Roanoke Times Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc. DATE: SATURDAY, March 28, 1992 TAG: 9203300179 SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A-11 EDITION: METRO SOURCE: LUKE STAENGL DATELINE: LENGTH: Medium
The recycling industries of Floyd were not the brainchild of some evil megacorporation looking for an innocent rural area to dump extremely hazardous materials on. Rather, they were the result of the hard work of local owners and operators of the failing fuel ethanol plants.
These people conducted exhaustive feasibility studies and analytical research into what new processes could be developed that would have less adverse impact on the community and environment than the fuel alcohol business. The three to five truckloads per week of antifreeze, industrial ethanol and acetic acid processed at these facilities were far less dangerous in every respect than the 20 to 30 truckloads per week of alcohol and gasoline blends that were previously processed.
In fact, these companies helped pioneer the concept of on-site reclamation of waste by demonstrating the feasibility of recycling and recovery of these materials. Previously these materials had been discharged onto the ground, incinerated, or shipped to Third World countries for disposal (not reclamation).
Mr. Davenport and Ms. Kopp certainly contribute more pollution and waste per capita than the majority of people on the planet, as they drive tens of thousands of miles per year to and from their workplaces. Mr. Davenport's employer, the railroad industry, probably knows more about the devastation of strip mining for coal in Appalachia than he would care to admit.
The electricity he uses to perform his craft (welding) is also coal-based, while the fumes from his welding rods are extremely hazardous and toxic. The coal barons and the authors of the Commentary article both want to make money and yet live comfortably removed from the messes resulting from that pursuit.
Shrouding their "not in my back yard attitude" in environmentalist rhetoric, the true wolf in sheep's clothing emerges. What would Ms. Kopp and Mr. Davenport have the rest of us do with their own discarded wastes?
The reason for the existence of the recycling industry is that efforts are being made to stop antifreeze, oil, oil filters, etc., from ending up in our water, that "most valuable commodity." Simply collecting, sorting and storing these materials does not accomplish that objective. They should also know that many of the agricultural chemicals applied directly on the land near where they live are more dangerous to their health and the water than the materials which are carefully stored, processed, and contained at the Floyd recycling plants.
It angers me when so-called environmentalists repeatedly use the tactic of describing the worst example of environmental abuse, and then paint the whole recycling industry with the same brush. This practice is giving environmentalism a very bad name, and ignores their own responsibility as the producers of these wastes, as well as the need for the careful thought and long-range planning that these problems require.
The lack of respect that the cartoon (which accompanied their article) demonstrates toward the residents of Floyd speaks even louder than their written word.
Luke Staengl lives in Floyd and is the founder and chief executive officer of Floyd Agricultural Energy Co-op Ltd.