Marion County Master Recyclers

Energy and Environmental Impacts of Waste, Recycling and Prevention

David Allaway, Oregon DEQ

Salem, OR March 20, 2008

Overview

• The materials life cycle: “upstream” vs. “downstream”

• Comparison of prevention and recycling

• Closer examination of recycling and composting– Energy balance of recycling

– Collection issues, landfill avoidance, and markets

• Materials, wastes, and greenhouse gases

“Upstream” vs. “Downstream” Impacts

Upstream Impacts

• Extraction and harvesting of raw materials– Energy use– Habitat impacts– Pollution and wastes

• Product/packaging manufacturing– Energy use– Consumptive water use– Pollution and wastes

• Transportation of raw materials, products– Energy use– Pollution

Downstream Impacts

• Energy and pollution associated with collection and transportation of waste and recyclables

• Leachate from landfills• Methane and other air emissions from landfills• Emissions from incineration • Liner failure• Land, air, and water quality impacts of burning,

stockpiling, and illegal dumping of garbage (not well quantified)

Tellus Institute Packaging Study (1992)

• Prepared for the Council of State Governments, U.S. EPA, and State of New Jersey.

• Relied solely on public sources of information.

• Evaluated and “monetized” human health impacts of emissions not captured by pollution control devices.

Tellus Study Results

Human Health Cost ($/ton material)

Material Production Disposal Total Virgin Corrugated Box*

$95 $2 $97

Recycled Content Corrugated Box*

$86 $2 $88

Virgin Aluminum

~$923 $5 $928

Recycled Content Aluminum

~$71 $5 $76

*Assumes ~2 pounds linerboard per 1 pound of medium.

Tellus Study Results (continued)

Note: These costs are per-ton, not per-package!

Human Health Cost ($/ton material)

Material Production Disposal Total Virgin Glass $69 $1 $70 Recycled Content Glass

$47 $1 $48

Virgin HDPE $124 $4 $128 Virgin PET $327 $4 $331 Virgin PVC $1,710 $4 $1,714

Conclusions of Tellus Study

• For all materials studied, “upstream” human health costs are much, much higher than “downstream” human health costs.

• Emissions from materials processing industries are more damaging to human health than emissions from solid waste facilities.

• How much material is used may be more important than what material is used.

California/LBL Greenhouse Gas/Product Life Cycles (2004)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%R

elat

ive

Co

ntr

ibu

tio

n t

o G

reen

ho

use

Gas

Em

issi

on

s

End-of-Life

Use

Manufacturing

Example of Lifecycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Disposal (net)~8%Transport to

Customer~40%

Production~52%

Key AssumptionsCorrugated box (38% post-consumer content) and newsprint dunnage (10% post-consumer content) used in order fulfillment for catalog sales.

Shipped ~2,100 miles to customer via ground transport.

All materials landfilled at end of life in “average” landfill.

Forestry-related emissions and credits not included.

0

2,000,000

4,000,000

6,000,000

8,000,000

10,000,000

12,000,000

14,000,000

16,000,000

20

03

20

04

20

05

20

06

20

07

20

08

20

09

20

10

20

11

20

12

20

13

20

14

20

15

20

16

20

17

20

18

20

19

20

20

20

21

20

22

20

23

20

24

20

25

Me

tric

to

ns

of

CO

2 E

qu

iva

len

t

Material ProductionRecycling (manufacturing)Recycling (forest related offsets)CompostingCombustion (emissions)Combustion (energy recovery)Landfilling (net)Total (2015)

10.9 MMTCO2E-1.0 MMTCO2E-2.1 MMTCO2E-0.1 MMTCO2E0.3 MMTCO2E

-0.6 MMTCO2E1.4 MMTCO2E

8.9 MMTCO2E

Governor Kulongoski’s Advisory Group on Global Warming

Summary: Environmental Impacts of Materials, Solid Waste and Recycling

• Most “upstream” impacts are larger than “downstream” impacts.

