[GreenYes] Re: [html][heur] [GreenYes] our solar soulmatesdon't getit!!

["Pete Pasterz" <PAPasterz@no.address>]

I'm puzzled, too.   I meant to write reduction...I guess I must have
composting on my mind, as I'm planning our upcoming Master Composter
classes here...
 
Pete

________________________________

From: Reindl, John [mailto:Reindl@no.address] 
Sent: Friday, February 16, 2007 11:59 AM
To: Pete Pasterz; Eric Lombardi; Greenyes
Cc: dave@no.address
Subject: RE: [GreenYes] RE: [html][heur] [GreenYes] our solar
soulmatesdon't getit!!


Hi Pete ~
 
Thanks for doing this. As a 30+ year member of Sierra Club, it will be
interesting to see his response.
 
However, I am puzzled over the point in your note that says composting
saves energy, more than incineration.
I support composting for its replication of the earth's natural process
of recycling. But energy savings?
 
john  

	-----Original Message-----
	From: GreenYes@no.address
[mailto:GreenYes@no.address]On Behalf Of Pete Pasterz
	Sent: Friday, February 16, 2007 10:52 AM
	To: Eric Lombardi; Greenyes
	Cc: dave@no.address
	Subject: [GreenYes] RE: [html][heur] [GreenYes] our solar
soulmates don't getit!!
	
	
	Carl Pope, the ED for the Sierra Club, has a blog.   He
addressed this ASES report on 1/31.   Here's my response:
	 
	 
	"Carl, now I'm perplexed.  Why did SC join with ASES on
announcing this study, and pronouncing that it is now the official SC
Global Warming strategy. 
	 
	By including Municipal Solid Waste as "biomass, and advocating
gasification and stoker bed combustors, its recommendations appear to
contradict existing SC policy on Solid Waste, from 1992 particularly
accepting NO Incineration of MSW...not even the organic fraction.  This
ASES report does not even acknowledge the SC requirement for existing
incinerators that 60% of materials are reduced, reused, recycled, and
composted.  This stance on Incineration was reaffirmed as recently as
the 9/06 2006 Energy Resources Policy.
	 
	Recycling and Composting are well known now to save much more
energy than what can be recovered by incineration.  And, this magic
"black box" solution removes the incentive to recycle and reduce waste,
and makes as much sense as thinking that feeding landfills with organics
is an efficient way to produce methane gas for a fuel.
	 
	How can the Club reconcile these inconsistencies??  What SC
Committees were consulted to review this report before it was released?
	 
	Pete Pasterz, Member"
	 
	 
	 
	Pete Pasterz
	Cabarrus County, NC

________________________________

	From: GreenYes@no.address
[mailto:GreenYes@no.address] On Behalf Of Eric Lombardi
	Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2007 6:56 PM
	To: Greenyes
	Cc: dave@no.address
	Subject: [html][heur] [GreenYes] our solar soulmates don't get
it!!
	Importance: Low
	
	

	(this just in from GAIA)

	A recent report by the American Solar Energy Society, and
recognized by the Sierra Club as their official roadmap to confronting
global warming, presents a biomass strategy that would displace real
global warming solutions such as recycling and composting by supporting
the incineration of municipal solid waste-including paper.  This could
undermine efforts to transform the pulp and paper industry, reduce paper
consumption, increase paper recycling, and protect forests.

	The report can be found at: http://www.ases.org/climatechange/ 

	Sierra Club's press release can be found at:
http://www.sierraclub.org/pressroom/releases/pr2007-01-31a.asp 

	I have also pasted the text from the report that is of
particular concern at the bottom of this e-mail.

	The report presents an expanded definition of "biomass" that
includes gasification incineration of municipal solid waste as a source
of renewable energy.  The data used in the study considers more than
half of U.S. municipal solid waste as eligible for biomass, including
materials that are currently recycled or composted such as paper,
cardboard, green waste, food waste and construction wood waste.
Further, the report makes no mention of recycling.  When the full life
cycle is considered, recycling is a far less greenhouse gas and energy
intensive approach than biomass incineration. 

	 State and federal climate policy will be pivotal in determining
the fate of recycling and composting in the U.S.  Rather than support
the expansion of incinerators in U.S. communities, we must work to
advance policies that support more just and sustainable waste solutions
that are better for the climate than incineration and landfilling.

	 Promote recycling, not incineration: 

	

	*      Write a letter to the Sierra Club to let them know that
you are concerned about the impact of biomass incineration on paper
recycling. The Sierra Club has been an ally on many issues.  Please
consider including the points below: 

	

	

	o        Biomass should not be defined to include incineration
(including gasification, pyrolysis, plasma and other incinerator
technologies) of valuable materials found in municipal solid waste such
as paper, cardboard, green waste, food waste and construction wood waste
because: 

	 *         Classifying incineration as a source of renewable
energy and a solution to global warming undermines real global warming
solutions such as recycling and composting 

	*         Recycling and composting of discarded materials
contributes far fewer greenhouse gas emissions than incineration

	*         Recycling and composting materials conserves 3-5 times
more energy than incineration generates 

	*         Incinerators are the most expensive and toxic approach
to dealing with municipal solid waste

	 Of particular concern in the report is the following:

	 "Urban Residues (Municipal Solid Waste [MSW])

	Values for biomass in MSW were available for California at the
county level [21], and we obtained data for the remaining states (with
the exceptions of Alaska and Montana) from a recent survey of state
solid waste and recycling officials [25]. We calculated a value for
annual per capita MSW generation of 1.38 metric tons per person per year
from the data available for the 16 states. We applied this annual per
capita factor to the populations of Alaska and Montana to estimate their
MSW generation. We applied values for moisture content (30% wet basis)
and biogenic fraction of MSW (56%) to the MSW values to arrive at
estimates of biogenic dry matter in MSW for each state. This resource
includes only the biomass component of MSW and not the entire MSW
stream. The biomass component consists of paper and cardboard, green
waste, food waste, and construction wood waste, and specifically
excludes plastics, tires, and other non-biomass materials. We determined
biomass in MSW diverted from landfill by subtraction of disposal from
generation."

	 The report includes the following incineration technologies:

	* Stoker and fluid bed combustors with steam generation and
steam turbines

	* Gasification with applications to boiler steam generation and
steam turbines, combined cycle (gas turbine, heat recovery steam
generator, and steam turbine), or an ICE

	  

	Dave Ciplet

	Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives (GAIA)

	Tel: 510.883.9490 ext. 102

	Fax: 510.883.9493

	dave@no.address

	www.no-burn.org <http://www.no-burn.org/> 

	 




		
	


--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---