Advertise Here

Deliver your message to thousands of readers every day.

Our readers are influential opinion makers - politicians, journalists and activists.

Learn more about ads.

About Us

Frank D. Russo

The California Progress Report is published by Frank D. Russo, a longtime observer of and participant in California politics.

About Frank Russo.
About California Progress Report.

Got a news tip? Want to write a guest column? Contact Frank here.

Sponsors

Books

Reduction of Greenhouse Gases in California Through Waste Prevention and Recycling

scott_smithline.gif

By Scott Smithline
Policy Analyst
Californians Against Waste (CAW)

To help prevent the public health and environmental threats posed by Global Warming, California has committed to an aggressive series of green house gas (GHG) emission reduction goals. Every sector of the state will be called upon to reduce their GHG emissions, including the waste management sector.

Garbage is a major contributor to Global Warming. Solid waste landfills are the single largest man-made source of methane gas in the United States. Methane (CH4) is a powerful greenhouse gas that is 23 times more effective at trapping heat in the atmosphere than the most prevalent greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide (CO2). Every time you “throw away,” you are contributing to global warming.

Ton for ton, recycling reduces more pollution, saves more energy and reduces GHG emissions more than any other activity besides source reduction. Californians currently throw away millions of tons of recyclable materials every year. According to the California Integrated Waste Management Board, over 60 percent of the “garbage” in California landfills can be composted or recycled. Increasing recycling should be California’s priority strategy for reducing global warming effects associated with solid waste management.

To learn more about the issue of global warming, watch the documentary, "An Inconvenient Truth," out now on DVD. Also help by taking action in your life and learn how YOU can help stop global warming.

Why Recycling?

Recycling reduces GHG emissions in two important ways. First, recycling keeps materials out of the landfill. Landfills are designed to be anaerobic, meaning that once waste has been dumped, very little air remains below the surface. Landfill gas is generated as a byproduct of the digestion of organic materials by organisms that thrive in these anaerobic conditions. Food waste, paper, grass, and other organic matter is readily digested and turned into landfill gas- which is 50 percent methane. While most modern landfills are required to capture some of their methane emissions, significant quantities continue to escape into the atmosphere.

Recycling also reduces GHG emissions by reducing the need to continually mine and refine virgin resources for product production. Everyday consumer products such as an aluminum soda can are made from resources mined from the earth, transported great distances, and eventually processed with industrial machinery requiring massive energy inputs. This all results in significant GHG emissions. Recycling one ton aluminum cans results in four tons of GHG reductions.

A Plan for California

California is in a great position to reduce GHG emissions associated with solid waste management. Our solid waste reduction and recycling law (AB 939), implemented over 15 years ago, has resulted in a mature and vigorous recycling infrastructure. We can harness this system to increase our recycling rates and reduce our GHG emissions.

By diverting just 15% of the currently disposed cardboard, aluminum cans, office paper, and other common curbside materials, the state could more than achieve the projected reductions required from the waste sector in the State’s plan. Reductions of food waste and lumber disposal would generate significant additional GHG emission reductions.

To achieve these types of reductions, additional recycling polices need to be considered, such as:

Expansion of Curbside Recycling. Despite their popularity and effectiveness, just half of California residents have access to convenient and cost effective curbside recycling. It should be the goal of this state to bring curbside recycling to every household (single and multi-family) by 2010.
Expansion of Commercial Recycling. Over the last decade thousands of California businesses have seen their waste management costs reduced through the establishment and expansion of commercial waste recycling. However, for many medium and small businesses in California, there remains a disconnect between the waste they generate on a day-to-day basis, and the portion of their business overhead costs which go to waste management.
Material Specific Disposal Bans. A surprisingly small number of readily recyclable materials (i.e. corrugated cardboard and mixed paper), account for the lion’s share of California’s GHG emission reduction potential.

For every ton of food waste diverted to composting instead of the landfill, almost a ton of GHG emission reductions can be achieved. We envision residential and commercial food waste collection as an integral part of any GHG reduction policy. Additional support for composting will be necessary to fully capitalize on the GHG benefits it generates.

AB 939 has helped build a composting infrastructure in the state, but due to low tipping fees, sham recycling of greenwaste at landfills, regulatory hurdles and poor public perception the state continues to have limited composting capacity. With the state diversion rate essentially at 50%, there is little new incentive to divert large quantities of organics from the landfill.

Policies needed to achieve emissions reductions through organics composting include:

Organics disposal bans. It is environmentally and economically absurd to annually entomb tens of millions of tons of organic materials in a modern landfill specifically designed to prevent the decomposition and return of these biological building blocks to the natural environment. Twenty three states already have in place some form of greenwaste landfill ban. This is an area where California is a laggard and not a leader.
Expansion of foodwaste composting. Hundreds of California communities now have greenwaste collection programs in place. With a relatively modest investment, these programs could be expanded to include food waste, which accounts for nearly 15% of the state’s waste stream.

These proven recycling policies have always been environmentally superior to landfilling and incineration of solid waste. But with the recent urgency associated with global warming, these policies have become an environmental imperative.

Scott Smithline joined Californians Against Waste as a Policy Analyst in 2003. Scott is responsible for coordinating relationships with California Waste Board and other state and local agencies and he represents CAW on the California Compost Quality Council. In addition, Scott researches policy issues and helps develop CAW's policy positions and is also the editor of CAW's newsletter, the Recycling Advocate. Before joining CAW Scott practiced law as part of the Golden Gate University Environmental Law & Justice Clinic and Lawyers for Clean Water.

Founded in 1977, Californians Against Waste is a non-profit environmental research and advocacy organization that identifies, develops, promotes and monitors policy solutions to pollution and conservation problems posing a threat to public health and the environment. Californians Against Waste’s history has demonstrated it to be the nation’s oldest, largest and most effective non-profit environmental organization advocating for the implementation of waste reduction and recycling policies and programs.

Posted on January 03, 2007

Comments

While this is a valuable result, it only looks at one factor - GHG -- instead of a holistic approach, such as used in the BEES model, found on the Internet athttp://www.bfrl.nist.gov/oae/software/bees/model.html

I recommend that a study be done of ALL the environmental impacts of a range of solid waste management alternatives.

John Reindl, Recycling Manager
Dane County, WI

Posted by: John Reindl at January 4, 2007 08:04 AM

I would also like to see more effort put forth to make the hazardous waste, such as household batteries more easily disposed of. Currently, there are no drop-off or pick-up areas that will take these things except the local landfill...for now. This causes more hazardous waste to be thrown out with the regular trash.

Posted by: Benni at January 4, 2007 10:32 AM

I agree with John R, and there is in fact such a model for municipal solid waste. It is a life cycle analysis model, the Decision Support Tool, developed by RTI International under a contract to EPA. This life cycle model took 10 years to develop and had scores of reviewers and stakeholders including government officials, NGOs and industry.
Using this model, RTI conducted a study for the Calif Integrated Waste Management Board, which showed that recycling is only the top GHG choice once you get above a 75% recycling rate. At any lower rate, waste-to-energy provides a higher GHG benefit and saves more energy than other municipal solid waste (MSW) management options. Below this extremely high level of recycling, waste-to-energy also has less overall environmental impact than the other alternatives, from a life cycle basis. Since most of the nation still languishes around a 30% recycling rate, if one were to objectively chose how to manage their MSW, waste-to-energy would be the choice.
This will not be a popular conclusion among those that are don't let facts get in the way of their personal agendas, but that is what the data shows.

Posted by: WTE at January 4, 2007 11:03 AM

I am interested in the facts presented by WTE. Are you refering to RTI's work that was part of the conversion technologies report to the legislature? I don't believe that CIWMB has received any reports about waste-to-energy. My recollection is that RTI compared mixed waste processing of landfill directed material, consistent with CIWMB policy recommendations that conversion technologies not handle material recycled under existing programs (currently 52% of statewide waste generation).

Posted by: john davis at January 4, 2007 03:55 PM

I have to disagree with "WTE" above. US EPA data has found that recycling is far more energy efficient than incineration and landfilling --more information is available at www.epa.gov/mswclimate

A recent paper in the International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment concluded that recycling consumes less energy and imposes lower environmental burdens (including global warming, acidification, eutrophication, disability adjusted life year (DALY) losses from emission of criteria air pollutants, human toxicity and ecological toxicity) than incineration or landfilling, even after accounting for energy that may be recovered. The abstract for this paper is available at http://www.springerlink.com/content/m423181w2hh036n4/

Posted by: Monica Wilson at January 4, 2007 08:17 PM

Post a comment




Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)

Get email updates!

Get Email Updates

Want the California Progress Report by email? Once a week, we'll send you the latest and greatest headlines.



© 2008 California Progress Report Our copyright and fair use policy.
Powered by Mandate Media. Logo design by Jane Norling.

RSS

Stat tracker