390 likes | 563 Views
Zero Waste Economics – Ending Subsidies for Wasting. Dr. Jeffrey Morris Sound Resource Management - Seattle jeff.morris@zerowaste.com 206-599-6734 ZW Network Action Conference August 28, 2004. Purpose of presentation. Discuss the many forms of wasting Discuss why it matters
E N D
Zero Waste Economics –Ending Subsidies for Wasting Dr. Jeffrey Morris Sound Resource Management - Seattle jeff.morris@zerowaste.com 206-599-6734 ZW Network Action Conference August 28, 2004
Purpose of presentation • Discuss the many forms of wasting • Discuss why it matters • Outline life cycle analysis results to show pollution prevention/resource conservation benefits of recycling • Consider possible solutions
Types of subsidies for wasting • Direct - subsidies (local, national and international) • Direct - tax breaks • Direct - security, military and insurance services at low or no cost • Indirect - cheaper energy due to subsidies/tax breaks for energy production • Indirect – free disposal of pollutants to air, land and water
Curbside recycling vs. avoided disposal costs in four WA regions
Curbside recycling costs & revenues in four WA regions • Curbside recycling costs = $173 to $265/ton • Recycling market revenues averaged $70 to $80/ton over past five years • Avoided disposal costs = $32 to $77/ton • Curbside costs = $25 to $70/ton, net of market revenues and net of avoided disposal costs, for programs collecting all recyclable materials. • Curbside costs = $65 to $140 for programs not collecting all materials.
Life cycle analysis of recyclingvs.Disposal with energy recovery
Three or four stages in a product’s life cycle • Resource extraction, resource refining & product manufacturing - upstream stage • Distribution of product to market • Use of product by consumers (& businesses) – use stage • Management of product’s end-of-life discards – end-of-life (downstream) stage
Comparison of environmental impacts for the recycling life cycle (RLC) vs. the trash life cycle (TLC) • TLC – virgin resources extraction/refining • Product manufacturing – RLC recycled content vs. TLC virgin content • Product distribution and use – impacts typically same whether recycled- or virgin-content • Discards management – collection (both), processing (RLC) or transfer (TLC), & shipment to manufacturing (RLC) or disposal (TLC) • Energy generation (TLC)
Environmental impacts of recycling in San Luis Obispo County compared to landfill disposal with landfill gas (LFG) collection and energy generation
Energy use -- resource extraction, re-source refining & product manufacturing
Environmental impacts of recycling in San Luis Obispo County compared to hypothetical WTE Incineration
Environmental impacts of recycling in four regions of Washington compared to landfill disposal with LFG flaring and to waste-to-energy (WTE) incineration
Disposal methods in WA regions • Urban East – 90% waste-to-energy incineration • All Other Regions – 100% landfill • Landfill energy/environmental impact calculations assume 75% methane gas capture and flaring; in fact smaller, older landfills in WA do not have landfill gas capture systems. Also, 75% may be too high for actual landfill lifetime methane capture rate at most landfills.
Net human toxicity potential reduc-tions from curbside recycling in WA
Potential solutions • Bundle recycling costs into garbage fees (e.g., no additional charge curbside recycling for garbage collection customers) • Bundle recycling costs into product prices (e.g., EPR) • Internalize pollution costs in either garbage costs or virgin materials costs (e.g., greenhouse gas reduction credits for recycling or organics diversion programs)
Economic value of pollution prevention and resource conservation benefits of recycling