Waste Disposal Schemes and their Applicabilities in Malaysia

Timed Paragraph Practice:

Question 1

Briefly compare and contrast any two waste disposal schemes (e.g. zero waste and land filling, land filling and using incinerators or any other methods you know) and decide which might be more suitable for your country.

Various waste disposal schemes have been proposed to replace the existing methods in the hope to get rid of the piling waste. One of them is the popular zero waste scheme. The ultimate goal of the scheme is to reduce waste generation, best to zero. The main idea is to ensure industrial products are made from materials that can be repaired, reused and recycled (Collins, 2002). Many developed countries have adopted the waste disposal scheme seeing its potential in effectively resolving the problem. However, conventional waste disposal methods, for example, incinerators are still practical in many countries especially to the developing nations. The fact that the use of incinerators has given rise to the increased concentration of dioxins in the atmosphere is undeniable. Alongside with that, incinerators require high cost of building, operating and maintaining. Despite of all these drawbacks, it is still the most effective and rapid way to get rid of the ever-increasing trash. In addition, the process of burning could be a source for power supply. Every waste disposal scheme has its pros and cons. There are various aspects need to be taken into consideration when it comes to application; a good scheme does not necessarily be suitable to every country.

The increase in population and rapid economic development in Malaysia have brought about the high waste generation rate of the nation. The amount of waste generated each day is comparable to the high-income countries (Ndiaye, 2003). Furthermore, Malaysia is running out of suitable land filling sites since the last few years as urbanization is taking place in most of the potential locations. In my opinion, a better alternative to replace the existing land filling method would be using incinerators rather than the zero waste scheme. The awareness on the importance of proper waste disposal is low among the people. Privatization of waste management has worsened the case to a greater extent where households are required to pay for the service. According to Netto (2007), only about 10 to 15 percent of the waste is recycled in Malaysia. The discouraging figures imply that the zero waste scheme is unlikely to succeed in the country. With the tight trade relationship, Malaysia has started seeking for advice and technologies transfer from Japan to minimize the potential pollution by incinerators. For these reasons, I firmly believe that the most efficient and immediate way to resolve the Malaysian’s waste problem is by using the incinerators.

References

Collins, J. (2002, Oct 3^rd). Radical plans for waste could herald a big clean-up. The Guardian Weekly. p.25.

Ndiaye, Catherine. (2003, May 19). Talking Trash: Waste Disposal Services in Malaysia. Economy and Environment Program for Southeast Asia. Retrieved October 24, 2008, from

http://www.idrc.ca/eepsea/ev-29989-201-1-DO_TOPIC.html

Netto, Anil. (2007, March 23). Environment-Malaysia: Costly Incinerators or Efficient Waste Disposal? Retrieved 25 October, 2008, from Inter Press Service News Agency Web site:

http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=37058