“Since I wrote about reducing waste in Minneapolis, USA, I’ve dug up some more facts and they’re discouraging, unfortunately.” Savannah adds to her November 2020 blog.

Knowing many potential problems which could arise from building and operating the incinerator, the county needed to be sure this was a reasonable solution for them.

One major perk for them is that all the energy produced counts toward meeting their renewable energy quota. This allows the county to skip investing in greener energy, which would require an investment on their part, and instead continue to profit off the waste problem.

When the trash is sorted, the only item pulled out for alternative disposal is scrap metal. ‘Bulky’ items which cannot be burned are also removed.

However, if the trash is already being sorted, why leave all other compostables and recyclable materials in to be incinerated with the rest of the trash? For one, this would remove a large portion of the city’s available waste. If the city was to remove these materials, they would lose the profit of the energy produced.

Considering recycling and compost rates have not yet reached target levels, these materials make up a large portion of the total waste in the facility. If just the paper and organics were removed to be recycled or composted, that would cut the waste by 48%. Assuming at least some of the plastics are also recyclable, that number would increase to over 50%.

***• The portion of each type of waste received by the HERC, by weight***

The energy the incinerator produces benefits the county three fold, in helping the county meet their renewable energy goals, allowing them to avoid the costs associated with transporting and dumping the trash into a landfill, and again in the profit they make selling this energy to a private company. Surely, with all the benefits the country reaps from burning their trash, they could invest some of this back into their sorting process.

This additional step also makes sense when considering the recycling and composting rates of the county.

Recycling rates have actually trended downward the last few years. Looking over the past five years, recycling has increased by only 1%. Composting shows a similar disappointing trend, again with an inconsistent 1% increase. Considering organics currently make up the largest portion of trash at HERC, clearly there is a lot of room for improvement.

Again, the county needs to shift funding towards its composting programs, and educating the public on the importance of keeping organics out of the bin.

***• The disappointing rate of recycling and composting in Hennepin County since 2014***

The county has been promising for years to reduce waste, gradually decreasing the strain on the waste system, and reducing the need for both landfills and incinerators. However, the county’s waste has only increased the past four years.

***• The even more troubling rate of waste sent to landfills from Hennepin County since 2014***

Continually, arguments are made for the incinerator - that it is clean “enough”, we are recycling “enough”, we are composting “enough” compared to other cities.

But as the world looks forward towards a sustainable future, we cannot be content to just do “enough”.

It is time to lead by example, investing in the green solutions we already know we will need to become successful, sustainable, and healthy.

Savannah Kjaer