Nowadays, various methods have been developed to encounter waste problem. The two finest method are the incinerator method and "zero waste" approach. While the incinerator method is burning the waste to make it vanishes, the zero waste method is recycling the waste into something useful (Collins, J.,2002). In many aspects, environmental and economical, zero waste is more beneficial than the incinerator method. Therefore, every country should adept the zero waste method.
Actually, both incinerating and recycling need a considerable amount of energy. However, recycling process produces useful materials which can be sold to cover the cost. On the other hand, incinerating does not produce anything useful. This means the cost needed for the incinerating process have to be supplied by the government. Therefore, financially, zero waste is better.
In addition, zero waste approach also brings an enormous benefit to the environment. Although it also produces pollution, it reduces significantly the need to exploit the environment. Paper, for instance, which are made from trees, are example of a recyclable material. By recycling papers, less trees need to be cut. Incineration, on the other hand, does not bring any benefit for the environment.
However, "no tusk have no crack", one of the zero waste cutbacks is the difficulties in encouraging the society to help by separating the waste according to their type, for example, plastic from paper or organic material. Although it is hard, with perseverance this problem can be overcome.
In conclusion, despite of the difficulties to apply zero waste method, it is still better than incineration both financially and economically. Thus, every country should try to develop this method.