Waste Management 126 (2021) 170–179

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Waste Management
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/wasman

Evaluating emissions reductions from zero waste strategies under

dynamic conditions: A case study from Boston
Joshua R. Castigliego a,b,c, Adam Pollack a,b, Cutler J. Cleveland a,b, Michael J. Walsh a,b,⇑
a
Institute for Sustainable Energy, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA
b
Department of Earth and Environment, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA
c
Applied Economics Clinic, Arlington, MA, USA

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: In 2018 and 2019 the City of Boston (Massachusetts, USA) conducted zero waste and carbon neutral plan-
Received 1 November 2019 ning efforts. Here we present the results of an accompanying analysis of the impacts of zero waste strate-
Revised 8 February 2021 gies on greenhouse gases (GHG) emissions associated with waste treatment. Emissions analysis in the
Accepted 11 February 2021
waste sector is complicated by the contribution of significant indirect impacts that can exhibit temporal
and spatial heterogeneity. For example, lifecycle GHG analysis of waste-to-energy combustion grants
credits for the emissions avoided due to electricity generated from organic waste (biogenic carbon) that
Keywords:
displaces electricity generation that could be carbon-emitting. As electricity grids decarbonize, this credit
Emissions
Life cycle assessment
approaches zero. Long-term emissions planning needs to account for such dynamics to realistically assess
Zero waste the GHG mitigation potential associated with alternative waste management strategies. Here, we seek to
Planning capture these dynamics in a forward-looking analysis of waste sector emissions under a zero-waste strat-
egy for the City of Boston. Using publicly available data sets such as EPA’s Waste Reduction Model
(WARM), we show that the implementation of zero waste strategies reduces the combustion of plastics
and biomass in waste-to-energy (WtE) combustion facilities and associated GHG emissions. While WtE
has been considered less-carbon intensive than other forms of waste treatment and fossil-based electric-
ity generation, our analysis shows that more renewables will eventually eliminate the perceived GHG
benefits associated with waste-to-energy combustion. While our approach provides policymakers with
an understanding of the impacts of decisions in a dynamic context, we also identify common knowledge
gaps in conducting forward-looking waste-GHG assessments.
Ó 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction house gas (GHG) intensive waste treatment approaches to low-

Limiting the impact of municipal solid waste (MSW) on human
and natural systems is a priority for governments and the private
sector. Many cities are pursuing zero waste (ZW) strategies, which
aim to reduce the amount of waste materials that are burned or
landfilled by promoting responsible material production, con-
sumption, reuse and recovery (Zero Waste International Alliance,
2009). Further, concerns surrounding the carbon footprint of waste
treatment options such as landfilling or combustion has prompted
policymakers to promote efforts to increase diversion from green-
Abbreviations: CH4, Methane; CO2, Carbon Dioxide; CO2e, Carbon Dioxide
Equivalent; GHG, Greenhouse Gas; GPC, Global Protocol for Community-Scale
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventories; ICI, Industrial, Commercial, Institutional;
LCA, Life Cycle Assessment; MRF, Material Recovery Facility; MSW, Municipal Solid
Waste; N2O, Nitrous Oxide; t CO2e, Tonne (Metric ton) of CO2e; WARM, EPA’s Waste
Reduction Model; WtE, Waste-to-Energy; ZW, Zero Waste.
⇑ Corresponding author.
GHG approaches. Cities such as Cambridge Massachusetts, San
Francisco California, Denver Colorado, and Portland Oregon have
started to collect residential food waste in addition to recyclable
materials and garbage (City and County of Denver, 2019; City of
Cambridge, 2019; City of Portland, 2019; San Francisco
Department of the Environment, 2019). Several states have started
to require the diversion of institutional and commercial food waste
away from landfill and combustion and toward biological treat-
ment (Sandson and Broad Leib, 2019).
Zero waste strategies aim to reduce the growing generation of
all types of waste streams, including: food wastes, plastics and
packaging, paper, industrial waste, and e-waste (Song et al.,
2015). Such strategies include source reduction, source separation,
reuse, repair, recycling, and biological treatment of organics. A
review of prior ZW studies indicate that entities are most success-
ful at achieving ZW goals when ZW strategies are applied in a con-
sistent and holistic fashion across waste streams and geopolitical

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2021.02.026
0956-053X/Ó 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
J.R. Castigliego, A. Pollack, C.J. Cleveland et al. Waste Management 126 (2021) 170–179

