Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Charting Vermont's Course to Waste Prevention:
Charting Vermont's Course to Waste Prevention:
Charting Vermont's Course to Waste Prevention:
Charting Vermont's Course to Waste Prevention:
Charting Vermont's Course to Waste Prevention:
Charting Vermont's Course to Waste Prevention:
Charting Vermont's Course to Waste Prevention:
Charting Vermont's Course to Waste Prevention:
Charting Vermont's Course to Waste Prevention:
Charting Vermont's Course to Waste Prevention:
Charting Vermont's Course to Waste Prevention:
Charting Vermont's Course to Waste Prevention:
Charting Vermont's Course to Waste Prevention:
Charting Vermont's Course to Waste Prevention:
Charting Vermont's Course to Waste Prevention:
Charting Vermont's Course to Waste Prevention:
Charting Vermont's Course to Waste Prevention:
Charting Vermont's Course to Waste Prevention:
Charting Vermont's Course to Waste Prevention:
Charting Vermont's Course to Waste Prevention:
Charting Vermont's Course to Waste Prevention:
Charting Vermont's Course to Waste Prevention:
Charting Vermont's Course to Waste Prevention:
Charting Vermont's Course to Waste Prevention:
Charting Vermont's Course to Waste Prevention:
Charting Vermont's Course to Waste Prevention:
Charting Vermont's Course to Waste Prevention:
Charting Vermont's Course to Waste Prevention:
Charting Vermont's Course to Waste Prevention:
Charting Vermont's Course to Waste Prevention:
Charting Vermont's Course to Waste Prevention:
Charting Vermont's Course to Waste Prevention:
Charting Vermont's Course to Waste Prevention:
Charting Vermont's Course to Waste Prevention:
Charting Vermont's Course to Waste Prevention:
Charting Vermont's Course to Waste Prevention:
Charting Vermont's Course to Waste Prevention:
Charting Vermont's Course to Waste Prevention:
Charting Vermont's Course to Waste Prevention:
Charting Vermont's Course to Waste Prevention:
Charting Vermont's Course to Waste Prevention:
Charting Vermont's Course to Waste Prevention:
Charting Vermont's Course to Waste Prevention:
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

Charting Vermont's Course to Waste Prevention:

293

Published on

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
293
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide
  • Waste Minimisation (Redirected from reduction and Waste Prevention not even cross referenced) Lots of caveats and little information States “Most waste comes from the manufacturing industry, agriculture, construction and demolition industries. Household waste only constitutes a small percentage of overall waste, and therefore has less affect on the overall waste volume.”
  • May see more cars discarded, more tires in the waste stream and as cars include less metal and more plastics and other materials, more waste from cars
  • The portion of single-family new homes that enroll in the program is very high compared to participation rates for similar programs elsewhere. In the years for which data were available (2001 through 2003), the program developed leads on 1,551 to 1,950 projects, which corresponds to 61 to 74 percent of the typical volume of single-family homes permitted each year (around 2,500). The program also does a good job converting leads to enrollments. This ratio ranged from 39 to 52 percent in the three years covered. The percentage of permitted single family homes that enrolled in the program remained stable in the range of 29 to 32 percent from 2001 to 2003.
  • Vermont against left axis and Us against right
  • CSWD likely higher due to economic activity
  • Tons of prehistoric, buried plant material in a gallon of gas: 98 For a reasonably efficient car, riding 25 miles per gallon, number of tons of prehistoric plants per mile: 4 Kilograms of CO2 to equal the warming equivalent of a round-trip flight from Seattle to Boston: 2848 Times the fuel used (per passenger) outweighed the average flight passenger's bodyweight: 4.5 Additional dollars the ticket Seattle to Boston would have cost if jet fuel were taxed at the same rate as gas in the US: 97 Additional dollars if the ticket were taxed as the same rate as petrol in the UK: 921 Tons of prehistoric, buried plant material in a gallon of gas: 98 For a reasonably efficient car, riding 25 miles per gallon, number of tons of prehistoric plants per mile: 4 Kilograms of CO2 to equal the warming equivalent of a round-trip flight from Seattle to Boston: 2848 Times the fuel used (per passenger) outweighed the average flight passenger's bodyweight: 4.5 Additional dollars the ticket Seattle to Boston would have cost if jet fuel were taxed at the same rate as gas in the US: 97 Additional dollars if the ticket were taxed as the same rate as petrol in the UK: 921
  • Author Joann Davis has her second home in Vermont!
  • Transcript

