Presentación del Dr. Paul Connett en Puerto Rico 2010

418 views
361 views

Published on

Presentación del Dr. Paul Connett en la Interamericana de Cupey para el 40 aniversario de la EPA en el 2010.

Published in: Business, Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
418
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
14
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Presentación del Dr. Paul Connett en Puerto Rico 2010

  1. 1. solutionfor Puer to Rico and the 21 st Century Paul Connett, PhD Executive Director (AEHSP) AmericanHealthStudies.org pconnett@gmail.com EPA Region II, Puerto Rico, Dec 10 2010
  2. 2. Part 1
  3. 3. Part 2
  4. 4. Part 3
  5. 5. OUTLINE1. A few words about Sustainability2. The arguments against incineration3. The Zero Waste 2020 strategy
  6. 6. DIFFERENT TIMES DEMAND DIFFERENT QUESTIONS 20 CENTURY th 21st CENTURY WASTE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT MANAGEMENT“ How do we get rid “ How do we handle our of our waste discarded resources in efficiently with ways which do notminimum damage to deprive future our health and the generations of some, if environment ?” not all, of their value ?”
  7. 7. DIFFERENT TIMES DEMAND DIFFERENT QUESTIONS 20 CENTURY th 21st CENTURY WASTE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT MANAGEMENT“ How do we get rid “ How do we handle our of our waste discarded resources inThe key issue efficiently with The key issue is ways which do not deprive futureminimum damage towas SAFETY our health and the SUSTAINABILIY generations of some, if environment ?” not all, of their value ?”
  8. 8. 1. A few words about sustainability
  9. 9. Sustainability We would need FOUR planets if every one consumed as much as the average American We would need TWO planets if every one consumed as much as the average European Meanwhile, India, China etc. are copying our consumption patterns Something has got to change and the best place to start is with waste
  10. 10. A LINEAR SOCIETY ENERGY ENERGY Extraction of Production of Virgin Manufactured Discarded Consumption Materials items MaterialsSolid waste Solid wasteAir pollution Air pollutionWater pollution Water pollutionCarbon dioxide Carbon dioxide
  11. 11. A NON-Sustainable system ENERGY ENERGY Extraction of Production of Virgin Manufactured Discarded Consumption Materials items MaterialsSolid waste Solid waste GLOBAL WARMINGAir pollution Air pollutionWater pollution Water pollutionCarbon dioxide Carbon dioxide
  12. 12. LANDFILLS ENERGY ENERGY Extraction of Production of Virgin Manufactured Discarded Consumption Materials items MaterialsSolid waste Solid waste GLOBAL WARMINGAir pollution Air pollutionWater pollution Water pollutionCarbon dioxide Carbon dioxide
  13. 13. INCINERATION ENERGY ENERGY Extraction of Production of Virgin Manufactured Discarded Consumption Materials items MaterialsSolid waste Solid waste GLOBAL WARMINGAir pollution Air pollutionWater pollution Water pollutionCarbon dioxide Carbon dioxide
  14. 14. Both landfills and incineratorsrepresent business as usual – NEITHER are sustainable
  15. 15. RECYCLING OF MATERIALS ENERGY ENERGY Extraction of Production of Virgin Manufactured Discarded Consumption Materials items MaterialsSolid waste Solid waste GLOBAL WARMINGAir pollution Air pollutionWater pollution Water pollutionCarbon dioxide Carbon dioxide
  16. 16. REUSE OF OBJECTS ENERGY ENERGY Extraction of Production of Virgin Manufactured Discarded Consumption Materials items MaterialsSolid waste Solid waste GLOBAL WARMINGAir pollution Air pollutionWater pollution Water pollutionCarbon dioxide Carbon dioxide
  17. 17. COMPOSTING ENERGY ENERGY Extraction of Production of Virgin Manufactured Discarded Consumption Materials items MaterialsSolid waste Solid waste GLOBAL WARMINGAir pollution Air pollutionWater pollution Water pollutionCarbon dioxide Carbon dioxide
  18. 18. COMPOST
  19. 19. Kg Greenhouse gas/tonne Municipal WasteA combination of recycling andcomposting -461Incineration generatingelectricty -10Waste Management Options and Climate Change. AEA 2001
  20. 20. Kg Greenhouse gas/tonne Municipal WasteA combination of recycling andcomposting is 46 times better -461at reducing greenhouse gasesthan X 46Incineration generatingelectricty -10Waste Management Options and Climate Change. AEA 2001
  21. 21. 2. The arguments against incineration
  22. 22. Arguments against incineration1) It is not sustainable2) It is a poor economic investment. Most of the money spent will leave PRIncineration is the MOST expensive way of handling wasteIncineration is the SECOND MOST expensive way of producing electricity
  23. 23. Arguments against incineration
  24. 24. An incinerator in Brescia, Italy
  25. 25. The Brescia incineratorcost 300,000,000 Europlus another500,000,000 Euros insubsidies and hascreated just 80 jobs.
