California’s Waste Mis-management Proposal

Over the last several decades, California has become known for its ambitious, albeit unrealistic environmental proposals.

A series of legislative measures and executive orders enacted in Sacramento, for example, have among other things banned the use of natural gas in a number of residential applications and set strict zero emission targets for the transportation and electric utility sectors in the state. The pathway to achieving these goals has predictably proven to be difficult, but the newest idea just floated in the pages of the Los Angeles Times might just take the cake.

In a recent editorial, the newspaper suggested that Californians stop using landfills and ideally stop generating waste altogether in order to bolster the state’s fight against climate change. The irony of promoting this proposal – despite the fact that newspapers generate over 13 million tons of municipal solid waste annually – appears to be lost on the leadership of the organization. Not only is this idea an impractical policy proposal that ignores the fundamental realities of modern society, but making such a sweeping proclamation glosses over the complexity of managing municipal solid waste and ignores the limitations and environmental tradeoffs of alternative waste management programs.

This current call to action has been spurred on by an ongoing incident at the Chiquita Canyon landfill outside of Los Angeles. A rare chemical reaction is generating heat and pressure deep within a retired part of the landfill, and surrounding communities have been impacted with noxious odors and fumes. This development is a serious issue that certainly needs to be addressed, and the operators of the landfill are taking all the right steps both to mitigate its impact and support local residents.

Not only have they been working with a multi-agency action team to coordinate a comprehensive response to the ongoing challenges at the landfill, but resources have also been made available to support impacted residents with financial assistance for temporary relocation and home hardening. The push to close Chiquita Canyon and other landfills like it in response to this situation, therefore, seems to have little to do with the realities on the ground and is instead indicative of broader trends in California’s environmental policy.

Such pursuits of unrealistic goals without sufficient regard for feasibility or the practical implications is already negatively impacting the state’s residents in many ways. Similar mandates, for instance, like those that would require all new passenger vehicles sold in the state be zero-emission by 2035 and that 100% of energy generated in the state must be zero-carbon by 2045, will make new cars more expensive and have pushed the state’s electrical grid to the brink.

The electric vehicles on the market today are well beyond what most families can afford, requiring a household income nearly double the national average to make financial sense, and they are only getting more expensive. Meanwhile, on days of high energy demand, the additional power required for electric vehicles combined with the incorporation of more intermittent generating sources of power have complicated energy operations and left utility providers at risk of running short. Grid operators have even been forced to request that California residents refrain from charging their electric vehicles at times of particularly high demand in an attempt to prevent grid collapse, demonstrating how overly ambitious environmental mandates can have intertwining and far-reaching negative effects.

Lost in the discussion appears to be the fact that the operators of Chiquita Canyon managed the property according to all state and federal guidelines. But even with stringent regulations and best practices, unforeseen issues can arise. Instead of rushing to ban landfills and pushing for unattainable waste elimination goals, this incident should instead be viewed as a learning opportunity and a chance to develop better strategies for managing landfills safely and sustainably. By examining what happened, why it occurred, and how it was addressed, we can develop an appropriate response that is measured and rooted in practicality.

The French writer Antoine de Saint-Exupéry once quipped that a goal without a plan is simply a wish. That quip seems to aptly apply to many of California’s most aggressive green policies, including this latest proposed approach to waste management. Residents of the Golden State are already suffering as a result of several unrealistic environmental goals, and we should not let them become the victims of yet another one.