|
Post by marchesarosa on Mar 26, 2011 9:20:52 GMT 1
Good sense on recycling at last Tim Worstall Saturday, 26 March 2011 07:00 www.adamsmith.org/blog/environment/good-sense-on-recycling-at-last/This rather shocks me, someone is being sensible about recycling at last: Traditionally recycling performance has been measured in terms of tonnage of material. Under the new system, tonnage diversion levels will be weighted by applying a ‘carbon factor’ to the materials collected, which takes into account the environmental benefits of recycling those materials over sending them to landfill. This is believed to be the first attempt anywhere in the world to apply climate change thinking to waste management performance measurement. Full marks to "Zero Waste Scotland" for this idea. For as we keep being told, we've got to recycle in order to stop the planet burning up. Therefore, as you would think people would already have cottoned on to, we should be measuring what we recycle and how by how well doing so stops the planet burning up. That everyone should have done this earlier is true but more joy in heaven over one sinner repentant etc. However, while I might applaud this I'm certain that very few greenies will and nor will Zero Waste Scotland. Indeed, I have a very strong feeling that this will be quietly dropped and not spoken of again. You know, in the manner that random eructations while at tea with aunts are never spoken of. For what they're going to find is that, measured by how well we prevent the planet from burning up, we already recycle too much. For example, we crush up green glass to be used as underlay for roads: this produces more CO2 then simply dumping it. Dumping waste food underground and collecting the methane (as we do at every landfill now) produces fewer greenhouse gases than sticking it into a wormery: worms do that eructation thing you see, just with NOx which is 10 times more polluting that methane. I'm all in favour of doing the right things to reduce pollution: I'm also all in favour of measuring properly what we're actually doing. For only then can we work out what those right things are to reduce pollution. So full marks, as I say, for this initiative. And I look forward to the publication of the full results: that is, as long as they don't find they're just too, too embarrassing to print. Bishop Hill notes, Tim's prediction is that once the new scheme has demonstrated unequivocally that all this recycling we are doing has a higher carbon footprint than landfilling it will be quietly dropped. bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2011/3/26/zero-waste-scotland.htmlLet's hope so. The Green Mania has caused enough irrational decision making already. It's time for a proper audit of all the costs and all the benefits, financial, ecological and other.
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Mar 26, 2011 12:35:29 GMT 1
www.anenglishmanscastle.com/archives/009603.htmlScotland seeks to improve recycling record with pioneering 'carbon metric' | Environment | guardian.co.uk Councils in Scotland are to dramatically reorganise their recycling schemes by targeting materials that cause the most damage to the climate, such as food waste, textiles and plastics. From 2013, councils and householders will be asked to recycle far more of the waste that has a "high carbon impact" and is more environmentally damaging, under a new "carbon metric". Materials with lower carbon benefits from recycling, such as paper, will become less important. Iain Gulland, the director of Zero Waste Scotland, said this new system was "the next leap" in recycling and that using tonnage was not as environmentally sensitive and sustainable as it should be. "This is where Scotland is going to lead," he said. "It's all about climate change."Englisman says, I have spent the time and read the proposal and supporting documentation. Their ideas of "peer review" and "detailed workings" aren't mine and in the acres of carbon jargon I am sure I have missed some things. But I can't see anywhere what the costs will be, either in real money or the forced use of household labour, nor can I see what the result will be in terms of how much climate change will be prevented. I think I will have to ask: To iain.gulland@zerowastescotland.org.uk.
I am excited to see the new plans you have announced for using a carbon metric for prioritising waste collection in Scotland. I have read the documentation on your website - www.zerowastescotland.org.uk/latest_news/carbon_metric_launch.html but I have failed to grasp a couple of key points. Please could you help me out.
You say it is "all about climate change". How many degrees of warming will this scheme prevent?
Segregating waste obviously has a cost to householders, this time can be conservatively costed at the national minimum wage. What are your detailed costings for the time it will take individual to comply, and how many people will be subject to the new rules? This can easily be then costed.
Many thanks.
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Mar 26, 2011 14:30:25 GMT 1
Succinct three arguments against recycling from BBD on Bishop Hill
It is:
Energy-intensive Capital-intensive Labour-intensive
|
|
|
Post by louise on Mar 27, 2011 12:12:45 GMT 1
I would like more encouragement to recycle locally or remove the need to recycle completely. Some of the things I would like to see are:
Deposit on all reusable packaging (e.g. bottles) to encourage return and reuse Huge reduction in unnecessary packaging - do cabbages really need to be shrink wrapped? Communal composters where households are encouraged to deposit all their kitchen waste (not ruddy great wagons collecting it all, neighbourhoods doing it for themselves) Charge 50p for carrier bags
I think some materials such as paper and aluminium cans are worth the energy and cost of recycling - this is more economic than using 'virgin' materials - but I'd rather see the use of plastics discouraged as I believe that recycling these is not (cost or energy efficient).