entities (Zaman, 2015). Zero waste is of special importance to waste streams evolve under zero waste strategies, emissions from
cities, which can benefit from the transition from waste being a the combustion of mixed waste streams will begin to look less
burden to waste being a resource (Zaman and Ahsan, 2020). Under- favorable from a net GHG perspective.
standing historical waste generation and future trends can help Here we perform an emission assessment of Boston’s waste
policymakers develop such strategies in a comprehensive manor stream using policy-interpretative dynamic GHG assessment prac-
(Ayeleru et al., 2018). Forecasts can be used to subsequently assess tices to elucidate how various changes in material and energy
the impact of potential ZW actions. flows impact system-wide emissions. This case study assesses
Such actions to promote waste diversion are typically informed the impact of waste management decisions under a changing
by the lifecycle assessment (LCA) of waste and waste treatment energy landscape. This work was conducted for the City of Boston
pathways. This allows for the estimation of various environmental as part of the Carbon Free Boston project that evaluated strategies
impacts including quantification of lifecycle GHG emissions – the for the City to achieve net-zero GHG emissions by 2050 (Boston
primary focus of our work here. This approach typically requires University Institute for Sustainable Energy, 2019; Castigliego
setting a system boundary in both process and time. This also et al., 2019). To the best of our knowledge, little or no study has
requires making fixed assumptions about energy or material prop- been carried out to perform an emissions assessment of waste
erties at the system boundary (Bakas et al., 2017; Morris, 2017; stream transitions using policy-interpretative dynamic GHG
2010). Quantifying these impacts remains a challenge for various assessment practices.
entities. While tools exist for assessing the impacts of waste –
notably the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Waste Reduc-
2. Boston’s waste management system
tion Model (WARM) or the Protocol for the Quantification of Green-
house Gas Emissions from Waste Management Activities
2.1. Waste generation
(Entreprises pour l’Environnement, 2013) – these tools provide
limited capabilities for understanding the impact of waste man-
Approximately 1.16 Million short tons (1.05 Mt) of MSW were
agement decisions over the long term as the emissions intensity
generated in Boston in 2017 with nearly 20% generated by house-
of elements of the waste system changes as policies evolve or as
holds and 80% being generated by industrial, commercial and insti-
a result of exogenous factors. This study seeks to understand the
tutional (ICI) entities (City of Boston, 2019). Through its waste
impacts of such changes for forecasting emissions impacts in the
contracts (recycling and disposal) and municipal-operated collec-
context of a city-scale zero-waste planning process to better
tion (yard waste) the City can obtain reasonably descriptive waste
inform and support decision-making. While many studies have
generation data by waste stream. Waste management by ICI enti-
conducted GHG inventories and assessments for historical years,
ties is greatly decentralized, and is governed primarily by individ-
none to our knowledge have evaluated how the long-term dynam-
ual contracts between ICI entities and private haulers. While a City
ics of lifecycle emissions factors can influence forward-looking
Commercial Trash Hauler Ordinance (City of Boston, 2008) requires
GHG assessments.
private haulers to be permitted and report collection metrics, the
The treatment of waste may generate net GHG emissions di-
ordinance does not cover a significant portion of small generators
rectly, most commonly through the pathways of landfill-based
and thus does not provide complete data. To compensate for this
anaerobic degradation of organic waste into methane or via the
lack of data, the Zero Waste Boston (City of Boston, 2019) analysis
combustion of fossil carbon-containing materials (Morris, 2010).
utilized industry generation factors and employment data
The treatment of waste may also generate indirect emissions
(California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery
impacts. In the example above, both treatment pathways can
(CalRecycle), 2015) to estimate commercial generation and diver-
involve the generation of energy respectively from capturing and
sion tonnages. This adds an additional element of uncertainty
burning methane or from using the heat generated in the combus-
regarding the generation of waste from the ICI sector compared
tion of waste. These actions can avoid energy generation and GHG
to the residential sector.
emissions elsewhere and thus be treated as a credit to the system
Discarded materials in Massachusetts are either: diverted to
(Bakas et al., 2017; Morris, 2017; 2010). Such is also the case with
reuse, recycling, or biological treatment of organics); or disposed
the avoidance of energy use in raw material extraction associated
at a landfill or WtE combustion facility (Massachusetts
with recycling. Further, landfilling of biological material or applica-
Department of Environmental Protection, 2016). The city’s entire
tion organic waste to soils can result in a carbon storage. A more
residential disposal stream is collected and transported to regional
detailed summary of emissions impacts associated with waste
waste-to-energy (WtE) combustion facilities1 outside of the city
management practices is listed in Table S1.
boundary. Boston currently diverts about 25% of its waste to recy-
Generally, emissions assessments of waste management strate-
cling, which has increased from approximately 10% since Boston’s
gies have focused only on immediate impacts, and have not
adoption of single-stream recycling in 2009. Boston’s residential
accounted for broader system transformations that may change
recycling is processed at a local material recovery facility (MRF).
the net impact of the process over time—particularly at timescales
The recycling rates reported by the City are gross estimates based
relevant to policymaking (Levasseur et al., 2010). Most notably, the
on curbside collection amounts. Contamination, such as inclusion
carbon intensity of the displaced market energy is an essential
of non-recyclable or impure materials (e.g., greasy pizza boxes) in
input to a life cycle energy calculation—such as those used in EPA’s
this quantity is removed and sent to disposal. We assumed that ICI
WARM. In many regions, the carbon intensity of electricity is stea-
waste streams follow the same pathway as most commercial haulers
dily declining due to the growth of renewable energy. This trend is
transport waste to the same facilities.
expected to continue as many regions have committed to low-
carbon or carbon-free electricity supplies within the next 30 years
(Hertwich et al., 2015). This will lower the GHG-emissions factor 2.2. Emissions from Boston’s waste
for displaced energy generation from WtE’s life cycle impacts. This
has the potential to change WtE’s lifecycle performance relative to Boston’s disposal waste is burned at electricity-generating com-
other waste treatment options. WtE combustion is generally con- bustion facilities outside the city that feed into the regional ISO
sidered to have lower lifecycle GHG emissions than landfills—even New England grid. From a practical standpoint, the GHG-
those that generate electricity from captured methane (Kaplan
et al., 2009). As we show here, when grids become cleaner and 1
Covanta Haverhill, Covanta SEMASS, Wheelabrator Saugus

171
J.R. Castigliego, A. Pollack, C.J. Cleveland et al.
emissions intensity associated with the electricity generated at
these facilities is a function of the fraction of the material that is
fossil carbon (e.g., plastics)—with biogenic carbon generated from
organic waste assumed to be carbon-neutral. A nominal amount
of CH4, and N2O are assumed to be generated by incomplete com-
bustion of both the biogenic and fossil-based waste (US EPA, 2016;
US EPA, 2015).
City-GHG accounting guidelines, such as Global Protocol for
Community-Scale Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventories (GPC), typi-
cally attribute such emissions associated with such WtE systems
to the stationary energy generation sector. As a result, city-level
waste management decisions that reduce the flow of waste to
WtE facilities—and thus reduce emissions—will not materially
change Boston’s reported GHG emissions because WtE plants deli-
ver a small fraction of all the electricity supplied to the ISO New
England grid (US EPA, 2015).
In this study we evaluated the downstream emissions associ-
ated with waste treatment pathways by directly attributing emis-
sions to the functional unit of waste (e.g., per ton) rather than to
electricity generation (e.g., per kWh). We do so in order to assess
the impacts of waste policy on GHG emissions throughout the
waste management system. Our approach provides insight into
the effects of future policies and activities on GHG emissions that
may not be observed in the City’s current accounting methodology.
This provides decision-makers with information on GHG impacts
associated with each waste management alternative (Bakas et al.,
2017).
2.3. Zero waste planning in Boston
As a part of its 2014 Climate Action Plan update, Boston commit-
ted to become a ‘‘waste- and litter-free city” (City of Boston, 2014).
A major step towards this goal was launched in 2018 in the form of
Zero Waste Boston, a planning initiative that aims to ‘‘. . .transform
Boston into a ZW city through planning, policy, and community
engagement” (City of Boston, 2019). A commonly adopted bench-
mark for achieving ZW is to divert at least 90% of waste from land-
fills and WtE facilities (Zero Waste International Alliance, 2009)—
this target served as the basis for our forecasts of ZW strategies
and impacts.
The Zero Waste Boston initiative outlined a set of strategies to
help Boston achieve its ZW goals (City of Boston, 2019). Each of
these strategies requires new rules to incentivize diversion activi-
ties, new services to handle the capacity for increased diversion,
and education and outreach initiatives to help residents and busi-
nesses move toward ZW. New rules include: requirements on
diversion of construction waste, problem materials, and reusable
and fixable goods; incentive programs such as pay-as-you-throw;
and out-right bans of problem packaging at supermarkets and
restaurants. New services include food waste collection services,
neighborhood drop-off centers, and City-owned transfer and pro-
cessing facilities. Moreover, education and outreach initiatives
include technical assistance (e.g., small business support and resi-
dential fix-it kitchens), behavior-change marketing campaigns, and
community waste prevention and recycling grants. Compost
actions were identified as a priority and include expanding back-
yard composting, piloting of residential compost collection,
increasing composting at institutional and commercial facilities,
and increasing compost capacity. The Zero Waste Boston analysis
projected that implementation of these strategies would increase
the overall diversion rate from 25% to 80% or more by 2050 (City
of Boston, 2019). Each strategy evaluated in Zero Waste Boston
was presumed to have an impact on the magnitude of diversion
(e.g., % of organics being diverted based on ICI sector diversion
mandate) (Table S4).
172
Waste Management 126 (2021) 170–179
3. Methodology
Aligning ZW goals with GHG mitigation goals requires a com-
prehensive understanding of the emissions associated with waste
management strategies. We evaluated the GHG impact of such
strategies by first defining how emissions are generated across
the waste stream. Next, we applied presumed diversion-factors
by material type (Table S4) to reflect the impact of zero-waste
strategies material flows (generation and diversion) to alternative
treatment pathways. Finally, we used publicly available lifecycle
emissions factors (US EPA, 2016) to assess emissions on a material
basis. Since factors for avoided emissions are based on historical
carbon intensities for electricity generation, we recalculated these
based on forecasts defined by state-level regulations stipulating
the future carbon intensity of procured electricity. This allowed
us to conduct a representative forward-looking assessment of
emissions from the waste stream in a dynamic context.
As with all forward-looking assessments, our study is reliant on
several underlying assumptions about the future. While our fore-
cast for the carbon intensity of procured electricity is defined by
current regulation, it is likely that this regulation will become more
stringent, more influential, and harder to accurately forecast our
assumptions about future capture rates (Table S4) which are an
interpretation of presumed policy impacts that may be more or
less stringent and impactful than what is assumed here. In this
assessment, these assumptions best reflect the principals and
objectives selected for the Zero Waste Boston initiative, and ulti-
mately provide a basis for evaluating GHG impacts.
3.1. Classification of waste emissions
We evaluated two categories of emissions specific to the mate-
rial type and treatment pathway:
(i) Direct Emissions: Emissions from waste decomposition and
combustion, such as carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4),
nitrous oxide (N2O), or biogenic CO2.
(ii) Avoided Emissions: Emission ‘‘savings” or ‘‘benefits” that
potentially could be realized via energy recovery, material
recovery, and carbon storage.
The magnitude and type of direct emissions associated with
MSW treatment varies based on the treatment process and mate-
rial type (Table S1). Direct material emissions are easily mapped
to a specific method of waste treatment, and in principle are
directly measurable, e.g., the combustion of waste to generate elec-
