1. Marion County Master Recyclers Energy and Environmental Impacts of Waste, Recycling and Prevention David Allaway, Oregon DEQ Salem, OR March 20, 2008

2. Overview The materials life cycle: “upstream” vs. “downstream” Comparison of prevention and recycling Closer examination of recycling and composting –Energy balance of recycling –Collection issues, landfill avoidance, and markets Materials, wastes, and greenhouse gases

3. “Upstream” vs. “Downstream” Impacts

4. Upstream Impacts Extraction and harvesting of raw materials –Energy use –Habitat impacts –Pollution and wastes Product/packaging manufacturing –Energy use –Consumptive water use –Pollution and wastes Transportation of raw materials, products –Energy use –Pollution

5. Downstream Impacts Energy and pollution associated with collection and transportation of waste and recyclables Leachate from landfills Methane and other air emissions from landfills Emissions from incineration Liner failure Land, air, and water quality impacts of burning, stockpiling, and illegal dumping of garbage (not well quantified)

6. Tellus Institute Packaging Study (1992) Prepared for the Council of State Governments, U.S. EPA, and State of New Jersey. Relied solely on public sources of information. Evaluated and “monetized” human health impacts of emissions not captured by pollution control devices.

7. Tellus Study Results

8. Tellus Study Results (continued) Note: These costs are per-ton, not per-package!

9. Conclusions of Tellus Study For all materials studied, “upstream” human health costs are much, much higher than “downstream” human health costs. Emissions from materials processing industries are more damaging to human health than emissions from solid waste facilities. How much material is used may be more important than what material is used.

10. California/LBL Greenhouse Gas/Product Life Cycles (2004)

11. Example of Lifecycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions Disposal (net) ~8% Transport to Customer ~40% Production ~52% Key Assumptions Corrugated box (38% post-consumer content) and newsprint dunnage (10% post-consumer content) used in order fulfillment for catalog sales. Shipped ~2,100 miles to customer via ground transport. All materials landfilled at end of life in “average” landfill. Forestry-related emissions and credits not included.

12. Material Production Recycling (manufacturing) Recycling (forest related offsets) Composting Combustion (emissions) Combustion (energy recovery) Landfilling (net) Total (2015) 10.9 MMTCO 2 E -1.0 MMTCO 2 E -2.1 MMTCO 2 E -0.1 MMTCO 2 E 0.3 MMTCO 2 E -0.6 MMTCO 2 E 1.4 MMTCO 2 E 8.9 MMTCO 2 E Governor Kulongoski’s Advisory Group on Global Warming

13. Summary: Environmental Impacts of Materials, Solid Waste and Recycling Most “upstream” impacts are larger than “downstream” impacts. The “landfill capacity crisis” doesn’t exist in much of the Pacific Northwest. So the primary environmental benefit of waste reduction is upstream, not landfill-related.

14. Waste Generation and Prevention

15. Results – Energy (by process) Recycling is Up in Oregon, But So is Waste Generation 45 Recovery + Disposal = Generation 0.0 = Generated = Disposed= Recovered Key

16. Solid Waste Policy in Oregon Waste management hierarchy: –Prevent waste, then –Reuse, then –Recycle, then –Compost, then –Recover energy, then –Landfill

17. Oregon’s Recovery and Generation Goals Recovery Goals Recovery = recycling, composting, some energy recovery 45% recovery rate in 2005. 50% recovery rate in 2009. Generation Goals Generation = all discards No increase in per-capita waste generation in 2005 and subsequent years. No increase in total waste generation in 2009 and subsequent years.

18. Comparison: Prevention and Recycling Recycling reduces upstream impacts. Prevention eliminates upstream impacts. What about material substitution?

19. A Common Question: To Box, or To Bag?

20. DEQ Packaging Study: Materials Evaluated *Different levels of post-consumer content also evaluated.

21. Results: Petroleum

22. Results: Natural Gas

23. Results: Coal

24. Results: Solid Waste

25. Results: Atmospheric Particulate

26. Results: Atmospheric NOx

27. Results: Atmospheric Fossil Derived Carbon Dioxide* *Landfill, waste incineration, and forestry-related emissions not included.