    • 1. Charting Vermont’s Course to Waste Prevention: Trends in Waste Generation and Composition Natalie Starr and Ted Siegler DSM Environmental Services, Inc. www.DSMEnvironmental.com
    • 2. What is Waste Prevention?
      • Waste “represents a stream of distinct products and materials we use everyday as individual and institutional consumers”
      • One common definition of “Waste Prevention” is “the design, manufacture, purchase or use of materials that reduces the amount and toxicity of waste generated.”
    • 3. The Problem With this Definition
      • Assumes that we, as a society, will continue to consume the materials and products at the same rate
      • That is one of the reasons that we feel good about recycling!
    • 4. Positive Feedback Loop of Recycling Purchase and Consume Generate Waste Recycle (Recycled Content)
    • 5. Are we promoting feel good purchasing?
    • 6. We All Know The Numbers
      • According to the US EPA, the average person generates about 4.5 pounds of municipal solid waste every day
      • And the average continues to grow despite significant light weighting of many products and packages
      • And that is just municipal solid waste from consumption looking forward
    • 7. Sustainable Dartmouth?
    • 8. What if we were responsible for all the waste that our lifestyle represents?
    • 9. The Answer Is Simple: We’d Use Less Stuff
    • 10. Our Economy Has Depended on Growth in Consumption
      • We measure GDP – all about growth
      • Economic growth translates to waste growth
      • All indicators are that we consume more, not less
    • 11. Americans Consistently Use Gains in Efficiency to Increase Consumption
    • 12. A Few Examples
      • “ Honda Motor Company has increased fuel efficiency 1.5% per year since 1987, but all of this has been used to increase other attributes more highly valued by consumers”:
        • Performance (speed)
        • Comfort (air conditioning, size, electronics)
        • Utility (size)
        • Safety
        • Source: Climate Change: Near Term Actions and Strategies, John German, American Honda Motor Co., Inc., May 5, 2006
    • 13. More Importantly
    • 14. Similar Gains In Efficiency Have Occurred In Home Construction
      • More efficient use of materials
      • Higher insulation values
      • More efficient heating and cooling systems
    • 15. The Result
    • 16. How Do We Compare?
      • American homes are on average double the size of those in other richest nations
      • Homes in 2002 required 890 ft 2 per person of materials as opposed to 290 ft 2 in 1950
      • Study found 1500 sq ft home with relatively poor insulation characteristics still outperformed the 3000 ft 2 home with good insulation characteristics.
        • Sources: House Size Matters , Michael Horowitz, VBSR.
        • Small is Beautiful: U.S. House Size, Resource Use, and the Environment , Alex Wilson and Jessica Boehland.
    • 17. What about Waste Generation?
      • Vermont’s 1989 Solid Waste Management Plan states:
      • “ We assume that during the next 13 years efforts by the State and regions resulting from Act 78, together with increasing disposal costs, will stop increases in per capita generation rates.”
    • 18. Where Are We in Vermont 18 Years Later?
    • 19. MSW Disposed: Vermont vs. US (Thousands of tons per year)
    • 20. Trends in Per Capita Generation
    • 21. Per Capita Diversion and Disposal: Vermont and US
    • 22. Per Capita Diversion and Disposal: CSWD and Vermont
    • 23. Previous Graphs Ignore C&D Waste
      • Add another 1 lb per capita per day to Vermont’s waste
      • Add another 1.5 lbs per capita per day to CSWD waste
      • C&D waste often includes bulky waste masking actual growth in residential and commercial waste
      • EPA estimated 2.75 lb per cap in 1996
    • 24. Oregon Per Capita Waste Generation (Including C&D waste, Oregon DEQ)
    • 25. Is the Green State of Vermont Worse than the US Average?
      • Maybe, but we are skeptical of US EPA (Franklin) data, especially when used at the State level
      • Our recent data from the State of Delaware shows large discrepancies, especially in critical materials
    • 26. Delaware Comparison
      • 35% less corrugated recycled than reported by Franklin
      • 10 times more non-bottle plastic than reported by Franklin
      • 4 times more pallets recycled than reported by Franklin
