presentación del dr. paul connett en puerto rico 2010
Post on 03-Nov-2014
437 Views
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
TRANSCRIPT
Incineration: Incineration: The wrong The wrong solution solution
for Puerto Rico and the for Puerto Rico and the 2121stst Century Century
Paul Connett, PhDPaul Connett, PhDExecutive Director (AEHSP)Executive Director (AEHSP)
AmericanAmericanHealthHealthStudies.oStudies.orgrg
pconnett@gmail.com
EPA Region II,EPA Region II,
Puerto Rico, Dec 10 2010Puerto Rico, Dec 10 2010
Part 1Part 1
Part 2Part 2
Part 3Part 3
OUTLINEOUTLINE
1. A few words about Sustainability1. A few words about Sustainability
2. The arguments against 2. The arguments against incinerationincineration
3. The Zero Waste 2020 strategy3. The Zero Waste 2020 strategy
DIFFERENT TIMES DEMAND DIFFERENT TIMES DEMAND DIFFERENT QUESTIONSDIFFERENT QUESTIONS
2020thth CENTURY CENTURY
WASTE WASTE MANAGEMENTMANAGEMENT
“ “ How do we get rid How do we get rid of our waste of our waste
efficiently with efficiently with minimum damage to minimum damage to our health and the our health and the
environment ?”environment ?”
2121stst CENTURY CENTURY
RESOURCE RESOURCE MANAGEMENTMANAGEMENT
“ “ How do we handle our How do we handle our discarded resources in discarded resources in
ways which do not ways which do not deprive future deprive future
generations of some, if generations of some, if not all, of their value ?”not all, of their value ?”
DIFFERENT TIMES DEMAND DIFFERENT TIMES DEMAND DIFFERENT QUESTIONSDIFFERENT QUESTIONS
2020thth CENTURY CENTURY
WASTE WASTE MANAGEMENTMANAGEMENT
“ “ How do we get rid How do we get rid of our waste of our waste
efficiently with efficiently with minimum damage to minimum damage to our health and the our health and the
environment ?”environment ?”
2121stst CENTURY CENTURY
RESOURCE RESOURCE MANAGEMENTMANAGEMENT
“ “ How do we handle our How do we handle our discarded resources in discarded resources in
ways which do not ways which do not deprive future deprive future
generations of some, if generations of some, if not all, of their value ?”not all, of their value ?”
The key issueThe key issuewas SAFETYwas SAFETY
The key issue isThe key issue isSUSTAINABILIYSUSTAINABILIY
1. A few words about 1. A few words about
sustainabilitysustainability
SustainabilitySustainability We would need We would need FOUR planetsFOUR planets if if
every one consumed as much as every one consumed as much as the average the average AmericanAmerican
We would need We would need TWO planetsTWO planets if if every one consumed as much as every one consumed as much as the average the average EuropeanEuropean
Meanwhile, Meanwhile, India, China etcIndia, China etc. are . are copying our consumption patternscopying our consumption patterns
Something has got to change and Something has got to change and the best place to start is with the best place to start is with wastewaste
Extraction ofExtraction ofVirginVirgin
MaterialsMaterials
Production ofProduction ofManufacturedManufactured
itemsitemsConsumptionConsumption
DiscardedDiscardedMaterialsMaterials
Solid wasteSolid waste
Air pollutionAir pollution
Water pollutionWater pollution
Carbon dioxideCarbon dioxide
Solid wasteSolid waste
Air pollutionAir pollution
Water pollutionWater pollution
Carbon dioxideCarbon dioxide
ENERGYENERGY ENERGYENERGY
A LINEAR SOCIETYA LINEAR SOCIETY
Extraction ofExtraction ofVirginVirgin
MaterialsMaterials
Production ofProduction ofManufacturedManufactured
itemsitemsConsumptionConsumption
DiscardedDiscardedMaterialsMaterials
Solid wasteSolid waste
Air pollutionAir pollution
Water pollutionWater pollution
Carbon dioxideCarbon dioxide
Solid wasteSolid waste
Air pollutionAir pollution
Water pollutionWater pollution
Carbon dioxideCarbon dioxide
ENERGYENERGY ENERGYENERGY
GLOBAL WARMINGGLOBAL WARMING
A NON-Sustainable systemA NON-Sustainable system
Extraction ofExtraction ofVirginVirgin
MaterialsMaterials
Production ofProduction ofManufacturedManufactured
itemsitemsConsumptionConsumption
DiscardedDiscardedMaterialsMaterials
Solid wasteSolid waste
Air pollutionAir pollution
Water pollutionWater pollution
Carbon dioxideCarbon dioxide
Solid wasteSolid waste
Air pollutionAir pollution
Water pollutionWater pollution
Carbon dioxideCarbon dioxide
ENERGYENERGY ENERGYENERGY
LANDFILLSLANDFILLS
GLOBAL WARMINGGLOBAL WARMING
Extraction ofExtraction ofVirginVirgin
MaterialsMaterials
Production ofProduction ofManufacturedManufactured
itemsitemsConsumptionConsumption
DiscardedDiscardedMaterialsMaterials
Solid wasteSolid waste
Air pollutionAir pollution
Water pollutionWater pollution
Carbon dioxideCarbon dioxide
Solid wasteSolid waste
Air pollutionAir pollution
Water pollutionWater pollution
Carbon dioxideCarbon dioxide
ENERGYENERGY ENERGYENERGY
INCINERATION INCINERATION
GLOBAL WARMINGGLOBAL WARMING
Both landfills and incinerators Both landfills and incinerators represent business as usual – represent business as usual –
NEITHER are sustainableNEITHER are sustainable
Extraction ofExtraction ofVirginVirgin
MaterialsMaterials
Production ofProduction ofManufacturedManufactured
itemsitemsConsumptionConsumption
DiscardedDiscardedMaterialsMaterials
Solid wasteSolid waste
Air pollutionAir pollution
Water pollutionWater pollution
Carbon dioxideCarbon dioxide
Solid wasteSolid waste
Air pollutionAir pollution
Water pollutionWater pollution
Carbon dioxideCarbon dioxide
ENERGYENERGY ENERGYENERGY
GLOBAL WARMINGGLOBAL WARMING
RECYCLING OF MATERIALSRECYCLING OF MATERIALS
Extraction ofExtraction ofVirginVirgin
MaterialsMaterials
Production ofProduction ofManufacturedManufactured
itemsitemsConsumptionConsumption
DiscardedDiscardedMaterialsMaterials
