[GreenYes Archives] -
[Thread Index] -
[Date Index]
[Date Prev] - [Date Next] - [Thread Prev] - [Thread Next]
It?s been a number of weeks since the posting in which John Reindl referenced life cycle work I?ve been doing on recycling versus disposal. Better late than never I thought I?d give reference to where you can find this work and briefly indicate its content. Here?s a link to my most recent peer-reviewed article on recycling versus disposal: http://www.scientificjournals.com/sj/lca/Abstract/ArtikelId/6945 . The title is ?Comparative LCAs for curbside recycling versus either landfilling or incineration with energy recovery?, and the journal is The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, Vol. 10, No.4, July 2005. The main additional work I?ve done since that 2005 article has been to more accurately assess the monetary value of the pollution prevention benefits of recycling, and to begin to assess the life cycle environmental benefits of composting versus disposal, as well as the life cycle benefits/costs of various methods for managing construction and demolition waste. I gave a talk at the BioCycle conference in Portland this past March on some of my initial findings on the latter two topics. The PowerPoint presentation ? Life Cycle Analysis of Yard, Food, and Wood Waste Management Options ? is available at our website www.zerowaste.com <http://www.zerowaste.com/> , along with the InLCA journal article. There you can also find an earlier peer-reviewed article on the energy conservation benefits of recycling ? ?Recycling versus incineration: an energy conservation analysis? ? that appeared in the May 1966 Journal of Hazardous Materials. It?s reproduced in the February, March and April 2000 editions of The Monthly UnEconomist available through our website. My most recent estimate of the monetary value of the pollution benefits from a ton of the typical mix of materials collected through curbside recycling is $512. This value comes about through the emissions reductions from recycling as compared with landfilling or incineration, even when either disposal option implements energy recovery. This recent estimate compares with the estimate of less than $100 per ton that was the basis for the environmental valuations discussed in the InLCA article. The substantial increase is primarily due to the inclusion of three more environmental impacts ? human diseases caused or aggravated by criteria air pollutants, human diseases caused by toxic emissions, and ecological damages to flora and fauna caused by toxic emissions. The InLCA article evaluated only greenhouse gas emissions, acidifying emissions, and eutrophication emissions. The fivefold increase is also due in smaller part to the increase in estimates of the costs of greenhouse gas emissions and acidification emissions. For example, the 2006 clearing price on US EPA?s annual auction of SO2 emissions permits under the Clean Air Act was $690 per ton, versus $260 per ton based on clearing prices in previous auctions which I used as the acidification cost in the InLCA article. Another interesting result of this recent valuation information is that recycling glass back into glass containers has a pollution prevention value of $284 per ton recycled while recycling glass into aggregate has a pollution prevention value of just $22 per ton recycled. That?s a difference to keep in mind when evaluating the cost savings of commingled collection if such a collection system results in a serious decrease in the amount of recycled container glass that is available for glass container production. Finally, I?ve recently come across a life cycle analysis of recycling versus disposal for the Netherlands. It?s quite interesting because it estimates that on a full societal life cycle cost basis recycling beats both landfill and incineration with energy recovery, even in a densely populated country where there are a number of waste-to-energy facilities. You can find this article at: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6VDY-4DGY7GG-1/2/0e107085bdfa8 7ef56ce62d1671f1cce where it is published in the peer-reviewed Ecological Economics journal. Fortunately you can get the draft version of that published article for free at: http://www.seor.nl/ecri/pdf/feem%204603.pdf . The debate about waste-to-energy is heating back up ? ?déjà vu all over again? ? and I?m hoping the various materials referenced above will assist with elucidating the economic and environmental downsides to the incineration/gasification/pyrolysis hyperbole that?s afoot once again in our land. Jeffrey Morris, Ph.D.-Economics Sound Resource Management 2217 60th Lane NW Olympia, WA 98502-0903 360-867-1033 360-319-2391 mobile jeff.morris@no.address www.zerowaste.com --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "GreenYes" group. To post to this group, send email to GreenYes@no.address To unsubscribe from this group, send email to GreenYes-unsubscribe@no.address For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/GreenYes -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~--- |
[GreenYes Archives] -
[Date Index] -
[Thread Index]
[Date Prev] - [Date Next] - [Thread Prev] - [Thread Next]