• The “landfill capacity crisis” doesn’t exist in much of the Pacific Northwest.

• So the primary environmental benefit of waste reduction is upstream, not landfill-related.

Waste Generation and Prevention

Results – Energy (by process)Recycling is Up in Oregon, But So is Waste Generation

45

Recovery + Disposal = GenerationRecovery + Disposal = Generation

0.00.0 = Generated = Disposed= RecoveredKey

Solid Waste Policy in Oregon

• Waste management hierarchy:– Prevent waste, then

– Reuse, then

– Recycle, then

– Compost, then

– Recover energy, then

– Landfill

Oregon’s Recovery and Generation Goals

Recovery GoalsRecovery = recycling, composting, some energy

recovery• 45% recovery rate in 2005.• 50% recovery rate in 2009.

Generation Goals Generation = all discards• No increase in per-capita waste generation in

2005 and subsequent years.• No increase in total waste generation in 2009

and subsequent years.

Comparison: Prevention and Recycling

• Recycling reduces upstream impacts.

• Prevention eliminates upstream impacts.

• What about material substitution?

A Common Question: To Box, or To Bag?

DEQ Packaging Study: Materials Evaluated

Corrugated box* Void Fill (for boxes) Shipping Bags Polystyrene loose fill* Unpadded all-kraft mailer* Corn starch loose fill Unpadded all-poly mailer* Molded paper loose fill Kraft mailer with ONP padding* Inflated “air pillows”* Kraft mailer with poly bubble padding* Newsprint dunnage* Poly mailer with poly bubble padding* Kraft dunnage* Shredded office paper Shredded boxes

*Different levels of post-consumer content also evaluated.

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

Million Btu of Petroleum per 10,000 Packages

High PC Bags

Low PC Bags

High PC Box/Fills

Low PC Box/Fills

Results: Petroleum

Results: Natural Gas

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Million Btu of Natural Gas per 10,000 Packages

High PC Bags

Low PC Bags

High PC Box/Fills

Low PC Box/Fills

Results: Coal

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Million Btu of Coal per 10,000 Packages

High PC Bags

Low PC Bags

High PC Box/Fills

Low PC Box/Fills

Results: Solid Waste

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 18000

Pounds of Solid Waste per 10,000 Packages

High PC Bags

Low PC Bags

High PC Box/Fills

Low PC Box/Fills

Results: Atmospheric Particulate

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Pounds of Atmospheric Particulate per 10,000 Packages

High PC Bags

Low PC Bags

High PC Box/Fills

Low PC Box/Fills

Results: Atmospheric NOx

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

Pounds of Atmospheric NOx per 10,000 Packages

High PC Bags

Low PC Bags

High PC Box/Fills

Low PC Box/Fills

Results: Atmospheric Fossil Derived Carbon Dioxide*

0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000 40000 45000

Pounds of Atmospheric Fossil Derived CO2 per 10,000 Packages

High PC Bags

Low PC Bags

High PC Box/Fills

Low PC Box/Fills

*Landfill, waste incineration, and forestry-related emissions not included.

Results: Atmospheric Mercury

0 0.0002 0.0004 0.0006 0.0008 0.001

Pounds of Atmospheric Mercury per 10,000 Packages

High PC Bags

Low PC Bags

High PC Box/Fills

Low PC Box/Fills

Results: Biological Oxygen Demand

0 10 20 30 40 50

Pounds of BOD per 10,000 Packages

High PC Bags

Low PC Bags

High PC Box/Fills

Low PC Box/Fills

Results: Waterborne Suspended Solids

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Pounds of Waterborne Suspended Solids per 10,000 Packages

High PC Bags

Low PC Bags

High PC Box/Fills

Low PC Box/Fills

Mass Matters!

• Weight of materials used is a critical factor: – All bags evaluated have lower burdens than boxes (in

most categories) because of their much lower weight.– This confirms (indirectly) the relative ranking of

waste prevention and recycling in the waste management hierarchy.