  26. 26. Nova Scotia, Canada (video) 50% diversion in 5 years (1995-2000). (Halifax ~ 60%) 1000 jobs created collecting and treating discarded materials Another 2000 jobs created in the industries handling the collected material
  27. 27. Arguments against incineration4) Incineration is very unpopular with the publicIn the US over 300 incinerator proposals defeated between 1985-95No new trash incinerator permitted in the US since 1995!
  28. 28. Arguments against incineration5) It stifles innovation. For 25 years or more the monster has to be fed
  29. 29. Incineration stifles innovation• “ An incinerator needs to be fed for about 20 to 30 years and in order to be economic needs an enormous input from quite a region, so for 20 to 30 years you stifle innovation, you stifle alternatives, just in order to feed that monster which you build”• Ludwig Kraemer, former Head of EU Waste Management, BBC 1 Panorama Documentary “Rubbish”
  30. 30. Arguments against incineration6) It wastes energy!
  31. 31. Energy Comparison: Recycling versusincineration (ICF consulting, 2005)material Energy Energy Energy savings from output from savings recycling incineration recycling GJ/tonne GJ/tonne versus incinerationNewsprint 6.33 2.62 2.4Fine paper 15.87 2.23 7.1Cardboard 8.56 2.31 3.7Other paper 9.49 2.25 4.2HDPE 64.27 6.30 10.2PET 85.16 3.22 26.4Other plastic 52.09 4.76 10.9
  32. 32. Arguments against incineration7) It generates a toxic ash - It doesn’t get rid of landfills For every four tons of waste burned you get one ton of ash (or more) That nobody wants!
  33. 33. For every 4 tons of trash you get about one ton of ash ELECTRICITY TURBINE WET SCRUBBER SECONDARY STEAM DE-NOX CHUTE CHAMBER TEMP FABRIC BOILER < 200oC FILTER SEMI- DRY SCRUBBER Ca(OH) 2 SUSPENSION GRATES ACTIVATED CHARCOAL AMMONIA 90% INJECTION TRASH 10% FLY ASH BOTTOM ASH
  34. 34. Covanta Ash Landfill,Haverhill, Mass
  35. 35. Covanta Ash Landfill,Haverhill, Mass
  36. 36. Arguments against incineration8) It produces toxic air emissions
  37. 37. AIR EMISSIONS CO2 + H2O ACID GASES: HCI, HF, SO2 NOx TOXIC METALS: Pb, Cd, Hg, As, Cr etc NEW COMPOUNDS: PCDDs (DIOXINS) PCDFs (FURANS) PCB’s ETC
  38. 38. AIR EMISSIONS CO2 + H2O ACID GASES: HCI, HF, SO2 NOx TOXIC METALS: Pb, Cd, Hg, As, Cr etc NEW COMPOUNDS: NANO PCDDs (DIOXINS) PARTICLES PCDFs (FURANS) PCB’s ETC
  39. 39. Size of Particle regulated in incineratorNANOPARTICLES emissions
  40. 40. Three links to public health protection : STRONG REGULATIONS ADEQUATE MONITORING TOUGH ENFORCEMENTIf any link is weak the public is not protected?
