|
It depends on the COSTS you're
comparing. Are the long term human and ecosystem health effects of
landfill disposal fully costed?? LCAs are expensive; I have yet to
see an LCA which has not been funded by a well heeled vested
interest. I have yet to see an LCA which includes TRUE COST
accounting.
From what I've been able to gather so
far, Dr. Mort Barlaz at NC State [I wonder if he drives a Prius, or rides his
bike to campus, since gas savings are important to him???] in my new home state
of NC seems to have a pro-landfill bias; I'll look a the full studies
you've cited, but I will NOT be surprised to find missing elements of
Environmental cost, or for assumptions which have no scientifically supported
grounding [i.e. 75% or 100% of LF GHGs being recovered], just like in all
the others I've reviewed.
Pete Pasterz
Harrisburg, NC
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
DISCLAIMER:
E-mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
|
|