|
|
Written by Gerri Elder
|
|
Friday, 22 August 2008 17:32 |
|
| |
 Gardening is a hobby that can quickly become a passion for many people. I am one of those people. You can call me green, crunchy or a compost wacko if you want; my garden appreciates my efforts and I like to think the earth does too.
When I heard the story about a fellow gardener who was taken to court over his method of composting I was quickly outraged. Perhaps I am a bit biased; however, when I related the story to others - even non-gardeners - many had the same feeling. The case brought against John Dragona was nothing short of harassment.
John Dragona and his wife Tulia are avid gardeners. They maintain a well cultivated garden in Cliffside Park, New Jersey.
The Dragonas are both blind. They say that since they are not able drive and few other recreational activities are available to them due to their disability, gardening has become their passion. They regularly feel the ground to pull out weeds by hand and follow other good gardening practices such as composting.
Ahh, the composting. This is where the story really begins.
Composting can be done in many different ways. There are many methods to combine garden and kitchen waste in order to allow it to decompose into nutritious compost to feed the soil, which in turn will naturally feed the plants.
Aside from the fact that composting is a good garden practice, it is also good for the environment. Dried leaves, grass clippings, coffee grounds, egg shells, veggie scraps and numerous other materials are not sent to the landfill if they are composted, and that can only be a good thing. Compost also lessens or eliminates the need for chemical fertilizers which pollute the environment and also require the use of fuel and other natural resources to create, market and distribute.
The method that John and Tulia Dragona used to compost is generally called sheet composting or creating a lasagna bed. They took their compostable materials, both brown carbon materials and nitrogen-rich green scraps and layered them in their garden beds to improve the soil. Sheet composting is a well-known and generally accepted way of creating compost. I say generally accepted because I know of only one instance in which it was not accepted, and that is the Dragona case.
Earlier this year borough officials issued John Dragona a summons. They considered the composting materials that he layered in his vegetable garden to be "vegetative debris," according to a report by The Record. The officials considered Dragona's method of composting a potential health hazard to the community.
Additionally, a Health Department inspector cited Dragona for "failure to keep property cleaned and maintained" due to his composting technique. Health officials allegedly detected an odor from the compost when they visited Dragona's garden. Compost has a mild and pleasant "earthy" odor. There are no foul odors associated with compost or the composting process.
So for whatever reason, the borough decided to single out and bully Dragona. They threatened to fine him up to $500 if he continued sheet composting on his property.
Thankfully, Dragona did not stop composting and instead got help from attorney Gavin I. Handwerker, of the Nissenbaum Law Group. I spoke with Mr. Handwerker while preparing this story and asked if he knew of any other cases in the area involving compost. He told me that he was not aware of any.
At the end of July, Dragona appeared in court with his guide dog by his side, ready to fight for his right to maintain good garden practices by composting. However, before the showdown could begin, a generous gesture brought the case to a close.
Mr. Handwerker informed me that an anonymous person decided to end the madness that the borough had created over Dragona's compost. This person set out to purchase a composting unit to donate to the Dragonas. However, when the composter was about to be purchased the seller realized the situation and who it was for and simply gave it to the anonymous donor so that it could be gifted to the Dragonas. Composting units are usually bins or barrels designed to contain composting materials while they decompose. While not at all necessary, they are used by some to give a more tidy appearance to the composting process.
As a result of this gift, the ridiculous charges were dropped against Dragona and he now composts in a way that is acceptable to the borough. All's well that ends well. Compost happens. Still, the borough could have avoided wasting time and resources in the first place by not harassing a green gardener. |
|
|
|
Written by Gerri L Elder
|
|
Tuesday, 18 March 2008 02:55 |
|
| |
 It remains to be seen whether or not the outcome of the 2008 elections will be good for the United States. We can be certain though; the campaigns will not have a particularly great outcome for the planet.
If you’ve been out driving anywhere, you’ve seen the blobs of campaign signs along the roadsides. While there are laws mandating that these signs get cleaned up after the elections, the fact is that they don’t - and even if they do - what happens to them?
None of the high profile candidates have made it a priority to speak about the mountains of campaign sign waste, but there’s actually a lot to say. There are plenty of dirty little secrets that aren’t exactly small in their impact to the environment.