Solid wasteSolid waste
Air pollutionAir pollution
Water pollutionWater pollution
Carbon dioxideCarbon dioxide
Solid wasteSolid waste
Air pollutionAir pollution
Water pollutionWater pollution
Carbon dioxideCarbon dioxide
ENERGYENERGY ENERGYENERGY
GLOBAL WARMINGGLOBAL WARMING
REUSE OF OBJECTSREUSE OF OBJECTS
Extraction ofExtraction ofVirginVirgin
MaterialsMaterials
Production ofProduction ofManufacturedManufactured
itemsitemsConsumptionConsumption
DiscardedDiscardedMaterialsMaterials
Solid wasteSolid waste
Air pollutionAir pollution
Water pollutionWater pollution
Carbon dioxideCarbon dioxide
Solid wasteSolid waste
Air pollutionAir pollution
Water pollutionWater pollution
Carbon dioxideCarbon dioxide
ENERGYENERGY ENERGYENERGY
GLOBAL WARMINGGLOBAL WARMING
COMPOSTINGCOMPOSTING
COMPOSTCOMPOST
Kg Greenhouse gas/tonne Kg Greenhouse gas/tonne Municipal WasteMunicipal Waste
A combination of recycling A combination of recycling and compostingand composting -461-461
Incineration generating Incineration generating electrictyelectricty -10-10
Waste Management Options and Climate Change. AEA 2001
Kg Greenhouse gas/tonne Kg Greenhouse gas/tonne Municipal WasteMunicipal Waste
A combination of recycling A combination of recycling and composting and composting is 46 times is 46 times betterbetter
-461-461
at reducing greenhouse at reducing greenhouse gases thangases than X 46X 46Incineration generating Incineration generating electrictyelectricty -10-10
Waste Management Options and Climate Change. AEA 2001
2. The arguments 2. The arguments
againstagainstincinerationincineration
Arguments against incinerationArguments against incineration
1) It is not sustainable1) It is not sustainable
2) It is a poor economic investment. 2) It is a poor economic investment. Most of the money spent will leave Most of the money spent will leave PRPR
Incineration is the MOST expensive Incineration is the MOST expensive way of handling wasteway of handling waste
Incineration is the SECOND MOST Incineration is the SECOND MOST expensive way of producing expensive way of producing electricityelectricity
Arguments against incinerationArguments against incineration
3) Very few jobs created for very 3) Very few jobs created for very large capital investment and large capital investment and there is very little stimulation of there is very little stimulation of local economylocal economy
An incinerator in Brescia, An incinerator in Brescia, ItalyItaly
The Brescia incinerator The Brescia incinerator cost cost 300,000,000300,000,000 Euro Euro plus another plus another 500,000,000 Euros 500,000,000 Euros in in subsidies and has subsidies and has created just created just 8080 jobs. jobs.
Nova Scotia, Canada Nova Scotia, Canada (video) (video)
50% diversion in 5 years (1995-50% diversion in 5 years (1995-2000). 2000). (Halifax ~ 60%)(Halifax ~ 60%)
10001000 jobs created collecting and jobs created collecting and treating discarded materialstreating discarded materials
Another Another 20002000 jobs created in the jobs created in the industries handling the collected industries handling the collected materialmaterial
Arguments against incinerationArguments against incineration
4) Incineration is very unpopular 4) Incineration is very unpopular with the publicwith the public
In the US over 300 incinerator In the US over 300 incinerator proposals defeated between proposals defeated between 1985-951985-95
No new trash incinerator permitted No new trash incinerator permitted in the US since 1995!in the US since 1995!
Arguments against incinerationArguments against incineration
5) It stifles innovation. For 25 years 5) It stifles innovation. For 25 years or more the monster has to be or more the monster has to be fedfed
Incineration stifles Incineration stifles innovationinnovation
• ““An incinerator needs to be fed An incinerator needs to be fed for about 20 to 30 years and in for about 20 to 30 years and in order to be economic needs an order to be economic needs an enormous input from quite a enormous input from quite a region, so for 20 to 30 years you region, so for 20 to 30 years you stifle innovation, you stifle stifle innovation, you stifle alternatives, just in order to feed alternatives, just in order to feed that monster which you build”that monster which you build”
• Ludwig Kraemer, former Head of EU Waste Ludwig Kraemer, former Head of EU Waste Management, BBC 1 Panorama Documentary Management, BBC 1 Panorama Documentary “Rubbish”“Rubbish”
Arguments against incinerationArguments against incineration
6) It wastes energy!6) It wastes energy!
Energy Comparison: Energy Comparison: RecyclingRecycling versus versus incinerationincineration (ICF consulting, 2005)(ICF consulting, 2005)
materialmaterial Energy Energy savings from savings from recyclingrecycling
GJ/tonneGJ/tonne
Energy Energy output from output from incinerationincineration
GJ/tonneGJ/tonne
Energy Energy savings savings recycling recycling
versus versus incinerationincineration
NewsprintNewsprint 6.336.33 2.622.62 2.42.4
Fine Fine paperpaper
15.8715.87 2.232.23 7.17.1
CardboarCardboardd
8.568.56 2.312.31 3.73.7
Other paperOther paper 9.499.49 2.252.25 4.24.2
HDPEHDPE 64.2764.27 6.306.30 10.210.2
PETPET 85.1685.16 3.223.22 26.426.4Other Other plasticplastic
52.0952.09 4.764.76 10.910.9
Arguments against incinerationArguments against incineration
7) It generates a toxic ash - It 7) It generates a toxic ash - It doesn’t get rid of landfillsdoesn’t get rid of landfills
For everyFor every fourfour tons of waste tons of waste burned you getburned you get one ton of ash one ton of ash (or more)(or more)
That nobody wants!That nobody wants!
