affair that requires the foresight and discipline from most people that would do credit to a Prussian general". The implication is that recycling is very difficult and time-consuming. Nothing could be further from the truth; ask anyone who has lived in a country that recycles. Why do 94 per cent of Germans do it? Not due to the disciplined nature of Germans as you imply but most probably because recycled items are collected at no charge, whereas unrecycled waste incurs collection costs. It does not take too much imagination to work out the motivation, does it?
3. "Kerbside by the wayside": Kerbside failed not because it was a bad idea, but because it was grossly undercapitalised. It received between approximately £1 million in funding compared to the national plan allocation of £650 million for solid waste infrastructure; hardly a serious attempt at recycling, considering the funds available.
This country is currently faced with very serious problems in the area of waste management. That these articles do not present a fair and balanced assessment of the situation compounds the existing problem and is a disservice to the people of Ireland. - Yours, etc.,
Alexander Tully, Waterford.