  41. 41. Arguments against incineration9) Incineration is poorly monitored In the US monitoring of dioxins has been a sick joke There is no regulation or monitoring of nanoparticles
  42. 42. Nanoparticle problems Not easily captured by air pollution control devices Nanoparticles from incineration far more dangerous than other nanoparticles They travel long distances Remain suspended for long periods of time
  43. 43. •We Know that PM10 and PM2.5cause many health problems PM 10• In urban areas bothmortality and morbidityincrease with particulatelevels•The smaller the particlesthe worse it gets PM 2,5
  44. 44. Nano particles are so small they can easily cross the lung membraneBLOOD
  45. 45. Nano Pathology Once nanoparticles have entered the bloodstream they can easily cross the membranes of every tissue in the body.
  46. 46. Nano Pathology They can even cross the blood brain barrier
  47. 47. Aggregati di Piombo, Bario, Cromo, Ferro e Silicio in Cervello.www.stefanomontanari.net
  48. 48. Incineration, nanoparticles & Health Statement of Evidence Particulate Emissions and Health ProposedRingaskiddy Waste-to-Energy FacilityProfessor C. Vyvyan Howard MB. ChB. PhD. FRCPath. June 2009 VYV.howard@googlemail.com
  49. 49. I have yet to see a documentedscientific response to either Cormier’s paper orProfessor Vyvyan Howard’s testimony from Any regulatory agency Any incinerator builder orAny consultant promoting incineration
  50. 50. Meanwhile, while we are waiting for the science, common sense says: Don’t build incinerators in air sheds,which have already been compromised by particulate pollution, i.e. where respiratory problems are already high
  51. 51. Incineration is the wrong solution for the 21st Century
  52. 52. “Even if we made incineration safe wewould never make it sensible.It simply does not make sense tospend so much money destroyingresources we should be sharing withthe future.” (PC)
  53. 53. The modern incinerator isattempting to perfect a bad idea Our task in the 21st Century is not to find better ways to destroy discarded materials But to stop making packaging and products that have to be destroyed!
  54. 54. The Waste problem will not besolved with better technology  But with  Better organization  Better education  and better industrial design
  55. 55. Arguments against incineration10) There is a far better alternative strategy, which is cheaper, creates more jobs and business opportunities, does not create a toxic ash and is sustainable.
  56. 56. 3. The ZERO WASTE 2020 strategy
  57. 57. ZERO WASTE IS A NEW DIRECTION
  58. 58. THE BACK ENDNO to INCINERATORS OF WASTEMANAGEMENTNO to LANDFILLS
  59. 59. THE THE FRONT END BACK ENDNO to INCINERATORS OF OF RESOURCE WASTE MANAGEMENT,MANAGEMENT INDUSTRIAL DESIGNNO to LANDFILLS & POST-CONSUMERISM
  60. 60. Zero Waste can be approached with a series of simple steps  which are  Practical  Cost effective and  Politically acceptable
  61. 61. SUMMARY10 steps to Zero Waste
  62. 62. SourceSeparation
  63. 63. Source Door to DoorSeparation Collection
  64. 64. Source Door to Door CompostingSeparation Collection
  65. 65. Source Door to Door CompostingSeparation CollectionRecycling
  66. 66. Source Door to Door CompostingSeparation Collection Reuse, RepairRecycling & Community Center
  67. 67. Source Door to Door CompostingSeparation Collection Reuse, Repair WasteRecycling & Community Reduction Center Initiatives
  68. 68. Source Door to Door CompostingSeparation Collection Reuse, Repair WasteRecycling & Community Reduction Center InitiativesEconomicIncentives
