This waves the red flag in front of Muller.
(1) I have found Jeff's work
to be consistently objective, non-ideological, and convincing.
(2) Cited below is something
including as authors Barlaz and Vasuki. These are two notorious
incinerator promoters/recycling opponents (and in the case of Vasuki, a
promoter of uncontrolled landfilling). This is like citing Hitler
as an authority on population control.
(3) "Diversion"
(from landfill) is NOT the name of the game. Diversion can easily
be to something even less desirable.
(4) Life cycle analysis, as
usually performed, is a snapshot in time, and like "risk
assessment," easily manipulated.
(5) Comparing, say, the
cost-effectiveness of saving gasoline with recycling PET would be more
useful IF one, in the real world, was treated as an alternative to the
other.
am
At 10:03 AM 7/21/2007 -0500, Stephan Pollard wrote:
Jeff,
I presume we're talking about he U.S.
Are you suggesting that no matter where you go (in the U.S.), no matter
the time, no matter the mix of the plethora of factors/variables
including the attributes of the recycling collection program or the
differences of the recyclable content from waste stream to waste stream
or simply what it takes to recycle or compost, for each commodity
collected for recycling and composting, that the benefits outweigh the
costs?
To repeat parts of a post made to this group on 9/26/06 RE: Informed
Solid Waste Management...LCA is an analytical tool that examines the
often complex environmental impact of a product, process, or
service. Information returned from LCAs can be used as an important
input to informed solid waste decision-making...decision-making that
should incorporate periodic reassessment. Such reassessment
includes, for example, measurement of the efficacy of diversion programs
at the material/commodity level. Depending on ever-changing
circumstances, halting the diversion of glass bottles and jars in favor
of spending the saved money on programs targeting the diversion or
perhaps elimination of high-risk products might be an indicated course of
action. Given the more than appreciable expense of curbside
collection of recyclables, a dollar spent on the collection of glass,
paper, or PET might be better spent elsewhere, perhaps on drop-off or
deposit programs or take-back schemes as has been suggested (Lave et al.,
1999; Barlaz et al., 2003). As Barlaz et al. (2003) point out,
saving gasoline has a lot more potential to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions than does PET recycling.
It is important to note that failure to consider that the rarely-static
mix of circumstances/management techniques/parameters/inputs differ
between locations could result in suboptimal or worse-than-before
solutions when applying LCA results in a cookie-cutter fashion.
Additionally, not all LCAs are created equal. Some are more
accurate and(or) thorough in their consideration of input parameters and
externalities than others. Quantifying tangible and intangible
social benefits and costs can be very difficult. Concerning the
input data and the quality of the LCA, the old adage (and pardon the pun)
"Garbage In Garbage Out" certainly applies.
Lave, L.B., Hendrickson, C.T., Conway-Schempf, N.M., McMichael, F.C.,
1999. Municipal solid waste recycling issues. Journal of Environmental
Engineering 125(10): 944-949.
- Abstract
- Municipal solid waste (MSW) recycling targets have been set
nationally and in many states. Unfortunately, the definitions of
recycling, rates of recycling, and the appropriate components of MSW
vary. MSW recycling has been found to be costly for most
municipalities compared to landfill disposal. MSW recycling policy should
be determined by the cost to the community and to society more
generally. In particular, recycling is a good policy only if
environmental impacts and the resources used to collect, sort, and
recycle a material are less than the environmental impacts and resources
needed to provide equivalent virgin material plus the resources needed to
dispose of the postconsumer material safely. From a review of the
existing economic experience with recycling and an analysis of the
environmental benefits (including estimation of external social costs),
we find that, for most communities, curbside recycling is only
justifiable for some postconsumer waste, such as aluminum and other
metals. We argue that alternatives to curbside recycling collection
should be explored, including product takeback for products with a toxic
content (such as batteries) or product redesign to permit more effective
product remanufacture.
Barlaz, M.A, Cekander, G.C., Vasuki, N.C., 2003. Integrated solid waste
management in the United States. Journal of Environmental Engineering
129(7): 583-584.
Best,
Stephan Pollard
Jeffrey Morris wrote:
Hi Folks,
Re: Stephan Dubner's interview on Good Morning America, we (Scott
Matthews of Carnegie Mellon and the Carnegie Mellon Economic Input
Output-Life Cycle Assessment model online at eiolca.net, Frank Ackerman
of Tufts and author of Why do We Recycle and co-author of Priceless: On
Knowing the Price of Everything and the Value of Nothing, and myself)
have developed the Consumer Environmental Index (CEI) that measures and
tracks the climate change, human toxics and ecosystem toxics impacts of
consumer expenditures each year - from resource extraction to production
to retail sale and consumer use and through to end-of-life management of
discards. The short answer to Stephan Dubner - recycling and composting a
household's discards (paper, glass/metal/plastic containers, yard debris
and food scraps) is equivalent to reducing consumption of vehicle fuels,
motor oils and repairs by 25% through using mass transit to commute to
work frequently enough to attain that 25% reduction.
So the environmental benefit of recycling and composting is enormous,
even though we sometimes have to pay more to recycle than we do to throw
discards in the garbage. The reason that economics and environment
are often at odds - emissions to air, water and land of pollutants is
typically free, i.e, free disposal of these toxic and climate changing
wastes, so the profit or cost/benefit bottom line driven household or
business or governmental or non-profit agency saves dollars by throwing
things away. The fact that polluting and wasting is mostly free is
at the heart of why we have such a difficult time finding ways to make
recycling compete economically with wasting.
You can see a quick description of the CEI at our website
www.zerowaste.com and download
the presentation slides that Scott and I used when we unveiled the CEI
for Washington State at the Washington State Department of Ecology on
July 9. There's also a report that you can download if you want
more details.
The Economist on June 7th ran an article in their print edition on
recycling -- The Truth About Recycling -- that came to the opposite
conclusion from Dubner. The Economist is not known for being a
liberal rag so that's another good source to point to for the opposite
conclusion.
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
|