CHUTE
SECONDARYCHAMBER
TURBINE
BOILER
ELECTRICITY
STEAM
TRASH
BOTTOM ASH FLY ASH
TEMP< 200oC
SEMI-DRYSCRUBBER
FABRIC FILTER
WET SCRUBBER
DE-NOX
ACTIVATEDCHARCOAL
Ca(OH) 2 SUSPENSION
AMMONIAINJECTION
GRATES
For every 4 tons of trash you get about one ton of ashFor every 4 tons of trash you get about one ton of ash
90%90% 10%10%
Covanta Ash Landfill,Covanta Ash Landfill,Haverhill, MassHaverhill, Mass
Covanta Ash Landfill,Covanta Ash Landfill,Haverhill, MassHaverhill, Mass
Arguments against incinerationArguments against incineration
8) It produces toxic air emissions8) It produces toxic air emissions
AIR EMISSIONS
CO2 + H2O
ACID GASES:HCI, HF, SO2
NOx
TOXIC METALS:Pb, Cd, Hg, As, Cr etc
NEW COMPOUNDSNEW COMPOUNDS::
PCDDs (DIOXINS)PCDDs (DIOXINS)PCDFs (FURANS)PCDFs (FURANS)PCB’sPCB’sETCETC
AIR EMISSIONS
CO2 + H2O
ACID GASES:HCI, HF, SO2
NOx
TOXIC METALS:Pb, Cd, Hg, As, Cr etc
NEW COMPOUNDSNEW COMPOUNDS::
PCDDs (DIOXINS)PCDDs (DIOXINS)PCDFs (FURANS)PCDFs (FURANS)PCB’sPCB’sETCETC
NANONANOPARTICLESPARTICLES
Size of Size of Particle Particle
regulatedregulatedin incineratorin incinerator
emissionsemissionsNANOPARTICLESNANOPARTICLES
STRONG STRONG REGULATIONSREGULATIONS
ADEQUATEADEQUATEMONITORINGMONITORING
TOUGHTOUGHENFORCEMENTENFORCEMENT
Three links to public health protection Three links to public health protection ::
If any link is weak the public is not protected?If any link is weak the public is not protected?
Arguments against incinerationArguments against incineration
9) Incineration is poorly monitored 9) Incineration is poorly monitored In the US monitoring of dioxins has been In the US monitoring of dioxins has been
a sick jokea sick joke There is no regulation or monitoring of There is no regulation or monitoring of
nanoparticlesnanoparticles
Nanoparticle problemsNanoparticle problems
Not easily captured by air Not easily captured by air pollution control devicespollution control devices
Nanoparticles from incineration Nanoparticles from incineration far more dangerous than other far more dangerous than other nanoparticlesnanoparticles
They travel long distancesThey travel long distances Remain suspended for long Remain suspended for long
periods of timeperiods of time
•We Know that PM10 and We Know that PM10 and PM2.5 cause many health PM2.5 cause many health problemsproblems
• In urban areas both mortality and morbidity increase with particulate levels
•The smaller the particles the worse it gets
PM 10
PM 2,5
BLOODBLOOD
Nano particles are Nano particles are so small theyso small they
can easily crosscan easily cross the lung membranethe lung membrane
Nano PathologyNano Pathology
Once nanoparticles Once nanoparticles have entered the have entered the bloodstream they bloodstream they can easily cross the can easily cross the membranes of membranes of every tissue in the every tissue in the body.body.
Nano PathologyNano Pathology
They can even cross the blood They can even cross the blood brain barrierbrain barrier
Aggregati di PiomboAggregati di Piombo, , BarioBario, , CromoCromo, , FerroFerro e e SilicioSilicio in in CervelloCervello..
www.stefanomontanari.net
Incineration, Incineration, nanoparticles & Healthnanoparticles & Health
Statement of EvidenceStatement of Evidence
Particulate Emissions and Health Particulate Emissions and Health ProposedProposed
Ringaskiddy Waste-to-Energy FacilityRingaskiddy Waste-to-Energy Facility
Professor C. Vyvyan Howard Professor C. Vyvyan Howard MB. ChB. MB. ChB. PhD. FRCPath. PhD. FRCPath. June 2009 June 2009
VYV.howard@googlemail.comVYV.howard@googlemail.com
I have yet to see a documented I have yet to see a documented scientific response to either Cormier’s scientific response to either Cormier’s
paperpaper
oror
Professor Vyvyan Howard’s testimonyProfessor Vyvyan Howard’s testimony
fromfrom
Any regulatory agencyAny regulatory agency
Any incinerator builderAny incinerator builder
or or
Any consultant promoting incinerationAny consultant promoting incineration
Meanwhile, while we are waiting for Meanwhile, while we are waiting for the science, common sense says:the science, common sense says:
Don’t build incinerators in air sheds,Don’t build incinerators in air sheds,
which have already been which have already been compromised by particulate compromised by particulate
pollution, i.e. where respiratory pollution, i.e. where respiratory problems are already high problems are already high
Incineration is the wrong Incineration is the wrong
solution for thesolution for the 21st Century 21st Century
“Even if we made incineration safe we would never make it sensible.It simply does not make sense tospend so much money destroying resources we should be sharing with the future.” (PC)
The modern incinerator isThe modern incinerator is attempting to perfect a bad idea attempting to perfect a bad idea
Our task in the 21st Century is Our task in the 21st Century is not to find better ways to destroy not to find better ways to destroy discarded materialsdiscarded materials
But to stop making packaging and But to stop making packaging and products that have to be products that have to be destroyed!destroyed!
