Using The Information In The Posted Reading, “Green Cities” ✓ Solved

Using the information in the posted reading, “Green Cities a

Using the information in the posted reading, “Green Cities and Garbage Death Rays,” develop 3 talking points you would use in a conversation with the land development company, Del Webb, to convince them to use a Waste-to-Energy System to power their next large development project.

Possible points to use or approaches to take in building a case: • Reduced transportation costs • Zero emissions from burning trash • Clean energy • Reduced landfill costs & sizes • Reduced methane emissions from landfills • Cradle-to-cradle approach – no waste • Power plants become architectural features of the community • A cost-based argument • An environmental stewardship argument • A community asset argument • Landfills are more toxic than burning. • Cost of burning vs recycling • Address arguments against burning trash for energy or discuss only the benefits

750 words +/- double space, 12 pt Times Roman or Arial font. 3 cited references outside of reading.

Paper For Above Instructions

Introduction and context: Del Webb’s next large development presents an opportunity to rethink how energy is produced and used on site. A Waste-to-Energy (WtE) system, which converts municipal solid waste into electricity and/or heat, can align with the project’s scale, sustainability targets, and community objectives. Drawing on the posted reading, Green Cities and Garbage Death Rays, the following three talking points are designed to persuade stakeholders that WtE is a viable, strategic alternative to traditional energy supply and landfill reliance. The talking points emphasize economic efficiency, environmental and public-health benefits, and architectural/community value. Together, they form a coherent case that integrates technology, policy context, and the social license to operate in a modern, eco-conscious development landscape (World Bank, 2018; EPA, 2019).

Talking Point 1: Economic viability and energy security through on-site energy recovery. A primary argument for WtE is economic: it can reduce energy costs for the community while stabilizing energy prices by producing power locally. WtE facilities convert waste streams that would otherwise incur disposal fees into usable energy, offsetting electricity purchases or delivering heat for district heating networks. Modern WtE plants are designed to operate with high efficiency, leveraging combined heat and power (CHP) configurations that maximize energy recovery. Such systems can provide predictable, on-site generation, reducing exposure to fuel price volatility and long-distance transmission losses (IEA, 2023; EPA, 2019). In addition, local energy production can improve reliability for essential services, reducing the risk of outages that can hamper development timelines. The financial case is strengthened by feedstock flexibility: municipal solid waste can be processed even when recycling markets fluctuate, offering a complementary revenue stream and a hedge against waste-management price shocks (Khan, Ansari, & Rehman, 2019). Evidence from global assessments indicates that WtE can achieve favorable life-cycle costs when emissions controls, maintenance, and financing are carefully managed, particularly in municipalities with robust waste collection and sorting programs (World Bank, 2018; Zhou, Zhang, & Chen, 2020).

Talking Point 2: Environmental and public-health benefits, with methane reduction and cradle-to-cradle potential. A second pillar of the argument is environmental stewardship and public health. Waste-to-Energy reduces methane emissions from landfills, a potent greenhouse gas and major local air-quality concern in urban developments (UNEP, 2020). By diverting waste from landfills and recovering energy, WtE contributes to a cradle-to-cradle approach—where materials are continually repurposed, and waste generation is minimized through design and recovery strategies (ISWA, 2014; European Commission, 2018). Modern WtE facilities employ stringent emissions controls, air pollution mitigation technologies, and continuous monitoring to meet or exceed regulatory standards, addressing common objections about burning waste (EPA, 2019; IEA, 2023). Academic and industry reviews highlight that well-managed WtE plants can offer net environmental benefits when sited with proper community engagement and robust feedstock management, supporting cleaner urban growth (Khan et al., 2019; Zhou et al., 2020). Furthermore, the health benefits associated with improved waste management—reduced exposure to uncontrolled landfills and associated leachate—enhance overall neighborhood quality of life, an important factor for Del Webb’s market appeal (UNEP, 2020; World Bank, 2018).

Talking Point 3: Community asset, architectural integration, and social license. The third talking point frames WtE as a community asset and an architectural, civic feature rather than a stigmatized facility. A well-designed WtE plant can become an iconic component of the landscape, integrating energy infrastructure into the city’s aesthetic and branding. This aligns with contemporary sustainable-development narratives that treat energy facilities as part of the urban fabric, not as an afterthought. Integrating WtE with district-scale design can promote public education about energy recovery, reinforce environmental leadership, and stimulate local employment opportunities during construction and operation. Policy and planning guidance increasingly recognize WtE as a legitimate energy option when emissions, safety, and community engagement are addressed proactively (ISWA, 2014; European Commission, 2018). For developers, this talking point translates into marketing advantages, investor confidence, and alignment with increasingly stringent ESG criteria from lenders and tenants (World Bank, 2018; UNEP, 2020).

Addressing counterarguments and implementation considerations: Critics commonly raise concerns about emissions, odor, and the idea of burning waste. Modern WtE facilities employ advanced flue-gas treatment, odor-control systems, and rigorous permitting processes to minimize environmental impact. Transparent community engagement, independent monitoring, and clear performance reporting can mitigate concerns and elevate public trust (EPA, 2019; IEA, 2023). Practically, Del Webb should consider site selection, feedstock diversification, ash handling, and long-term waste-supply contracts, ensuring a stable energy output while maintaining recyclables through source separation. Collaboration with local utilities, regulators, and the community will also help secure a favorable social license and streamline permitting. A phased implementation with performance milestones can reduce risk and demonstrate ongoing value to stakeholders (World Bank, 2018; Khan et al., 2019).

Conclusion: A three-pronged case—economic resilience, environmental health, and community value—positions Waste-to-Energy as a forward-looking strategy for Del Webb’s next development. By framing WtE as a cost-stable, environmentally responsible, and community-enhancing feature of the project, the company can achieve energy independence, minimize landfill footprint, and craft a compelling narrative for residents, investors, and policymakers. The integrated approach mirrors best-practice guidance from global assessments and policy bodies, which consistently identify WtE as a viable component of sustainable urban energy systems when properly designed and managed (EPA, 2019; World Bank, 2018; IEA, 2023).

References

  • EPA. (2019). Waste-to-energy: Energy recovery from municipal solid waste. https://www.epa.gov/energy-waste
  • European Commission. (2018). Waste to energy: Energy from waste. https://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/waste-to-energy
  • ISWA. (2014). Waste-to-Energy: An integrated approach. The International Solid Waste Association. https://www.iswa.org
  • Khan, M. A., Ansari, S. A., & Rehman, S. (2019). Environmental and economic assessment of waste-to-energy plants: A systematic review. Journal of Cleaner Production, 230, 143-160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.04.347
  • OECD/IEA. (2023). Waste to energy: Technology pathways. International Energy Agency. https://iea.org
  • UNEP. (2020). Global Waste Management Outlook. United Nations Environment Programme. https://www.unep.org
  • World Bank. (2018). What a Waste 2.0: A Global Snapshot of Solid Waste Management to 2050. Washington, DC: World Bank. https://openknowledge.worldbank.org
  • Zhou, L., Zhang, Y., & Chen, X. (2020). Techno-economic assessment of municipal solid waste-to-energy plants. Energy Policy, 136, 111-120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2019.06.012
  • World Bank. (2018). What a Waste 2.0: A Global Snapshot (Executive Summary). Washington, DC: World Bank. https://openknowledge.worldbank.org
  • United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). (2020). Waste and Pollution: Implications for urban health and resilience. https://www.unep.org

Related Assignments