1. I. I.Solid Wastes Prior to 1900, most waste disposal involved burying waste in ground Perception of garbage dumps as breeding grounds for disease  incinerators Burning garbage common until more stringent emissions standards in 1970’s Incineration replaced by newer landfills Recently: Modern incinerators w/emissions controls A. A.Landfills Decreasing in number 7924 in 1988 vs. 1908 in 2009 Becoming larger Total capacity didn’t change between 1988 & 2002 Becoming increasingly full (?) Possible sources of toxic chemicals leaching into ground water (older landfills especially) Increasingly difficult to find new sites (NIMBY)

2. Source: EPA

8. I. I.Solid Wastes B. B.Alternatives 1. 1.Source reduction

9. EPA

10. I. I.Solid Wastes B. B.Alternatives 1. 1.Source reduction Pro: Reduced waste stream Increased production efficiency ($$) Energy conservation Reduced GHG emissions Con: Retooling of some infrastructure Changing of consumer behavior

11. I. I.Solid Wastes B. B.Alternatives 2. 2.Recycling Reuse sometimes included Reprocessing of materials Why recycle?

12. Source: EPA

17. OECD

18. I. I.Solid Wastes B. B.Alternatives 2. 2.Recycling Pro: Could reduce waste stream by >50% Reduce trade deficit (>$1 billion/yr of paper to China) Con: Expensive to separate recyclable materials from mixed trash More expensive than landfill by 10-50% (except for scarce materials like aluminum) Manufacturing new glass bottles cheaper than recycling (reuse cheaper than new bottles) Controversy – Should recycling be encouraged with incentives or mandated with quotas? “Recycling myths” – Daniel Benjamin (Clemson)“Recycling myths”