2009 0328 platt frederick_wasteexpo
DESCRIPTION
TRANSCRIPT
Recycling Makes $en$e
Brenda Platt Institute for Local Self-Reliance
presented at
Waste Not! Expo Frederick, Maryland
March 28, 2009
Wasting Trend in U.S.
0
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
1960
1962
1964
1966
1968
1970
1972
1974
1976
1978
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
Thou
sand
s of
tons
Composting Recycling Disposal
U.S. huge contributor
4.6% of global population Consume one-third of Earth’s timber and paper Generate 22% of global CO2 emissions Produce 30% of world’s waste
U.S. GHG Emissions
6.2
7.2
9.7
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
1990 2005 2030
giga
tons
CO
2 eq
.
The Wasteberg
For every ton of municipal trash, 71 tons of waste are produced during manufacturing, mining, oil and gas exploration, agriculture, and coal combustion.
Upstream = 71 x MSW Waste
US ghg emissions: Sectors impacted by wasting, % of total, 20 yr horizon
Disposal sector8.1%
Industrial sector24.6%
Truck Transportation
4.4%
Synthetic Fertilizers
1.1%
All Other61.8%
Wasting Trend in U.S.
0
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
350,000
1960
1963
1966
1969
1972
1975
1978
1981
1984
1987
1990
1993
1996
1999
2002
2005
2008
2011
2014
2017
2020
2023
2026
2029
1,00
0 To
ns P
er Y
ear
Composting Recycling Disposal
Zero Waste Path
0
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
1960
1963
1966
1969
1972
1975
1978
1981
1984
1987
1990
1993
1996
1999
2002
2005
2008
2011
2014
2017
2020
2023
2026
2029
1,00
0 To
ns P
er Y
ear
Composting Recycling Disposal
Aiming for zero waste is key GHG abatement strategy
Abatement Megatons % of Abatement Strategy CO2 eq. Needed in 2030 to Return to 1990 Reducing waste via prevention, reuse, recycling, composting 406 11.6% Lighting 240 6.9% Vehicle Efficiency 195 5.6% Lower Carbon Fuels 100 2.9% Forest Management 110 3.1% Carbon Capture & Storage 95 2.7% Wind 120 3.4% Nuclear 70 2.0%
Zero waste path: less coal plants
By significantly reducing waste disposal, the U.S. can take the equivalent of 21% of its coal-fired power plants off the grid by 2030.
Keys to Record-Setters
Accept many materials Compost Mandate recycling Institute pay-as-you-throw trash fees Target all sectors Augment curbside with drop-off Educate, educate, educate Market materials
Institute for Local Self-Reliance
Municipal waste disposed
T e x t i6 % G la s
6 %
M e t a7 %
Y a r d t r im m7 %
W o o7 %
O t h e r m a t8 %
P la s t1 6 %
F o o d s c1 8 %
P a p e r a n d p a p2 5 %
Composting, lots of models
On-farm composting
Compost Applications landscape and nursery agricultural and horticultural vegetable and flower gardens tree and shrub planting sod production and roadside projects wetlands creation soil remediation and land reclamation sports fields and golf courses sediment and erosion control
Organics Diversion: Core Climate & Soil Protection Strategy
Prevents landfill methane emissions
Stores carbon
Improves soil’s ability to store carbon
Substitutes for energy-intensive fertilizers, pesticides, fungicides
Improves plant growth, and thus carbon sequestration
Reduces energy use for irrigation
Anaerobic digestion offsets fossil fuel consumption
Institutional Framework
Landfill bans Recycling goals and requirements Beverage container deposits Recycled-content laws Creative funding mechanisms Buy recycled programs
Pay-as-you-throw trash fees
Institute for Local Self-Reliance
S-M-A-R-T Save Money And Reduce Trash Residents can save when they reduce
the amount of trash they produce
Source: Kristen Brown, Green Waste Solutions, www.thewastesolution.com
Unit-based Pricing Sends a Clear Message
Worcester, MA Population 173,000
San Francisco, CA Population 775,000
Unit based pricing is just a different way of paying for waste Source: Kristen Brown, Green Waste Solutions, www.thewastesolution.com
Impact of PAYT
Source: Boston Globe, February 2007, courtesy of Kristen Brown, Green Waste Solutions, www.thewastesolution.com
Worcester, MA: PAYT Results
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
40,000
45,000
50,000
55,000
1986'87 '88 '89 '90 '91 '92 '93 '94 '95 '96 '97 '98 '99 2000
'01 '02 '03 '04 '05 '06
Trash Tons Collected Per Year Recycling Tons Collected Per Year
Source: Kristen Brown, Green Waste Solutions, www.thewastesolution.com
Overall Waste Generation Decrease 20+%
Source: Kristen Brown, Green Waste Solutions, www.thewastesolution.com
Resource Conservation Hierarchy�
Most Preferable
Recycle & Compost
Treat
Avoid & Reduce
Reuse
Dispose
Least Preferable
Impact of Waste Reduction
X X X X X
X
New Rules for Zero Waste Include food discards in mandatory
recycling/composting ordinances
Establish landfill and incinerator surcharges Expand buy recycled programs Ban products and packaging that cannot be reused,
recycled, or composted Ban recyclable and reusable materials/products from
disposal Make manufacturers responsible for their products
(EPR)
San Francisco Goals & Zero Waste Policy California AB 939 50% mandate 75% Landfill Diversion by 2010
Zero Waste by 2020 Highest and Best Use of Materials
Consumer and Producer Responsibility
Urging Others to Adopt Similar Policies
Composting & Recycling Collection System Designed For High Diversion
Recycled Paper 21%
Glass and Plastic Bottles Aluminum and Steel Cans
5%
Construction and Demolition Waste
25%
Other 15%
Food Scraps 20%
Yard Trimmings 5%
Compostable Paper 10%
Courtesy of City of San Francisco
Easy to Understand Program
Courtesy of City of San Francisco
Designed for Easy Participation
Kitchen Pail
Labeled Lids
Wheeled Cart
Courtesy of City of San Francisco
Stores Sell Compostable Kitchen Pail Bags
Courtesy of City of San Francisco
Compostable Bags
Office Building Cafeteria Composting
Courtesy of City of San Francisco
Special Event Composting
Courtesy of City of San Francisco
Color-Coded Compostable Design for 400k cups at SF Festival
Courtesy of City of San Francisco
Norcal’s Jepsen Prairie Organics Regional Composting Facility
Courtesy of City of San Francisco
Jepson Prairie compost site
Compost Used on Organic Farms and Vineyards to Build Healthy Soils
Courtesy of City of San Francisco
Changing the rules in SF
Bans polystyrene take-out containers
Requires retail bags to be compostable plastic, recyclable paper, or reusable
Bans use of city funds to purchase single-serving bottled water
Will not give a street closure permit for events unless composting collection is in place
Extended producer responsibility (EPR) resolution
San Francisco EPR resolution
Calls on its Department of the Environment to: “help City government lead by example by working with the City Purchaser and Office of Contract Administration and other departments to include EPR language, such as leasing products rather than purchasing them and specifying product and packaging collection and recycling requirements, in contracts for commodities...”