28. Results: Atmospheric Mercury

29. Results: Biological Oxygen Demand

30. Results: Waterborne Suspended Solids

31. Mass Matters! Weight of materials used is a critical factor: –All bags evaluated have lower burdens than boxes (in most categories) because of their much lower weight. –This confirms (indirectly) the relative ranking of waste prevention and recycling in the waste management hierarchy. Recyclability and recycled content are not always the best predictor of life cycle energy use or emissions: –BUT, once you’ve chosen a packaging material, increasing post-consumer content and recycling opportunities can have benefits.

32. Comparison: Reuse and Recycling Reuse = using a product in its original form, without the repulping, melting, grinding, or other mechanical or chemical reformulation associated with recycling. Benefits of reuse are typically greater than the benefits of recycling. For example:  Reusing a personal computer saves 5 - 20 times more energy than recycling it.  Reusing a corrugated box saves 3 - 4 times more energy than recycling it, and may save the business 5 - 10 times more money.

33. DEQ Waste Prevention Resources Grants Packaging waste prevention: http://www.deq.state.or.us/lq/sw/packaging/ index.htm Business resource efficiency “success stories”: http://www.deq.state.or.us/lq/sw/cwrc/success/ index.htm Business waste prevention videos

34. Materials Exchanges “One business’ trash may be another business’ treasure.” Example: Sattex obtains 100 fiber drums a month from exchange services, saving $16,000/year Statewide promotion of exchange services: www.NWmaterialsmart.org NOT www.materialsexchange.org

35. Results – Energy (by process) Recycling is Up in Oregon, But So is Waste Generation 45 Recovery + Disposal = Generation 0.0 = Generated = Disposed= Recovered Key

36. Waste Generation: Why’s it Increasing? Wood Yard debris Scrap metal “Other inorganics” (brick, rock, rubble, wallboard) Roofing Plastics Clothing and footwear Commercial printing Small appliances/consumer electronics Carpets/rugs Increasing Per-Capita Generation:

37. Causes of Increasing Waste Generation Changes in reporting 11 – 20% of increase Shifts from “non-counting” > 5 – 20% of increase to “counting” methods Real increases in “wasting” ~50 – 80% of increase activities  Increasing construction and remodeling activity  Increasing house sizes  Reduced durability of durable goods  Decline in repair and reuse options  Increased acquisition of goods

38. Reducing Waste Generation: What Can You Do? Shift purchases from disposable goods to goods that are more durable, repairable, and/or reusable. Extend the lifetime of products already in use/ownership (and delay purchase of replacement items). Purchase used items in lieu of new items. Shift consumption from goods to services so that needs and wants are satisfied in a different manner. Reduce consumption of goods and materials outright, without substitution.

39. Reducing Generation: What Do Oregonians Say? Turn off the TV... contemporary marketing encourages needless consumption. Spend more time with family and friends. Volunteer your time to help others (and the planet). Ask yourself: “Will this purchase really make me happy?” Save more, spend less. Don’t borrow – avoid using credit. “Downshift” (and consider a smaller house).

40. Energy and Recycling

41. Terminology BTU = British Thermal Unit BTU is a unit of energy 1 BTU = 1,055 Joules = 0.25 kcal 1 Big Mac® = 2,240 BTU 1 kWh = 3,412 BTU 1 gallon of gasoline = 125,000 BTU

42. Recycling of Old Newspapers (Closed-Loop Recycling) Energy Used Curbside collection: ~0.2 MM BTU/ton Transportation to mill: <0.2 MM BTU/ton From Salem to Oregon City Energy Saved At the mill: ~16 MM BTU/ton Transporting raw materials: ~0.5 MM BTU/ton Net savings: ~16 MM BTU/ton Disposal-related energy savings not included

