Bruce Bisset: Waste reduction at bottom of pile

Mountains of rubbish we throw out daily are simply picked up and hauled away to the Omarunui Landfill. Photo / File

For a region which prides itself on its natural beauty we have a disturbing ambivalence toward pollution, be it cow poo in our rivers, the smokiness of the air in winter, or what happens to the domestic and commercial waste we generate.

Even people who are paid to know better - the councillors we elect, and the officers who inform them - seem to spend half their time denying problems instead of all of their time finding ways to solve them.

Take waste. As things stand, apart from a limited number of plastic items separated out for recycling, the mountain of rubbish we throw out daily is simply picked up and hauled away to the Omarunui Landfill, where it is dumped and buried and largely forgotten.

Except when it comes to paying the cost of disposal. The increasingly steep charges, via rates and at transfer stations, still do not reflect the true cost - a fact some appreciate so little they chuck their garbage willy-nilly into ditches and down bush-clad banks, inflating the problem.

So much for caring Kiwis, eh?

Councils must manage the waste stream and try to make something from those parts of it they can utilise - such as generating electricity from the methane the trash produces.

That doesn't stop the tip filling up; Omarunui valley's big holes that were lined ready for refuse less than a decade ago are already nearing capacity, and need replacement.

Yet reducing waste doesn't appear to be the main priority. A new website, The future of waste in Hawke's Bay, asks citizens their opinion on options for treatment; it's all about landfill, with only passing mention of minimising waste at source.

Moreover, the first question Hastings and Napier councils want answered is: "What is more important to you: the cost of the project or reducing the impact on our environment?"

Say what? It's not a cost argument; it's an environmental necessity - and the less impact, the better.

Besides, anyone with experience in governance knows that if you don't want to do something, you ask the public whether they'll pay for it - because the answer, inevitably, is "no".

When I queried these points I was told the information "is intended as a starting point" for discussing waste management, and "the 'cost or environment' question is to try and tease out just where residents' priorities lie".

They're (not) joking. The "starting point" is not how to reduce packaging, or limit plastic bags, or invest in recycling options, or encourage home composting, but what to do after the waste arrives at landfill.

That in itself is a $50 million question, the councils say, that "must be answered this year". Well, the year's half gone and they've got the question backwards.

Instead, let's see some options about what to do with the material that generates the methane in the dump: organic waste.

Given we're a horticultural region generating an enormous amount of greenwaste, it's always struck me as extraordinary we have no facilities to make use of it. Napier used to run a composting scheme, but that's been discontinued; Hastings never has.

Isn't it timely for a Bay-wide scheme to be investigated? Including rural greenwaste: finding ways to stop all those orchard and vineyard burnoffs by turning the prunings into mulch, perhaps.

Are the councils conflicted? They make money from the charges levied and power generated at Omarunui - so less landfill waste directly impacts their cashflow. Yet the infrastructure is hardly cheap.

And while there may be good reduction and recycling initiatives going on, it's cart before horse to frame a discussion about waste around new landfill options.

That's the right of it.

Bruce Bisset is a freelance writer and poet.