Why EPR? 72.5% of MSW is manufactured products &
packaging When manufacturers are responsible they:
Use environmentally safer materials Consume fewer materials Design their products to last longer Create better recycling systems Are motivated to minimize waste costs No longer pass the cost of disposal to the government and
taxpayer Extended Producer Responsibility (2004) Clean Production Action, www.cleanproductionaction.org
Challenges & Opportunities
Leadership Policies Infrastructure Operator Training and Technical Assistance Permitting and Siting Education & Outreach Connections to Other Key Issues
The Tipping Point
Innovators, the adventurous ones Early adopters, infected by innovators Early Majority Late Majority Laggards
Source: Malcolm Gladwell, The Tipping Point (2002)
Make the Connections
Climate protection Soil protection and revitalization Sustainable agriculture Zero waste Environmental health
(safer, better designed products) National park and Chesapeake Bay protection Resource conservation Community and economic development Cost cutting Jobs and green jobs
Job Creation: Reuse Vs. Recycling and Disposal
Type of Operation Jobs/ 10,000 TPY
Computer Reuse 296 Textile Reclamation 85 Misc. Durables Reuse 62 Wooden Pallet Repair 28 Recycling-Based Manufacturers 25 Conventional MRFs 10 Composting 4
Disposal Facilities 1
Institute for Local Self-Reliance MRF = materials recovery facility TPY = tons per year
Why not incinerate? Costs are high Capital intensive vs labor
intensive Requires waste Pollutes Generates ash Regulations inadequate Inflexible technology Obstacle to reducing
waste Bad for the climate
J. Miles Carey/Knoxville News Sentinel
“Coal Ash Spill Revives Issue of Its Hazards,” NY Times, 12/24/08
Waste incinerators are NOT good for the climate
-
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
Incinerator Coal Fired Oil Fired Natural Gas Fired
lbs
CO
2 em
issi
ons/
meg
awat
t-hou
r
Human Body Burden 700 different synthetic
chemicals or heavy metals found in human blood
2004 study found an average of 91 industrial compounds, pollutants, and other chemicals in the blood and urine of nine volunteers, with a total of 167 chemicals found in the group
http://www.kk.org/quantifiedself/2008/01/
monitoring-bodyburdens.php
Body Burden
Average of 200
pollutants and chemicals in umbilical cord blood of newborns at 10 US hospitals
http://archive.ewg.org/reports/bodyburden2/execsumm.php
1,500 TPD recycling facility = $8 million investment
Reduce, Reuse, Recycle, Compost!
Starve a Landfill Feed the soil
Conserve resources Cool the climate
Create jobs Reindustrialize America
Communities with Zero Waste Goal
Source: Gary Liss, Zero Waste International Alliance, www.zwia.org
California, USA • Del Norte County • San Luis Obispo County • Santa Cruz County • San Bernardino County • San Francisco City and County • City of Oakland • Berkeley • Burbank (informally) • Palo Alto • California Integrated Waste Management Board
Other USA • Boulder County, CO • Summit County, CO • Carrboro, NC • Seattle, WA • Central Vermont Waste Management District
Other North America • Halifax, Nova Scotia Regional District • Nelson, British Columbia Regional District • Kootenay Boundary, British Columbia Regional District • Cowichan Valley, British Columbia • Central Kootenay, British Columbia • Smithers, British Columbia Regional District • Nanaimo, British Columbia • Toronto, Ontario • Sunshine Coast Regional District, British Columbia
Zero Waste Is an International Movement
Source: Gary Liss, Zero Waste International Alliance, www.zwia.org
South America • Buenos Aires, Argentina
Australia • Eurobodalla Council • Willoughby Council • South Australia State Government • Canberra • The State of Western Australia • The State of Victoria
New Zealand Over 50% of cities adopted ZW as a goal
Europe • Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council • Bath and NE Somerset District Council • Wales • Blaenau Gwent County Borough Council
Africa South Africa, adopted the Polokwane Declaration on Waste Management at 1st National Waste Summit in 2001
Asia • Candon City, Ilocos Sur, Philippines • San Isidro, Sueva Edija, Philippines • Pilar, Sorsogon, Philippines • Linamon, Lanao del Norte, Philippines • Sigma, Capiz, Philippines • Kamikatsu, Japan • Kovalem, India • Kanchrapara Municipality, West Bengal, India
