Block · one region of the page, as the scanner read it. It may hold a whole story, part of one, several, or an advertisement; stitching blocks into articles is the next step. Text is supplied OCR.
Page 4 · column 4 of 7 · from the scan, no model involved
representative, Nelson Lane, outlining my idea to save the good stuff people throw away (thus reducing the amount of “refuse” in the landfill). Naturally my plan was deadended, because regardless of its worthiness, rich men like Mr. Lane (and that includes most people in government) can’t get real about trash.
You see, trash is not a genuine issue to them. It’s beneath their concern — their mind-set is to call someone to haul it away. If put into dollars and cents, “break even” is not enough, neither is providing a few jobs. Until profits hit the obscene level they are not truly interested. They think waste is efficient.
I suggest that we humbly approach some of the free-lance salvage experts at any dump site and offer them the kind of fees consultants generally get to generate ideas about trash. Throw in a few earth scientists and the problem will be solved in a week.
Maybe they would use the idea I sent Mr. Lane: to put a few of those “bad” scavengers on the County payroll to operate a salvage lot and thrift store right on the landfill property. And to make it work, tax credits could be given to people who cooperate with the program (and fines for those who don’t).
With a program of composting, salvage (the steps those in charge are ignoring) and recycling, very little refuge needs to reach our landfill.
The way it is now, we buy something, it breaks, and we throw it out. But my dream is if we fix it, soon we’ll start demanding that goods last longer in the first place. And that, in time, will put an end to planned obsolescence and the entire waste economy.
We ought to really set a goal of zero refuge.
PETER B. HOLLEY
Boston
94.6%