The Waste problem will not be The Waste problem will not be solved with better solved with better technologytechnology
But withBut withBetter Better organizationorganizationBetter Better educationeducationand better and better industrial industrial
designdesign
Arguments against incinerationArguments against incineration
10) There is a far better alternative 10) There is a far better alternative strategy, which is strategy, which is cheaper, creates more cheaper, creates more jobs and business opportunities, does jobs and business opportunities, does not create a toxic ash and is sustainablenot create a toxic ash and is sustainable..
3. The ZERO WASTE 3. The ZERO WASTE
2020 2020 strategystrategy
ZERO WASTE ZERO WASTE IS A IS A NEWNEW
DIRECTIONDIRECTION
NO to INCINERATORS
NO to LANDFILLS
THE THE BACK ENDBACK END
OF OF WASTEWASTE
MANAGEMENTMANAGEMENT
NO to INCINERATORS
NO to LANDFILLS
THE THE FRONT ENDFRONT END
OFOFRESOURCERESOURCE
MANAGEMENT,MANAGEMENT,INDUSTRIAL INDUSTRIAL
DESIGNDESIGN&&
POST-CONSUMERISMPOST-CONSUMERISM
THE THE BACK ENDBACK END
OF OF WASTEWASTE
MANAGEMENTMANAGEMENT
Zero Waste can be Zero Waste can be approached with a series of approached with a series of
simplesimple steps steps
which arewhich arePracticalPracticalCost effective Cost effective andandPolitically acceptablePolitically acceptable
SUMMARYSUMMARY10 steps to Zero Waste10 steps to Zero Waste
SourceSourceSeparationSeparation
SourceSourceSeparationSeparation
Door to DoorDoor to DoorCollectionCollection
SourceSourceSeparationSeparation
Door to DoorDoor to DoorCollectionCollection CompostingComposting
RecyclingRecycling
SourceSourceSeparationSeparation
Door to DoorDoor to DoorCollectionCollection CompostingComposting
RecyclingRecyclingReuse, Repair Reuse, Repair & Community& Community
CenterCenter
SourceSourceSeparationSeparation
Door to DoorDoor to DoorCollectionCollection CompostingComposting
Waste Waste ReductionReductionInitiativesInitiatives
RecyclingRecyclingReuse, Repair Reuse, Repair & Community& Community
CenterCenter
SourceSourceSeparationSeparation
Door to DoorDoor to DoorCollectionCollection CompostingComposting
Waste Waste ReductionReductionInitiativesInitiatives
RecyclingRecyclingReuse, Repair Reuse, Repair & Community& Community
CenterCenter
SourceSourceSeparationSeparation
Door to DoorDoor to DoorCollectionCollection CompostingComposting
EconomicEconomicIncentivesIncentives
Waste Waste ReductionReductionInitiativesInitiatives
RecyclingRecyclingReuse, Repair Reuse, Repair & Community& Community
CenterCenter
SourceSourceSeparationSeparation
Door to DoorDoor to DoorCollectionCollection CompostingComposting
Residual Residual Separation & Separation &
ResearchResearch CenterCenter
EconomicEconomicIncentivesIncentives
Waste Waste ReductionReductionInitiativesInitiatives
RecyclingRecyclingReuse, Repair Reuse, Repair & Community& Community
CenterCenter
SourceSourceSeparationSeparation
Door to DoorDoor to DoorCollectionCollection CompostingComposting
Residual Residual Separation & Separation &
ResearchResearch CenterCenter
Better Better IndustrialIndustrial
DesignDesign
EconomicEconomicIncentivesIncentives
Waste Waste ReductionReductionInitiativesInitiatives
RecyclingRecyclingReuse, Repair Reuse, Repair & Community& Community
CenterCenter
SourceSourceSeparationSeparation
Door to DoorDoor to DoorCollectionCollection CompostingComposting
Residual Residual Separation & Separation &
ResearchResearch CenterCenter
Better Better IndustrialIndustrial
DesignDesign
EconomicEconomicIncentivesIncentives
Temporary LandfillTemporary Landfill
Waste Waste ReductionReductionInitiativesInitiatives
RecyclingRecyclingReuse, Repair Reuse, Repair & Community& Community
CenterCenter
SourceSourceSeparationSeparation
Door to DoorDoor to DoorCollectionCollection CompostingComposting
Residual Residual Separation & Separation &
ResearchResearch CenterCenter
Better Better IndustrialIndustrial
DesignDesign
EconomicEconomicIncentivesIncentives
Temporary LandfillTemporary Landfill 20202020
““The Fantastic 3”The Fantastic 3”
The San Francisco systemThe San Francisco system
Composting plant for San Composting plant for San FranciscoFrancisco
Local farmers are using the Local farmers are using the compost to grow fruit and compost to grow fruit and vegetables for San Franciscovegetables for San Francisco
““The Fantastic 3”The Fantastic 3”
The San Francisco systemThe San Francisco system
at Pier 96
MATERIALS RECOVERY FACIILITYMATERIALS RECOVERY FACIILITY
MATERIALS RECOVERY MATERIALS RECOVERY FACILITYFACILITY
San FranciscoSan Francisco Population = 850,000Population = 850,000 Very little space Very little space 50% waste diverted by 200050% waste diverted by 2000 63% waste diverted by 200463% waste diverted by 2004 70% waste diverted by 200870% waste diverted by 2008 72% waste diverted by 200972% waste diverted by 2009 75% waste diverted by 201075% waste diverted by 2010 GOAL:100% by 2020GOAL:100% by 2020 (or very close!) (or very close!)
