GreenYes Archives

[GreenYes Archives] - [Thread Index] - [Date Index]
[Date Prev] - [Date Next] - [Thread Prev] - [Thread Next]

[GreenYes] Re: [ZWIA] Re: LA Zero Waste pans

Switchgrass also *really* produces nanoparticles when burned .... more than, say, coal by some data I have seen.....  There is too much promotion of burning "biomass" without consideration of the health and environmental consequences...


At 05:17 PM 1/28/2008 -0700, Eric Lombardi wrote:
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?

-----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.

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?

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 Lombardi
Executive Director
Eco-Cycle Inc
5030 Pearl St.
Boulder, CO. 80301
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.


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

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).

Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.19.8/1235 - Release Date: 1/21/2008 9:39 AM

[GreenYes Archives] - [Date Index] - [Thread Index]
[Date Prev] - [Date Next] - [Thread Prev] - [Thread Next]