tricity (Entreprises pour l’Environnement, 2013; US EPA, 2016).
Avoided emissions are more challenging to estimate. They often
vary greatly by location and can change significantly over time
due to regional and temporal heterogeneity in displaced energy
and material generation processes (Entreprises pour
l’Environnement, 2013; US EPA, 2016). The calculation of avoided
emissions due to energy recovery from waste combustion is very
sensitive to assumptions regarding the design and efficiency of
the WtE plant, and the characteristics of those avoided electricity
generation sources (Eriksson and Finnveden, 2017). For example,
in recent years, both electricity generation and the provision of
raw virgin materials have become less GHG-intensive, which cor-
respondingly decreases the potential avoided emissions. This trend
is likely to continue for the foreseeable future. For these and other
reasons, avoided emissions often are reported separately from
direct emissions in most GHG accounting methodologies
(Entreprises pour l’Environnement, 2013).
Our analysis focuses on emissions associated with tradeoffs
associated with material processing. Preliminary assessment of
J.R. Castigliego, A. Pollack, C.J. Cleveland et al.
emissions attributable to transportation were found to be minor
and were excluded from our analysis due to uncertainty related
to temporal (e.g., the deployment of electric collection trucks), spa-
tial (e.g., the distance driven by such trucks) and operational attri-
butes (e.g., the deployment of additional trucks for organics
collection).
3.2. The characterization of energy, materials and emissions
Once discarded materials enter the waste stream, they either
follow: a diversion pathway by being recycled or biologically trea-
ted; or a disposal pathway via landfilling or combustion (Fig. 1).
The proportion of material (M) that flows through each waste
stream or management practice relies on the management deci-
sions and policies of the governing body.
Depending on its composition, direct treatment of the waste
stream may emit any combination of GHGs, such as CO2, CH4,
N2O, or biogenic CO2, at varying magnitudes. We divided MSW
materials into six main compositional categories: paper, plastics,
metals, glass, organics (food waste, yard waste, etc.), and others
(textiles, leather, rubber, electronics, etc.). These materials contain
either biogenic carbon (paper and organics), fossil carbon (plas-
tics), or no carbon (glass and metals) (US EPA, 2016). The source
of carbon (fossil or biogenic) in a material determines whether
the emissions have a net global warming potential (fossil) or not
(biogenic). Further, anaerobic breakdown of biological carbon in
these pathways can produce methane, which has a large global
warming potential relative to CO2. It is important to note that each
waste treatment pathway has different GHG implications for each
material type. For instance, the combustion of plastic waste
releases CO2 and N2O, but if recycled or landfilled it will not release
any emissions. On the other hand, organic waste releases N2O and
biogenic CO2 if combusted, and releases CH4, N2O, and biogenic
CO2 if landfilled or anaerobically digested – the magnitude of these
emissions factors can vary significantly depending on process con-
ditions (Sun et al., 2019).
3.3. MSW generation and composition
We employed a bottom-up approach to evaluate changes in
GHG emissions as waste streams change due to various waste
diversion policies. MSW generation in the residential and commer-
cial sectors are forecasted separately due to their distinct MSW
characteristics and differing data quality. As noted above in section
2, the Boston Public Works Department collects and reports data
on the generation of residential MSW, while we assume that data
on ICI waste generation follows patterns of employment by sector
(California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery
(CalRecycle), 2015).
Waste characterization studies conducted at the regional WtE
facilities were used to define Boston’s disposal stream by material
type (Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection,
2017). Similarly, composition measurements were obtained from
Boston’s local MRF to define the city’s recycling stream. We
assumed 20% of all recycling material inputs received by their facil-
ity is contamination and must be diverted back into the disposal
stream based upon local facility operations (Casella Waste
Systems, 2018). We assessed the changes associated with Boston’s
waste management system under two management scenarios: (1)
Baseline, and (2) a ZW Pathway (Table S2 and Table S3). In both
scenarios future MSW generation is assumed to be driven by pop-
ulation (residential MSW) and employment (commercial MSW).
The reference pathway assumes diversion rates held constant at
existing levels (Fig. 2 top). The ZW Pathway assumes that 80%
diversion will be achieved by 2030 in line with Zero Waste Bos-
ton’s proposed policy initiatives, and that 90% diversion will be
173
Waste Management 126 (2021) 170–179
achieved by 2040 with increased source reduction and education
and outreach efforts (Fig. 2 bottom). Our model assesses both sce-
narios from 2017 to 2050 (Fig. 3).
3.4. GHG quantification methodology
We used emissions and energy-yield factors for each material
type from EPA’s Waste Reduction Model (WARM) v14 (US EPA,
2016). We disaggregated and then modified some of the assump-
tions and data in WARM to improve accuracy and flexibility. In par-
ticular we updated WARM data to represent the regional ISO New
England electricity grid mix (US EPA, 2015) and with up-to-date
global warming potentials (IPCC, 2013). Further, disaggregation
of WARM factors allows us to explicitly break out emissions by
type (e.g., direct or avoided). This is especially important for under-
standing the relative contribution of different types of GHG emis-
sions and their relative uncertainty associated with each
treatment pathway.
3.4.1. Emissions from MSW management practices
Once Boston’s waste streams were quantified for the residential
and ICI sectors, we mapped material breakdowns captured from
waste audits for each waste stream (Casella Waste Systems,
2018; Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection,
2017) (Tables S5 and S6) to WARM material classifications
(Table S7). Materials that could not be mapped to WARM classifi-
cations were excluded from our analysis.2 This comprised approxi-
mately 13% of the residential stream and 8% of the commercial
stream. The mapping process requires some critical evaluation of
reported materials and their compatibility with WARM classifica-
tions. For example, the choice of mapping plastics to specific mate-
rial categories can significantly impact estimated emissions:
WARM utilizes a WtE combustion carbon intensity of 2.79 t CO2e
per short ton waste for HDPE (high-density polyethylene), LDPE
(low-density polyethylene), or PP (polypropylene) plastics, and a
value of 2.04 t CO2e per short ton waste for PET (polyethylene
terephthalate) plastics. Some waste audit categories clearly indicate
the material type (e.g., #1 PET plastic). Others indicate an uncharac-
terizable mixture of plastic types or material composites (e.g., Bulk
Rigid Plastic Items, Other Plastic Film). These can often comprise a
significant portion of the waste stream. In this case, we mapped
these uncharacterizable materials to the mixed plastic WARM classi-
fication which represents a weighted average of plastic streams. Due
to the uncertainty associated with some of these audit categories
approximately 70% of plastics gets allocated to the mixed plastics
WARM classification. Allocating mixed plastics to higher carbon-
intensity material types yielded unrealistic facility-scale GHG emis-
sions. While our mapping results in realistic, albeit high values for
aggregate facility emissions (discussed below in comparison to
actual facilities), we acknowledge that this remains a large source
of uncertainty due to data limitations. More accurate audits of the
properties of the mixed or composite materials would help to reduce
uncertainty.
WARM provides a set of lifecycle emission factors by material
type and by MSW management practice: recycling (Table S8);
composting (Table S9); combustion (Table S10); and landfill
(Table S11). We note that there can be significant variability and
uncertainty embodied in the emissions coefficients used here. In
particular, avoided emissions from carbon storage have uncer-
tainty due to variability in land management practices, local cli-
mate, soil conditions, and rate of compost application.
Uncertainty is primarily due to a lack of agreement in the literature
2
These include household hazardous waste (e.g., lightbulbs, batteries, paint, etc.),
bulky materials, and restaurant fats/oils/greases.
J.R. Castigliego, A. Pollack, C.J. Cleveland et al.
Fig. 1. Material and Emission Flows in the MSW Management System.
about the appropriate time horizon to measure carbon storage, as
carbon is slowly emitted over the course of time (Ximenes et al.,
2019). WARM uses a 10-year time frame which results in a much
larger carbon storage credit across material types than other
accounting methods (Hodge et al., 2016). For consistency across
our approaches we used the reported values for WARM, but cau-
tion that our estimates for carbon storage are highly uncertain
and may only represent best case scenarios that describe best man-
agement practices (Henriksen et al., 2019; Ximenes et al., 2019).
Decisions that are influenced by the carbon storage potential of
compost should seek to better quantify carbon storage potential
in the specific application of the compost.
We recalculated the WARM emission factors for avoided emis-
sions from electricity generation by developing a forecast for the
average grid emissions intensity through 2050 based on the Mas-
sachusetts Clean Energy Standard (Clean Energy Standard (310
CMR 7.75), 2017). We simulated this policy by assuming that
20% of electricity sold in 2020 comes from carbon-free sources
and increases to 80% by 2050 at a rate of 2% per year with the bal-
ance of electricity generated by natural gas combined cycle facili-
ties (Table S12). The emissions intensity declines from 327 kg
CO2e per MWh in 2017 to 76 kg CO2e per MWh in 2050. Assuming
no change in the material composition of the disposal stream and
the energy it generates, the impact of this change results in a
decline of avoided emissions by 76.8% per ton of waste.
The fact that our methodology utilizes a dynamic emissions
intensity for avoided emissions from electricity generation, but
not for avoided emissions from material recovery via recycling is
an obvious inconsistency. This highlights a fundamental limitation
174
Waste Management 126 (2021) 170–179
on the use of lifecycle factors in long-term assessments that sup-
port policy-making. While it is possible that the carbon intensity
of the grid may deviate from the Massachusetts Clean Energy Stan-
dard regulation, it is quite certain that the emissions intensity of
electricity will significantly decline at that rate over the next
30 years. This contrasts with knowledge about the future emis-
sions intensity associated with material recovery (or more broadly
consumption emissions), which is influenced by a complex chain of
policy, technology, and consumer changes across countries and
industrial entities. Better frameworks are needed for the evalua-
tion of these impacts.
3.4.2. Comparison with measured emissions from waste combustion
Direct measurements of the emissions intensity of WtE com-
bustion on a per-unit of waste basis is not typically reported—
emissions registries such as eGRID consistently report emissions
in per energy-unit generated (US EPA, 2015). Covanta, the operator
of two Massachusetts WtE facilities, reported a national average
emission intensity of 0.38 t CO2e per short ton of MSW from its
WtE facilities from 2015 to 2017 in a personal communication
(Van Brunt, 2018). Our methodology generates an average emis-
sion intensity of 0.44 t CO2e per short ton of MSW. Both of these
values are below most natural gas electricity generation facilities
and nearly all coal-based generation (US EPA, 2015). The discrep-
ancy between our value and the Covanta estimate is likely due in
large part to different methodologies. We used a bottom-up
approach that relies on (i) waste tonnage data reported by the City;
(ii) composition of waste based on data at the three WtE facilities
that receive the city’s waste (and waste from other municipalities);
J.R. Castigliego, A. Pollack, C.J. Cleveland et al. Waste Management 126 (2021) 170–179

Fig. 2. Boston’s Current and Future Waste Flows. Top: Municipal solid waste (MSW) in 2017. Bottom: MSW under 90% diversion conditions in 2050. Units are in 1,000 tons
and percentage of total material waste generated or diverted. Along the left are the categories of MSW. Along the right are waste disposal and waste diversion strategies. In
the bottom graph, 10% of the MSW stream is disposed, 29% is recycled, 32% is organics diversion, 17% is other diversion, and 13% is source reduction. Values in columns may
not add to equal values due to rounding. Sources: Calculations based on data from Boston Department of Public Works, Zero Waste Boston, and Massachusetts Department of
Environmental Protection.

and (iii) the emissions intensity that WARM assigns to each type of
waste. This approach requires an imperfect mapping of waste com-
position data (an approximation of Boston’s actual waste composi-
tion) to WARM classifications (e.g., categorizing uncertain plastic
types). As a result, we anticipate that the emissions we report for
combustion are likely higher than those observed and reported at
the Covanta facilities. A fertile area for future research is the appli-
cation of measured data to improve the accuracy of bottom-up
methods such as WARM.
4. Results and discussion
4.1. The impacts of Zero Waste Boston on waste flows
In 2017, approximately 75% of Boston’s MSW stream was sent
to combustion facilities for final treatment, with the remaining
25% entering diversion pathways (Fig. 2 top). Compositionally,
food waste accounted for 23% (263,000 short tons) of the total
waste stream, but only 8% (22,000 short tons) was diverted from
175
the disposal stream. This suggests that there is substantial oppor-
tunity for diverting food waste to biological treatment. Further,
there is additional potential to divert the paper, plastic, metal,
and glass fractions of the waste stream that, for the most part,
are recyclable or potentially recyclable. The flow between the other
materials category and recycling represents the portion of the
recycling stream that is recycling contamination, which amounts
to 20%.
A zero-waste Boston would divert 90% of its waste stream from
disposal and only send 10% of its waste to disposal (Fig. 2 bottom).
This remainder consists of uncaptured paper, plastic, metal, glass,
food waste, and other organic materials (4% in aggregate) and
difficult-to-divert composite materials (6%). Note that Zero Waste
Boston’s strategies would shift disposal from the largest current
waste pathway to the smallest by 2050 (Fig. 3).
Zero Waste Boston’s strategies would dramatically reduce the
fraction of food waste in the disposal stream (Fig. 4). With little
food waste remaining in the disposal stream, additional efforts to
address materials in the disposal stream must be implemented to
hit the diversion targets. Under an 80% diversion target or higher,
J.R. Castigliego, A. Pollack, C.J. Cleveland et al.
Fig. 3. Boston’s MSW Generation Trajectory from 2015 to 2050.
the two largest fractions of the remaining disposal stream are
potentially recyclable plastics and problem materials.3 These mate-
rial types cannot easily be managed through current diversion path-
ways like recycling and biological treatment. Instead, they must be
prevented from entering the waste stream through source reduction
and source separation efforts or by improving recycling technology.
4.2. The impacts of Zero Waste Boston on GHG emissions
To estimate the GHG impact of increased diversion, we begin
with a baseline scenario that establishes the magnitude of Boston’s
waste-related emissions between 2017 and 2050 in the absence of
any new action by the City. The baseline scenario assumes that per
capita (residential) and tons per employee per year (ICI) generation
rates remain constant through 2050. Our reliance on downscaled
state commercial waste data and compositional estimates leads
to significant uncertainty in the magnitude of commercial waste
generation and emissions. Nevertheless, the assumption of con-
stant per capita rates of generation is a reasonable departure point
for analysis.
4.2.1. Baseline scenario
Table 1 shows the aggregate emissions associated with the
baseline and ZW scenarios. The processing (i.e., waste combustion,
composting, etc.) of the city’s MSW generated an estimated 392.8
kt CO2e in 2017, equivalent to about 6% of the total emissions
reported in the City’s 2015 emissions inventory (City of Boston,
2018). The baseline scenario assumes that the city’s overall diver-
sion rate remains constant at its current level of about 25%, while
total generation grows due to increases in population and employ-
ment. This results in a 14% increase in waste generation and direct
process emissions from 2017 levels. The combustion of MSW con-
tinues to be the city’s largest source of waste-related GHG
emissions.
The combustion of the city’s waste will generate increasingly
small avoided emission benefits as the regional electricity grid sub-
stantially decarbonizes through 2050. Currently, the combustion of
biogenic carbon-rich MSW generates less GHGs per MWh than the
combustion of fossil fuels (US EPA, 2016). As natural gas electricity
3
These include composite materials that are mainly composed of recyclable or
compostable materials (e.g., paper, plastics, metals, glass, organics, etc.), but also
contain other materials that prevent them from being directly recycled or composted.
176
Waste Management 126 (2021) 170–179
generation is replaced with clean energy sources, MSW combus-
tion becomes one of the more carbon-intensive energy sources
on the grid. Thus, the annual avoided emissions credit from energy
recovery would decline by 74% by 2050 under the Massachusetts
Clean Energy Standard.
For the illustrative purposes of this analysis, we assumed that
Boston’s non-diverted waste will continue to be combusted at
WtE facilities. This assumption may not reflect the potential of
these WtE facilities to retire due to a changing regulatory and eco-
nomic landscape prior to 2050, which is also notably beyond the
expected operating lifetime of these facilities.
4.2.2. Zero waste pathway
We assessed the impacts of ZW policies with the simplifying
assumption that diversion increases from 2020 to 2030 to achieve
the 80% diversion target, rises to 90% diversion by 2040, and
remains constant through 2050. This is in comparison to the cur-
rent diversion rate of 25%. The initial 80% diversion target is met
by Zero Waste Boston’s strategies, which have associated
material-specific capture rates (Table S4) that estimate the per-
centage of materials that each initiative would divert from the dis-
posal stream. These actions include source reduction, which is
modeled here as the diversion pathway that reduces the materials
entering the waste stream. The additional 10% diversion increase
(from 80% to 90%) is met by enhanced source reduction and educa-
tion and outreach efforts.
A 90% diversion rate is anticipated to cause annual direct emis-
sions to drop by approximately 80.9% relative to the 2050 baseline
(Table 1). Although direct emissions from organics composting are
expected to increase with increased diversion, overall direct emis-
sions are still expected to decline under the Zero Waste Pathway
due to less MSW being treated at WtE combustion facilities. In fact,
direct emissions from waste combustion are expected to decline by
85.6%, which is equivalent to a GHG reduction of 377.4 kt CO2e.
Fig. 5 shows the impact of a zero-waste pathway on the cumu-
lative emissions from 2020 to 2050 by different categories. Under
this alternative pathway, cumulative direct emissions would
decline by 8 Mt CO2e (60% decrease), while 17 Mt CO2e (84%
increase) additional avoided emissions would be realized. By dis-
aggregating these cumulative emissions numbers by emissions
classification, we can compare the overall effect of the Zero Waste
Pathway on Boston’s waste related GHG emissions. The diversion
J.R. Castigliego, A. Pollack, C.J. Cleveland et al. Waste Management 126 (2021) 170–179

Fig. 4. Boston’s Disposal Stream Composition by Material Type.

Table 1
Citywide direct and avoided emissions (kt CO2e). Values may not sum to totals due to rounding.

Direct Emissions Avoided Emissions Energy Recovery Material Recovery Carbon Storage
2017 Combustion 387.4 228.8 174.5 54.3 –
Recycling – 420.7 – 116.4 304.3
Composting 5.4 20.7 – – 20.7
Total 392.8 670.2 174.5 170.7 324.9
2050 Baseline Combustion 440.8 107.8 46.1 61.7 –
Recycling – 476.6 – 131.6 345.0
Composting 6.1 23.5 – – 23.5
Total 446.9 608.0 46.1 193.3 386.5
2050 Zero Waste Combustion 63.4 23.4 6.1 17.3 –
Recycling – 1206.2 – 328.8 877.4
Composting 18.8 93.6 – – 93.6
Total 82.2 1,323.3 6.1 346.1 971.0

of material to composting and recycling can avoid even a greater ing less electricity to be generated per unit of waste input. From a
amount of emissions through carbon storage and material recovery practical standpoint, all landfills in Massachusetts are no-longer
respectively. receiving waste, further future emissions and waste management
regulations (e.g., broader implementation of Zero Waste) may
cause operation of WtE combustion facilities to become uneco-
4.2.3. Final waste treatment options
nomical. At this point the City of Boston will need to identify suit-
The goal of zero waste implies a future with no more burning or
able treatment options for the residual and non-recoverable waste
burying of waste material. Technical or economic limitations may
streams which may include out-of-state landfills.
make 100% diversion impractical. The zero-waste framework recog-
Our analysis suggests that landfilling is likely to be the most
nizes these potential constraints and sets a 90% diversion target
suitable option from a GHG perspective for final disposition of
that while aspirational and impactful, would leave Boston with
non-divertible waste. A more detailed analysis of landfilling
133,000 short tons of waste that still needs to be sent to disposal.
options and tradeoffs that consider energy recovery, location,
The diversion of organics and recoverable materials will leave a
transport distance and other factors will be necessary to maximize
waste stream mostly comprised of treated and composite materi-
reduction potentials.
als that are not recyclable or compostable under current technol-
The City also needs to develop a management strategy for the
ogy. As the composition of the waste stream changes the relative
organic waste stream that maximizes diversion to reach its ZW
GHG intensity of the final treatment alternatives also changes.
goal. In 2050 the diverted organic waste could amount to
Under Boston’s current waste stream, combustion is less GHG
444,000 short tons. The bulk of this waste could either be com-
intensive compared to state-of-the-art methane capture landfills
posted to generate a soil amendment, or anaerobically digested
(Fig. 6). Once the Zero Waste Boston strategies are implemented,
to generate methane and a smaller amount of soil amendment.
fewer organics and plastics will be in the disposal waste stream.
Emerging technologies could provide other treatment options for
Combustion of the low-organic residual waste stream is more
the certain parts of the organic waste stream (e.g., fats, oils) or
GHG-intensive than landfilling since the primary driver of landfill
the entire waste stream (Seltenrich, 2016). These include gasifica-
methane emissions has been diverted to biological treatment. Fur-
tion or thermal treatment processes that can render synthetic fuels
thermore, the diversion of organics and plastics will likely make
including liquid hydrocarbons which could be utilized in heavy
WtE combustion a less economically favorable treatment option
equipment, aviation and backup services.
due to a reduction in the energetic value of the waste stream, caus-

177
J.R. Castigliego, A. Pollack, C.J. Cleveland et al. Waste Management 126 (2021) 170–179

Fig. 5. Cumulative MSW GHG Emissions from 2020 to 2050. We present our results here as cumulative emissions to capture the time dynamics associated with the evolving
carbon intensity of the avoided emissions from energy recovery. The benefits of energy recovery will decline as the New England grid decarbonizes. We anticipate that the
emissions intensity of the avoided emissions from material recovery will also decline as the national economy decarbonizes, but we cannot reasonably estimate that change.
Additional avoided emissions from carbon storage can vary significantly by location.