• Recyclability and recycled content are not always the best predictor of life cycle energy use or emissions:– BUT, once you’ve chosen a packaging material,

increasing post-consumer content and recycling opportunities can have benefits.

Comparison: Reuse and Recycling

• Reuse = using a product in its original form, without the repulping, melting, grinding, or other mechanical or chemical reformulation associated with recycling.

• Benefits of reuse are typically greater than the benefits of recycling. For example:Reusing a personal computer saves 5 - 20 times

more energy than recycling it.Reusing a corrugated box saves 3 - 4 times more

energy than recycling it, and may save the business 5 - 10 times more money.

DEQ Waste Prevention Resources

• Grants• Packaging waste prevention:

http://www.deq.state.or.us/lq/sw/packaging/ index.htm

• Business resource efficiency “success stories”: http://www.deq.state.or.us/lq/sw/cwrc/success/ index.htm

• Business waste prevention videos

Materials Exchanges

• “One business’ trash may be another business’ treasure.” Example: Sattex obtains 100 fiber drums a month from exchange services, saving $16,000/year

• Statewide promotion of exchange services: www.NWmaterialsmart.org

• NOT www.materialsexchange.org

Results – Energy (by process)Recycling is Up in Oregon, But So is Waste Generation

45

Recovery + Disposal = GenerationRecovery + Disposal = Generation

0.00.0 = Generated = Disposed= RecoveredKey

Waste Generation: Why’s it Increasing?

• Wood• Yard debris• Scrap metal• “Other inorganics” (brick,

rock, rubble, wallboard)• Roofing

• Plastics• Clothing and footwear• Commercial printing• Small appliances/consumer

electronics• Carpets/rugs

Increasing Per-Capita Generation:

Causes of Increasing Waste Generation

• Changes in reporting 11 – 20% of increase

• Shifts from “non-counting” > 5 – 20% of increase

to “counting” methods • Real increases in “wasting” ~50 – 80% of increase

activities Increasing construction and remodeling activity Increasing house sizes Reduced durability of durable goods Decline in repair and reuse options Increased acquisition of goods

Reducing Waste Generation: What Can You Do?

• Shift purchases from disposable goods to goods that are more durable, repairable, and/or reusable.

• Extend the lifetime of products already in use/ownership (and delay purchase of replacement items).

• Purchase used items in lieu of new items.• Shift consumption from goods to services so

that needs and wants are satisfied in a different manner.

• Reduce consumption of goods and materials outright, without substitution.

Reducing Generation: What Do Oregonians Say?

• Turn off the TV . . . contemporary marketing encourages needless consumption.

• Spend more time with family and friends.• Volunteer your time to help others (and the

planet).• Ask yourself: “Will this purchase really

make me happy?”• Save more, spend less.• Don’t borrow – avoid using credit.• “Downshift” (and consider a smaller house).

Energy and Recycling

Terminology

BTU = British Thermal Unit BTU is a unit of energy

1 BTU = 1,055 Joules = 0.25 kcal

1 Big Mac® = 2,240 BTU

1 kWh = 3,412 BTU

1 gallon of gasoline = 125,000 BTU

Recycling of Old Newspapers(Closed-Loop Recycling)

Energy Used• Curbside collection: ~0.2 MM BTU/ton• Transportation to mill: <0.2 MM BTU/ton From Salem to Oregon City

Energy Saved• At the mill: ~16 MM BTU/ton• Transporting raw materials: ~0.5 MM BTU/ton

Net savings: ~16 MM BTU/ton Disposal-related energy savings not included

Energy Savings from Waste Management Options (ONP)

• Recycling: ~16 MM BTU/ton

• Combustion: 2.5 – 2.8 MM BTU/ton Not including transportation or ash management

• “Average” landfilling: -0.4 MM BTU/ton Including transportation or landfill equipment

