CHANGE MY LOCATION
Local
California News
Multimedia News
Carroll votes to build waste incinerator
SEE THE LATEST ON THIS STORY
Related Topics: BALTIMORE
BALTIMORE (Map, News) - Carroll commissioners voted 2-1 Thursday to move forward with a plan to build a waste incinerator with neighbor Frederick County despite some residents’ health and recycling concerns.
The $320 million incinerator would be the state’s fourth waste-to-energy incinerator and the first built since 1995, when Montgomery County opened its facility.
Commissioner Dean Minnich said the decision was more time-consuming than any other in the six years he’s served on the board. He was encouraged that each side acknowledged the others’ points, but the process included accusations at times of dirty politicking and heated public hearings.
“I see waste-to-energy as a transitional tool for the future,” Minnich said. “I see a much different world 45 years from now. At least I hope we have a much better world.”
All commissioners wanted to improve efforts to get residents to recycle.
Many people tried to turn the debate over the incinerator into a decision for or against recycling, Minnich said, but the county can have both.
He and Commissioner Michael Zimmer voted in favor of the incinerator; Commissioner Julia Gouge voted against it.
Gouge said that the county has not given recycling a chance, and if residents know that they can burn their garbage instead of recycling it, they are just going to throw it away.
She said she was worred that the county is only now looking at other counties’ and states’ successful recycling systems “but we’re making a decision anyway.”
“We’re not a leader in recycling and we can learn from someone else,” Gouge said. “We have not given the education to our citizens.”
Residents opposed to the incinerator were disappointed with the vote.
“It’s a long process,” said Sandra Wright, an incinerator opponent from Westminster. “I think, or at least hope, that there’s evidence that will come up to stop it [the incinerator]. At least it seems like they’re making a commitment to recycling.”
msilvestri@baltimoreexaminer.com
Comments from Examiner Readers
8:35 AM MST on Tue., Sep. 30, 2008 re: "Recycling now mandatory in county buildings"
Report as inappropriate
10:03 PM MST on Fri., Jun. 13, 2008
re: "Recycling center closing due to dumping"
Report as inappropriate
2:09 PM MST on Fri., Jun. 13, 2008
re: "Recycling center closing due to dumping"
Report as inappropriate
10:13 AM MST on Fri., Jun. 13, 2008
re: "Recycling center closing due to dumping"
Report as inappropriate
5:09 AM MST on Mon., Apr. 14, 2008
re: "Recycling stressed as alternative to incinerator in Carroll"
Report as inappropriate
4:01 AM MST on Mon., Apr. 14, 2008
re: "Recycling stressed as alternative to incinerator in Carroll"
Report as inappropriate
3:49 AM MST on Mon., Apr. 14, 2008
re: "Recycling stressed as alternative to incinerator in Carroll"
Report as inappropriate
2:38 PM MST on Thu., Apr. 10, 2008
re: "Ulman eyes raising trash collection fee"
Report as inappropriate
4:06 PM MST on Fri., Mar. 14, 2008
re: "‘Paper police’ creating a furor in hunt for delinquent recyclers"
Report as inappropriate
1:29 PM MST on Wed., Feb. 20, 2008
re: "Panel disputes claim that incinerator increases recycling"
Report as inappropriate
10:34 AM MST on Tue., Jan. 22, 2008
re: "New fees may be introduced to encourage recycling"
Report as inappropriate
7:46 PM MST on Thu., Aug. 23, 2007
re: "Recycling now mandatory in county buildings"
Report as inappropriate
8:53 AM MST on Thu., Aug. 23, 2007
re: "Recycling now mandatory in county buildings"
Report as inappropriate
5:55 AM MST on Mon., Jul. 16, 2007
re: "Harford residents recycle the most in the state"
Report as inappropriate
Paull Ventor said:
With Kentucky choosing Agresti Biofuels to turn the Residues from Municipal Sold Waste into the Transport fuel Ethanol it seems that there needs to be a real competition in Carroll to go for something different which is by far a much better option than incinerating waste. Wake up to the New World and move forwards with the times.