ItalyItaly
Over 2000 communities Over 2000 communities in in Italy are achieving over Italy are achieving over 50% diversion 50% diversion using “door using “door to door” collection systemsto door” collection systems
Over 200 communities Over 200 communities achieving over achieving over 70% 70% diversiondiversion
ItalyItaly
Novara Novara - (a city near Turin, - (a city near Turin, population = 100,000) population = 100,000) achieved achieved 70% diversion in 70% diversion in just 18 months!just 18 months!
ItalyItaly
Salerno Salerno (near Naples, pop (near Naples, pop 145,000) 145,000) 18% to 72% 18% to 72% diversion diversion in one year!in one year!
BelgiumBelgium
In Flanders they have In Flanders they have achieved 75% achieved 75% diversion diversion with reuse, with reuse, recycling, composting recycling, composting etc – VERY CREATIVE etc – VERY CREATIVE programsprograms
5. Reuse,5. Reuse,RepairRepair
&&DeconstructionDeconstruction
Reusable itemsReusable items
Value of Los Angeles discarded Value of Los Angeles discarded materialsmaterials
Reuse, Repair & Reuse, Repair & DeconstructionDeconstruction
Urban Ore, Berkeley, CaliforniaUrban Ore, Berkeley, California
Grossing $3 million per yearGrossing $3 million per year 27 full-time well-paid jobs27 full-time well-paid jobs
Urban Ore Urban Ore operating for operating for 30 years30 years
VIDEOS ONLINEVIDEOS ONLINE
Examples of Reuse and Repair Examples of Reuse and Repair Centers from California, Centers from California, Vermont, Nova Scotia and Vermont, Nova Scotia and AustraliaAustralia
AmericanAmericanHealthHealthStudies.orgStudies.org
CompostingCompostingFacilityFacility
MaterialsMaterialsRecoveryRecovery
FacilityFacility
1 2 3
ResiduaResiduallFractionFraction
ResiduaResiduallFractionFraction
Reuse Reuse &&
Repair CentersRepair Centers
We have to minimize We have to minimize the residual fraction the residual fraction with…with…1) Waste reduction 1) Waste reduction initiativesinitiatives
6. Waste 6. Waste ReductionReductionInitiativesInitiatives
IrelandIreland
Government put a Government put a 15 15 cent cent tax on plastic tax on plastic shopping bags shopping bags
reduced use reduced use by 92%by 92% in in one year!one year!
ItalyItaly
Several supermarket Several supermarket chains are providing chains are providing dispensers which allow dispensers which allow customers to refill customers to refill shampooshampoo and and detergentdetergent bottles…bottles…
L’esperienza effecortaL’esperienza effecorta
a cura di Pietro Angelini, a cura di Pietro Angelini,
scio fondatore ed ideatore effecortascio fondatore ed ideatore effecorta
Capannori, 23-01-2010Capannori, 23-01-2010
Effecorta,Effecorta,A food store A food store
in in Capannori, Capannori, Tuscany, Tuscany,
ItalyItaly
60 dispensing systems for 60 dispensing systems for solidssolids
60 taps for liquids60 taps for liquids
We have to minimize We have to minimize the residual fraction the residual fraction with…with…2) Economic incentives2) Economic incentives
7. Economic7. EconomicIncentivesIncentives
1 2 3
““Save as you throw” systemSave as you throw” system
1 2 3
freefree
““Save as you throw” systemSave as you throw” system
1 2 3
freefree freefree
““Save as you throw” systemSave as you throw” system
1 2 $
freefree freefreeThe lessThe less
you make,you make,the morethe moreyou save!you save!
““Save as you throw” systemSave as you throw” system
1 2 $
REWARDREWARDSYSTEMSYSTEM
The lessThe lessyou make,you make,the morethe moreyou save!you save!
““Save as you throw” systemSave as you throw” system
ItalyItaly
Villafranco d’AstiVillafranco d’Asti (Piedmont, population (Piedmont, population = 30,000) has = 30,000) has reached reached 85% diversion85% diversion
SpainSpain
Usurbil in Basque Usurbil in Basque CountryCountry
Has gone from Has gone from 28% 28% toto 86% 86% inin 7 months 7 months
Part 2Part 2
CompostingCompostingFacilityFacility
MaterialsMaterialsRecoveryRecovery
FacilityFacility
ResidualsResiduals??