43. Energy Savings from Waste Management Options (ONP) Recycling: ~16 MM BTU/ton Combustion: 2.5 – 2.8 MM BTU/ton Not including transportation or ash management “Average” landfilling: -0.4 MM BTU/ton Including transportation or landfill equipment

44. Net Energy Savings from Recycling Aluminum Cans: 207 MM BTU/ton Carpet: 106 MM BTU/ton HDPE/LDPE: 51 – 56 MM BTU/ton PET: 53 MM BTU/ton Personal computers: 44 MM BTU/ton Steel cans: 20 MM BTU/ton Newsprint: 17 MM BTU/ton Source: US EPA

45. Net Energy Savings from Recycling (continued) Newsprint: 17 MM BTU/ton Corrugated: 16 MM BTU/ton Phone books: 12 MM BTU/ton Office paper: 10 MM BTU/ton Glass: 2.7 MM BTU/ton Magazines/third class mail: 1.1 MM BTU/ton Aggregate: 0.6 MM BTU/ton Source: US EPA

46. How Much Energy Does Oregon Save by Recycling? Recycling in Oregon in 2006 saved ~27 trillion BTUs of energy ~2.4% of total statewide use Equivalent of ~214 million gallons of gasoline Recovery in Oregon in 2006 reduced greenhouse gas emissions by ~3.5 million tons of CO2e ~5.1% of total statewide emissions Equivalent of 740,000 “average” passenger cars

47. Curbside Collection Material collected curbside in Oregon from households, 2002 (excluding yard debris): ~176,000 tons Energy value (including pre- combustion) of fuel used for curbside collection: ~96 billion BTUs Estimated energy savings (at end-users) of curbside recyclables: 2,519 billion BTUs

48. Evaluation of policy/program options: Curbside recycling 100 tons of “average” curbside recyclables in Oregon: Collection Fleet ~ 4 MTCO2E emissions from on-route collection vehicles (and diesel production) Displacement of Virgin Resources ~ 235 MTCO2E savings (net) when these recyclables displace virgin feedstock in production

49. Focus: Transport to Markets Material Production Savings “Break-Even Point” (miles) (MMBTU ton collected)TruckRailFreighter Question: When are Markets “Too Far” to Justify Long-Haul? Aluminum177121,000475,000538,000 LDPE 6141,000162,000184,000 PET5940,000157,000178,000 Steel1913,00052,00059,000 Newspaper1611,00043,00049,000 Corrugated129,00033,00038,000 Office Paper107,00027,00031,000 Boxboard6.54,40017,40019,800 Glass (to bottles)1.91,3005,1005,800

50. Results – Energy (by process) Cullet to Aggregate Recycling (Local) Net Energy Savings: ~0.2 MMBTU/ton Cullet to Bottle Recycling (Portland) Net Energy Savings: ~2.1 MMBTU/ton Cullet to Fiberglass Recycling (California) Net Energy Savings: ~3.2 MMBTU/ton

51. Greenhouse Gases

52. Global Warming: Key Questions Is the Earth warming? Is the warming caused by human activities? Will human activities cause continued warming? How much will we warm? What will be the impacts? What should we do about it?

53. Global Warming: What Is It? Warming is caused by an increase in the concentration of heat-trapping gasses. For example: concentrations of carbon dioxide were: –Around 190 parts per million by volume (ppmv) during the ice ages. –Around 280 ppmv starting at the end of the last ice age through the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. –315 ppmv by 1958. –Currently about 380 ppmv and rising at a rate of 1.5 ppmv/year. Similarly, methane is now more abundant in the Earth’s atmosphere than at any time during the 400,000 year ice core record.

55. National Academy of Sciences Studied climate change in 2003 at the request of President George W. Bush. “Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth’s atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise. Temperatures are, in fact, rising... Human-induced warming (is) expected to continue through the 21 st century.”

