Hi Gerry and all,
This has been a fruitful global
discussion. Since GRRN and Eco-Cycle have been actively creating and
presenting workshops about “Zero Waste Community Planning,” I want to
continue to tap this online brain-trust to create two things: (1) as I said
before, we need a “bridge strategy”, and (2) as this group discussion
has shown, we need to establish a clear and simple “5-Point Platform for
a Zero Waste Future” … or some wording like that.
(1)
Bridge Strategy …
what I heard is the following …
a.
Getting to 70% Discard
Recovery is easy, and more a matter of political will than economics or
technology;
b.
Getting from 70-90% is
harder and will require increased levels of participation from industry in the
design and recovery of their products;
c.
The last 10% of “mixed
waste” will be with us until we all hit the 90% level, and then at that
point the world will be a very different place and the solution to this last 10%
will emerge in ways we can’t imagine today.
d.
Processing of this
ever-shrinking 30% mixed waste will NOT be incineration or any capital-intensive
technology… rather it will be a simple MANDATE to stabilize the organic
fraction and then bury it in a dry tomb landfill. Simple windrow
composting would accomplish this, and the dirty stabilized material could then
be used as daily cover. This is NOT a good long-term solution, and that
is the point… that without source separation, there is NO good solution
for mixed waste.
e.
Upstream …. We must
make the purchase of “toxic, non-recyclable and non-compostable products”
a social taboo… like smoking cigarettes has become. Just as we are
all proud of our “green” products, we must now define what “non-green
products are so that they can be as easily avoided as green products are to
find.
(2)
ZW Futures Platform …
a few points to get started … each point needs to be expanded … but…
let’s keep it simple:
a.
Healthy Soils is our
vision for biodegradable discards;
b.
Resource Conservation and
Energy Use Reduction is our vision for recycling our dry discards;
c.
A “double bottom
line” financial accounting system which includes both profit AND
community benefit (environment and jobs) is the appropriate framework to compare
different discard management options; (My mantra has been “waste is
a social issue first and a market issue second”)
d.
Product Design and
Producers Responsibility is AS IMPORTANT AS Downstream Recovery systems;
I’ll stop there …and let the
next creative step begin.
Eric
-----Original Message-----
From: zwia@no.address
[mailto:zwia@no.address] On Behalf Of Gillespie
Gerry
Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2008
11:12 PM
To: Eric Lombardi;
jeff.morris@no.address; hspie@no.address; 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
Eric,
Sorry to be
slow to respond – I have been out west for the last few days.
We are
currently working on a model to move composted products into agriculture where
the urban waste stream would be only one part of the input products.
I will try to
get a few dots points together based around the recent conversation if we could
all do the same perhaps we could run some form of ‘affinity’
process where they were all pulled together – this may result in a few
very simple phrases we could use around the world.
Common ground
is a very important point because it gives us a single voice.
Talk to you
soon.
Gerry
From: Eric
Lombardi [mailto:eric@no.address]
Sent: Tuesday, 29 January 2008
11:17 AM
To: Gillespie Gerry;
jeff.morris@no.address; hspie@no.address; ricanthony@no.address;
zerowaste_sd@no.address; zwia@no.address; gaia-zero-waste@no.address;
GreenYes@no.address; crra_members@no.address
Subject: RE: [ZWIA] Re: LA Zero
Waste pans
Hey mate,
Your points are spot
on… so … we need to bring it all together into something that
creates a simple vision for the masses. I am currently in discussions
about the “slogan” and the “hook” for the new GRRN
campaign we’re launching in April called
COOL2012…”Compostable Organics Out of Landfill by
2012”. We have decided that the healthy soils/water/CO2
capture/local food angles are all important… but how to pull it together
into a winning soundbite? We are going to make a major link with
global warming and the landfill industry bullshit on gas capture… but
that is all very technical. That is why I have always loved your
City to Soil program down there in Australia … and I use in my
conversation often with elected leaders. Recently I’ve been
thinking about bringing something like switchgrass into the
“circle” since it could be one of the best biofuel alternatives to
oil, and, it grows in marginal lands, and… with the application of
compost it REALLY produces. So not only do we lower GHG methane by
keeping biodegradables out of the ground, but we also grow biofuels to replace
oil … now THAT is a virtuous circle !!!