  69. 69. Source Door to Door CompostingSeparation Collection Reuse, Repair WasteRecycling & Community Reduction Center Initiatives ResidualEconomic Separation &Incentives Research Center
  70. 70. Source Door to Door CompostingSeparation Collection Reuse, Repair WasteRecycling & Community Reduction Center Initiatives Residual BetterEconomic Separation & IndustrialIncentives Research Center Design
  71. 71. Source Door to Door CompostingSeparation Collection Reuse, Repair WasteRecycling & Community Reduction Center Initiatives Residual BetterEconomic Separation & IndustrialIncentives Research Center Design Temporary Landfill
  72. 72. Source Door to Door CompostingSeparation Collection Reuse, Repair WasteRecycling & Community Reduction Center Initiatives Residual BetterEconomic Separation & IndustrialIncentives Research Center Design Temporary Landfill 2020
  73. 73. “ The Fantastic 3” The San Francisco system
  74. 74. Composting plant for SanFrancisco
  75. 75. Local farmers are using thecompost to grow fruit andvegetables for San Francisco
  76. 76. “ The Fantastic 3” The San Francisco system
  77. 77. MATERIALS RECOVERYFACIILITY at Pier 96
  78. 78. MATERIALS RECOVERYFACILITY
  79. 79. San Francisco Population = 850,000 Very little space 50% waste diverted by 2000 63% waste diverted by 2004 70% waste diverted by 2008 72% waste diverted by 2009 75% waste diverted by 2010 GOAL:100% by 2020 (or very close!)
  80. 80. Italy Over 2000 communities in Italy are achieving over 50% diversion using “door to door” collection systems Over 200 communities achieving over 70% diversion
  81. 81. Italy Novara - (a city near Turin, population = 100,000) achieved 70% diversion in just 18 months!
  82. 82. Italy Salerno(near Naples, pop 145,000) 18% to 72% diversion in one year!
  83. 83. BelgiumIn Flanders they have achieved 75% diversion with reuse, recycling, composting etc – VERY CREATIVE programs
  84. 84. 5. Reuse, Repair &Deconstruction
  85. 85. Value of Los Angeles discarded materials Reusable items
  86. 86. Reuse, Repair & Deconstruction Urban Ore, Berkeley, California
  87. 87.  Urban Ore operating for 30 years Grossing $3 million per year 27 full-time well-paid jobs
  88. 88. VIDEOS ONLINE Examples of Reuse and Repair Centers from California, Vermont, Nova Scotia and Australia AmericanHealthStudies.org
  89. 89. 1 2 3 Materials ResidualComposting Facility Recovery Fraction Facility Reuse & Repair Centers
  90. 90. We have to minimize theresidual fraction with…1) Waste reduction initiatives
  91. 91. 6. WasteReductionInitiatives
  92. 92. Ireland Government put a 15 cent tax on plastic shopping bags reduced use by 92% in one year!
  93. 93. Italy Severalsupermarket chains are providing dispensers which allow customers to refill shampoo and detergent bottles…
  94. 94. Effecorta, A food storein Capannori,Tuscany, Italy L’esperienza effecorta a cura di Pietro Angelini, scio fondatore ed ideatore effecorta Capannori, 23-01-2010
  95. 95. 60 dispensing systems for solids
  96. 96. 60 taps for liquids
  97. 97. We have to minimize theresidual fraction with…2) Economic incentives
  98. 98. 7. Economic Incentives
  99. 99. “ Save as you throw” system 1 2 3
  100. 100. “ Save as you throw” system 1 2 3 free
  101. 101. “ Save as you throw” system 1 2 3 free free
  102. 102. “ Save as you throw” system 1 2 $ The less free free you make, the more you save!
  103. 103. “ Save as you throw” system 1 2 $ The less REWARD you make, SYSTEM the more you save!