1 agree | 0 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
Who are you kidding, re education. You are dealing with a different clientile in Randallstown then was there only 15 years ago, there in lie your problem. You can close that center all you want to, THEY will continue to left trash on the location. Then when THEY are made to stop doing that THEY will leave it somewhere else for the county to clean up. Put a fork in NW Baltimore County
1 agree | 1 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
so now the county closes the recycling center and what will these people get when they call bureau of waste management, I'll tell you they will get the number of a comercial recycler who will charge them for picking up their stuff, so resident pays and county can avoid the hassle, why not just dump it out on the road and let the county decide what to do with then, since they don't want to make it convenient or take the time to secure the center or supervise it properly doesn't have the problem nor does the Timonium center soooooooo......
0 agree | 1 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
This is how some people mess things up for everyone. Save your time on the re-education. Some people never learn.
4 agree | 1 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
It's better to use waste for energy that it is to use food for energy. The environmentalist driven decision to use ethanol, made from corn, for fuel is rapidly causing food shortages around the world and higher prices here. Global warming is another lie from the environmentalist. Real science, not poorly written computer models, is showing that global warming is caused by changes in the suns output and not CO2. I used to think recycling was a good idea but because more and more stuff being pushed by environmentalist is being proven to be a bad idea or scam I now have doubts that recycling is doing an good either. Build the waste to energy power plant. I will kill two birds with one stone. It gets rid of trash and gives us needed energy. How can you go wrong. Montgomery cty. has on and it has been a success. None of the scare stories from the environmentalist have come true there either. Environmentalist have gone from being a good idea to radical religious nuts and need to be stopped.
8 agree | 4 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
Even if everything that could be recycled was there would still be waste. We also still need energy. What better source for fuel is there than garbage. No one wants it. People will pay you to take it. We will never run out. It has to go somewhere. Why not use it for energy. Waste to energy is a win win situation. You can also ignore any concerns about global warming because that has been proven to be a big lie being pushed by those who stand to make a profit from it, like Al Gore. Mother nature has come out as the biggest denier of GW. Earth temperature has dropped for the past 10 years without spending a dime on it. Build the plant and use the waste from the environmentalist to run it.
9 agree | 3 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
More power needed said:
Real scientist don't anticipate much effect from carbon dioxide at all, much less "increasingly critical". Atmospheric carbon dioxide's greenhouse effect is logarithmic-the first half of pre-Industrial Revolution-level effect was achieved by less than 20 parts per million, then needing the addition of 250 ppmv more to achieve the same warming increment to reach pre-IR effect and it will take a massive increase to repeat the dose again. (The "how much" depends on total sensitivity estimates but, utilizing A Field Guide to the Atmosphere (Houghton, 1983)'s commonly cited 7 K greenhouse effect for 300 ppmv (presumably from Kondratyev & Moskalenko but the origin of this common figure is obscure) then quadrupling pre-IR levels to 1120 ppmv can deliver a mere 1.71 K warming in total -- since there's already alleged to have been 0.7 K that leaves just 1 kelvin potential for adding another 740 ppmv to the current 380 ppmv.) Now Becker can read something disputing the GW scam. Build the pla
6 agree | 1 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
Tax and spend. Typical Ulman. What happened to the surplus he promised us? If he had solutions as creative as his resume, we wouldn't have this problem. A "Secretary of the Cabinet" should know better.
5 agree | 1 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
It's probably impossible to practically do, but what if they billed for waste collection based on the amounts and kinds of waste a site produced? Let people do whatever they want with their waste, as long as they pay for it.
3 agree | 4 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Robin said:
The math doesn't work. Incinerators recover ferrous and non-ferrous metals (engine parts, aluminum foil, bicycle frames, coins, etc.) which can't be recycled in a curbside program. That means more wastes are recycled, not less.
30 agree | 47 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Alarm Dude said:
When styrofoam recycling comes, I'll know they're serious about waste stream reduction. This is coming from a dude that usually puts out full composting and recycling containers, and only 1/2 full trash. Take my styrofoam, and I'm down another 30 to 50%...
53 agree | 49 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
William Cooke said:
Recycling is a scam.
155 agree | 155 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
Recycling should be mandatory throughout the country not only in offices but everywhere else and especially at home. I always look for recycle bins when I'm out and am amazed at how few there are.
195 agree | 152 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Hampstead said:
Provide a better bin to place recyclables in. That smaill blue bin will only hold a small amount of what most households generate.
181 agree | 165 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree