Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Disposal By Whatever Method or Name Still Stinks Of Wasted Resources Dr. Jeffrey Morris Sound Resource Management - Seattle 206-599-6734.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Disposal By Whatever Method or Name Still Stinks Of Wasted Resources Dr. Jeffrey Morris Sound Resource Management - Seattle 206-599-6734."— Presentation transcript:

1 Disposal By Whatever Method or Name Still Stinks Of Wasted Resources Dr. Jeffrey Morris Sound Resource Management - Seattle SWANA Winter 2005 Technical Symposia

2 Purpose of presentation Outline life cycle analysis results to show pollution prevention/resource conservation benefits of recycling (and waste reduction) Outline life cycle analysis results to show pollution prevention/resource conservation benefits of recycling (and waste reduction) Explain indexing of pollutant impacts Explain indexing of pollutant impacts Examine the costs of diversion Examine the costs of diversion Examine the non-market economic value of pollution prevention/resource conservation Examine the non-market economic value of pollution prevention/resource conservation Discuss ending subsidies for wasting vs. subsidizing waste reduction & recycling Discuss ending subsidies for wasting vs. subsidizing waste reduction & recycling Outline methods for subsidizing recycling Outline methods for subsidizing recycling

3 Environmental impacts of recycling in San Luis Obispo (SLO) County compared to landfill disposal with landfill gas (LFG) collection and energy generation

4 Energy Use -- Resource Extraction, Resource Refining & Product Manufacturing

5 Total Energy Usage: SLO RLC vs. TLC

6 Net Energy Usage: SLO RLC vs. TLC

7 Net Greenhouse Gas: SLO RLC vs. TLC

8 Indexing of pollutants Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) covers about 650 chemicals and chemical categories Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) covers about 650 chemicals and chemical categories There are 50,000 or 75,000 or more chemicals in use in the economy There are 50,000 or 75,000 or more chemicals in use in the economy Indexing releases of these chemicals according to their environmental impacts vastly simplifies the problem of interpreting pollutant release data Indexing releases of these chemicals according to their environmental impacts vastly simplifies the problem of interpreting pollutant release data Example – global warming is one environmental impact category and is indexed by carbon or CO2: CO2 =1, CH4 = 23, N2O = 296; CF4 = 5,700, CFC- 12 = 10,600. Example – global warming is one environmental impact category and is indexed by carbon or CO2: CO2 =1, CH4 = 23, N2O = 296; CF4 = 5,700, CFC- 12 = 10,600. Similar indexing for acid rain, nutrification, asthma and lung cancer, human toxicity; ecological toxicity, ozone depletion, smog, etc. Similar indexing for acid rain, nutrification, asthma and lung cancer, human toxicity; ecological toxicity, ozone depletion, smog, etc.

9 Net Acidification : SLO RLC vs. TLC

10 Net Eutrophication: SLO RLC vs. TLC

11 Net DALYs: SLO RLC vs. TLC

12 Net Human Toxicity: SLO RLC vs. TLC

13 Net Ecotoxicity: SLO RLC vs. TLC

14 Environmental impacts of recycling in San Luis Obispo (SLO) County compared to hypothetical waste-to-energy (WTE) incineration

15 Net Energy Usage: SLO RLC vs. TLC

16 Net Greenhouse Gas: SLO RLC vs. TLC

17 Net Acidification: SLO RLC vs. TLC

18 Net Eutrophication: SLO RLC vs. TLC

19 Net DALYs: SLO RLC vs. TLC

20 Net Human Toxicity: SLO RLC vs. TLC

21 Net Ecotoxicity: SLO RLC vs. TLC

22 Environmental impacts of recycling in four regions of Washington State compared to landfill disposal with LFG flaring and to waste-to-energy (WTE) incineration

23 Disposal methods in WA regions Urban East – 90% waste-to-energy incineration Urban East – 90% waste-to-energy incineration All Other Regions – 100% landfill All Other Regions – 100% landfill Landfill energy/environmental impact calculations assume 75% methane gas capture and flaring; in fact smaller, older landfills in WA do not have landfill gas capture systems. Also, 75% may be too high for actual landfill lifetime methane capture rate at most landfills. Landfill energy/environmental impact calculations assume 75% methane gas capture and flaring; in fact smaller, older landfills in WA do not have landfill gas capture systems. Also, 75% may be too high for actual landfill lifetime methane capture rate at most landfills.

24 Net Energy Use Reductions From Curbside Recycling In Washington State

25 Net Greenhouse Gas Reductions From Curbside Recycling In Washington State

26 Net Acid Gas Reductions From Curbside Recycling In Washington State

27 Net Eutrophication Reductions From Curbside Recycling In Washington State

28 Net Human Toxicity Potential Reductions From Curbside Recycling In Washington

29 Net costs of curbside recycling in four regions of Washington State

30 Curbside Recycling Costs Vs. Avoided Disposal Costs In Washington State

31 Curbside recycling costs & revenues in four regions of Washington State Curbside recycling costs = $173 to $265/ton Curbside recycling costs = $173 to $265/ton Recycling market revenues averaged $70 to $80/ton over past five years Recycling market revenues averaged $70 to $80/ton over past five years Avoided disposal costs = $32 to $77/ton Avoided disposal costs = $32 to $77/ton Curbside costs = $25 to $70/ton, net of market revenues and net of avoided disposal costs, for programs collecting all recyclable materials. Curbside costs = $25 to $70/ton, net of market revenues and net of avoided disposal costs, for programs collecting all recyclable materials. Curbside costs = $65 to $140 for programs not collecting all materials. Curbside costs = $65 to $140 for programs not collecting all materials.

32 Average Value Per Ton For Puget Sound Curbside Recyclables

33 Unbleached Softwood Kraft Pulp vs. Recycled Cardboard

34 Polyethylene Terephthalate Pellets vs. Recycled PET Bottles

35 Aluminum Ingot vs. Recycled Cans

36 Economic value of pollution prevention and resource conservation benefits of recycling

37 Curbside Recycling Costs Vs. Avoided Disposal Costs & CO2 Offsets

38 Economic Value Of Pollution Reductions From Recycling In San Luis Obispo

39 SO2 Emissions Allowances Average Monthly Spot Market Prices

40 End subsidies for wasting or subsidize recycling?

41 Types of subsidies for wasting 1. Direct - subsidies (local, national and international) 2. Direct - tax breaks 3. Direct - security, military and insurance services at low or no cost 4. Indirect - cheaper energy due to subsidies/tax breaks for energy production 5. Indirect – free disposal of pollutants to air, land and water

42 Potential solutions End subsidies for wasting End subsidies for wasting Direct subsidies for recycling – e.g., Bundle recycling costs into garbage fees or provide direct payments for tons recycled Direct subsidies for recycling – e.g., Bundle recycling costs into garbage fees or provide direct payments for tons recycled Bundle recycling costs into product prices – deposit/refund and other EPR systems Bundle recycling costs into product prices – deposit/refund and other EPR systems Internalize pollution costs in either garbage costs or virgin materials costs – e.g., greenhouse gas reduction credits for recycling or organics diversion programs Internalize pollution costs in either garbage costs or virgin materials costs – e.g., greenhouse gas reduction credits for recycling or organics diversion programs


Download ppt "Disposal By Whatever Method or Name Still Stinks Of Wasted Resources Dr. Jeffrey Morris Sound Resource Management - Seattle 206-599-6734."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google