Reuse & RepairReuse & Repair
1 2 $
& Deconstruction& Deconstruction
WasteWasteReductionReductionInitiativesInitiatives
8. Residual8. ResidualSeparation &Separation &
ResearchResearchFacilityFacility
RESIDUAL SEPARATION &RESIDUAL SEPARATION & RESEARCH FACILITY RESEARCH FACILITY
1. Built at entrance to landfill1. Built at entrance to landfill 2. No material can enter landfill 2. No material can enter landfill
without it being separated and without it being separated and screenedscreened
3. More material recycled3. More material recycled 4. Toxics removed and identified4. Toxics removed and identified 5. Dirty organics biologically 5. Dirty organics biologically
stabilizedstabilized 6. Non-recyclable materials STUDIED6. Non-recyclable materials STUDIED
MORE TOXICS
RESIDUAL SCREENING FACILITY
MORE RECYCLABLES
DIRTYDIRTYORGANIC ORGANIC FRACTIONFRACTION
INTERIM LANDFILL for non-recyclable and stabilized organic fraction
BIOLOGICAL STABILIZATION
This type of facility is This type of facility is currently running in currently running in NOVA SCOTIA, CanadaNOVA SCOTIA, Canada
MORE TOXICS
NON-RECYCLABLE FRACTION
RESIDUAL SCREENING & RESEARCH& RESEARCH FACILITY
MORE RECYCLABLES
DIRTYDIRTYORGANIC ORGANIC FRACTIONFRACTION
INTERIM LANDFILL
BIOLOGICAL STABILIZATION
RESEARCH RESEARCH CENTERCENTER
NON-RECYCABLE MATERIALS
Local Local UniversityUniversity
Or Or Technical CollegeTechnical College
ZERO WASTE ZERO WASTE RESEARCH CENTERRESEARCH CENTER
Zero Waste Research Zero Waste Research CenterCenter
TASKS:TASKS: ImproveImprove capture rate capture rate of recyclables etc. of recyclables etc. Collect best practices on Collect best practices on waste waste
avoidance/reduction measuresavoidance/reduction measures Develop Develop local useslocal uses for some materials for some materials Recommend better industrial Recommend better industrial
designs to industry on designs to industry on packaging and productspackaging and products
The Message to The Message to Industry:Industry:
• If we can’t If we can’t reuse itreuse it, , recycle itrecycle it or or compost itcompost it,,
• Industry shouldn’t be making it Industry shouldn’t be making it
• We need better industrial design for We need better industrial design for the 21st Centurythe 21st Century
10. An interim 10. An interim landfill for landfill for biologicallybiologically
stabilized dirty stabilized dirty organic fractionorganic fraction
10. An interim 10. An interim landfill for landfill for biologicallybiologically
stabilized dirty stabilized dirty organic fractionorganic fraction
Iniziative Iniziative RiduzioneRiduzione
rifiutirifiutiRiciclaggioRiciclaggio
Separazione Separazione alla alla
sorgentesorgente
RaccoltaRaccoltaPorta a PortaPorta a Porta
CompostaggioCompostaggio
ResidualResidual Separation &Separation &
ResearchResearchFacilityFacility
BetterBetterIndustrial Industrial
Design Design
IncentiviIncentiviEconomiciEconomici
INTERIM LANDFILLINTERIM LANDFILL20202020
RiutilizzoRiutilizzoRiparazione eRiparazione eCentro per la Centro per la
Comunita’Comunita’
70 - 80%70 - 80% COMMUNITY RESPONSIBILITYCOMMUNITY RESPONSIBILITY
Iniziative Iniziative RiduzioneRiduzione
rifiutirifiutiRiciclaggioRiciclaggio
Separazione Separazione alla alla
sorgentesorgente
RaccoltaRaccoltaPorta a PortaPorta a Porta
CompostaggioCompostaggio
Separazione Separazione del residuo edel residuo e
Centro diCentro di ricercaricerca
migliore migliore design design
industrialeindustriale
IncentiviIncentiviEconomiciEconomici
INTERIM LANDFILL INTERIM LANDFILL 20202020
RiutilizzoRiutilizzoRiparazione eRiparazione eCentro per la Centro per la
Comunita’Comunita’
70-80%70-80%COMUNITY RESPONSIBILITYCOMUNITY RESPONSIBILITY
20-30%20-30%INDUSTRIAL INDUSTRIAL
RESPONSIBILITY RESPONSIBILITY
Industrial Industrial ResponsibilityResponsibility
1. 1. Design for sustainabilityDesign for sustainability
2. 2. Clean productionClean production
3. 3. Extended Producer Responsibility Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR)(EPR)
(government incentives would help (government incentives would help here)here)
ConclusionsConclusions We do not need mega-landfills or We do not need mega-landfills or
incinerators!incinerators! There is a better alternative There is a better alternative The The ZERO WASTE strategyZERO WASTE strategy is is Better for our health (LESS TOXICS)Better for our health (LESS TOXICS) Better for the economyBetter for the economy,, Better for our children, Better for our children, andand Better for the planet (MORE Better for the planet (MORE
SUSTAINABLE)!SUSTAINABLE)!
Please NotePlease Note
Mass burn incineration only gets Mass burn incineration only gets 75% diversion from landfill.75% diversion from landfill.
For every For every 4 Tons4 Tons of waste of waste burned you get at leastburned you get at least 1 Ton 1 Ton of of Toxic Ash.Toxic Ash.
Round OneRound One
IncinerationIncineration
75% 75% reductionreduction
San San FranciscoFrancisco
75% 75% reductionreduction
IncinerationIncineration
75% 75% reductionreduction25% toxic ash25% toxic ash San San FranciscoFrancisco
75% 75% reductionreduction25% residuals25% residuals
Round TwoRound Two
TWO MODELS FOR TREATMENT OF TWO MODELS FOR TREATMENT OF RESIDUALSRESIDUALS
TWO MODELS FOR TREATMENT OF TWO MODELS FOR TREATMENT OF RESIDUALSRESIDUALS
TOXIC ASH TOXIC ASH LANDFILLLANDFILL
++
TWO MODELS FOR TREATMENT OF TWO MODELS FOR TREATMENT OF RESIDUALSRESIDUALS
