Dear Editor,
Humanity has always produced waste in vast quantities, but without a doubt there is now more consumption which accordingly generates more rubbish. But make no mistake this has little to do with the fact that there is much wrong with City Hall’s policies, which they seem unable to get right.
I make no excuses for the citizens of Georgetown, who feel they have a natural right to throw as much stuff as they like, where they like and how they like. They should not; rubbish damages the environment and is expensive to dispose of. But it is the municipality’s responsibility and job to persuade citizens that they should be responsible for the muck they produce. The city needs to take a more proactive role through its law enforcement arm, the City Constabulary to prevent littering and prosecute offenders, rather than merely trying to pick up garbage wherever it is thrown.
Waste is becoming more hazardous. Modern commerce and businesses are utilizing many new materials from plastic bottles to styrofoam, that are difficult to dispose of properly. The consequences of this in Georgetown are grotesque, with the canals chockfull with unmentionables, whilst trash heaps are all over the city. Meanwhile at the Mandela dumpsite rotting waste is producing methane, which in addition to causing the facility to burst into flames every so often, much to the discomfort of the nearby residents, it is one of the more potent greenhouse gases, and thus contributes to global warming and climate change.
All over the world, environmental concerns have spurred dramatic improvements in the way waste is managed, but not at the Georgetown City Council. Recycling is becoming more common globally. Many businessmen are allowed to develop schemes to turn rubbish into electricity, fuel or fertilizer, but no, not here
To clear up this mess the Mayor and City Council needs to hold people and companies responsible for the waste they produce. One way of doing that is to work out the cost of disposal and charge firms and households for rubbish collection based on the volume they produce. This would help discourage citizens from chucking stuff out, and provide the municipality with a revenue stream to dispose of it when they do.
Another is to oblige manufacturers to take back and dispose of certain goods when consumers have finished with them. This will give firms an incentive to make their wares easy to recycle or reuse.
Finally, I would like to recommend that the city council return to the system of having its own refuse trucks. It would be more cost effective, sensible and efficient. The maintenance of these trucks could be outsourced if the municipality lacks the in-house capability.
Yours faithfully,
Kofi Dalrymple
