Transcript Sustainable Integrated Waste Management

A Conceptual Framework for
Sustainable Integrated
Waste Management
TREN 3P14:
Sustainable Integrated Waste Management
David T. Brown
Dept. of Tourism and Environment, Brock University
St. Catharines, Ontario, Canada L2S 3A1
[email protected]
Further information and course
outline available through
WebCT
or at
http://www.brocku.ca/tren/
courses/tren3P14/2006/
A Conceptual Framework for
Sustainable Integrated Waste
Management




Outline
Sustainability: principles ->policy -> practice
Implications for Waste Management
Waste Management Principles
Policy Implications
Sustainability
Putting principles into
practice
...How do we move from
rhetoric to reality?
Proximate Issues:
Waste management problems
at any scale or jurisdictional level
Challenge:
To effect positive change by
applying generalized
principles of sustainability
Proximate Issues:
Waste management problems
at any scale or jurisdictional level
principles
principles
policy
principles
policy
practice
Some
Principles of Sustainability
in the literature:









Our Common Future (WCED 1987)
Principles defining sustainable development (OSEM 1989)
Defining a sustainable society (Robinson et al . 1990,1996)
Agenda 21 (1992)
Six principles of sustainable development (ORTEE 1992)
Guideposts for a sustainable future (Nickerson 1993)
Framework for Sustainable Development (CIDA 1994)
The Natural Step (Robert et al . 1994)
Sustainability Principles (ORTEE 1994), etc.
Recent compilation of
Principles of Sustainability
http://iisd1.iisd.ca/sd/principle.asp
-IISD (Winnipeg)
Sustainable development:
 meeting
the needs of the
present without compromising
the ability of future generations
to meet their own needs.
– World Commission on Environment and
Development (1987): Our Common Future
Two key sustainable development concepts:
 the concept of needs, particularly the
essential needs of the world’s poor
EQUITY

the idea of limitations (ecological,
technological, and social) which affect the
environment’s ability to meet present and
future needs
LIMITS TO GROWTH
(quantitative and qualitative)
->
living within the regenerative and
assimilative capacities of the planet
Sustainable development...
 considers
future and present
needs when making decisions
about:
– resource use
– technological development
– direction of investments
– political & institutional change
ECONOMY
ENV’T
SOCIETY
TRADITIONAL
DECISION MAKING
ECONOMY
ENV’T
• NON-PARTICIPATORY
SOCIETY
•FRAGMENTED
TRADITIONAL
DECISION MAKING
ECONOMY
ENV’T
SOCIETY
SOCIETY
TRADITIONAL
DECISION MAKING
‘ECO- ECONOMY
SYSTEM
HEALTH’
ENVIRONMENT
ECOSYSTEM-BASED
DECISION MAKING
SOCIETY
• PARTICIPATORY
‘ECO- ECONOMY
SYSTEM
HEALTH’
ENVIRONMENT
• INTEGRATED
ECOSYSTEM-BASED
DECISION MAKING
To be useful, principles of
sustainability must:
be easily understood
 be applicable in many contexts
 be transferrable across scales
 translate well into applied policy and
practical action
 identify possibilities for radical
transformative change
AND positive incremental change

Sustainability: PROBLEMS





Depletion of finite resources
– fuels, soil, minerals, species
Over-use of renewable resources
– forests, fish & wildlife, fertility, public funds
Pollution
– air, water, soil
Inequity
– economic, political, social, gender
Species loss
– endangered species and spaces
Sustainability: SOLUTIONS