  104. 104. Italy Villafranco d’Asti (Piedmont, population = 30,000) has reached 85% diversion
  105. 105. Spain Usurbilin Basque Country Has gone from 28% to 86% in 7 months
  106. 106. Part 2
  107. 107. 1 2 $ Waste Reduction Initiatives MaterialsComposting Recovery Facility Facility Residuals ? Reuse & Repair & Deconstruction
  108. 108. 8. ResidualSeparation & Research Facility
  109. 109. RESIDUAL SEPARATION & RESEARCH FACILITY 1. Built at entrance to landfill 2. No material can enter landfill without it being separated and screened 3. More material recycled 4. Toxics removed and identified 5. Dirty organics biologically stabilized 6. Non-recyclable materials STUDIED
  110. 110. RESIDUAL SCREENING FACILITY DIRTY ORGANICMORE MORE TOXICS FRACTIONRECYCLABLES This type of facility is currently running in NOVA BIOLOGICAL STABILIZATION SCOTIA, CanadaINTERIM LANDFILL for non-recyclable and stabilized organic fraction
  111. 111. RESIDUAL SCREENING & RESEARCH FACILITY DIRTY ORGANICMORE MORE TOXICS FRACTIONRECYCLABLES NON-RECYCLABLE FRACTION BIOLOGICAL RESEARCH STABILIZATION CENTER INTERIM LANDFILL
  112. 112. NON-RECYCABLE MATERIALS Local OrUniversity Technical College ZERO WASTERESEARCH CENTER
  113. 113. Zero Waste Research Center TASKS: Improve capture rate of recyclables etc. Collect best practices on waste avoidance/reduction measures Develop local uses for some materials Recommend better industrial designs to industry on packaging and products
  114. 114. The Message to Industry:• If we can’t reuse it, recycle it or compost it,• Industry shouldn’t be making it• We need better industrial design for the 21st Century
  115. 115. 10. An interim landfill for biologicallystabilized dirty organic fraction
  116. 116. Separazione alla Raccolta Compostaggio sorgente Porta a Porta 70 - 80% Iniziative Riduzione Riutilizzo Riparazione eRiciclaggio COMMUNITY RESPONSIBILITY la Centro per rifiuti Comunita’ Residual Separation & Better Incentivi Research IndustrialEconomici Facility Design INTERIM LANDFILL 2020
  117. 117. Separazione alla Raccolta Compostaggio sorgente Porta a Porta 70-80% Iniziative Riutilizzo Riparazione e COMUNITY Riduzione Riciclaggio RESPONSIBILITY per la Centro rifiuti Comunita’ Incentivi Economici 20-30% Separazione del residuo e Centro di migliore design ricerca industriale INDUSTRIAL RESPONSIBILITYINTERIM LANDFILL 2020
  118. 118. Industrial Responsibility1. Design for sustainability2. Clean production3. Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR)(government incentives would help here)
  119. 119. Conclusions We do not need mega-landfills or incinerators! There is a better alternative The ZERO WASTE strategy is Better for our health (LESS TOXICS) Better for the economy, Better for our children, and Better for the planet (MORE SUSTAINABLE)!
  120. 120. Please NoteMass burn incineration only gets 75% diversion from landfill.For every 4 Tons of waste burned you get at least 1 Ton of Toxic Ash.
