ENSTU 300: Critical thinking and communication in Environmental studies

Landfills and Methane Emissions Stakeholders

Carissa Denehy, Environmental Studies Program, California State University Monterey Bay

GrowNYC

As evidenced by the previous papers, landfill methane emissions remain a multifaceted issue.
In part because the general public has yet to identify and acknowledge the dangers of
unmanaged and decomposing food waste. While increased public concern would contribute to
higher levels of success in the evaluation of GHG and methane emission reduction policies,
they are not the only deciding factor. Such policies must consider and compromise for all
parties involved as outlined in Table 2.

Policy Option 1: Policy Option 2: Policy Option 3:

California Senate Bill 1383 Bill Emerson Food SB-32 California Global Warming
Donation Act Solutions Act

Criteria 1: (+) Addressed the problem at its (+/-) Assists in the (+) Further GHG reduction Open for
Ecological source with consumers success of SB 1383 amendment if achieved
health

Criteria 2: (+/-)Increased waste management (+)No additional cost. (-)Places burden of planning on one
Cost New facilities pay for themselves Rescues surplus food entity leading to outsource work
Criteria 3: (+/-) Needs every citizen to make (+) Choice is left to (+/-)One entity in charge= long periods
Technical lifestyle and behavior changes citizens and Of delay.
feasibility businesses to donate Sets back timeline to work towards
goal

Key: Strong (+), Weak (-), Medium/neutral (+/-)

Policy 1: California Senate Bill 1383 of 2016

A relatively recent piece of legislation that explicitly addresses landfill methane emissions by
requiring proper disposal of organic materials that assist in redirecting waste away from
landfills by 75% by 2025 (California, S. (n.d.) In addition to organic waste redirection, C.A. is
required to rescue/recover at least 20% of surplus food by 2025. A goal made easier by the
passing of the Bill Emerson Food Donation Act (Policy 2).

As recently seen in Monterey County in January of 2022, the implementation of this bill
requires all businesses and homes to place compostable and organic items such as food waste
and yard trimmings inside their green waste bins to be collected (free of charge) every week. In
an effort to reach all citizens, regardless of socioeconomic status, the county will also provide
free green collection bins to households without one and countertop collection pails.

However, not all legislation is infallible. One of the most challenging aspects of this bill is its
approach of stopping the problem at its source. The overall reduction of food waste can be
achieved through several avenues including public education, local farming, efficient growth of
produce, to name a few. Most of these methods involve changing societal mindsets around
consumption and then enforcing businesses and citizens to participate. Accurate and precise
methane emissions tracking is essential to ensuring the effectiveness of regulation and
evaluating whether California is meeting its methane reduction goals. In order to calculate
progress and determine participation status, extensive record keeping will be required.
According to the policy, Jurisdictions are required to implement inspections and enforcement
practices to ensure organic waste generators comply with the policy requirements, this can be
done at the discretion of each CA jurisdiction. A possible example may look like a jurisdiction
collaboration with haulers to review routes for green bin container contamination or an
agreement with the local environmental health department to inspect edible food generation
sources like business, stores and schools. Non-compliance with regulations may result in civil
penalties.

As organic waste is collected, there are several methods required for landfills to process that
material. The first stage involves processing facilities outfitted with the technology to capture
and convert biogasses created by the organic decomposition into a natural gas that can be sold
as a renewable energy source. This energy conversion of landfill biogases will reduce wild GHG
emissions and boost legislative efforts to displace finite energy sources such as coal, oil, or gas.
If those facilities are not available, the bill requires counties to work with their jurisdictions for
the necessary organic waste recycling facilities. The remaining decomposed organic material
can then be made into compost or mulch available for resale to the general public and
agriculture uses.

Policy 2: The Bill Emerson Food Donation Act of 1996

This act was designed with the intent of encouraging food donation by minimizing donor
liability for non-profit organizations and individuals (H.R.2428). It provides federal protection
from civil and criminal liability from donating food or grocery items for both the donor and the
non-profit that distributed the food. It was intended to make food donation more accessible
and safer with fewer legal repercussions.

There are a few exceptions, of course. Donors such as individuals, grocers, restaurants, schools,
farmers, and even caterers and food trucks that donate must do so in good faith with
apparently wholesome food that meets all quality and labeling standards imposed by Federal,
State, and local laws and regulations. However, this law also protects those that donate food
NOT meeting those standards, as long as they inform the non-profit organization of that
information. It is then the responsibility of the non-profit to either accept and cull the
donations according to regulations (if needed) or decline the donation. In other words, food
that is not profitable/saleable because of cosmetic issues, age, freshness, grade, size, surplus, or
other conditions can be donated under the Bill Emerson Food Donation Act. The meal-kit
company, Misfits Markets, includes such products in their kits as a public campaign to reduce
food waste caused by sellers' and consumers' aesthetic choices.

