Reiter stated, "Rationalizing construction of a new incinerator is 'inevitable' in the face of New York's garbage crisis is to completely betray our city's recycling program. Rather than dismiss recycling as 'inadequate,' Mayor Dinkins, why not push our existing program to its limits? New York City's government should itself pursue a widespread, aggressive recycling plan to limit office waste and encourage recycling. And if the city government has difficulties finding buyers for the recycled good recovered through the program, why not use them itself?"
In his time as mayor, Dinkins has always promoted incinerators as a first resort, rather than a last resort. He initially attempted to suspend the recycling program; failing that, he succeeded in halting a previously planned expansion of the program. His Administration's recycling timetable is so slow that only half of New York City conducts any recycling at all. New York City has failed to meet established recycling goals as set forth in Local Law 19, and our overall recycling percentage declined 27% between 1990 and 1991.
Large-scale waste reduction and aggressive recycling are more effective, safer and cheaper alternatives to incinerators. The proposed Brooklyn Navy Yard incinerator is estimated to cost $550 million to build, and the Sanitation Department's own estimate of its operating costs over a decade has surged 355% since initial approval in 1985. Financial considerations aside, incinerators are not an environmentally sound option: thirty percent of the waste must still be disposed of as ash.
Incinerators also have a devastating impact on air quality; the Brooklyn Navy Yard plant is expected to spew forth into our air over 160 tons of particulate, 65 tons of hydrocarbons, 2,972 tons of nitrogen dioxide, 1,188 tons of sulfur dioxide, 368 tons of carbon monoxide, 27 tons of zinc, 14 tons of lead, and five tons of mercury each year.
Opposition to the mayor's plan ranges from the City's Comptroller's office to the City Council President's office to deep within the City Council, from Brooklyn community groups to a host of environmental activists. If Mayor Dinkins cannot be persuaded of the ecological damage caused by incinerators, perhaps he can realize the political threat they pose.
"What Dinkins is attempting to do is pit community against community. No matter how this 'compromise' plan is structured, aiming to win the support of Queens and Staten Island councilmembers by concentrating incinerators in Brooklyn, there are no guarantees that future incinerators will not be proposed for these other boroughs," Reiter continued. "To allow incineration to gain dominance in New York City's waste management program is sheer folly, for air pollution knows no boundaries."
President Bush cited "financial burden" to American small and mid-range businesses as a factor influencing his decision to oppose the bill; this reasoning is flawed. The emergencies and situations that would allow an employee, under such a law, to take an unpaid leave of absence are not minor; they are serious situations that result in a great deal of stress and worry, if not emotional turmoil. It is better for business to have employees operating under such conditions? is it better to force such individuals to work, with such distractions lowering productivity? Businesses throughout the world provide comprehensive medical leave policies, to their profit. American business must recognize what its foreign competition knows: the rational for the Family and Medical Leave Act is not merely social, but economic as well.
This election year, President Bush has attempted to hang the albatross of his failure to lead on Congress. With this veto, he continues that trend, suggesting that the passage of the Family and Medical Leave Act was timed to embarrass him and paint him as insensitive to working families. This is untrue. The bill is a bipartisan measure with a wide range of support, a high-profile issue within the mainstream of American public opinion. Bush himself promised in the 1988 presidential campaign to enact such measures. The only one choosing to embarrass the president is himself.
President Bush insists that America's workers must rely on the private sector, not government, to provide them with flexible leave options, affordable day-care centers, decent wages and a safe working environment. "Four years after a 'thousand points of light,' in the grip of a recession, American families are forced to secure these benefits all alone," stated Liberal Party State Chair Fran Reiter. "It is imperative that the House of Representatives override the veto. President Bush must realize that he cannot preach civic responsibility to the American public while holding the private sector to a lower standard."