The importance of Green House Gases (GHG) in decision making for SWM systems becomes an elementary part of every discussion about the future waste management. Below you will find some questions to consider and some thoughts to share about the issue.
I do believe that half of the effort we need is to create an appropriate framework for the assessment of the link between GHGs and SWM. Although there are a lot of very useful related documents, I still believe that the necessary political framework for this discussion is loose and not well defined. For the International Solid Waste Association (ISWA, www.iswa.org ) there is an opportunity to upgrade its profile being a part of the required global drivers for such a discussion. In fact, the global impacts of SWM (as highlighted by GHGs) are an obvious documentation of the need for global action and the necessity of a global know-how provider and driver to more sustainable SWM, exactly what ISWA’s mission is! So allow me to write some thoughts trying to contribute to an initial framing.
Thoughts
Globalization of environmental impacts: GHGs are the most obvious way to highlight that local SWM has a global environmental footprint. There are also a lot of other indications to highlight (in scientific terms) a similar relation between local actions and global effects, but under the current conditions and the global political agenda about Climate Change, the link between SWM and GHGs is the most important tool to create a universal understanding for how our local decisions in SWM contribute to global phenomena.
GHGs and the sense of time: human beings tend to underestimate or even ignore the importance of events that are out of their natural time scale. GHGs impacts are also a very good example in order to prove how previous and current SWM practices create Long Term results which substantially deteriorate the life of future generations.
GHG and developing countries: obviously the GHG effects and their management play a very crucial role for the formulation of international relations and diplomacy efforts. They also have a very clear political and economical content, which is very sensitive and difficult to be avoided. But we have to avoid a direct recommendation of what has to be done in terms of technologies and systems in place. In contrast, we have to point what should be the potential next steps (usually more than one) for more sustainability and less GHG effects in every different level of SWM. We need something like “How GHG effects influence SWM” or similar. The focus should be to criteria and conceptual relations between different practices and technologies and not to a direct indication to what has to be done.
Some Questions
GHG effects should be considered as a risk or as an opportunity for SWM development? (I suggest the second)
What are the impacts to GHGs from the different SWM practices? What are the main risks for SWM systems? Are there any opportunities and where?
What are the impacts to SWM practices and the industry from the accumulation of GHGs? How Climate Change is expected to affect SWM?
What are the key – actions that should be elaborated from different SWM systems and practices in order to minimize the GHGs impacts?
Should we discuss about the economical impacts as well?
Can we categorize Short and Long Term actions?
Can we categorize actions according their effects (e.g. Small, Medium, and High)?
2.11.2009
Using mobile phones to promote recycling: the London experiment
The text that follows is copied by www.edie.net (12/2/2009)
Londoners are being encouraged to starve their bins in a new electronic game that they can play on the move. Recycle for London's latest publicity campaign, which is funded by the London Waste and Recycling Board, is using a mobile phone game to spread the word.
It is the first time that such technology has been used for a public sector campaign. Players will be challenged to starve their "evil bin" by catching recyclable materials in a green recycling box, scoring points for every item caught, and losing lives if the bin eats the items.
More than 60% of the rubbish thrown away in the capital can be recycled by the city is currently managing an average of just 20%. "In London we throw away so much rubbish that could actually be recycled - it's an important resource which is simply being chucked away," London Mayor Boris Johnson said. "I am very excited that the new Recycle for London campaign is using innovative technologies to boost recycling and my message is to starve your bins and recycle, recycle, recycle."
Mr Johnson added that he is confident that the recycling market will recover, despite reports of the recent downturn in some parts of the market for recycled materials. Councillor Daniel Moylan, from the London Waste and Recycling Board, said: "Along with reducing the amount of waste we send to landfill, driving up recycling is our top priority and we shouldn't let a few scare stories in the media divert us from this important endeavour."