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Jun 1, 2011 4:00:49 GMT 1
Study: Biodegradable Products May Be Bad For The EnvironmentResearch from North Carolina State University shows that so-called biodegradable products are likely doing more harm than good in landfills, because they are releasing a powerful greenhouse gas as they break down. “Biodegradable materials, such as disposable cups and utensils, are broken down in landfills by microorganisms that then produce methane,” says Dr. Morton Barlaz, co-author of a paper describing the research and professor and head of NC State’s Department of Civil, Construction, and Environmental Engineering. “Methane can be a valuable energy source when captured, but is a potent greenhouse gas when released into the atmosphere.” And the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimates that only about 35 percent of municipal solid waste goes to landfills that capture methane for energy use. EPA estimates that another 34 percent of landfills capture methane and burn it off on-site, while 31 percent allow the methane to escape. “In other words,” Barlaz says, “biodegradable products are not necessarily more environmentally friendly when disposed in landfills.” This problem may be exacerbated by the rate at which these man-made biodegradable materials break down. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) guidelines call for products marked as “biodegradable” to decompose within “a reasonably short period of time” after disposal. But such rapid degradation may actually be environmentally harmful, because federal regulations do not require landfills that collect methane to install gas collection systems for at least two years after the waste is buried. If materials break down and release methane quickly, much of that methane will likely be emitted before the collection technology is installed. This means less potential fuel for energy use, and more greenhouse gas emissions. As a result, the researchers find that a slower rate of biodegradation is actually more environmentally friendly, because the bulk of the methane production will occur after the methane collection system is in place. Some specific biodegradable products such as bags that hold yard waste and are always sent to composting or anaerobic digestion facilities were not included in the study. “If we want to maximize the environmental benefit of biodegradable products in landfills,” Barlaz says, “we need to both expand methane collection at landfills and design these products to degrade more slowly – in contrast to FTC guidance.” The paper, “Is Biodegradability a Desirable Attribute for Discarded Solid Waste? Perspectives from a National Landfill Greenhouse Gas Inventory Model,” was co-authored by Barlaz and NC State Ph.D. student James Levis, and was published online May 27 by the journal Environmental Science & Technology. The research was supported by Procter & Gamble and the Environmental Research and Education Foundation. Published: Online May 27, Environmental Science & Technology more here wattsupwiththat.com/2011/05/31/ooops-biodegradeable-products-release-methane-which-is-more-potent-than-co2-as-a-greenhouse-gas/#more-40897
|
|
|
Post by louise on Jun 4, 2011 20:20:55 GMT 1
Research from North Carolina State University shows that so-called biodegradable products are likely doing more harm than good in landfills, because they are releasing a powerful greenhouse gas as they break down. But I thought you didn't 'believe' in the greenhouse effect?
|
|
|
Post by StuartG on Jun 4, 2011 21:01:35 GMT 1
" But I thought you didn't 'believe' in the greenhouse effect? " No, the 'greenhouse effect' exists, it has to, otherwise we wouldn't. It's the idea that it's in a 'runaway' mode that some doubt is cast. 'Recycling' is a posh word. 'Rag 'n bone Man' suffices. StuartG
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Jun 4, 2011 21:26:32 GMT 1
If North Carolina State University chooses to say "powerful greenhouse gas" instead of "methane" that's their choice.
I merely quote an unintended consequence of placing certain bio-degradable materials in landfill. This thread IS about landfill disposal compared to recycling, isn't it?
|
|
|
Post by StuartG on Jun 4, 2011 21:46:58 GMT 1
Yeah! Rag 'n bone Men
|
|
|
Post by principled on Apr 6, 2013 15:42:35 GMT 1
I recycle my waste. It's easy. 3 bins: One for non-recyclable waste, another for paper, tins, plastic etc., and a third for garden and kitchen waste. Some time back I asked my local district Councillor how much of the recycled waste was actually recycled, and what checks were made on this. The answers were unknown and none. Perhaps, this article is the reason why. If you don't want to read the whole article, this quote should give you a flavour; Is recycling just another one of those done that, ticked that box, "save the planet" measures, along with wind farms, solar panels, carbon pricing and the myriad of other so-called green initiatives? www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2304773/The-great-recycling-trick-How-carefully-sorted-waste-dumped-abroad.htmlP
|
|
|
Post by fascinating on Apr 8, 2013 6:52:43 GMT 1
I am not surprised that the recycling is done in part because of an EU directive. Looking up the figures, I find that roughly 12 million tons of recyclable household waste is produced. Apparently there is another 100 million tons, from businesses and industry, which is collected for recycling. So the 12 million tons sent abroad is roughly a tenth of the total.
I would rather that most was burned and the energy retrieved that way. I don't mind a small proportion going into landfill, either here or abroad. What I don't want is for it to end up in the sea.
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Apr 8, 2013 11:14:23 GMT 1
If some of it were to end up in the sea at coastal sites it would be a valuable contribution to coastal reclamation or sea defences. I am sure that round the world as much land is reclaimed from the sea that is lost to it via sea level rise. info.ngwa.org/gwol/pdf/910155209.PDF
|
|
|
Post by Joanne Byers on Apr 8, 2013 13:43:49 GMT 1
I have moved the last few posts to this thread for the sake of the continuity of the topic.
|
|
|
Post by alancalverd on Apr 9, 2013 14:36:55 GMT 1
If some if it were to end up in the sea at coastal sites it would be a valuable contribution to coastal reclamation or sea defences. I am sure that round the world as much land is reclaimed from the sea that is lost to it via sea level rise. An interesting thought: as we "reclaim" land from the sea, the water has to go somewhere else, so the average sea level must rise. Thus for every acre of drained polder in Europe, an acre of Bangladesh gets flooded. One man's gain is another man's loss.
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Apr 9, 2013 15:42:23 GMT 1
Except if the ocean basins are simultaneously getting deeper, Mr Calverd, as some folk have claimed (as an excuse for the failure of catastrophic sea-level rise to be observed!)
In fact, coastal reclamation and defence seems a rather well justified form of landfill to me.
|
|