Helen is right, and I just got an email
from Scotland that their “ZW Scotland” will include 25% efw.
I suggest we come up with a position on
how to build the bridge to a ZW Future. Since 90%+ resource recovery isn’t
going to happen immediately, we need to advocate for a positive solution to the
remaining mixed waste fraction. “They” out there are
saying “it’s a waste to NOT make energy out of it”… and
in today’s world that is a very compelling and logical position. If
we don’t like that, than what is our alternative?
Let me share what I’ve been saying
to counter the efw proponents … (just did it this morning) … and I
know this isn’t the preferred future we are all working for, but I do
present it as a “bridge” strategy:
- Source separated community MSW
is the cleanest and cheapest way to manage 70% of the community’s
discards, and this has been proven in numerous communities;
- The remaining 30% of mixed
waste will be gradually phased down to only 10% over about a ten year
period (in truth no one has done this yet so we don’t know how long
it will take), and while we’re getting there we will process the
material at the landfill either through (1) an energy-producing anaerobic
digestion system and then using the stabilized digestate as daily cover
(this approach is for big cities that can afford it); or (2) a simple windrow
composting system that will stabilize the biowaste fraction of the mixed
waste, and then again use as daily cover. After ten years,
there will no more than 10% mixed waste, maybe even zero (but I doubt it),
and it will continue to be processed and stabilized.
- This approach will triple or
more the life of the existing landfill infrastructure in America, and
it’s possible that no new landfills or incinerators need be built
for the next 100 years, if ever.
Since there is a flood of new incinerator and
“bioreactor” proposals popping up all around us, I suggest that the
above argument combined with a moratorium for five years on new incinerators
and landfills is a winner. We need to argue that there is no sense in
moving forward with the multi-million dollar facilities to bury and burn our
resources until after a serious pursuit of 70% has been implemented.
Feedback? Where is this argument
weak? My goal is to stop the flow of investments into the new bury/burn
facilities, so what else can we do to accomplish that?
Eric
Eric Lombardi
Executive Director
Eco-Cycle Inc
5030 Pearl St.
Boulder, CO. 80301
303-444-6634
www.ecocycle.org
Vote for
Eco-Cycle, Help us win $5,000
To celebrate their new store opening in Boulder
and continue their tradition of environmental activism, Patagonia
will donate $5,000 to the local environmental organization that gets the most
votes in their Voice Your Choice contest. Cast your vote online for Eco-Cycle
before March 29!
-----Original Message-----
From: zwia@no.address [mailto:zwia@no.address] On Behalf Of Helen Spiegelman
Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2008
10:24 AM
To: ricanthony@no.address;
zerowaste_sd@no.address; zwia@no.address; gaia-zero-waste@no.address; GreenYes@no.address; crra_members@no.address
Subject: [ZWIA] Re: LA Zero Waste
pans
There is a dragon coiled in these paragraphs.
Our metro politicians made a momentous decision this week to cancel a huge
landfill project. The political buy-in was achieved through the promise that we
can build a suite of 3 - 6 waste-to-energy plants here in the region to manage
"what cannot be further recycled or composted..." Our regional staff
have even hijacked the "Zero Waste Challenge" issued by our
politicians and are saying that WTE is a component of ZW.
Citizens in our region are getting organized to challenge this. We all know
that an incinerator ~ or any facility that turns waste to any kind of "fuel" ~ is a tapeworm that will
suck more and more resources that are needed to build a healthy economy (or
needed to stay right where they are in nature...)
Activities that facilitate the transformation of material to energy is what is
driving climate change.
Please assure me and the citizens of LA that your Zero Waste plan doesn't have
a waste-to-"fuel" provision.
H.
At 08:44 AM 1/24/2008, ricanthony@no.address wrote:
Whatever cannot be further recycled
or composted from the department's 750,000 weekly customers could be turned into alternative
fuels, such as biodiesel or electricity to power our grid,
said Alex Helou, assistant director for the city's Bureau of Sanitation.
"Instead of just burying it in the ground and creating greenhouse gases,
we could use it as a resource to recycle, reuse and convert into a resource
that could create clean energy," said Helou.
It's too early to say how much money the city could make from these alternative
fuels, but there is definite potential to generate revenue, Pereira said.
Already Long Beach converts garbage into electricity for its residents. And it
uses about 100 tons of trash from Los Angeles a day to do it and also charges
$42.50 a ton to take our garbage, said Helou.
But by using Los Angeles garbage to create energy for our city, we can also
reduce our costs instead of subsidizing Long Beach, Helou said.