Nevertheless, this law has its limits and exceptions. It does not protect individuals donating
food directly to another individual; it must go through a non-profit organization that
ultimately distributes the food. For a donation to be protected under this law, it must be
donated free of charge; the recipients cannot be required to provide anything of value in
exchange for receiving the donation. This law also does not override state or local laws and
regulations; creating a federal standard was intended to protect donors located in states that
provide less liability protection than this act. Essentially, a state can provide more protection
than this federal law but cannot provide less protection. (FAQ Bill Emerson Good Samaritan
Food Donation Act. (n.d.) Furthermore, it does not apply to donators or non-profit
organizations whose actions caused injury or death resulting from gross negligence or
intentional and voluntary misconduct and deliberate omission of information. (H.R.2428)

Because this policy simply provides legal protection it is not a strong policy to rely on to
improve environmental health. It will be useful in reaching food recycling and reclamation
goals.

Policy 3: SB-32 California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2016: emissions limit

Senate bill 32 is a follow-up to Assembly bill 32– The California Global Warming Solutions Act
of 2006 which required California to reduce its GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2030. AB 32
was achieved on July 11, 2018 (Hamblin, A, 2018). The difference with SB 32, is that the
reductions must fall 40% below the 1990 GHG levels by 2030.

An interesting aspect of this law is the lack of an outline regarding how California should
achieve those targets. Instead, it is tasked to the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to
develop emission reduction plans, monitor and regulate sources of emissions, and adopt rules
and regulations. The only guidance provided is the bottom line of achieving maximum,
technologically feasible, and cost-effective greenhouse gas emissions reductions (S.B. 32, 2016).
This could lead to a longer period of waiting while CARB makes arrangements.

SB 32 places an emphasis on considering, including and protecting California's disadvantaged

communities. Historically those communities are affected first and most frequently by climate
change impacts (Islam, N. S., 2017). They are at higher risk for extreme weather events, such as
drought, heat, and flooding, all at higher frequencies (Islam, N. S., 2017).
Recommendations
All policies outlined are currently in-place and active pieces of legislation, primarily focused in
California. While they all prove overall beneficial for ecological health, they all have varying
levels of overall impact. Based on the information provided and after careful analysis, Policy 1:
California Senate Bill 1383 of 2016, has the best positive impact overall. While it is bolstered by
existing policies like #2 and #3, once a routine system is established, positive impacts will
continue to be felt.

Once a majority of landfills are equipped with new biogas processing facilities the process of
selling the renewable natural gas energy and remaining compost and mulch created from
leftover materials will quickly reimburse investors. Furthermore, not every citizen will be
required to participate, provided the policy achieves a majority or a higher percentage of
restaurant and grocer participation.

Food production and consumption are a necessary and inevitable part of life on Earth. When it
is improperly disposed of, it leads to disproportionately severe atmospheric consequences.
Higher levels of GHG, especially methane, will lead to higher global temperatures due to solar
radiation trapping and can cause extreme weather events, such as droughts, heat waves,
flooding, sea level rise and glacier melting, all at higher frequencies than in the past (Islam, N.
S., 2017).

With these and nationwide and global policies like SB 1383, we may be able to slow and reduce
the amount and rate of GHG in the atmosphere. However, it will still take time, planning,
money and personal accountability to achieve those goals in time for it to make a difference.

Works Cited
 California Methane Research Program. (n.d.). Retrieved April 15, 2022, from
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/methane-research

California, S. (n.d.). California's short-lived climate pollutant reduction strategy. Retrieved

April 9, 2022, from https://calrecycle.ca.gov/organics/slcp/

Environmental Protection Agency. (n.d). (2021). Overview of Green House Gases. EPA.
Retrieved February 24, 2022, from https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/overview-
greenhouse-gases#methane

Frequently Asked Questions about the Bill Emerson Good Samaritan Food Donation Act. (n.d.).
Retrieved April 9, 2022, from https://www.usda.gov/sites/default/files/documents/usda-
good-samaritan-faqs.pdf

Hamblin, A. (2018, July 13). California already reached its 2020 goal for cutting emissions. now
what? Retrieved April 10, 2022, from
https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/opinion/the-conversation/sd-california-
greenhouse-gas-emissions-2020-20180712-htmlstory.html

H.R.2428 - 104th Congress (1995-1996): To encourage the donation of ... (n.d.). Retrieved April 0,
2022, from https://www.congress.gov/bill/104th-congress/house-bill/2428

Islam, N. S., & Winkel, J. (2017, October). Climate change and social inequality. Retrieved April
13, 2022, from https://www.un.org/esa/desa/papers/2017/wp152_2017.pdf?
source=post_page---------------------------

Landfill Methane Outreach Program (LMOP). (n.d.). Retrieved April 9, 2022, from
https://www.epa.gov/lmop/basic-information-about-landfill-gas

SB-32 California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006: Emissions limit. (n.d.). Retrieved April
13, 2022, from https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?
bill_id=201520160SB32

SB-1383 Short-lived climate pollutants: Methane emissions: Dairy and livestock: Organic
waste: Landfills. (n.d.). Retrieved April 2, 2022, from
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160SB1383