For the first time, the campaign will now be advertised on television, alongside the radio and press adverts and the posters on public transport that most city-dwellers will already be familiar with. Londoners can download the game by texting BIN to 62967. iPhone users can download the game from the Apple Store on iTunes. All users can forward the game to friends. It will work on most internet-ready mobile phones. It does not work on BlackBerries.
Londoners are being encouraged to starve their bins in a new electronic game that they can play on the move. Recycle for London's latest publicity campaign, which is funded by the London Waste and Recycling Board, is using a mobile phone game to spread the word.
It is the first time that such technology has been used for a public sector campaign. Players will be challenged to starve their "evil bin" by catching recyclable materials in a green recycling box, scoring points for every item caught, and losing lives if the bin eats the items.
More than 60% of the rubbish thrown away in the capital can be recycled by the city is currently managing an average of just 20%. "In London we throw away so much rubbish that could actually be recycled - it's an important resource which is simply being chucked away," London Mayor Boris Johnson said. "I am very excited that the new Recycle for London campaign is using innovative technologies to boost recycling and my message is to starve your bins and recycle, recycle, recycle."
Mr Johnson added that he is confident that the recycling market will recover, despite reports of the recent downturn in some parts of the market for recycled materials. Councillor Daniel Moylan, from the London Waste and Recycling Board, said: "Along with reducing the amount of waste we send to landfill, driving up recycling is our top priority and we shouldn't let a few scare stories in the media divert us from this important endeavour."
For the first time, the campaign will now be advertised on television, alongside the radio and press adverts and the posters on public transport that most city-dwellers will already be familiar with. Londoners can download the game by texting BIN to 62967. iPhone users can download the game from the Apple Store on iTunes. All users can forward the game to friends. It will work on most internet-ready mobile phones. It does not work on BlackBerries.
2.05.2009
Urban waste management solutions
This is an article from the DG Environment Newsletter "Science for Environmental Policy" (Special Issue 11, February 2009).
"What is the best way to manage urban waste? Towns and cities generate huge volumes of waste that are often disposed of as landfill. In a new study, researchers explain that sorting urban waste into organic and inorganic streams, which can be turned into energy and fertiliser, offers a much more efficient and environmentally friendly solution.
Each year, 1.3 billion tonnes of waste is thrown away in the EU1. In several European countries, the main way of disposing of this waste is in landfill sites. In Greece, Portugal, the UK, Ireland, Finland, Italy and Spain more than half of all waste ends up as landfill. Aside from the negative environmental impacts of landfill, including heavy metal leaching and slow release of greenhouse gases, landfill sites are in short supply. Alternative waste management strategies are therefore urgently required.
Using the city of Rome as a case study, landfill was compared with four alternative waste management options:
landfill without biogas treatment
landfill with collection of biogas to burn for electricity production
direct incineration of waste with electricity recovery
a scheme where waste is sorted into organic and inorganic streams at landfill sites, and ferrous metals are recycled
In each case, the researchers calculated how much new waste was generated by the waste disposal process itself, how much energy the process required and how much it generated, and the estimated global and local emissions. The results suggest landfill represents the worst waste management strategy both in terms of environmental impacts and energy performance. The data reveal that even incinerating waste is a better option than landfill.
Separating organic and inorganic waste, proved most effective in terms of reducing environmental impacts and energy performance. In this case, organic waste is turned into biogas and fertiliser, and inorganic waste is converted to Refuse Derived Fuel (RDF) which is burned to generate electricity. This scenario could lead to an 80 per cent reduction in the amount of waste sent to landfill. In terms of global warming potential, this scenario has a positive effect on net greenhouse gas emissions (because the electricity and biogas produced can replace fossil fuels).
For comparison, under the landfill alone scenario, one year's worth of waste from Rome produces an estimated global warming potential equivalent to 1910 kt CO2 (mainly in the form of greenhouse gases emitted from the landfill site). If the waste is separated into streams, there is a net reduction in global warming potential equivalent to 345 kt CO2 from one year's worth of waste.