TOXIC ASH TOXIC ASH LANDFILLLANDFILL
++
RESIDUAL RESIDUAL SEPARATIOSEPARATIO
N N FACILITYFACILITY
TWO MODELS FOR TREATMENT OF TWO MODELS FOR TREATMENT OF RESIDUALSRESIDUALS
TOXIC ASH TOXIC ASH LANDFILLLANDFILL
++
RESIDUAL RESIDUAL SEPARATIOSEPARATIO
N N FACILITYFACILITY
ZERO ZERO WASTEWASTE
RESEARCRESEARCHH
CENTERCENTER
TWO MODELS FOR TREATMENT OF TWO MODELS FOR TREATMENT OF RESIDUALSRESIDUALS
TOXIC ASH TOXIC ASH LANDFILLLANDFILL
++
RESIDUAL RESIDUAL SEPARATIOSEPARATIO
N N FACILITYFACILITY
ZERO ZERO WASTEWASTE
RESEARCRESEARCHH
CENTERCENTER
INTERIM LANDFILL INTERIM LANDFILL FOR STABILIZED FOR STABILIZED
“DIRTY”“DIRTY”ORGANIC FRACTIONORGANIC FRACTION
TWO MODELS FOR TREATMENT OF TWO MODELS FOR TREATMENT OF RESIDUALSRESIDUALS
TOXIC ASH TOXIC ASH LANDFILLLANDFILL
++
RESIDUAL RESIDUAL SEPARATIOSEPARATIO
N N FACILITYFACILITY
ZERO ZERO WASTEWASTE
RESEARCRESEARCHH
CENTERCENTER
INTERIM LANDFILL INTERIM LANDFILL FOR STABILIZED FOR STABILIZED
“DIRTY”“DIRTY”ORGANIC FRACTIONORGANIC FRACTION
FEEDBACK FOR WASTE REDUCTION FEEDBACK FOR WASTE REDUCTION AND BETTER INDUSTRIAL DESIGNAND BETTER INDUSTRIAL DESIGN
TWO MODELS FOR TREATMENT OF TWO MODELS FOR TREATMENT OF RESIDUALSRESIDUALS
Part 3Part 3
Arguments against incinerationArguments against incineration
1) It is not sustainable1) It is not sustainable
2) It is a poor economic investment. 2) It is a poor economic investment. Most of the money spent will leave Most of the money spent will leave PRPR
Incineration is the MOST expensive Incineration is the MOST expensive way of handling wasteway of handling waste
Incineration is the SECOND MOST Incineration is the SECOND MOST expensive way of producing expensive way of producing electricityelectricity
Arguments against incinerationArguments against incineration
3) Very few jobs created for very 3) Very few jobs created for very large capital investment and large capital investment and there is very little stimulation of there is very little stimulation of local economylocal economy
Arguments against incinerationArguments against incineration
4) Incineration is very unpopular 4) Incineration is very unpopular with the publicwith the public
In the US over 300 incinerator In the US over 300 incinerator proposals defeated between proposals defeated between 1985-951985-95
No new trash incinerator permitted No new trash incinerator permitted in the US since 1995!in the US since 1995!
Arguments against incinerationArguments against incineration
5) It stifles innovation. For 25 years 5) It stifles innovation. For 25 years or more the monster has to be or more the monster has to be fedfed
Arguments against incinerationArguments against incineration
6) It wastes energy!6) It wastes energy!
Arguments against incinerationArguments against incineration
7) It generates a toxic ash - It 7) It generates a toxic ash - It doesn’t get rid of landfillsdoesn’t get rid of landfills
For everyFor every fourfour tons of waste tons of waste burned you getburned you get one ton of ash one ton of ash (or more)(or more)
That nobody wants!That nobody wants!
Arguments against incinerationArguments against incineration
8) It produces toxic air emissions8) It produces toxic air emissions
I have yet to see a documented I have yet to see a documented scientific response to either Cormier’s scientific response to either Cormier’s
paperpaper
oror
Professor Vyvyan Howard’s testimonyProfessor Vyvyan Howard’s testimony
fromfrom
Any regulatory agencyAny regulatory agency
Any incinerator builderAny incinerator builder
or or
Any consultant promoting incinerationAny consultant promoting incineration
Arguments against incinerationArguments against incineration
9) Incineration is poorly monitored 9) Incineration is poorly monitored In the US monitoring of dioxins has been In the US monitoring of dioxins has been
a sick jokea sick joke There is no regulation or monitoring of There is no regulation or monitoring of
nanoparticlesnanoparticles
Arguments against incinerationArguments against incineration
10) There is a far better alternative 10) There is a far better alternative strategy, which is strategy, which is cheaper, creates more cheaper, creates more jobs and business opportunities, does jobs and business opportunities, does not create a toxic ash and is sustainablenot create a toxic ash and is sustainable..
Waste Waste ReductionReductionInitiativesInitiatives
RecyclingRecyclingReuse, Repair Reuse, Repair & Community& Community
CenterCenter
SourceSourceSeparationSeparation
Door to DoorDoor to DoorCollectionCollection CompostingComposting
Residual Residual Separation & Separation &
ResearchResearch CenterCenter
Better Better IndustrialIndustrial
DesignDesign
EconomicEconomicIncentivesIncentives
Temporary LandfillTemporary Landfill 20202020
TOXIC ASH TOXIC ASH LANDFILLLANDFILL
++
RESIDUAL RESIDUAL SEPARATIOSEPARATIO
N N FACILITYFACILITY
ZERO ZERO WASTEWASTE
RESEARCRESEARCHH
CENTERCENTER
INTERIM LANDFILL INTERIM LANDFILL FOR STABILIZED FOR STABILIZED
“DIRTY”“DIRTY”ORGANIC FRACTIONORGANIC FRACTION
FEEDBACK FOR WASTE REDUCTION FEEDBACK FOR WASTE REDUCTION AND BETTER INDUSTRIAL DESIGNAND BETTER INDUSTRIAL DESIGN
TWO MODELS FOR TREATMENT OF TWO MODELS FOR TREATMENT OF RESIDUALSRESIDUALS
On Jan 23, 2010 On Jan 23, 2010 Capannori launched Capannori launched itsitsRifiuti Zero Research Rifiuti Zero Research CenterCenter Rossano Ercolini Rossano Ercolini Ambientefuturo@interfree.it
