A Conceptual Framework for Sustainable Integrated Waste Management

A Conceptual Framework for Sustainable Integrated Waste Management TREN 3 P 14: Sustainable Integrated Waste Management David T. Brown Dept. of Tourism and Environment, Brock University St. Catharines, Ontario, Canada L 2 S 3 A 1 dbrown@brocku. ca

Further information and course outline available through Web. CT or at http: //www. brocku. ca/tren/ courses/tren 3 P 14/2006/

A Conceptual Framework for Sustainable Integrated Waste Management u u Outline Sustainability: principles ->policy -> practice Implications for 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: u u u u u 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: //iisd 1. iisd. ca/sd/principle. asp -IISD (Winnipeg)

Sustainable development: u 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: u the concept of needs, particularly the essential needs of the world’s poor EQUITY u 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. . . u 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 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: u be easily understood u be applicable in many contexts u be transferrable across scales u translate well into applied policy and practical action u identify possibilities for radical transformative change AND positive incremental change

Sustainability: PROBLEMS u u u 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 u u u 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: u waste of energy and materials u environmental degradation – poor disposal practices – toxic, hazardous, infectious waste => health and safety implications u poor institutional integration u lack of accountability for waste producers

Sustainable Integrated Waste Management Sustainable u consistent with principles of sustainability Integrated u functionally u across spatial and temporal scales u across jurisdictions

Sustainable integrated waste management practices must: u reduce material and energy wastage u protect environmental quality – minimize impacts of disposal – eliminate or treat toxic, hazardous, and infectious wastes u improve institutional integration u 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 u is proactive, not reactive u aims to minimize waste throughout the life cycle of a product, from resource extraction to ultimate disposal u requires cooperation amongst individuals, jurisdictions, disciplines, and sectors u is based upon emerging principles of sustainability

Source Reduction Reuse Composting Sustainable Integrated Waste Management Exchanges Source Separation Landfill Recycling Incineration? Waste Audits Transfer Stations Waste to Energy?

Waste Management Principles

What is GARBAGE? u the inevitable byproduct of human activity and endeavour u a relative concept: “One person’s trash is another person’s treasure” u materials not valued by a given individual, culture, or society u changes with resource availability

Three basic methods of garbage disposal u open dumping – on land, in inland waters, or at sea u burning – open fires to modern incineration u burial – garbage pits to engineered sanitary landfills

3 Rs: The A framework for responsible waste management 1. REDUCE 2. REUSE 3. RECYCLE

Waste Management Hierarchy

The debated 4 th R: 4. RECOVER

1. REDUCE Avoid unnecessary waste generation in the first place u eliminate unnecessary consumption u refine industrial and commercial processes to reduce waste u avoid unnecessary packaging u substitute reusables for disposables u buy durable, long-lasting items

2. REUSE Use objects, devices, or substances again u refillable containers u durables instead of disposables u reusable packaging

3. RECYCLE Use “waste” materials in place of virgin materials to create a new product u many recycling variants u to be an appropriate strategy, the net environmental impacts must be lower than the impacts of using virgin materials

The debated 4 th “R”: 4. RECOVER Extracting energy or material resources (usually fuels) from waste u energy-recovering incinerators u refuse-derived fuel facilities u 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 F commingled; many materials F overall composition quite predictable u ICI SECTOR – Industrial, Commercial, Institutional F many large volume waste generators F specialized waste streams F 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 u u u u PAPER GLASS FERROUS METAL NON-FERROUS METAL PLASTICS TEXTILES LEATHER RUBBER u u u u u WOOD RUBBLE DIAPERS ORGANICS ASHES CERAMICS FIBERGLASS APPLIANCES TIRES

Major categories may be further subdivided: PLASTICS: u PET u HDPE u PVC u LDPE u PP u PS u Nylon PAPER: u Newsprint u Fine paper u Glossy magazines u Waxed / coated u Boxboard u Kraft paper u Corrugated u Tissues

Finer categories may reflect local markets LAEM CHABANG: Glass u clear containers – – – u ONTARIO: Glass u clear containers – Misc. clear glass – Deposit soda bottles Misc. clear glass Flat / round whiskey Soda bottles brown containers – Misc. brown glass – Lipovitan D bottles u brown containers – Misc. brown glass – deposit beer bottles

REDUCE. . . Source Reduction Options

Source reduction: u front-end, preventative approach to managing wastes u targets reduced waste volume u targets reduced waste toxicity u proactive, not reactive

Source reduction initiatives may target: u Design, production, and marketing of products u Manufacturing of products u Consumer behaviour

Source reduction objectives in design, production and marketing of products u minimize materials use u minimize use of toxic substances u increase product life span u improve repairability, reusability, and remanufacturability u market the above attributes

Source reduction objectives in manufacturing processes u improved production efficiencies u in-house reuse of materials and packaging u in-house recycling of plant scrap u reduction / elimination of toxics

Source reduction objectives in consumer behaviour u altered purchasing patterns to favour longer lasting, reuseable, remanufacturable, repairable items u avoidance of excessive packaging u avoidance of products with toxic or environmentally harmful effects

Source reduction policy alternatives u education u voluntary compliance programs u economic instruments u regulation and legislation

Source reduction policy alternatives. . . u education – – seminars, conferences formal education media awareness campaigns waste audit programs

Source reduction policy alternatives. . . u voluntary compliance programs: – industry source reduction task forces – corporate procurement policies – proactive waste auditing – awards of recognition – logos and labels

Source reduction policy alternatives. . . u economic instruments – taxes – tax rebates – subsidies for research, training, development – seed money / grants – increased tipping fees

Source reduction policy alternatives. . . u regulations and legislation – material or product bans – disposal bans – product constituent regulation – mandated source reduction targets and timelines

Recycling

Recycling. . . u conserves material resources u conserves energy u provides economic opportunities – new jobs, economic development u reduces impacts on the environment – extraction; manufacturing; disposal u reduces disposal problems / costs – prolongs landfill life; protects environment

Conserves materials and energy. . . u every tonne of newspaper recycled saves 17 - 19 pulp trees u 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: u Closed-loop recycling – recycling over and over into the same type of product (e. g. , steel cans, glass bottles) u 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. . . u Open-loop recycling – recycling into another product which is not recyclable, or difficult to recycle (e. g. , PET soda bottles into carpeting) u “Showpiece” recycling – recycling into an economically unfeasible or impractical product, usually for advertising purposes

Economics of Recycling u 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: u u u 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: u supply and demand forces u location of collection site u quality of material (clean, pure) u volume of material u pre-sale treatment or processing (sorting, crushing, baling, etc. )

Historical Example: Aluminum cans (U. S. domestic prices circa mid-1996) u Unprocessed: $0. 45 / kg u Shredded & baled: $0. 90 / kg into ingots: $1. 32 / kg u Melted Spot price Sept 2006: $2. 38 / kg

Methods of collecting recyclables u Curbside pickup – unseparated (mixed with municipal refuse) – source separated (bundled / Blue Box) u Buy-back centres – purchase recyclable commodities u Drop-off depot – materials dropped off at central facility by residents

Historical costs of recycling: USA u Average cost to process a ton of commingled recyclable materials at a materials recovery facility in 1992: $US 50. 30 u 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)