56. American Geophysical Union 41,000 member professional society of geophysicists, meteorologists, etc. December 2003 statement: “Human activities are increasingly altering the Earth’s climate... Scientific evidence strongly indicates...” that humans have played a role in the rapid warming of the past half-century. “It is virtually certain” that increasing greenhouse gases will warm the planet.

57. IPCC Projection (6 Scenarios): 2.0 – 11.5 °F Increase in Global Mean Temperature by 2100

58. Scientific Consensus Statement on the Likely Impacts of Climate Change on the Pacific Northwest Signatories agree: “climate change is underway”. Temperature: High certainty that PNW is warming, and since 1975, warming is best explained by greenhouse gases. Sea level: Oregon coast north of Florence is being submerged by rising sea level at an average rate of 1.5-2 mm annually (inferred from 1930-1995 data). Snowpack: Between 1950 and 1995, April 1 snow-water equivalent in the Cascades is down 50%. Timing of peak snowpack is earlier, increasing March and reducing June streamflows. Oregon Cascades are most sensitive to change.

59. What are the Potential Impacts? Pacific Northwest projections for next 10 – 50 years:. Temperatures will continue to rise. Average warming of 2.7 °F by 2030 and 5.4 °F by 2050 (intermediate certainty). –Higher elevation treeline –Longer growing seasons –Longer fire seasons –Earlier animal and plant breeding –Longer and more intense allergy season –Changes in vegetation zones Precipitation changes are very uncertain. Winter precipitation may increase. Likely impacts on water resources due to low summer precipitation and earlier peak streamflow include: –Decreased summer water availability –Changes in ability to manage flood damage –Decreased water quality due to higher temperatures, increased salinity, and pollutant concentration

60. Potential Impacts, continued Sea level will rise (very certain) Maximum wave heights will likely also increase Ocean circulation will change (very certain), with likely increases in upwelling April 1 snowpack will continue to decline Impact on terrestrial ecosystems is poorly known. Due to current biomass densities, anticipated drier summers will likely increase: –Drought stress –Vulnerability of forests to insects, disease and fire

61. California/LBL Greenhouse Gas/Product Life Cycles (2004) Oregon Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory, 2000 (Conventional Accounting) Electricity 36% Transportation 32% Other Fossil Fuels 17% Solid Waste Disposal 1% Other 14%

62. Recommendation MW-1: Projected Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Materials & Waste) “Business as Usual”* 50% Recovery Goal Waste Generation Goal *Per-capita waste generation continues to grow, recovery rate stays at 47%

63. Traditional Inventory ~5.6 Gt CO 2 Exports ~0.4 – 0.5 Gt CO2 Imported Goods ~0.5 – 0.8 Gt CO2 Production vs. Consumption Carbon Dioxide Emissions for the United States - 1997 Net embodied emissions in trade: 2 – 7% above and beyond traditional inventory Source: Weber and Matthews, 2007

64. Traditional Inventory ~6.1 Gt CO 2 Exports ~0.5 – 0.6 Gt CO2 Imported Goods ~0.8 – 1.8 Gt CO2 Production vs. Consumption Carbon Dioxide Emissions for the United States - 2004 Net embodied emissions in trade: 3 – 21% above and beyond traditional inventory Source: Weber and Matthews, 2007

65. Composting

66. Energy impacts not well studied; likely to be small Greenhouse gas benefits driven by landfill issues/methane avoidance –Food waste composting has significant greenhouse gas reduction benefit; yard waste less so Other benefits: soil health, tilth Why is composting below recycling in the waste management hierarchy?

67. Composting “Everybody wants to make a difference... Now you can. BIOTA is a Planet Friendly ™ company. BIOTA Spring Water is the World's First bottled water/beverage packaged in a Planet Friendly ™ bottle. Our bottle is manufactured from a 100% renewable resource, corn....not oil! Together, we can make a difference. One bottle at a time.”

68. For More Information: David Allaway, Oregon DEQ (503) 229-5479 Toll Free in Oregon: 1-800-452-4011 allaway.david@deq.state.or.us