business & environment series: cioci-lahd-managing upstream waste
TRANSCRIPT
Agenda
1. Waste 101: the waste hierarchy2. Life Cycle Assessment ─ rethinking
waste3. Examples4. Tools and Calculation Approaches5. What the State of Minnesota is
doing
Waste Management Hierarchy
Need for the Waste Hierarchy
But as the political oratory, jokes and embarrassment continue to multiply, so does concern about the crisis over solid waste disposal - not only in the New York region but nationwide. It is a problem that officials say has been building for years with little public interest or concern. -- NY Times, May 1987
1970
• Barrels & Dumps
1976
• Landfill liners
1982
• Incinerator
1986
• Hierarchy
Your world in 1980
What the Waste Hierarchy
Does do:• Guides discards
management• Increase landfill diversion• Help governments plan to
manage discards best (from a 1980 perspective)
• Minimize trash
Doesn’t do: • Guide purchasing decisions• Inform about GHG, toxicity,
human health, or any other environmental issue
• Conserve material resources (incinerator vs. landfill)
• Minimize environmental impact
How Does Zero Waste Fit In?
Zero Waste
• Generally means “zero waste to landfill” or” zero waste to disposal” (landfill or incinerator).
• Typically refers to a facility or event, not a product.
• “Zero waste” in reality is “Maximum diversion.”• Is laudable goal if it means recycling all you can
when you have discards to manage.• UL Environment is certifying zero waste claims
(100%, 98%+ and 80%+ landfill diversion).
Beware the Zero Waste Trap
• Zero waste can drive behavior that runs counter to waste prevention.
• It is often implemented as a free ticket for continued overconsumption of resources - “generate all the waste you want, as long as you can divert it”.
• “It’s okay to use disposables, they get burned to make energy.”
• “Bottled water is fine, as long as I recycle the bottle.”
Life Cycle Assessment & Waste
Recycling
Incineration with energy
recovery
Incineration w/o energy
recovery
Composting
Landfill
Waste
Life Cycle Assessment & Waste
Waste
Recycling
Incineration with energy
recovery
Incineration w/o energy
recovery
Composting
Landfill
Life Cycle Assessment & Waste
Waste
Recycling
Incineration with energy
recovery
Incineration w/o energy
recovery
Composting
Landfill
LCA Results Can Be Counterintuitive: Recyclability ≠ Reduced Impact
Example 1: To Box or To Bag?
www.deq.state.or.us/lq/pubs/docs/sw/packaging/LifeCycleInventory.pdfRelated slides courtesy of Oregon Department of Environmental Quality
Bags and Boxes• Boxes have recyclability and recycled-content
advantages over most types of bags. • But bags have waste prevention advantages
over boxes (for non-breakable items), due to lower weight.
• Different types of bags and void fills for boxes exist – can we state with any certainty that one general approach is better than the other, from a cross-media perspective?
Common Business Perceptions• The choice of void fill is the most important
environmental choice.• Plastic is “made from oil” and is therefore
“bad”.• By extension, products not made from oil
aren’t “bad” (or as bad).• Downstream (disposal) impacts are as
important, or more important, than upstream (manufacturing) impacts.– Wastes that biodegrade are inherently “good”.– Recyclability is important.
