Zero waste is ‘better’ than land-filling

When comparing two types of waste disposal schemes in China, zero waste is more suitable than land-filling on the surface. Land-filling is used in many countries, but it is dangerous. Burying the rubbish does not mean it disappear, but exists deep underground. The poisons in waste can spread out through the underground water as well as the earth. Zero waste aims to recycle the waste and reuse it, which is turn waste to treasure. If there is no waste, no pollution will be caused by waste. This is the reason for zero waste to environmental friendly. Land-filling is very costly. Government need to invest a lot of money to bury the solid rubbish produced every day. But zero waste is a new way to reuse waste and make the waste into ‘resource’, which can create business opportunities and employment for people. From the two aspects above, zero waste is definitely good for every country. But facts are a little different. Zero waste is difficult to achieve and it is more costly to design to make full use of raw materials. For many developing countries like China, land-filling is much cheaper than zero waste. Only these developed countries who realize the environment is more valuable will invest large amount of money to develop the zero waste system. Many developing countries just do not have that much of money to invest the environment. Even though it sounds good to have zero waste, it is not applicable in my country.