1 / 39

Zero Waste Economics – Ending Subsidies for Wasting

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

aelan
Download Presentation

Zero Waste Economics – Ending Subsidies for Wasting

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. 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

  2. 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

  3. 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

  4. Why subsidies matter:Net costs of curbside recycling

  5. Curbside recycling vs. avoided disposal costs in four WA regions

  6. 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.

  7. Average value per ton for curbside recyclables

  8. Life cycle analysis of recyclingvs.Disposal with energy recovery

  9. 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

  10. 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)

  11. Environmental impacts of recycling in San Luis Obispo County compared to landfill disposal with landfill gas (LFG) collection and energy generation

  12. Energy use -- resource extraction, re-source refining & product manufacturing

  13. Energy usage: SLO RLC vs. TLC

  14. Energy usage: SLO RLC vs. TLC

  15. Greenhouse Gas: SLO RLC vs. TLC

  16. Acidification: SLO RLC vs. TLC

  17. Eutrophication: SLO RLC vs. TLC

  18. DALYs: SLO RLC vs. TLC

  19. Human toxicity: SLO RLC vs. TLC

  20. Ecotoxicity: SLO RLC vs. TLC

  21. Environmental impacts of recycling in San Luis Obispo County compared to hypothetical WTE Incineration

  22. Energy usage: SLO RLC vs. TLC

  23. Greenhouse Gas: SLO RLC vs. TLC

  24. Acidification: SLO RLC vs. TLC

  25. Eutrophication: SLO RLC vs. TLC

  26. DALYs: SLO RLC vs. TLC

  27. Human toxicity: SLO RLC vs. TLC

  28. Ecotoxicity: SLO RLC vs. TLC

  29. Environmental impacts of recycling in four regions of Washington compared to landfill disposal with LFG flaring and to waste-to-energy (WTE) incineration

  30. 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.

  31. Net energy use reductions from curbside recycling in WA

  32. Net greenhouse gas reductions from curbside recycling in WA

  33. Net acid gas reductions from curbside recycling in WA

  34. Net eutrophication reductionsfrom curbside recycling in WA

  35. Net human toxicity potential reduc-tions from curbside recycling in WA

  36. 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)

  37. Economic value of pollution prevention and resource conservation benefits of recycling

  38. Economic value of pollution reductions from recycling

  39. SO2 emissions allowances Average monthly spot market prices

More Related