Wastes are produced when we dispose of items by any means. Then these wastes have to be cleared either by the ‘zero waste’, incineration or landfilling method. Usually incineration of wastes and landfilling work hand in hand as waste ashes produced during incineration are mostly sent for land filling. In ‘zero wastes’ method waste products are reused or recycled into profitable resources. Yet in some cases during ‘zero wasting’ when wastes are unable to be reused or recycled, the incineration method is employed. The advantages of the ‘zero waste’ method are reduced depletion of natural resources, reduced pollution and reduction of space use by treatment plants. The only disadvantage is that the cost of maintaining and operating the plant is high. The only advantage for the incineration method is the treatment of wastes is inexpensive and can be easily done. The disadvantages are it depletes natural resource, causes pollution and takes up too much space in disposing of the ashes. Therefore, if I can consider which method to be employed in Singapore, I would consider the ‘zero waste’ method due to these reasons: land size, natural resources and environment.
Firstly, Singapore has limited land. If an incineration method is employed as the main way to clear wastes, one day there will be no more land available for development and we will have to stay in an environment full of waste ashes. Since all humans have to breathe, we will face problem like getting those ashes or flue gases into our lung. In the end we face serious health problem. On other hand, if we follow the ‘zero waste’ method the problem mentioned above will be greatly reduced.
Secondly, Singapore has no natural resources. Since the ‘zero waste’ method enables us to reuse or recycle waste into profitable resource, we will be less dependence on importing more outside resources. This will make Singapore less vulnerable to resource cut off from other countries.
Lastly, the ‘zero waste’ method is more environment friendly than incineration method. As fewer natural resources will be excavated, cause mostly the resources are recycled and reused. In addition, this method reduced pollution because less burning is done compared to the incineration method.
In the nutshell, in Singapore ‘zero waste’ method should be preferred compare to incineration method.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
quite detailed. but i think you should make the comparison to be more clearer.
Thank you for working so hard on this, Tsyr Harn! It is much improved.
However, your lingering verb problems are going to drive me crazy! Check this example out:
"In the nutshell, in Singapore ‘zero waste’ method should be prefer compare to incineration method."
Do you see the problem?
Hi Tsyr Harn,
Detailed content=)
Yup, I totally agree with you that in Singapore's context, with the limitation in land space, the use of Zero waste scheme should be highly recommended.
Nice post=)
In the long run, I think the running cost for zero waste will be comparable to incinerator. Since Singapore don't really have the money problem, it's definitely a better choice to be implemented here.
The zero waste system is suitable to be impoemented in Singapore. But, It would take time for the Government to educate the people and to implement an effective scheme for this method of waste management.
Post a Comment