# data[].attributes.headline
How can we safely increase the longevity of our current landfills by reducing the need for waste space?

# data[].attributes.subject
How can we safely increase the longevity of our current landfills by reducing the need for waste space?

# data[].attributes.body
This is the essential question that I am going to be talking about, and ultimately answering.

# data[].attributes.body
Out of all the 292.4 million tons of Municipal Solid Waste (MSW/trash) generated in the U.S. during 2018, 146.1 million tons were placed into landfills. That is approximately 49.97% of all MSW generated (EPA). This is not a good thing. Landfills should be the last resort for dealing with trash because of their negative affects. For example, according to the article, "The Effects of Landfills on the Environment," it says that just a few negative impacts of landfills are air pollution, groundwater pollution, and just the occupation of land. They pollute the air with their production of methane gas, which is a potent greenhouse gas. Landfills can cause groundwater pollution because when rain falls on a landfill, it can carry chemical residue with it into the ground. Finally, landfills take up a lot of space that could be used for other things. Also, as time goes on, available space for landfills will continue to decrease, so they are not a viable option for the future. (Sciencing). This graphic was also found at EPA.

# data[].attributes.body
Obviously, recycling is probably the first alternative to landfills that comes to your mind. In 2018, 69 million tons of MSW were recycled, which is roughly 23.6% of the 292.4 million tons of MSW generated (EPA). It is the most advertised, and for good reason. It has many benefits that make it a much better alternative to landfills. For example, in one article, it talked about how recycling reduces the pollution of air, water, and land resulting from waste disposal (Britannica). Another article talked about the economic benefits of recycling for consumers in the statement, "One study shows that production using recycled aluminum can cut costs in half. That’s because much less energy is required to process recycled aluminum than to extract it raw. The savings cycle back to consumers, who can buy goods for less" (General Kinematics). However, it can only be beneficial to consumers if their local governments have recycling programs in place, which can be quite expensive. This is the major disadvantage to recycling. Many say that it is just not cost effective for cities and towns to implement. In summary, recycling is a great alternative to landfills if rendered cost effective by cities.
This graphic was found at EPA.

# data[].attributes.body
Another, slightly lesser know, alternative to landfills is incineration, or burning in other words. According to EPA, 34.6 million tons were combusted with energy recovery in 2018. That is only 11.83% of all the 292.4 million tons of MSW generated.
Some pros of incineration include:

Incinerators can decrease the quantity of waste by 95%.

Incineration plants generate energy from waste.

Significantly reduces the cost of transport of waste.

Provides less bad smells

By-products left behind from the combustion of waste can be used in construction, get shipped or even landfilled.

Occupies relatively small space.

Some Cons of incineration include:

Incinerators produce smoke with gases that are poisonous to the environment.

The costs of constructing the infrastructure to the costs of operating the incineration plants are very high.

-(Conserve Energy Future)
While it may seem that incineration is the perfect solution because of its many pros, it is not that simple. Even though there is only two of them, the cons are the main reason that incineration still isn't a perfect solution. Most industrial incinerators are equipped with filters to trap most of the harmful things being released. However, these can be expensive, and in areas of the world where there are no environmental regulations in place, it is most likely that money will not be spent on these safety measures. On top of this, the cost to create these facilities, and the cost to train employees, is just too high for most communities around the world. Because of these two big reasons, incineration is not a great solution to the problem. However, if the technology can be innovated to make it cheaper, incineration could be the way of the future because of its many pros.
This graphic was found at EPA.

# data[].attributes.headline
What You Guys Thought About Incineration

# data[].attributes.subject
What You Guys Thought About Incineration

# data[].attributes.body
If you did not know, the article, "Waste Management and Composting," defines composting as "a process by which organic wastes are broken down by microorganisms, generally bacteria and fungi, into simpler forms" (University of Massachusetts Amherst). As seen from the graphic in my landfill section, food and yard trimmings accounted for more than 25% of all MSW placed into landfills. Composting is a safe, environment-friendly way to get rid of basically all organic MSW in landfills, while also producing useful by-products. Even though this great alternative is available, only 42.6 million tons of MSW were composted. That is only 14.57% of the total MSW generated (EPA). So, there definitely needs to be more emphasis placed on composting, instead of throwing in landfills. But why is composting so much better than landfills? Well, in the article, "Why Aren’t We Composting All Of Our Food Waste?," it says, "When food waste is composted, it only produces CO2 when broken down, which causes 30 times fewer emissions than if it were to decompose anaerobically (like in some landfills). Even better, the compost can then be used to grow new plants, which can, of course, capture CO2 from the environment" (Schreyer). To summarize, if we can compost most of our organic material, we will help the environment, and save space in landfills.

# data[].attributes.headline
How can we safely increase the longevity of our current landfills by reducing the need for waste space?

# data[].attributes.subject
How can we safely increase the longevity of our current landfills by reducing the need for waste space?

# data[].attributes.body
In trying to answer this essential question, I have presented information on why landfills are not a viable option for waste management, and introduced multiple other ways that the world can cut down its need for waste space. When looking at recycling, it much better way to deal with non-biodegradable materials like plastic, but is still expensive for most communities. For incineration, assuming plants have proper filtration, the only concern is the price. The cost of these plants is just unrealistic for most communities. However, if technology could be innovated for both incineration and recycling to make it more cost effective, many problems with our waste management could be solved. As for composting, it is not a matter of improving it, but implementing it at higher volumes around the world. In conclusion, to reduce the need for waste space, and consequently increasing the longevity of landfills, there has to be significant strides in creating affordable technology that communities around the world can obtain.