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Million Btu of Petroleum per 10,000 Packages
High PC Bags
Low PC Bags
High PC Box/Fills
Low PC Box/Fills
Results: Petroleum
Results: Natural Gas
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Million Btu of Natural Gas per 10,000 Packages
High PC Bags
Low PC Bags
High PC Box/Fills
Low PC Box/Fills
Results: Coal
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Million Btu of Coal per 10,000 Packages
High PC Bags
Low PC Bags
High PC Box/Fills
Low PC Box/Fills
Results: Solid Waste
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 18000
Pounds of Solid Waste per 10,000 Packages
High PC Bags
Low PC Bags
High PC Box/Fills
Low PC Box/Fills
Results: Atmospheric Particulate
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Pounds of Atmospheric Particulate per 10,000 Packages
High PC Bags
Low PC Bags
High PC Box/Fills
Low PC Box/Fills
Results: Atmospheric Mercury
0 0.0002 0.0004 0.0006 0.0008 0.001
Pounds of Atmospheric Mercury per 10,000 Packages
High PC Bags
Low PC Bags
High PC Box/Fills
Low PC Box/Fills
Results: Biological Oxygen Demand
0 10 20 30 40 50
Pounds of BOD per 10,000 Packages
High PC Bags
Low PC Bags
High PC Box/Fills
Low PC Box/Fills
Results: Waterborne Suspended Solids
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Pounds of Waterborne Suspended Solids per 10,000 Packages
High PC Bags
Low PC Bags
High PC Box/Fills
Low PC Box/Fills
Mass Matters!• Weight of materials used is a critical factor: – All bags evaluated have lower burdens than boxes (in
most categories) because of their much lower weight.
– This confirms (indirectly) the relative ranking of waste prevention and recycling in the waste management hierarchy.
• Recyclability and recycled content are not always the best predictor of life cycle energy use or emissions:– BUT, once you’ve chosen a packaging material,
increasing post-consumer content and recycling opportunities can have benefits.
LCA Results Can Be Counterintuitive: Recycled Content ≠ Reduced Impact
Example 2: Recycled vs. Virgin Paperback?
Jean-Robert Wells, et al., 2012
LCA Results Can Be Counterintuitive: Biobased Content ≠ Reduced Impact
Example 3: Books vs. Digital?
http://css.snre.umich.edu/css_doc/CSS03-04.pdfKozak, 2003
Unintended Consequences of Focusing on Disposal Avoidance
• Recycling viewed as comparable to prevention• Composting viewed as comparable to recycling• Supports faulty logic of “bio-based materials
are always best”• Makes it seem markets don’t matter – all
recycling uses of materials are equal. But they aren’t – e.g.: fiberglass better than aggregate.
Single Attributes vs. LCA
It’s not as simple as we thought. Waste hierarchy aids in discards management, but not purchases, product design, material selection.
The single attributes long considered “givens” for reducing environmental impacts, don’t always bear out.
Other qualities matter, mass of materials, energy source for production, life cycle phase or components of most impact
What tools can you use?
Waste Calculation Tools
Financial Data
Waste Generation
Totals
Generation Totals and
Management Methods
Input-Output Analysis
EPA
EPA WARM, NREL LCA
Data
Waste Management and Remediation Services (NAICS 562000)
Impact Category Emission FactorsClimate Change 2.44 kg CO2e
Water Consumption 1.96 gallons
EcoSystem Quality 2.47 Potentially Disappeared Fraction of species per square meter per year (PDF*m2*yr)
Human Health 9.085 E-06Disability Adjusted Life Years (DALYS)
http://www.sustainabilityconsortium.org/open-io/
EPA WARM Model
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/waste/calculators/Warm_home.html
EPA Resources
http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/conserve/tools/recmeas/docs/guide_b.pdf
P&G Supplier Scorecard
http://www.pgsupplier.com/en/current-suppliers/environmental-sustainability-scorecard.shtml
www.walmartstores.com/download/4055.pdf
MPCA’s Approach
• Government is large consumer of goods and services
• Have an active EPP program – but based on single attributes and some ecolabels
• Using our purchasing power and LCA to reduce our supply chain impacts
13%
Reducing Environmental Impacts of Purchasing
1. Funding – staff time, dollars (EPA Grant)
2. Expertise (Class & Consultant)3. Preliminary analysis:
- Defined realistic scope – expiring contracts, without political barriers, - Data needs – Dollar value of contract- LCA to find hotspots (total emissions vs. emissions per dollar)
Reducing Environmental Impacts of Purchasing
4. Stakeholder input5. Changes to RFP language for
purchasing6. Documentation of costs and
environmental benefits (GHG, maybe others)
7. Expansion to other contracts/product categories
