We would like to take this opportunity to respond to misinformation given to you by representatives of Waste Management Inc. (Post Bag, April 29), the world 's largest waste disposal company, who has entered into a consulting agreement for waste disposal technology in Rayong.
Waste Management and its consultants suggest that "there have been only a handful of cases where significant violations of environmental regulations occurred". The reality is that Waste Management had more fines for environmental violations than any other company in the United States throughout 1980s. If, as citizens, any of us were to have on our records even half the number of violations of the law, nobody would do business with us. Indeed, we would probably be sitting in jail for life. However, because the company has used its significant legal resources to cover up and defend crimes and violations committed by company personnel, it is often difficult for public agencies, lacking in sufficient law enforcement resources, to "prove" major violations and win in a court of law. The result is usually that the agencies will settle for a lesser charge.
Proper enforcement of national laws against such a powerful company will likely be even more difficult in Thailand where the regulatory infrastructure will likely be less than that of a country like the United States.
Recently, it took an ex-employee to reveal that the company had illegally dumped PCBs at the edge of its Chicago incinerator property over a period of almost a decade. Waste Management had not previously notified authorities of the resulting contamination when it later attempted to sell the incinerator site. The incinerator had been shut down after numerous violations, including illegal handling of radioactive waste, lack of proper testing of incoming waste and other violations, including an explosion in the incinerator's kiln which shut it down.
There are too many cases of environmental and other malfeasance created by Waste Management to go into in the detail here, but it is provided in our 1991 report, "Waste Management Inc.: An Encyclopedia". Waste Management is correct in saying it hired O'Melveny & Myers, a law firm, to evaluate our report and we encourage you to read both side by side. Waste Management also sued the District Attorney of San Diego over a report he wrote which drew in large part from information provided by Greenpeace. The company did not sue Greenpeace. The suit against the District Attorney was dismissed recently.
Greenpeace is not the only group which has protested the company's activities. Numerous civil rights, community and other environmental justice organizations continue to oppose the company's activities around the world, This year the company was inducted into the Influence-Peddling Corporate "Hall of Shame" by INFACT, a Boston-based non-profit Organization which campaigns against unethical practices perpetrated by multinational corporations such as Waste Management.
While Waste Management may dispute particular facts in our booklength report on the firm, the essential nature of the company described in our report continues to be exhibited in the company's actions, despite a huge investment in public relations strategies used to misinform the Public and politicians and other important groups.
Greenpeace's main issue with Waste Management is not over how well it does its job, but the inherit obstacles to sustainability which the company's technologies create and promote. Despite rhetoric to the contrary, Waste Management's core business is in waste collection and disposal, not prevention and reprocessing of useful non-toxic materials. Profits from its core businesses -- the construction and operation of landfills and incinerators - are dependent on increased disposal of waste. Better alternatives, such as waste reduction, composting and recycling, cut into the company's profits, which gives them little incentive to pursue these as part of a public materials handling strategy.
Whether Waste Management's landfills will begin leaking soon after they open or decades after they close misses the point: All landfills eventually leak, and the consequences are irreversible. It is to the company's benefit to delay the inevitable since, in countries such as the US. it is not responsible for damage done 30 years after a dump has been closed.
The result of this very profitable business is a shell game where the company takes land from the public, pretends to care for it responsibly, and ultimately forces the public and future generations to assume the responsibility for the ultimate damage while the profits have been pocketed or invested elsewhere. In short, Waste Management Incorporated profits by passing poisons, along with the liability for the damage they will cause, from the present to future generations.
The question for Thailand is whether or not your beautiful country wishes to allow a company with one of the dirtiest of performance records to steer Thailand down an obsolete and discredited path of dumping and burning its wastes, rather than preventing them at source by phasing-out and disallowing the import of dirty technologies.
The latter choice is the direction towards which all progressive
countries
are now
turning. Greenpeace and many others stand ready to assist your country if
you choose
this sane and sustainable path, We are sure you agree that Thailand is too
good to waste.
Thilo Bodo,
Executive Director
Greenpeace International"
from BANGKOK POST (Thailand), July 3, 1996