Bozemanites live in the midst of a fascinating experiment in environmental economics. We are in the vortex of two colliding principles. First, trash flows downhill or downwind toward poverty, and second, economic systems evolve toward efficiency.

We are watching these forces play out at the Holcim Trident cement plant near Three Forks, Montana. Holcim Inc., a Swiss company, is one of the largest cement companies in the world. It operates plants and distribution facilities in 70 countries, and its 2004 revenue was over $10 billion. The Three Forks plant seeks to burn, initially, over a million scrap tires a year, about 3,000 tires a day.

They argue that burning tires as fuel simultaneously reduces operating costs and North America’s waste. Holcim can import scrap tires from other states and Canada more cheaply than coal, saving the plant $225,000 per year. Some states will even pay for the removal of their scrap tires, providing extra incentive for Holcim to switch fuels.

Tire-derived fuel (TDF) offers a lower-cost energy alternative to traditional fossil fuels. Fewer raw materials are mined, tires are kept out of landfills, and CO2 emissions are reduced. While other forms of tire recycling exist, TDF is, by far, the number one application. Holcim’s 2002 application for a permit to burn tires has been put on hold until the Montana Department of Environmental Quality issues an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).

Many locals oppose tire burning, especially in their own back yards. Bozeman is a wealthy, Green, well-educated community hosting several dozen environmental groups. We are not hapless, poor victims with nowhere to turn -- remember the first principle above. We are no longer a colonial economy where the Company and the Power can operate with impunity.

Montanans Against Toxic Burning is a Bozeman-based, grassroots volunteer organization that strongly opposes Holcim’s plan. Despite the fact that the members each have their own jobs and family obligations, they have constructed an extensive website, www.notoxicburning.org, prompt numerous newspaper editorials and opinion letters, and consult with Governor Schweitzer to push for further environmental impact analysis of Holcim’s TDF proposal.

According to MATB, a vast majority of local physicians share their concerns about the health impacts of TDF emissions. Tires contain rubber, chlorine, and up to 17 different metals. These metals include lead, zinc, and arsenic, which can pollute soil and water sources. If ingested in sufficient concentrations, they can cause learning disabilities, birth defects, and cancer. Furthermore, chlorinated materials produce dioxin, a highly toxic pollutant. The plant, which was not designed to burn tires, is located on the banks of the headwaters of the Missouri River, and upwind of Bozeman.

MATB also worries about Holcim’s compliance with air quality standards. In 2002, the plant experienced numerous malfunctions that caused uncontrolled emissions during 500 hours, or 6 percent of its operating time. The EPA considers anything over 5 percent a serious problem. Furthermore, Montanans don’t scrap nearly enough tires to fuel the plant. By importing tires, Holcim would convert the Gallatin Valley into a dumpsite for other states and Western Canada.

Consider an economic perspective. Market systems migrate toward efficiency. Holcim, therefore, is following a natural path as it seeks cheaper fuel and higher returns.

Wealthy, sensitive, mobilized Bozeman may keep Holcim from achieving this narrow efficiency. Few towns are so fortunate. Recall Libby, Montana, where the vermiculite mine turned into an environmental and economic nightmare. Libby was not in a position to protect itself and received scant help from the EPA. Property values plunged, asbestosis rates were 60 times the national average, and many residents moved away.

I know trash normally slides downhill toward poverty; rarely does it gravitate toward wealth. Unfortunately for Holcim, Bozeman is downwind. Even if the company’s safety claims are well founded, many are worried about this pollution.

This concern produces a genuine loss of well-being, especially considered in the context of Montana’s sorry history of corporate exploitation. Fear and our heightened environmental sensitivity drive opposition. In this situation, correct information is scarce; it is also risky for the two highly polarized opponents. Unless the EIS validates either side’s claims, uncertainty, not sound science, will govern debate.