Net Energy Savings from Recycling

• Aluminum Cans: 207 MM BTU/ton• Carpet: 106 MM BTU/ton • HDPE/LDPE: 51 – 56 MM BTU/ton• PET: 53 MM BTU/ton• Personal computers: 44 MM BTU/ton• Steel cans: 20 MM BTU/ton• Newsprint: 17 MM BTU/tonSource: US EPA

Net Energy Savings from Recycling (continued)

• Newsprint: 17 MM BTU/ton• Corrugated: 16 MM BTU/ton• Phone books: 12 MM BTU/ton• Office paper: 10 MM BTU/ton• Glass: 2.7 MM BTU/ton• Magazines/third class mail: 1.1 MM BTU/ton

• Aggregate: 0.6 MM BTU/ton Source: US EPA

How Much Energy Does Oregon Save by Recycling?

• Recycling in Oregon in 2006 saved ~27 trillion BTUs of energy

• ~2.4% of total statewide use

• Equivalent of ~214 million gallons of gasoline

• Recovery in Oregon in 2006 reduced greenhouse gas emissions by ~3.5 million tons of CO2e

• ~5.1% of total statewide emissions

• Equivalent of 740,000 “average” passenger cars

Curbside Collection

• Material collected curbside in Oregon from households, 2002 (excluding yard debris): ~176,000 tons

• Energy value (including pre-combustion) of fuel used for curbside collection: ~96 billion BTUs

• Estimated energy savings (at end-users) of curbside recyclables: 2,519 billion BTUs

Evaluation of policy/program options: Curbside recycling

100 tons of “average” curbside recyclables in Oregon:

Collection Fleet~ 4 MTCO2E emissions from on-route collection vehicles (and diesel production)

Displacement of Virgin Resources~ 235 MTCO2E savings (net) when these recyclables displace virgin feedstock in production

Focus: Transport to Markets

Material Production Savings “Break-Even Point” (miles) (MMBTU ton collected) Truck Rail Freighter

Question: When are Markets “Too Far” to Justify Long-Haul?

Aluminum 177 121,000 475,000 538,000LDPE 61 41,000 162,000 184,000PET 59 40,000 157,000 178,000 Steel 19 13,000 52,000 59,000Newspaper 16 11,000 43,000 49,000Corrugated 12 9,000 33,000 38,000Office Paper 10 7,000 27,000 31,000Boxboard 6.5 4,400 17,400 19,800Glass (to bottles) 1.9 1,300 5,100 5,800

Results – Energy (by process)

Cullet to Aggregate Recycling (Local)

Net Energy Savings: ~0.2 MMBTU/ton

Cullet to Bottle Recycling (Portland)Net Energy Savings: ~2.1 MMBTU/ton

Cullet to Fiberglass Recycling (California)Net Energy Savings: ~3.2 MMBTU/ton

Greenhouse Gases

Global Warming: Key Questions

• Is the Earth warming?• Is the warming caused by human activities?

Will human activities cause continued warming?

• How much will we warm?• What will be the impacts?• What should we do about it?

Global Warming: What Is It?

• Warming is caused by an increase in the concentration of heat-trapping gasses.

• For example: concentrations of carbon dioxide were:– Around 190 parts per million by volume (ppmv) during the

ice ages.– Around 280 ppmv starting at the end of the last ice age

through the beginning of the Industrial Revolution.– 315 ppmv by 1958.– Currently about 380 ppmv and rising at a rate of 1.5

ppmv/year.

• Similarly, methane is now more abundant in the Earth’s atmosphere than at any time during the 400,000 year ice core record.

National Academy of Sciences

• Studied climate change in 2003 at the request of President George W. Bush.

• “Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth’s atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise. Temperatures are, in fact, rising . . . Human-induced warming (is) expected to continue through the 21st century.”

American Geophysical Union

• 41,000 member professional society of geophysicists, meteorologists, etc.

• December 2003 statement: “Human activities are increasingly altering the Earth’s climate . . . Scientific evidence strongly indicates . . .” that humans have played a role in the rapid warming of the past half-century. “It is virtually certain” that increasing greenhouse gases will warm the planet.

