
Andrew Arthur's thoughts on the NYS regulating open burning.
June 1, 2002
Burn Barrel Debate: The Rural Silent Majority: A look at bills not passed, the media and the burn barrel debate, and rural public opinion.
Burn Barrels: The 2004 Perspective: Andrew takes another look at Assembly's latest failed bid to ban burn barrels.
Comments on Burn Ban: The comments I sent to the DEC on the propose burn ban.
Debating a Supporter: The Burn Barrel Bill: Andrew debates an email he recieved, disagreeing with his postion on open burning.
Dioxin, Incinerators, and Burn Barrels: Activists and corporations work together to push myths on dangers of trash burning.
Fires in California: We need wild fires, but when we get too close to nature we may get burned.
Give Up The Burn Barrel: Maybe it's bad for the environment, but the alternative is far worst.
Just Another Fire: The recent brush fires across our state remind us of the danger of fire.
Pyromania: Some thoughts on the love of fire and arsonists.
Spitzer and Wood Furnaces: When environmental prosecution comes home to your backyard.
The Real People Behind Burn Barrel.org: Andrew does some investigative reporting on the people behind the site.
The Woodstove Saving the World from Terrorists: Thoughts on the very warm woodstove, keeping me warm from the cold world outside.
Those Big Bad Burn Barrels: An essay about trash burning, and how it is not the big evil that some peoplemake it out to be.
Surprise, Surprise! Another legislative year has gone by, and one of many bills that have been introduced since 1996 every year, is dead yet another year. The bill in particular, is S-3772A, that is trying to ban burn barrels across New York State.
Of course, it wouldn't be so funny if the key sponsor of the bill in the Assembly wasn't William Colton, the balding man from Kings bough of New York City, and also chair of the Solid Waste Committee (which makes sense). Got to love the big city Assemblymen, creating regulations that don't even effect his district—burning trash openly in areas of populations greater then 20k and those with local ordinances is already banned.
It typically breezes through the Assembly every year, and makes it to the Senate. And sometimes (like this year), it will make to the 3rd reading stage in the Senate, but it never passes the Senate. Thank god for some of the more conservative Senators from upstate New York, it is never scheduled on the calendar to be voted on. These senators happen to come from the largest and most rural districts (i.e.. most effected by this bill), including 45th (St. Lawrence County/Tugg Hill Plateau), 46th (Middle Adirondacks), 47th (Lake George/Plattsburgh/Washington County) and 50th (Schoharie/Delaware County)—no I donÕt have names, IÕve forgotten.
I guess thatÕs not surprising, it could be a campaign issues in this area—somehow I suspect Colton has to worry about it being brought up as a campaign issue.
So they claim that burning trash, releases lots of pollutants, especially with all those wonderfully toxic plastics. There is truth to that. Some plastics contain fairly nasty stabilizers in it, almost every chemical imaginable. Not to mention when chlorine from bleach and salt, that can combine with oxygen to create dioxin.
Although no test shows that common trash contains ÔhazardousÕ levels of these chemicals—just trace levels. More then a highly filtered, high tempeture incinerator, but less then what is considered ÔhazardousÕ levels according to EPA standards. Not to mention when you consider the locations where most trash is burned—rural areas, with already low levels of pollution.
Studies also show that burn barrel pollution is generally localized, compared to incinerator and other industrial emissions—smoke is emitted far closer to the ground, so the widespread pollution argument doesn't really make sense.
One has to suspect that one of the real reasons for people wanting this prohibition is not the environment it's self, but the odors that burning trash emits. Plastic smells terrible when burned. Especially when it's left to smolder.
The State currently recongizes this in environmental law, and prohibited burning in cases where odor and other problems may result. Additionally, the state law currently allows towns to create their own regulations involving the burning of trash and agricultural wastes.
Former Governor Nelson Rockefeller once noted New York State was such a big place, with so different factions, it was kind of like it's own country. There is probably quite a lot of truth to that—it's really big—you'd have to compare it's phyiscal size to California or Texas. It's politically diverse. More important, it's environmentally diverse.
I'd hate to break it to the New York City Assemblymen and Senators who supported this terrible bill—the Tugg Hill Plateau, is nothing like New York. It's far, far, far less populated (no kidding). It doesn't have all those nasty automobile and factory pollutants being dumped into the air. New York State is diverse, it has different needs (in other words, some rural areas won't be effected all by trash and agricultural burning).
I hate to break it to you, they don't have curbside pickup in the country. Where we live, in Westerlo, we am fortunate enough to have a town-funded 'transfer-station' where we can take garbage for free—and it's only a 3 mile drive each way. It isn't that difficult to garbage and recyclables in the truck, and take them to the dump every 3 weeks or so.
It's a lot different in other places though. Going back to my previous example of St. Lawerence County, you could note it is the largest county in New York State, yet has only 3 of such transfer stations—for many cases located as much as 20 miles away from distant houses and farms. You want to tell me, that people should have to do that every three weeks—and it's not okay to burn some papers, to reduce volume of the trash?
As you probably can guess, like a lot of businesses, farms create quite a bit of waste. Even the bill sponser's memo admits to this. They purposely exclude paper and burlap from the prohibition. Yet that isn't everything.
Pestiside and chemical fertilizer containers often can not be taken to a landfill, because of their potentially hazardous residue (even after triple washing). If you read up on this issue a bit on the web, you will find that their is a general consensus in the agriculture community, that the best way to dispose of these (if local regulations permit), is to burn them in field where they were orginally spread. Yet, such actions would be banned under this bill—with potentially expensive fines. So guess who gets screwed.
And then there are the problem of silage wrap. The LDPE plastic used to wrap hay upon bailing, can greatly reduce time required for bailing of hay, and allow for outdoors storage. It's fairly inexpensive. But once the hay has been unwrapped from it, it has to be disposed. Being plastic it doesn't biodegrade (of course you wouldn't want that—that is the whole purpose of it, after all). It's big and bulky, it is a pain to dispose or recycle of it. Recycling of it is of limited use, as the plastic is often contaiminated with various chemicals and dirt from storage. So about 90% of it on average is burned on farms (according to a study by the Cornell waste management insitute).
I see no clear purpose for such a state-wide prohibition, for such localized pollution sources. Current law allows for towns and counties to create their own laws, it bans all such burning in areas of population of greater then 20,000—ie. many suburbs and all cities. It is a law drafted by city people, to inflicted their regulations on the rest of us.
Copyright ©1999-2008 Andy Arthur.
All mistakes are intentional or otherwise.
Mind where you step in a cow pasture or legal mindfield.