What do you think?
Eric
-----Original Message-----
From: Gillespie Gerry
[mailto:Gerry.Gillespie@no.address]
Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2008
2:55 PM
To: jeff.morris@no.address;
eric@no.address; hspie@no.address; ricanthony@no.address;
zerowaste_sd@no.address; zwia@no.address;
gaia-zero-waste@no.address; GreenYes@no.address;
crra_members@no.address
Subject: RE: [ZWIA] Re: LA Zero
Waste pans
Dear all,
I agree with Eric and Jeff.
To back up all the points from Helen, Eric and Jeff can I suggest
that a focus on the return of organic material to the food chain must defeat
incineration in the long run.
No matter where you are in the world the organic fraction of your
soils is falling rapidly.
You in the northern hemisphere may have started with a lot more
organic material in your soils than we had in Australia but with sheer guts and
determination you will reach the same point.
A report from the UK in 2001 stated that the soils in the UK are
unstable due to a lack of organic material. This was confirmed with the DEFRA
Soil Strategy released in 2004. The silly thing is that the same Department
which looks after the Soil Strategy looks after waste.
The only things which will burn in an incinerator are organic in
origin – the vast majority of this material is compostable and
retriveable by source separation.
The increase in the price of fossil fuel will make fertiliser much
more expensive – in rural Australia it just hit $1000 per tonne. This is
driving the farming market in the direction of compost and biologically active
fluid products.
I feel that if we can shift the argument over to concentrate of
organic recovery it defeats incineration because there is nothing to burn and
it defeats landfill because the only reason we were burying it in the first
place was because of the “yuk” factor.
Moving the argument over from waste disposal and solving a
‘problem’ to agricultural protection and taking and
‘opportunity’ is going to be a very sound argument now that
chemical fertiliser has hit the wall.
Even in Australia now there are more calls for incineration –
we need a broad strategy.
Could I suggest that a combination of Helen’s comments on the
needs of nature, Eric’s points on source separation and Jeff’s on
the 30% residual could all be combined under an organics protection banner
which takes us in the direction of a carbon economy.
Perhaps if we all worked toward a 5 point plan for resource
protection we could have a world-wide document defining the Zero Waste in all
countries around the world against mixed waste incineration and disposal to
landfill.
Gerry
From:
zwia@no.address [mailto:zwia@no.address] On Behalf Of Jeffrey Morris
Sent: Friday, 25 January 2008 8:02
AM
To: eric@no.address;
hspie@no.address; 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
Hey
Eric,
Thanks
for making the effort to put this argument together. I would add a couple
of points to your list:
1. Many
of the products left in that 30% are in fact made up of fossil fuel material
that will generate GHGs when burned – e.g., plastics, rubber, paints and
pesticides. This is why incinerators even with energy recovery are net
GHG emitters even after taking into account the electric power grid offsets
from the electricity that incinerators generate.
2.
Production of incineration equipment and emissions control equipment that make
up the incinerator facility, as well as the fuel and other energy consumed in
constructing the incinerator, are also sources of GHG emissions.
3.
composting done correctly should emit little GHGs, although the equipment and
energy to operate a compost facility will be GHG sources. However, the
cost of a compost facility compared with the cost on an incinerator indicates
the relative amount of GHGs for a composting operation versus an incineration
disposal facility.
What do
you think?
Jeff
From:
zwia@no.address [mailto:zwia@no.address] On Behalf Of Eric Lombardi
Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2008
12:36 PM
To: hspie@no.address; 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
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:
1.
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;
2.
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.
3.
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.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
This email is intended for the addressee(s) named and may contain confidential and/or privileged information.
If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender and then delete it immediately.
Any views expressed in this email are those of the individual sender except where the sender expressly
and with authority states them to be the views of the Department of Environment and Climate Change (NSW).
|
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
This email is intended for the addressee(s) named and may contain confidential and/or privileged information.
If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender and then delete it immediately.
Any views expressed in this email are those of the individual sender except where the sender expressly
and with authority states them to be the views of the Department of Environment and Climate Change (NSW).
|