IPCC Projection (6 Scenarios):

2.0 – 11.5 °F Increase in

Global Mean Temperature

by 2100

Scientific Consensus Statement on the Likely Impacts of Climate Change on the Pacific Northwest

Signatories agree: “climate change is underway”.

Temperature: High certainty that PNW is warming, and since 1975, warming is best explained by greenhouse gases.

Sea level: Oregon coast north of Florence is being submerged by rising sea level at an average rate of 1.5-2 mm annually (inferred from 1930-1995 data).

Snowpack: Between 1950 and 1995, April 1 snow-water equivalent in the Cascades is down 50%. Timing of peak snowpack is earlier, increasing March and reducing June streamflows. Oregon Cascades are most sensitive to change.

What are the Potential Impacts?

Pacific Northwest projections for next 10 – 50 years:.• Temperatures will continue to rise. Average warming of 2.7 °F

by 2030 and 5.4 °F by 2050 (intermediate certainty).– Higher elevation treeline– Longer growing seasons– Longer fire seasons– Earlier animal and plant breeding– Longer and more intense allergy season– Changes in vegetation zones

• Precipitation changes are very uncertain. Winter precipitation may increase. Likely impacts on water resources due to low summer precipitation and earlier peak streamflow include:– Decreased summer water availability– Changes in ability to manage flood damage– Decreased water quality due to higher temperatures, increased

salinity, and pollutant concentration

Potential Impacts, continued

• Sea level will rise (very certain)• Maximum wave heights will likely also increase• Ocean circulation will change (very certain), with

likely increases in upwelling• April 1 snowpack will continue to decline• Impact on terrestrial ecosystems is poorly known.

Due to current biomass densities, anticipated drier summers will likely increase:– Drought stress– Vulnerability of forests to insects, disease and fire

California/LBL Greenhouse Gas/Product Life Cycles (2004)Oregon Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory, 2000

(Conventional Accounting)

Electricity36%

Transportation32%

Other Fossil Fuels17%

Solid Waste Disposal1%

Other14%

Recommendation MW-1: Projected Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Materials & Waste)

“Businessas Usual”*

50% RecoveryGoal

WasteGenerationGoal

6 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0

8 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0

1 0 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0

1 2 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0

1 4 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0

1 6 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0

20

03

20

10

20

17

20

24

MT

CO

2E

*Per-capita waste generation continues to grow, recovery rate stays at 47%

Traditional Inventory~5.6 Gt CO2

Exports~0.4 – 0.5 Gt CO2

Imported Goods~0.5 – 0.8 Gt CO2

Production vs. Consumption Carbon Dioxide Emissions for the United States - 1997

Net embodied emissions in trade: 2 – 7% above and beyond traditional inventory

Source: Weber and Matthews, 2007

Traditional Inventory~6.1 Gt CO2

Exports~0.5 – 0.6 Gt CO2

ImportedGoods~0.8 – 1.8Gt CO2

Production vs. Consumption Carbon Dioxide Emissions for the United States - 2004

Net embodied emissions in trade: 3 – 21% above and beyond traditional inventory

Source: Weber and Matthews, 2007

Composting

Composting

• Energy impacts not well studied; likely to be small

• Greenhouse gas benefits driven by landfill issues/methane avoidance

– Food waste composting has significant greenhouse gas reduction benefit; yard waste less so

• Other benefits: soil health, tilth• Why is composting below recycling in

the waste management hierarchy?

Composting

“Everybody wants to make a difference...Now you can.

BIOTA is a Planet Friendly ™ company.

BIOTA Spring Water is the World's First bottled water/beverage packaged in a Planet Friendly ™ bottle.

Our bottle is manufactured from a 100% renewable resource, corn....not oil!

Together, we can make a difference. One bottle at a time.”

For More Information:

David Allaway, Oregon DEQ

(503) 229-5479

Toll Free in Oregon: 1-800-452-4011

allaway.david@deq.state.or.us