Cyclical material use
– emulate natural cycles; 3 R’s
Safe reliable energy
– conservation, renewable energy,
substitution, interim measures
Life-based interests
– health, creativity, communication,
coordination, appreciation, learning,
intellectual and spiritual development
Implications for
Waste Management
One example of a set of principles:
Guideposts for Sustainability
(after Nickerson, 1993)
Activities are sustainable when they:
1.
2.
3.
Use materials in continuous cycles.
Use continuously reliable sources of
energy.
Encourage desirable human traits
(equity; creativity; communication;
coordination; appreciation; intellectual
and spiritual development).
Guideposts for Sustainability
Activities are not sustainable when they:
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Require continual inputs of non-renewable
resources.
Use renewable resources faster than their
rate of renewal.
Cause cumulative degradation of the
environment.
Require resources in quantities that could
never be available for people everywhere.
Lead to the extinction of other life forms.
Obsolescent “frontier” civilization:
ENERGY
NON-RENEWABLE
CONSUMER
and RENEWABLE CONVENTIONAL
SOCIETY
URBAN SYSTEM
MATERIALS
HEAT
HIGH
THROUGHPUT
WASTE &
TOXINS
One-way flow of materials and energy
Current waste management
practices are unsustainable
due to:
 waste of energy and materials
 environmental degradation
– poor disposal practices
– toxic, hazardous, infectious waste
=> health and safety implications
 poor institutional integration
 lack of accountability for waste
producers
Sustainable Integrated
Waste Management
Sustainable  consistent with principles of
sustainability
Integrated  functionally
 across spatial and
temporal scales
 across jurisdictions
National Policy
NATIONAL
PROVINCIAL
REGIONAL
MUNICIPAL
LOCAL
Local Policy
Sustainable integrated waste
management practices must:
 reduce
material and energy wastage
 protect environmental quality
– minimize impacts of disposal
– eliminate or treat toxic, hazardous, and
infectious wastes
 improve
institutional integration
 increase accountability
Sustainable civilization:
Energy Efficiency
ENERGY
LOW
THROUGHPUT
RENEWABLE
MATERIALS
Low-quality
Heat Energy
CONSERVER
SOCIETY
Waste Minimization
Toxics control
Low-volume
Nontoxic
Waste
Materials
•Cyclical flows of materials
•Appropriate energy usage
Sustainable integrated
waste management
is proactive, not reactive
 aims to minimize waste throughout the life
cycle of a product, from resource
extraction to ultimate disposal
 requires cooperation amongst individuals,
jurisdictions, disciplines, and sectors
 is based upon emerging principles of
sustainability

Source
Reduction
Reuse
Recycling
Composting
Sustainable
Integrated
Waste
Waste
Management
Exchanges
Source
Separation
Landfill
Incineration?
Waste
Audits
Transfer
Stations
Waste to
Energy?
Waste
Management
Principles
What is GARBAGE?
the inevitable byproduct of human
activity and endeavour
 a relative concept: “One person’s
trash is another person’s treasure”
 materials not valued by a given
individual, culture, or society
 changes with resource availability

Three basic methods of
garbage disposal
 open
dumping
– on land, in inland waters, or at sea
 burning
– open fires to modern incineration
 burial
– garbage pits to engineered sanitary
landfills
The
3 Rs:
A framework for responsible
waste management
1. REDUCE
2. REUSE
3. RECYCLE
Waste Management Hierarchy
The debated
4th R:
4. RECOVER
1. REDUCE
Avoid unnecessary waste generation
in the first place
 eliminate unnecessary consumption
 refine industrial and commercial
processes to reduce waste
 avoid unnecessary packaging
 substitute reusables for disposables
 buy durable, long-lasting items
2. REUSE
Use objects, devices, or substances
again
 refillable containers
 durables instead of disposables
 reusable packaging
3. RECYCLE
Use “waste” materials in place of
virgin materials to create a new
product
 many recycling variants
 to be an appropriate strategy, the net
environmental impacts must be
lower than the impacts of using
virgin materials
The debated 4th “R”:
4. RECOVER
Extracting energy or material resources
(usually fuels) from waste
 energy-recovering incinerators
 refuse-derived fuel facilities
 materials recovery facilities
debated because recovery is perceived
to be contrary to the first 3 R’s, and to
produce toxic emissions
Sectoral Sources of Waste
Major waste generating sectors:
RESIDENTIAL SECTOR
– private homes and dwellings
commingled; many materials
 overall composition quite predictable

 ICI
SECTOR
– Industrial, Commercial, Institutional
many large volume waste generators
 specialized waste streams
 excellent materials exchange possibilities

What’s in the waste stream?
• Residential waste is typically classified into
several major categories (e.g. Ontario MOEE)
• Local classifications may be used to better
reflect local waste generation patterns








PAPER
GLASS
FERROUS METAL
NON-FERROUS
METAL
PLASTICS
TEXTILES
LEATHER
RUBBER









WOOD
RUBBLE
DIAPERS
ORGANICS
ASHES
CERAMICS
FIBERGLASS
APPLIANCES
TIRES
Major categories may be
further subdivided:
PLASTICS:
 PET
 HDPE
 PVC
 LDPE
 PP
 PS
 Nylon
PAPER:
 Newsprint
 Fine paper
 Glossy magazines
 Waxed / coated
 Boxboard
 Kraft paper
 Corrugated
 Tissues
Finer categories may reflect
local markets
LAEM CHABANG:
Glass
 clear containers
ONTARIO:
Glass
 clear containers
– Misc. clear glass
– Flat / round whiskey
– Soda bottles

brown containers
– Misc. brown glass
– Lipovitan D bottles
– Misc. clear glass
– Deposit soda bottles

brown containers
– Misc. brown glass
– deposit beer bottles
REDUCE
... Source
Reduction
Options
Source reduction:
 front-end,
preventative approach
to managing wastes
 targets reduced waste volume
 targets reduced waste toxicity
 proactive, not reactive
Source reduction initiatives
may target:
 Design,
production, and
marketing of products
 Manufacturing of products
 Consumer behaviour
Source reduction objectives in
design, production and
marketing of products
minimize materials use
 minimize use of toxic substances
 increase product life span
 improve repairability, reusability, and
remanufacturability
 market the above attributes