      • Franklin’s estimates for asphalt and concrete generation only 35% of what we found
    • 27. Vermont’s Waste Composition
      • DSM conducted Vermont’s only Waste Composition Study for DEC in 2001
      • Sorted Residential and Commercial Waste
        • Urban/suburban and rural generators
        • Commercial waste by sector
    • 28. Commercial Waste By Sector (Range % by weight)
    • 29. Residential Waste (% by weight)
    • 30. More Importantly, What Are The Trends in Waste Composition?
      • Package light-weighting continues
        • First thin walled cans, bottles and containers
        • Flexible package replaces rigid one (milk sacks, boxed wine)
        • Substitution of plastic and aseptic for glass
        • Substitution of boxboard for steel cans
      • Light-weighting of durables
        • Less ferrous metal per appliance
        • Substitution of plastics and composites for metal and wood in electronics
      • Change in location of waste generation
        • More food prepared at restaurants, less organic waste at home
    • 31. Plastic Volume Is Increasing
        • EPA reports plastic was 16.4% of discards by weight in 2005 (0.5% in 1960 and 5% in 1980)
        • Recent study in Israel found plastics made up largest volume (nearly half at 46%) of material by into landfills with paper at 15% and corrugated at 13%
        • Recent work in South Africa shows significant differences in the compaction ratios for plastic waste in landfills compared to other materials
    • 32. Special Wastes Increasing
      • Electronics
        • New gadgets
        • Obsolete electronics
        • Computer and cell phone growth
      • Compact fluorescents (and mercury)
      • Bulky wastes with shorter product life
        • Desire for new furniture and appliances
        • Lower costs and longevity of appliances
    • 33. But we are not seeing Special Wastes in our Waste Composition Studies
    • 34. Perhaps Most Importantly
      • Proliferation in niche products
        • An entire isle in the supermarket devoted to paper towels and toilet paper
        • An entire isle devoted to bottled water
        • An entire isle devoted to snack food
      • The result – huge increases in supermarket square footage and attendant carbon footprint
          • Heating, cooling, lighting
    • 35. Waste and Carbon Emissions
      • Same struggle we face with reducing carbon output
        • Kyoto – cars increased from 1.3 to 2 million from 1990 - 2002
        • Result growth in carbon 8% since 1990
      • American citizen averages 21 tons CE per year vs. 4.5 average globally
        • 4.5 tons for car, 6.2 for hh electricity use
        • US totals 6 billion tons of 25 billion globally
    • 36. Price Signals
      • Value of Recyclables
        • We believe that material prices will continue to trend upward resulting in more recycling
      • Disposal tip fees rising, but not enough to encourage waste reduction
      • Disposal costs represent only about 30% of a PAYT bag rate of $1.50 - $2.50
        • Collection/transport a large part of cost (and main contribution to CE in waste industry)
    • 37. Charting the Course: What should we be measuring?
      • Volume vs. weight?
        • Per capita disposal may not be increasing by weight but by volume
        • Landfill costs based on volume available – volume charges send different price signal
      • Recovery rates instead of recycling rates?
    • 38. What Do We Target?
      • Materials (Producers)
      • Generators
      • Behavior
    • 39. What Is Baseline Generation?
      • Include materials recycling?
      • What should we count in disposal
        • With or without C&D
        • Bulky waste accurately accounted
      • Exclude practices such as:
        • Backyard composting
        • Grass clippings left on lawn
    • 40. What about all Other Wastes? (Washington Dept. of Ecology)
    • 41. Linking waste reduction with carbon reduction strategies begins to address the entire wasteshed!
    • 42. Our Suggestions for Waste Prevention Tracking
      • Consider volume
      • Include C&D waste
        • Disaggregate bulky waste and count it
      • Don’t rely on US EPA data
      • Collect capture/recovery rate data
      • Send strong economic signals
        • i.e. PAYT
    • 43. Most Importantly
      • Use Less Stuff
      • Recognize the best things in life aren’t things!
      • Enough is enough!

    ×