Many campaign signs are made of plastic, and while some may be technically able to be recycled, according to recycling centers most are made of materials which are simply unsuitable for recycling and end up in the landfills. Are any of the candidates making sure that the mess they are making actually gets cleaned up and the materials reused, rather than just becoming a more obvious form of litter as they are strewn across the landscape?
Perhaps some are, but sadly, they seem to be the minority. Most are not even making sure that their signs are being made of materials that are able to be recycled, and are decidedly unconcerned about whether they end up on the side of the road or in a landfill after the election.
In August 2005, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection surveyed all 67 counties in Florida to determine which would be interested in participating in a campaign sign recycling pilot program. Only four counties expressed an interest. In the end, four waste management organizations covering a total of six Florida counties agreed to participate. Collectively the population of the participating areas was 1,319,639 people. Since it was not a presidential election year the amount of campaign signage was of course significantly less than it is this year.
The results of the project were somewhat disappointing. Although over 3 tons of campaign sign waste was collected for recycling in these relatively small areas of Florida, this was only a fraction of what could have been done. The counties had hoped to see more of the signage come in for recycling.
It boggles the mind to think about how many tons of campaign sign waste must end up in landfills across the country during a presidential election year, given that this little piece of Florida with less than 100 percent participation collected more than 3 tons of campaign waste during a year with no presidential election. At this moment, how many thousands of tons of campaign garbage are littering the landscape and on the way to the landfills?
Two of the waste management organizations that handled the campaign sign recycling for four of the six counties had problems with recycling the plastics that the signs were made from. They found it difficult to find an end market for the materials that could be recycled and found it cost prohibitive to ship what could not be used to other facilities that may have been able to salvage the materials. In the end, only three of the participating counties in Florida planned to continue collecting campaign signs for recycling.
Although the pilot campaign recycling program in Florida was disappointing, the good news was that the cost involved in the recycling program were minimal and less than had been expected. That means that if there were an effort being made everywhere to recycle the campaign signs, it would not be costly. The thing is that very few people are concerned with recycling this type of garbage, and on the face of it, it seems that the politicians could care less if their signage is even made of products that are suitable for recycling.
As for the larger political conventions, there may be a bit more being done to shrink the carbon footprint the campaigns are leaving behind. As the candidates and their supporters focus on other things, the Coalition for Environmentally Responsible Conventions (CERC) has stepped in to make things a lot greener, as best they can.
The amount of waste produced at political conventions is monumental. In 2004 CERC worked to promote environmentally friendly practices for the Democratic and Republican conventions in Boston and New York.
The 2004 Democratic National Convention in Boston was powered entirely by renewable energy sources and overall the party worked hard to make the whole affair a very green one. Since the Democrats have Al Gore and the party regularly promotes recycling, renewable energy, mass transportation and efforts to reduce pollution, it only makes sense that they would pay attention to the environmental damage that large conventions cause. Otherwise, they’d be hypocrites, right? God forbid.
So, at least on a national level, the Democrats are trying not to trash the planet. CERC helps the Republicans out at the larger conventions, but there is very little press to be seen about the environmentally friendly steps that the Republican Party is taking on its own to make sure that their conventions do not leave behind a mass of garbage and a mess for the environment. It can probably be reasonably assumed that if they were making much of a green effort, they would be saying it – and loudly.
At a local level, politicians still seem to be littering the landscape more than ever. No matter whom you support in an election, you can bet that some of their signs will still be littering the roadsides long after the ballots are counted.
Some individuals salvage the signs and reuse them as they are able, and in some localities small groups of concerned people gather up the signage for recycling, if it is possible for them to be recycled. However, something you don’t ever hear about is a politician making an effort to ensure that their campaign trash is cleaned up and able to be recycled. Their apathy towards the environment makes every campaign a losing one, environmentally speaking.
For what it’s worth, shame should be heaped onto the heads of those responsible for making these messes. Cleaning up after politicians is hardly a new concept. Do you think they might pass laws to penalize themselves for the litter they create? Somehow, I doubt it, so it looks like it’s up to the rest of us to save the planet. |
|
|
|
|
|