Source reduction objectives in
manufacturing processes
improved production efficiencies
 in-house reuse of materials and
packaging
 in-house recycling of plant scrap
 reduction / elimination of toxics

Source reduction objectives in
consumer behaviour
altered purchasing patterns to favour
longer lasting, reuseable,
remanufacturable, repairable items
 avoidance of excessive packaging
 avoidance of products with toxic or
environmentally harmful effects

Source reduction policy
alternatives
 education
 voluntary
compliance
programs
 economic instruments
 regulation and legislation
Source reduction policy
alternatives...
 education
–
–
–
–
seminars, conferences
formal education
media awareness campaigns
waste audit programs
Source reduction policy
alternatives...
 voluntary
compliance programs:
– industry source reduction task forces
– corporate procurement policies
– proactive waste auditing
– awards of recognition
– logos and labels
Source reduction policy
alternatives...
 economic
instruments
– taxes
– tax rebates
– subsidies for research, training,
development
– seed money / grants
– increased tipping fees
Source reduction policy
alternatives...
 regulations
and legislation
– material or product bans
– disposal bans
– product constituent regulation
– mandated source reduction targets
and timelines
Recycling
Recycling...
conserves material resources
 conserves energy
 provides economic opportunities

– new jobs, economic development

reduces impacts on the environment
– extraction; manufacturing; disposal

reduces disposal problems / costs
– prolongs landfill life; protects environment
Conserves materials
and energy...
every tonne of newspaper recycled
saves 17- 19 pulp trees
 there is a 95% energy savings when
aluminum cans are recycled rather
than manufactured from virgin
materials

Savings from products manufactured using recycled materials
Paper
Glass
Steel
Aluminium
Energy
23-70%
4-22%
47-74%
92-97%
Air
pollution
74%
20%
86%
95%
Water
pollution
35%
--
76%
97%
Mining
wastes
--
80%
97%
--
Water use
58%
50%
40%
--
- Source: O’Leary and Walsh, 1988
Recycling variants
Recycling can take several forms:
 Closed-loop recycling
– recycling over and over into the same
type of product (e.g., steel cans, glass
bottles)

Cascade recycling
– recycling into a different product which
is of lower material quality, but still
recyclable itself (e.g., fine office paper
into boxboard)
Recycling variants...

Open-loop recycling
– recycling into another product which is
not recyclable, or difficult to recycle
(e.g., PET soda bottles into carpeting)

“Showpiece” recycling
– recycling into an economically
unfeasible or impractical product,
usually for advertising purposes
Economics of Recycling
 Recycling’s
Golden Rule:
“Recycling growth is usually
limited by demand rather than
supply”
Market for materials must be assured
before collection begins
--O’Leary and Walsh, 1988
Factors affecting the economic
success of a recycling program:






Proximity to end markets
Potential recovery volumes
Collection methods used
Processing methods employed
End market stability and prices paid
Inherent value of materials
MAJOR OBSTACLES:
– subsidies to extractive and virgin
materials industries
– environmentally inappropriate cost
accounting
Value of recyclable
materials
May be highly variable, especially in
new markets. Affected by:
 supply and demand forces
 location of collection site
 quality of material (clean, pure)
 volume of material
 pre-sale treatment or processing
(sorting, crushing, baling, etc.)
Historical Example:
Aluminum cans
(U.S. domestic prices circa mid-1996)

Unprocessed:
$0.45 / kg

Shredded & baled:
$0.90 / kg

Melted into ingots:
$1.32 / kg
Spot price Sept 2006: $2.38 / kg
Methods of collecting
recyclables

Curbside pickup
– unseparated (mixed with municipal refuse)
– source separated (bundled / Blue Box)

Buy-back centres
– purchase recyclable commodities

Drop-off depot
– materials dropped off at central facility by
residents
Historical costs of recycling:
USA

Average cost to
process a ton of
commingled
recyclable
materials at a
materials recovery
facility in 1992:
$US 50.30

Average revenues
from a ton of
commingled
recyclable
materials from a
materials recovery
facility in 1992:
$US 25.00
Net cost: $US 24.70 per ton
(CONVENTIONAL accounting)