  121. 121. Round One
  122. 122. Incineration75% reductionSan Francisco75% reduction
  123. 123. Incineration75% reduction25% toxic ashSan Francisco75% reduction25% residuals
  124. 124. Round Two
  125. 125. TWO MODELS FOR TREATMENT OFRESIDUALS
  126. 126. TWO MODELS FOR TREATMENT OFRESIDUALS
  127. 127. TWO MODELS FOR TREATMENT OFRESIDUALS + TOXIC ASH LANDFILL
  128. 128. TWO MODELS FOR TREATMENT OFRESIDUALS + TOXIC ASH LANDFILL RESIDUAL SEPARATIO N FACILITY
  129. 129. TWO MODELS FOR TREATMENT OFRESIDUALS + TOXIC ASH LANDFILL RESIDUAL ZERO WASTE SEPARATIO RESEARC N H FACILITY CENTER
  130. 130. TWO MODELS FOR TREATMENT OFRESIDUALS + TOXIC ASH LANDFILL RESIDUAL ZERO INTERIM LANDFILL WASTE SEPARATIO RESEARC FOR STABILIZED “DIRTY” N H ORGANIC FACILITY CENTER FRACTION
  131. 131. TWO MODELS FOR TREATMENT OFRESIDUALS + TOXIC ASH LANDFILL RESIDUAL ZERO INTERIM LANDFILL WASTE SEPARATIO RESEARC FOR STABILIZED “DIRTY” N H ORGANIC FACILITY CENTER FRACTION FEEDBACK FOR WASTE REDUCTION AND BETTER INDUSTRIAL DESIGN
  132. 132. Part 3
  133. 133. Arguments against incineration1) It is not sustainable2) It is a poor economic investment. Most of the money spent will leave PRIncineration is the MOST expensive way of handling wasteIncineration is the SECOND MOST expensive way of producing electricity
  134. 134. Arguments against incineration3) Very few jobs created for very large capital investment and there is very little stimulation of local economy
  135. 135. Arguments against incineration4) Incineration is very unpopular with the publicIn the US over 300 incinerator proposals defeated between 1985-95No new trash incinerator permitted in the US since 1995!
  136. 136. Arguments against incineration5) It stifles innovation. For 25 years or more the monster has to be fed
  137. 137. Arguments against incineration6) It wastes energy!
  138. 138. Arguments against incineration7) It generates a toxic ash - It doesn’t get rid of landfills For every four tons of waste burned you get one ton of ash (or more) That nobody wants!
  139. 139. Arguments against incineration8) It produces toxic air emissions
  140. 140. I have yet to see a documentedscientific response to either Cormier’s paper orProfessor Vyvyan Howard’s testimony from Any regulatory agency Any incinerator builder orAny consultant promoting incineration
  141. 141. Arguments against incineration9) Incineration is poorly monitored In the US monitoring of dioxins has been a sick joke There is no regulation or monitoring of nanoparticles
  142. 142. Arguments against incineration10) There is a far better alternative strategy, which is cheaper, creates more jobs and business opportunities, does not create a toxic ash and is sustainable.
  143. 143. Source Door to Door CompostingSeparation Collection Reuse, Repair WasteRecycling & Community Reduction Center Initiatives Residual BetterEconomic Separation & IndustrialIncentives Research Center Design Temporary Landfill 2020
  144. 144. TWO MODELS FOR TREATMENT OFRESIDUALS + TOXIC ASH LANDFILL RESIDUAL ZERO INTERIM LANDFILL WASTE SEPARATIO RESEARC FOR STABILIZED “DIRTY” N H ORGANIC FACILITY CENTER FRACTION FEEDBACK FOR WASTE REDUCTION AND BETTER INDUSTRIAL DESIGN
  145. 145. On Jan 23, 2010Capannori launched itsRifiuti Zero ResearchCenter Rossano ErcoliniAmbientefuturo@interfree.it338-28-66-215
  146. 146. 1 2 $ Waste Reduction Initiatives MaterialsComposting Recovery Facility Facility Zero Waste Research Center Maximize Maximize Capture rate Reuse & Repair & Deconstruction Capture rate
