61 pages • 2 hours read
Jeanne Marie LaskasA modern alternative to SparkNotes and CliffsNotes, SuperSummary offers high-quality Study Guides with detailed chapter summaries and analysis of major themes, characters, and more.
In this last section, Laskas shadows the workers at the Puente Hills Landfill in California. She describes the daily operations of the landfill: trash is taken to one of three “cell[s]” each “about the size of a football field” (284), bulldozers push the trash into rows, and then “mighty Bomags, 120,000-pound compacters […], smash and crunch and squish the trash, forcing out air, forcing it tighter and tighter to save space” (284). When a cell reaches capacity, scrapers come in and cover the trash with dirt, “sealing in odors, rats, bugs, concealing the leftovers of a yesterday everyone is more than ready to be done with” (284). Next, water trucks spray down the dirt to keep dust under control, while human paper pickers secure anything that “the wind might pick up and try to carry away,” especially plastic grocery bags (285).
Puente Hills has been used a landfill since the 1960s, when it was still a “series of canyons.” Now, “it’s a mountain,” which will reach capacity in November 2013. Laskas shadows Herman, who drives a “tractor-trailer full of trash assigned to him each day” (277). Herman, like many of the workers Laskas has met, loves his job, and is not looking forward to retirement.
She also goes into the landfill proper, and rides in a Bomag with Mike “Big Mike” Speiser “the most famous Bomag driver at the landfill, and some say in the world” (287). Mike won a prize at the Solid Waste Association of North America’s International Road-E-O in “agility and speed” (287). She is terrified in the Bomag, and he admits that a “lot of guys [he] train[s] cry their first couple of weeks” (289).
She also tours the landfill with Joe Haworth, an environmental engineer, who talks to her about the problems of waste management and the innovative ways they’ve devised to deal with trash and its attendant problems. For example, one major problem is seagulls, which often carry trash away to other parts of the neighborhood, as well as leachate, the liquid that is produced by the rotting trash in the landfill.
In addition to solving these problems, engineers like Haworth have also been able to find innovative uses for trash. For instance, decomposing trash produces gas, which is then pumped to a “Gas-to-Energy Facility” and “generates fifty-eight megawatts of electricity—enough to power about seventy thousand Southern California homes” (283). Laskas points out to Joe that few people know that landfill gas can be used to produce electricity; if people think of landfills at all, it is as dirty, smelly, environmentally unfriendly eyesores—all the things Puente Hills is not.
Joe explains, “society’s interest level” in waste management is “pretty low. It doesn’t necessarily want to know where its waste goes. It’s embarrassed by its responsibility in this arena” (284). Joe, however, and others like him are tasked with this responsibility, not just to hide the landfill, hide the waste, but to find ways to make it work for us. Waste management is complex, but that complexity represents progress.
Prior to the twentieth century, communities burned their trash or threw their trash in the ocean. It wasn’t until the 1960s that people began to be concerned about pollution, and engineers tried to devise solutions for “a planet choking on its own debris” (293). Joe thinks of pollution as “the wrong stuff in the wrong place at the wrong time. Any other time, it’s a resource” (295-96), and engineers continue to explore solutions to make the waste generated by modern society into a resource. Puente Hills itself will become a park, “a place for people to play” (303).
Trash coming into Puente Hills after it closes will go to the Puente Hill Material Recovery Facility, “where they’ll sort the trash, save and sell the good stuff” (308), with the rest “put in sealed boxcars and delivered to […] a super-landfill said to last a hundred years” (303). Laskas finds this “depressing,” symbolic of America’s rampant consumerism, but Joe points out again the need to see trash as not a problem, but as inevitable. Furthermore, he doesn’t think this is “a uniquely American or even modern phenomenon” (310) as much as it represents how young humanity is on the scale of things.
Joe truly believes that one day, humans will figure out how to get to a “[z]ero waste” state, which might start with having to rein in “our gluttony” but will ultimately happen because, he argues, “[p]eople are basically good-hearted until put in a very bad corner” (312). Joe’s optimism is infectious, and Laskas ends the chapter with Joe pointing out that human beings are composed of molecules that came from space, that “we’re stardust literally […]. We are atomic waste!” (315).
This section brings the entire text full circle: Laskas begins this journey underneath the earth and ends it by considering the planet as a whole. She even notes that “[t]he problem of trash (and sewage, its even more offensive cousin) is the upside-down version of the problem of fossil fuel: too much of one thing, not enough of the other” (280). Fittingly, this section contains elements common to many of the other sections. For example, much like with the coal miners and the air traffic controllers, Laskas focuses on a sense of camaraderie, of community that stems not only from the way the workers at the landfill interact, but also from those like Joe who work to solve the problem presented by trash. These people care not just for the communities where they work, but for the country, even the planet, as a whole.
Similarly, Laskas explores a job, much like with the migrant farm workers and cowboys on the ranch, that other Americans ignore or would not want to do; she is surprised all over again to find people who love their jobs: Herman who loves to drive the trucks full of trash, and Carol “who works the front gate and greets all the truckers who come in” (307) and writes poetry while doing so.
She also explores many misconceptions about waste management. She declares her “biggest surprise” is to “hear so many people speak of enjoying nature as part of the landfill experience” (307). In fact, Laskas’s preconceptions about the American problem of trash are marked by her own political views almost as much as they were in the section on the gun store. She clearly, at first, sees the landfill as symbolic of failure, of America’s problem with conspicuous consumption, a culture that doesn’t care enough about other cultures to control itself.
For instance, at the beginning of the chapter, she admits that to think about “the fact that nearly fifty years of trash forms a foundation four hundred feet deep is simply to become fretful with some unnamed woe about America’s past and the planet’s future […]” (278). Even after touring the landfill and riding with Herman and Mike, Laskas thinks “[t]his is ridiculous. This is a lot to go through so people can continue living in denial, as if our trash has some magical way of just vanishing” (290), and thinks of the work these men do as trying to “[m]ake the landfill disappear by making it look pretty” (282).
However, whereas in the section on Sprague’s Sports she never quite understands the views of the people she meets, try as she might, she clearly comes to admire those who work in the landfill and wants the reader to do the same.
To impart this view of the landfill as something that is not “stinky and gooey and gross” (279), she once again provides a deep and dynamic picture of one person: Joe Haworth. Ironically, unlike in other sections where she occasionally romanticizes the workers she meets, in this case she must learn to see trash as romantically as does Joe. Indeed, though no one would confuse an environmental engineer with a flower child of the sixties, in essence, that is exactly what Joe is. He tells her of the “exciting stuff” (294) that drove him in his studies—his desire to change the world, a desire that has not faded.
In fact, Joe is a joyous person, and that joy is infectious. Laskas helps the reader to see this by presenting a picture of Joe and his wife discussing deep, philosophical ideas over dinner; they “get tangled in notions, in thinking about what it would be like if there were no more people on earth, in trying to remember the names of types of frogs, or the names of saints, until one of them has to run inside and get a book to look it up” (314). Indeed, Joe’s declaration that “we’re stardust” comes straight out of Woodstock, literally—Crosby, Stills, Nash, and Young’s classic song entitled “Woodstock:” “We are stardust/We are golden/And we’ve got to get ourselves/Back to the garden.”
This section seems to shake off the unease of the section on guns and beef, and the deep grief over TooDogs and her parents, and returns her to the spirit of inquiry and curiosity with which she began the project. It is a fitting culmination to a project that began with her trying to discover Hidden America, leaving the reader with the idea that there is more to be discovered about these people who are “stardust” and “golden,” all of them in some way trying to get “back to the garden.”