Although none of the options evaluated provide a full solution to the waste disposal problem, the researchers suggest that the fourth scenario is currently the most viable. This scheme produces twice as much energy as the direct incineration scheme and is the most energy efficient. From an environmental perspective, the same scheme offers the best solution, as the only remaining waste to enter landfill is burnt inorganic waste, which will not decompose further after disposal. In contrast, organic waste directly disposed of in landfill will continue to decompose for thousands of years, releasing greenhouse gases.
1. See: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/index.htm
Source: Cherubini, F., Bargigli, S. and Ulgiati, S. (2008). Life Cycle Assessment of Urban Waste Management: Energy Performances and Environmental Impacts. The Case of Rome, Italy. Waste Management. 28: 2552-2564.
Contact: cherufra@yahoo.it
Theme(s): Climate change and energy, Urban Environments, WasteAdditional information: LIFE has funded a number of innovative projects designed to improve the sustainability of waste management. For project details, please download: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/themes/urban/documents/urban_waste.pdf
"What is the best way to manage urban waste? Towns and cities generate huge volumes of waste that are often disposed of as landfill. In a new study, researchers explain that sorting urban waste into organic and inorganic streams, which can be turned into energy and fertiliser, offers a much more efficient and environmentally friendly solution.
Each year, 1.3 billion tonnes of waste is thrown away in the EU1. In several European countries, the main way of disposing of this waste is in landfill sites. In Greece, Portugal, the UK, Ireland, Finland, Italy and Spain more than half of all waste ends up as landfill. Aside from the negative environmental impacts of landfill, including heavy metal leaching and slow release of greenhouse gases, landfill sites are in short supply. Alternative waste management strategies are therefore urgently required.
Using the city of Rome as a case study, landfill was compared with four alternative waste management options:
landfill without biogas treatment
landfill with collection of biogas to burn for electricity production
direct incineration of waste with electricity recovery
a scheme where waste is sorted into organic and inorganic streams at landfill sites, and ferrous metals are recycled
In each case, the researchers calculated how much new waste was generated by the waste disposal process itself, how much energy the process required and how much it generated, and the estimated global and local emissions. The results suggest landfill represents the worst waste management strategy both in terms of environmental impacts and energy performance. The data reveal that even incinerating waste is a better option than landfill.
Separating organic and inorganic waste, proved most effective in terms of reducing environmental impacts and energy performance. In this case, organic waste is turned into biogas and fertiliser, and inorganic waste is converted to Refuse Derived Fuel (RDF) which is burned to generate electricity. This scenario could lead to an 80 per cent reduction in the amount of waste sent to landfill. In terms of global warming potential, this scenario has a positive effect on net greenhouse gas emissions (because the electricity and biogas produced can replace fossil fuels).
For comparison, under the landfill alone scenario, one year's worth of waste from Rome produces an estimated global warming potential equivalent to 1910 kt CO2 (mainly in the form of greenhouse gases emitted from the landfill site). If the waste is separated into streams, there is a net reduction in global warming potential equivalent to 345 kt CO2 from one year's worth of waste.
Although none of the options evaluated provide a full solution to the waste disposal problem, the researchers suggest that the fourth scenario is currently the most viable. This scheme produces twice as much energy as the direct incineration scheme and is the most energy efficient. From an environmental perspective, the same scheme offers the best solution, as the only remaining waste to enter landfill is burnt inorganic waste, which will not decompose further after disposal. In contrast, organic waste directly disposed of in landfill will continue to decompose for thousands of years, releasing greenhouse gases.
1. See: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/index.htm
Source: Cherubini, F., Bargigli, S. and Ulgiati, S. (2008). Life Cycle Assessment of Urban Waste Management: Energy Performances and Environmental Impacts. The Case of Rome, Italy. Waste Management. 28: 2552-2564.
Contact: cherufra@yahoo.it
Theme(s): Climate change and energy, Urban Environments, WasteAdditional information: LIFE has funded a number of innovative projects designed to improve the sustainability of waste management. For project details, please download: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/themes/urban/documents/urban_waste.pdf
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)