  147. 147. 1 2 $ Waste Reduction Initiatives MaterialsComposting Recovery Facility Facility Zero Waste Research Center Directory of Directory Best Practices Reuse & Repair & Deconstruction of Best Practices
  148. 148. 1 2 $ Waste Reduction Initiatives MaterialsComposting Recovery Facility Facility Zero Waste ResearchFind local uses Center for some Reuse & Repair &materials Deconstruction
  149. 149. 1 2 $ Waste Reduction Initiatives MaterialsComposting Recovery Facility Facility Zero Waste Research Recommend Center Better Reuse & RepairIndustrial design & Deconstruction
  150. 150. 1 2 $ Waste Reduction Initiatives MaterialsComposting Recovery Facility Facility Zero Waste Research Research Center For Clean Reuse & Repair Production & Deconstruction
  151. 151. FRAZIONE RESIDUA - Capannori Porta a Porta 1. Tessili e cuolo 16.52 % 2. Pannolini 13.95 % 3. Materiale organico da cucina 10.56 % 4. Altra plastica: non imballo 9.98 % 5. Imballaggi cellulosici poliaccopiati 8.05 % 6. Imballaggi poliaccopiati in plastica 7.45 % 7. Imballaggi flessibili in plastica 6.81 % 8. Materiale organico da giardino 4.64 % 9. Imballaggi rigidi in plastica (non bottiglie) 3.23 % 10 Giornali (quotidiani e riviste) 2.54 %
  152. 152. • FRAZIONE RESIDUA – Capannori 1. Tessili e cuoio 16.52 % 2. Pannolini 13.95 % 3. Materiale organico da cucina 10.56 % 4. Altra plastica: non imballo 9.98 % 5. Questa e’ l’analisi del % Imballaggi cellulosici poliaccopiati 8.05 6. Imballaggi poliaccopiati in plastica dopo la 17% che rimane 7.45 % 7. separazione dell’ % Imballaggi flessibili in plastica 6.81 8. 83% del materiale % Materiale organico da giardino 4.64 9. Imballaggi rigidi in plastica (non bottiglie) 3.23 % raccoltoe riviste) a porta porta 10 Giornali (quotidiani 2.54 %
  153. 153. • FRAZIONE RESIDUA – Capannori 1. Tessili e cuoio Find local uses? 16.52 % 2. Pannolini 13.95 % 3. Materiale organico da cucina 10.56 % 4. Altra plastica: non imballo 9.98 % 5. Questa e’ l’analisi del % Imballaggi cellulosici poliaccopiati 8.05 6. Imballaggi poliaccopiati in plastica dopo la 17% che rimane 7.45 % 7. separazione dell’ % Imballaggi flessibili in plastica 6.81 8. 83% del materiale % Materiale organico da giardino 4.64 9. Imballaggi rigidi in plastica (non bottiglie) 3.23 % raccoltoe riviste) a porta porta 10 Giornali (quotidiani 2.54 %
  154. 154. • FRAZIONE RESIDUA – Capannori 1. Tessili e cuoio Find local uses? 16.52 % 2. Pannolini Recommend better design 13.95 % 3. Materiale organico da cucina 10.56 % 4. Altra plastica: non imballo 9.98 % 5. Questa e’ l’analisi del % Imballaggi cellulosici poliaccopiati 8.05 6. Imballaggi poliaccopiati in plastica dopo la 17% che rimane 7.45 % 7. separazione dell’ % Imballaggi flessibili in plastica 6.81 8. 83% del materiale % Materiale organico da giardino 4.64 9. Imballaggi rigidi in plastica (non bottiglie) 3.23 % raccoltoe riviste) a porta porta 10 Giornali (quotidiani 2.54 %
  155. 155. • FRAZIONE RESIDUA – Capannori 1. Tessili e cuoio Find local uses? 16.52 % 2. Pannolini Recommend better design 13.95 % 3. Materiale organico da cucina Education 10.56 % 4. Altra plastica: non imballo 9.98 % 5. Questa e’ l’analisi del % Imballaggi cellulosici poliaccopiati 8.05 6. Imballaggi poliaccopiati in plastica dopo la 17% che rimane 7.45 % 7. separazione dell’ % Imballaggi flessibili in plastica 6.81 8. 83% del materiale % Materiale organico da giardino 4.64 9. Imballaggi rigidi in plastica (non bottiglie) 3.23 % raccoltoe riviste) a porta porta 10 Giornali (quotidiani 2.54 %

×