338-28-66-215338-28-66-215
CompostingCompostingFacilityFacility
MaterialsMaterialsRecoveryRecovery
FacilityFacility Zero WasteZero WasteResearchResearch
CenterCenterMaximizeMaximize
Capture rateCapture rateReuse & RepairReuse & Repair
1 2 $
& Deconstruction& Deconstruction
WasteWasteReductionReductionInitiativesInitiatives
Maximize Maximize Capture Capture
raterate
CompostingCompostingFacilityFacility
MaterialsMaterialsRecoveryRecovery
FacilityFacility Zero WasteZero WasteResearchResearch
CenterCenterDirectory ofDirectory of
Best PracticesBest PracticesReuse & RepairReuse & Repair
1 2 $
& Deconstruction& Deconstruction
WasteWasteReductionReductionInitiativesInitiatives
DirectoryDirectory of Best of Best
PracticesPractices
CompostingCompostingFacilityFacility
MaterialsMaterialsRecoveryRecovery
FacilityFacility
Zero WasteZero WasteResearchResearch
CenterCenter
Reuse & RepairReuse & Repair
1 2 $
& Deconstruction& Deconstruction
WasteWasteReductionReductionInitiativesInitiatives
Find local usesFind local uses for some for some materialsmaterials
CompostingCompostingFacilityFacility
MaterialsMaterialsRecoveryRecovery
FacilityFacility
Zero WasteZero WasteResearchResearch
CenterCenter
Reuse & RepairReuse & Repair
1 2 $
& Deconstruction& Deconstruction
WasteWasteReductionReductionInitiativesInitiatives
RecommendRecommendBetterBetter
Industrial Industrial designdesign
CompostingCompostingFacilityFacility
MaterialsMaterialsRecoveryRecovery
FacilityFacility
Zero WasteZero WasteResearchResearch
CenterCenter
Reuse & RepairReuse & Repair
1 2 $
& Deconstruction& Deconstruction
WasteWasteReductionReductionInitiativesInitiatives
ResearchResearchFor CleanFor CleanProductionProduction
FRAZIONE RESIDUA - - Capannori Porta a Capannori Porta a PortaPorta
1.1. Tessili e cuoloTessili e cuolo 16.52 %16.52 %
2.2. PannoliniPannolini 13.95 %13.95 %
3.3. Materiale organico da cucinaMateriale organico da cucina 10.56 %10.56 %
4.4. Altra plastica: non imballoAltra plastica: non imballo 9.98 %9.98 %
5.5. Imballaggi cellulosici Imballaggi cellulosici poliaccopiatipoliaccopiati
8.05 %8.05 %
6.6. Imballaggi poliaccopiati in Imballaggi poliaccopiati in plasticaplastica
7.45 %7.45 %
7.7. Imballaggi flessibili in plasticaImballaggi flessibili in plastica 6.81 %6.81 %
8.8. Materiale organico da Materiale organico da giardinogiardino
4.64 %4.64 %
9. 9. Imballaggi rigidi in plastica Imballaggi rigidi in plastica (non (non bottiglie)bottiglie)
3.23 %3.23 %
1100
Giornali (quotidiani e riviste)Giornali (quotidiani e riviste) 2.54 %2.54 %
• FRAZIONE RESIDUA – – CapannoriCapannori
2.54 %Giornali (quotidiani e riviste)10
3.23 %Imballaggi rigidi in plastica (non bottiglie)
9.
4.64 %Materiale organico da giardino8.
6.81 %Imballaggi flessibili in plastica7.
7.45 %Imballaggi poliaccopiati in plastica
6.
8.05 %Imballaggi cellulosici poliaccopiati
5.
9.98 %Altra plastica: non imballo4.
10.56 %Materiale organico da cucina3.
13.95 %Pannolini2.
16.52 %Tessili e cuoio1.
Questa e’ l’analisi del Questa e’ l’analisi del 17%17% che rimane dopo la che rimane dopo la
separazione dell’ separazione dell’ 83%83% del materiale del materiale
raccolto porta a portaraccolto porta a porta
• FRAZIONE RESIDUA – – CapannoriCapannori
2.54 %Giornali (quotidiani e riviste)10
3.23 %Imballaggi rigidi in plastica (non bottiglie)
9.
4.64 %Materiale organico da giardino8.
6.81 %Imballaggi flessibili in plastica7.
7.45 %Imballaggi poliaccopiati in plastica
6.
8.05 %Imballaggi cellulosici poliaccopiati
5.
9.98 %Altra plastica: non imballo4.
10.56 %Materiale organico da cucina3.
13.95 %Pannolini2.
16.52 %Tessili e cuoio1.
Questa e’ l’analisi del Questa e’ l’analisi del 17%17% che rimane dopo la che rimane dopo la
separazione dell’ separazione dell’ 83%83% del materiale del materiale
raccolto porta a portaraccolto porta a porta
Find local Find local uses?uses?
• FRAZIONE RESIDUA – – CapannoriCapannori
2.54 %Giornali (quotidiani e riviste)10
3.23 %Imballaggi rigidi in plastica (non bottiglie)
9.
4.64 %Materiale organico da giardino8.
6.81 %Imballaggi flessibili in plastica7.
7.45 %Imballaggi poliaccopiati in plastica
6.
8.05 %Imballaggi cellulosici poliaccopiati
5.
9.98 %Altra plastica: non imballo4.
10.56 %Materiale organico da cucina3.
13.95 %Pannolini2.
16.52 %Tessili e cuoio1.
Questa e’ l’analisi del Questa e’ l’analisi del 17%17% che rimane dopo la che rimane dopo la
separazione dell’ separazione dell’ 83%83% del materiale del materiale
raccolto porta a portaraccolto porta a porta
Find local Find local uses?uses?Recommend better Recommend better
designdesign
• FRAZIONE RESIDUA – – CapannoriCapannori
2.54 %Giornali (quotidiani e riviste)10
3.23 %Imballaggi rigidi in plastica (non bottiglie)
9.
4.64 %Materiale organico da giardino8.
6.81 %Imballaggi flessibili in plastica7.
7.45 %Imballaggi poliaccopiati in plastica
6.
8.05 %Imballaggi cellulosici poliaccopiati
5.
9.98 %Altra plastica: non imballo4.
10.56 %Materiale organico da cucina3.
13.95 %Pannolini2.
16.52 %Tessili e cuoio1.
Questa e’ l’analisi del Questa e’ l’analisi del 17%17% che rimane dopo la che rimane dopo la
separazione dell’ separazione dell’ 83%83% del materiale del materiale
raccolto porta a portaraccolto porta a porta
Find local Find local uses?uses?Recommend better Recommend better
designdesignEducatioEducationn
top related