Cedar Grove: Composting Backlash

image retrieved from http://www.cedar-grove.com/

Going green is good and all, but at what cost? That seems to be a general theme around the media coverage of Cedar Grove Composting and the odors associated with their two Washington state facilities. The reporting is fairly scrupulous and informative, but there is much more weight given to the conflict between the parties than to the positive effects that the composting has had. This unequal attention, while interesting to the average uninformed reader, could cast doubt on the viability of recycling programs such as composting.

Consider this Associated Press article by Phuong Le. The first paragraph notes that 90,000 tons of Seattle’s food waste was diverted from landfills thanks to Cedar Grove. But that is the last mention of a positive impact on the environment unless it is coupled with controversy, such as this quote the article includes, "They reduce our garbage rate because of all the organics they take out of the stream," said state Rep. Hans Dunshee, D-Snohomish. "On the other side, we can’t have overwhelming smell driving people out of their houses."

The rest of the article is devoted to the back and forth arguments between Cedar Grove and the neighboring communities. Cedar Grove has fought many of the complaints and fines on the basis of unproven odor trails and the fact that they have spent millions in odor prevention. The opposing side, comprised of residential home owners and the mayor of Marysville, claim Cedar Grove is shirking responsibility and needs to do more.

The sensationalism Le gives to the schism ("A community group calling itself "Citizens for a Smell Free Snohomish County" is also raising a stink.") could have the negative impact of implying there is a larger schism between benefits and detriments to composting, and recycling programs in general.

A Seattle-Times article by Keith Ervin closely resembles the outline of the AP reporting. In its introduction it notes, "Cedar Grove Composting’s plants in Maple Valley and Everett have been hugely successful in diverting 344,000 tons of waste a year from landfills and turning it into a popular gardening product."

But like the AP reporting, this is about all we get in terms of positive environmental impact from composting. There is no mention of how much methane emissions are reduced by composting food scraps as opposed to burying them in landfills. And the benefits of recycling organic compounds back into the soil are glossed over.

image retrieved from http://www.gardeningchannel.com/

It is pretty easy to question the viability of composting when the lion’s share of attention is about how many odor complaints the company has received or how many thousands of dollars they have been fined.

However, one thing this Seattle-Times article does better than the AP is it looks into possible outcomes of this problem, such as the installation of more advanced composting equipment or the prospect of moving the facility to a more remote site.

There is a little coverage of this story in local television news, but not much. This segment from Q13 Fox News feels very sparse. We know of television’s constraints such as little space and time available, but this reporting lacks any visual impact—television’s strong suit.

 
video retrieved from http://www.q13.com/

None of this reporting cited can be considered as bad in itself. The information is accurate and both sides of the odor debate are given about equal representation. But it’s the framing that gives rise to the shortcomings of this coverage. Controversy is a major attraction of readers. Can we really expect a reporter under deadline and with the burden of attracting the average person to embark on a scientific investigation? Is it that surprising that media, who are tasked with increasing readership and therefore ad revenue, would exploit controversy?

Whatever the answer, the potentially negative impact of this coverage remains. Are the uninformed readers of these articles going to question the validity of recycling food waste? Or is this story easily dismissed as the failings of one particular company and is not emblematic of an entire industry?