Why Product Stewardship? - Solid Waste Management Coordinating

download report

Transcript Why Product Stewardship? - Solid Waste Management Coordinating

Why Product
Stewardship?
THE LOCAL
GOVERNMENT PERSPECTIVE
Name, date of event
Name of presenter
Overview
• Introduction - Why Product Stewardship?
• History: How Waste Became a Local
Government Responsibility
• How Waste Has Changed
• The Impacts of Products and Packaging
• The Product Stewardship Approach
• SWMCB Roles and Activities
• The Future of Product Stewardship
Introduction:
Why Product Stewardship?
•
Local government “charge” for
environmental and public health
protection – the arm of the State.
•
Environmental impacts – GHG emissions,
water, landfills, toxicity.
•
Local government costs, such as
recycling and HHW management .
HISTORY:
HOW WASTE BECAME A
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
RESPONSIBILITY
History: How Waste Became a Local
Government Responsibility
Rapid
urbanization
occurred from
1840 – 1920.
History: How Waste Became a Local
Government Responsibility
History: How Waste Became a Local
Government Responsibility
History: How Waste Became a Local
Government Responsibility
HOW WASTE HAS CHANGED
How Waste Has Changed
* Grey area includes household ash
How Waste Has Changed
Disposable By Design
THE IMPACTS OF PRODUCTS
AND PACKAGING
US Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Consumption View – Global
Non-local Passenger
Transport
9%
Local Passenger
Transport
13%
Infrastructure
1%
Provision
of Food
12%
Building HVAC
and Lighting
21%
Use *
Provision of Goods
37%
Products & Packaging
44%
* Use of Appliances
and Devices
7%
© 2009 Product Policy Institute
Source: PPI 2009 – Joshua Stolaroff
Our Waterways - Plastics
Plastic bottles thrown into the Mississippi in
Minnesota…
Our Waterways - Plastics
… flow downriver to the Gulf of Mexico and
into the ocean, circulate through ocean
currents…
Our Waterways - Plastics
…and eventually end up here.
Our Waterways – Plastics
Our Waterways Pharmaceuticals
• Small concentrations of
pharmaceuticals have been found in:
– Drinking water supplies of at least 41
million Americans.
– Water at landfills, also known as
leachate, which can eventually end up in
rivers.
CO$T
• All Minnesota solid waste costs are at least
$1 billion a year, which is impacted by:
– Clean up costs for 112 closed landfills.
– Costs to manage Household Hazardous Waste
(HHW).
• Counties in the SWMCB six-county metro area paid a
total of $8.6 million in 2008 to manage HHW.
– Mounting state budget deficits.
7
MSW Generation and
Management
Total Tons (Millions)
6
• Total 2008 MSW
Generation:
5,926,951 tons.
5
4
• For 2007-2008 the
amount of MSW
generated in
Minnesota decreased
by 3.5%, while
population increased
by 0.5%.
3
2
1
0
1991 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Recycling
Other MSW
So Why Doesn’t the
Current System Work?
• Current government waste management
programs unwittingly contribute to:
– Manufacturer design of wasteful and
toxic products.
– Consumer acceptance of disposable
products.
• Convenient disposal perpetuates the
problem.
THE PRODUCT
STEWARDSHIP APPROACH
Product Stewardship Defined
SWMCB
“Product stewardship means that all parties
involved in designing, manufacturing,
selling, and using a product share in the
financial and physical responsibility for
collecting and recycling products at the end
of their useful lives.”
Today’s Linear
Waste Management System
Manufacturers
Retailers
Recycle &
Garbage
Bins
Consumers
Local
Government
Funded
Recycling
© 2009 by the California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB)
Landfill and
Waste-to-Energy
Processes
Tomorrow’s
“Cradle to Cradle” System
Retailers
Consumers
Manufacturers
Materials are recycled
into new products
Take Back Programs
mail-back, collection sites,
haulers, local governments
© 2009 by the California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB)
Current Minnesota Product
Stewardship Efforts
• Focus on specific products to reduce
government costs and remove them from
the waste stream.
– Includes e-waste, paint, CFLs, carpet,
beverage containers, telephone directories,
mercury auto switches, and thermostats.
• Products mostly with hazardous character.
• Significant investment of time.
• Some success, some failure.
E-Waste
• SWMCB and MPCA partnerships with
manufacturers, retailers and recyclers.
• Successful passage of legislation in 2007
after several years.
• SWMCB and MPCA evaluating legislation
in 2010.
E-Waste: Carver County
200
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
The winners: Resident’s access to permanent
facility & special e-waste collections was free for
two years.
2006
2007
2008
thru 8/18/09
160
E-WASTE free beginning 3rd quarter
180
CRT ban 7/1/06
E-waste recycling costs:
– ’06 - $46,000 pre e-waste law.
– ‘07 - $31,000 law in effect 7/1/07.
– ‘08 – $broke even.
– ‘09 - $forecast to break even again.
Due to:
– $0.05/lb credit in ’08.
– $0.05/lb credit 1st half ’09 & 80%.
credit agreement for 2nd half ’09.
– Balancing revenues with costs.
2009
Paint
• SWMCB and MPCA involvement in national
dialogue with industry partners.
• Minnesota was the site of an industry-led
statewide paint management model.
• Minnesota Paint Stewardship bill passed
legislature in 2008 & 2009, later vetoed.
Beverage Containers
• Currently recycling
35%.
• Collection needs to
more than double to
reach 80% goal by
2012 (unlikely).
• Many of the strategies
require legislative
action.
Container Deposit
• 10 states have Container Deposit Laws.
• Recycling rates vary:
– Lowest (Massachusetts) 72%.
– Average 78%.
– Highest (Michigan) 95%.
• Michigan has a 10 cent deposit, the rest
have 5 cent deposits.
• Most laws only include 79% of all beverage
containers.
SWMCB ROLES AND
ACTIVITIES
SWMCB Policy Development
• August 2009 SWMCB meeting - discussion
of SWMCB Roles and policy direction:
• Foundation for waste management policy.
• A means to increase efficiency (that is, less
waste) in business and government.
• A way for government to reduce its waste
management costs.
Recommended SWMCB Roles
POLICY DEVELOPMENT
EDUCATION AND COMMUNICATION
ADVOCACY
RESEARCH
COORDINATION AND REGULATION
Minnesota Integrated Solid Waste
Management Stakeholder Process
• Identifies strategies to meet state goals of
GHG reduction by 2025, which included
Source Reduction, Recycling, Organics,
and Waste-to-Energy.
• Metro Centroid:
– 3 scenarios – public, incentive based, waste-toenergy, organics, etc.
– Final report concludes Extended Producer
Responsibility/Product Stewardship is leading
method – framework policy.
SWMCB Resolution
• On January 27, 2010
the SWMCB adopted
a resolution for
product stewardship.
THE FUTURE OF PRODUCT
STEWARDSHIP
Product Stewardship
in the Future
• It could be:
– The foundation for waste management
policy;
– A means to increase efficiency (that is, less
waste) in business and government;
– A way for government to reduce its waste
management costs; and
– A movement towards less toxic products
(i.e. “green” chemistry or design for the
environment).
Action – What You Can Do
• Lead the way!
– Introduce and discuss ideas in your organization.
• Adopt a product stewardship resolution.
• Develop product stewardship policies.
• Advocate for the product stewardship
legislative platform.
• Support local take-back programs.
• Form a product stewardship committee.
• Join other efforts underway (e.g. MPSC,
SWMCB).
Contact Information
Presenter information