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

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

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

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

Total Energy Usage: SLO RLC vs. TLC

Net Energy Usage: SLO RLC vs. TLC

Net Greenhouse Gas: SLO RLC vs. TLC

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.

Net Acidification : SLO RLC vs. TLC

Net Eutrophication: SLO RLC vs. TLC

Net DALYs: SLO RLC vs. TLC

Net Human Toxicity: SLO RLC vs. TLC

Net Ecotoxicity: SLO RLC vs. TLC

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

Net Energy Usage: SLO RLC vs. TLC

Net Greenhouse Gas: SLO RLC vs. TLC

Net Acidification: SLO RLC vs. TLC

Net Eutrophication: SLO RLC vs. TLC

Net DALYs: SLO RLC vs. TLC

Net Human Toxicity: SLO RLC vs. TLC

Net Ecotoxicity: SLO RLC vs. TLC

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

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.

Net Energy Use Reductions From Curbside Recycling In Washington State

Net Greenhouse Gas Reductions From Curbside Recycling In Washington State

Net Acid Gas Reductions From Curbside Recycling In Washington State

Net Eutrophication Reductions From Curbside Recycling In Washington State

Net Human Toxicity Potential Reductions From Curbside Recycling In Washington

Net costs of curbside recycling in four regions of Washington State

Curbside Recycling Costs Vs. Avoided Disposal Costs In Washington State

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.

Average Value Per Ton For Puget Sound Curbside Recyclables

Unbleached Softwood Kraft Pulp vs. Recycled Cardboard

Polyethylene Terephthalate Pellets vs. Recycled PET Bottles

Aluminum Ingot vs. Recycled Cans

Economic value of pollution prevention and resource conservation benefits of recycling

Curbside Recycling Costs Vs. Avoided Disposal Costs & CO2 Offsets

Economic Value Of Pollution Reductions From Recycling In San Luis Obispo

SO2 Emissions Allowances Average Monthly Spot Market Prices

End subsidies for wasting or subsidize recycling?

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

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