The following appeared in a memorandum written by the chairperson of the West Egg Town Council Two years ago consultants predicted that West Egg s landfill which is used for garbage disposal would be completely filled within five years During the past two

With a growing environmental consciousness around the world, we are more aware of the disastrous consequences of human-produced waste than ever. The chairperson of the West Egg Town Council released an optimistic statement regarding the space availability of their town’s landfill, citing survey and other evidence and claiming that the available space within the landfill is greater and can last much longer than previously predicted. While the chairperson’s claims are reasonable, their argument requires further clarification and evidence surrounding the initial lifetime prediction, accurate rates of recycling and landfill capacity, valid survey responses, and other factors that may affect the conclusion.

Both the first prediction and the following survey need to be carefully examined and evaluated to verify their validity and accuracy. Even though the five-year prediction was made by consultants, we need to examine their qualifications and associations as well as the comprehensiveness of their results. These consultants should be experienced in landfill and garbage disposal projects and should not be associated with related industries creating a conflict of interest—for example, purposely underreporting the lifetime of landfills such that landfill companies can be contracted for projects more often. In addition, we need clarification surrounding the margin of error of the five-year prediction, and whether the lifetime of the landfill was updated as operations began. The survey cited by the chairperson should also be evaluated based on its validity and scope. How many respondents were there and are they enough to extrapolate to the entire town? Are the respondents representative of typical households and businesses in the town? What is the potential value-action gap between their responses and their actual recycling rates? If the survey cannot satisfy questions such as those above, then further surveying is needed to contribute to the argument.

Then, we need to examine the actual rates of recycling its impacts on the town’s landfill. While the memorandum cited that the town’s residents have been recycling twice as much material as they did in previous years, it does not support that the current rate of recycling is enough to show a considerable effect on the trash sent to the landfill. The previous recycling rate may have been so low that a doubling of the rate is still lacking. Furthermore, just because more material is being recycled does not mean that the overall garbage disposal rate is lower—the residents of West Egg may produce even more un-recyclable trash that end up in the landfill with a rising recycling rate. Perhaps the town has reached a threshold in its recycling rate and further increases may be difficult. In order to support the chairperson’s argument, we need to establish an accurate relationship between the town’s recycling rate and the rate in which the landfill will fill up, taking into account overall trash disposal and the actual rates in which materials can be recycled in the near future.

Other factors such as the town’s recycling capacity, future technologies, and the presence of industry and businesses need to be taken into account. If the town has increased its recycling capacity in the past two years and in turn upped the town’s recycling rates, then individual behavior has less to contribute to the increased recycling than infrastructural capacity. Conversely, even if residents decide to continue to increase their recycling rates, effects on the landfill may be miniscule if the ability of the town to take in the increased materials do not improve as well, thus weakening the argument. If the town is able to invest in technologies, such as those that are conducive to higher recycling rates or further separate trash to categories such as composting, the chairperson’s optimism towards the landfill’s lifetime can be supported. Lastly, if there is a significant presence of businesses and industry in West Egg, then the predictions that are based on household residents may be inaccurate. Business and manufacturing have much higher quantities of waste, and depending on the nature of operations, may have a much higher or lower recycling rate than an average household. Compared to individuals, their behaviors are more obstinate and may not change unless of policy incentives.

While the chairperson’s statement includes evidence that may potentially support their argument that the landfill can last much longer than predicted, the logic is lacking supporting evidence. We need to examine the data and survey validity, perform accurate calculations of recycling and landfill rates, as well as take into account other technological and trash-contributing factors in order to fully support the argument and provide a more sound prediction for the landfill.