Fig. 6. Emissions Intensity of Alternative Disposal Practices under Different Diversion Conditions. LFG: Landfill Gas.

5. Conclusion Declaration of Competing Interest

Our work here demonstrates the value of using a dynamic fore-
casting approach for demonstrating the GHG impacts associated
with waste management decisions. While WtE combustion cur-
rently appears to be a more preferential pathway than landfilling,
the application of zero waste strategies and a more renewable grid
will eliminate its GHG benefits. Ultimately the core driver of emis-
sions reductions is the diversion of fossil fuel-based plastic wastes
away from combustion.
This analysis would benefit from the improvement of three key
data elements. The first is accurate, material-based generation data
for the commercial sector—Boston’s largest generator. The second
is more robust forward-looking assumptions surrounding waste
diversion pathways that reflect the evolving GHG impact of mate-
rial extraction and processing. Finally, more detailed and
regionally-specific data surrounding the emissions impacts of com-
posting will enable a more robust evaluation of organic diversion
GHG emissions. Despite these limitations, dynamic forecasting of
GHG emissions from waste is a valuable analytical framework for
cities and similar entities seeking to account and understand their
emissions from municipal solid waste.
178
The authors declare that they have no known competing finan-
cial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared
to influence the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgments
The Carbon Free Boston project received funding from the follow-
ing entities:
Sherry and Alan Leventhal Family Foundation, City of Boston,
C40.
Barr Foundation, Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Microsoft.
The Grantham Foundation, National Grid, Orsted.
William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, Eversource.
Henry P. Kendall Foundation, Bank of America.
Our work benefited enormously from the time, insights, and
documents supplied from a wide range of people. We appreciate
the insightful guidance and feedback for this analysis given by:
Kirstie Pecci, Michael Van Brunt, Bob Cappadona, Alison Brizius,
Kat Eshel, Susan Cascino, Amy Perlmutter, Ruth Abbe, Gary Liss,
J.R. Castigliego, A. Pollack, C.J. Cleveland et al.
and the members of the Carbon Free Boston Waste Technical Advi-
sory Group.
Appendix A. Supplementary material
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2021.02.026.
References
Ayeleru, O.O., Okonta, F.N., Ntuli, F., 2018. Municipal solid waste generation and
characterization in the City of Johannesburg: a pathway for the implementation
of zero waste. Waste Manage. 79, 87–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
wasman.2018.07.026.
Bakas, I., Laurent, A., Clavreul, J., Bernstad Saraiva, A., Niero, M., Gentil, E., Hauschild,
M.Z., 2017. LCA of Solid Waste Management Systems. In: Hauschild, M.Z.,
Rosenbaum, R.K., Olsen, S.I. (Eds.), Life Cycle Assessment: Theory and Practice.
Springer, pp. 887–925.
California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle), 2015.
2014 Generator-Based Characterization of Commercial Sector Disposal and
Diversion in California (No. DRRR-2015-1543).
Casella Waste Systems, 2018. Recycling Stream Waste Composition - Personal
Communication.
Boston University Institute for Sustainable Energy, 2019. Carbon Free Boston:
Summary Report. Prepared for Boston Green Ribbon Commission, Boston, MA,
USA. http://sites.bu.edu/cfb/carbon-free-boston-report-released/.
Castigliego, J.R., Pollack, A., Cleveland, C.J., Walsh, M.J., 2019. Carbon Free Boston:
Waste Technical Report. Boston University Institute for Sustainable Energy,
Boston, MA, USA. http://sites.bu.edu/cfb/technical-reports/.
City and County of Denver, 2019. Discover Denver Composts [WWW Document].
URL https://www.denvergov.org/content/denvergov/en/trash-and-recycling/
composting/compost-collection-program.html (accessed 9.5.19).
City of Boston, 2019. Zero Waste Boston [WWW Document]. Boston.gov. URL
https://www.boston.gov/departments/environment/zero-waste-boston
City of Boston, 2018. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory 2005-2015.
City of Boston, 2014. Greenovate Boston 2014 Climate Action Plan Update:
Summary Report 28.
City of Boston, 2008. Commercial Trash Hauler Ordinance.
City of Cambridge, 2019. Curbside Composting [WWW Document]. URL https://
www.cambridgema.gov:443/en/Services/curbsidecomposting (accessed
9.5.19).
City of Portland, 2019. Portland Composts! [WWW Document]. URL https://
www.portlandoregon.gov/bps/article/402972 (accessed 9.5.19).
Clean Energy Standard (310 CMR 7.75), 2017. , State of Massachusetts.
Entreprises pour l’Environnement, 2013. Protocol for the quantification of
greenhouse gases emissions from waste management activities - Version 5.
Eriksson, O., Finnveden, G., 2017. Energy recovery from waste incineration—the
importance of technology data and system boundaries on CO2 emissions.
Energies 10, 539. https://doi.org/10.3390/en10040539.
Henriksen, T., Levis, J.W., Barlaz, M.A., Damgaard, A., 2019. Approaches to fill data
gaps and evaluate process completeness in LCA—perspectives from solid waste
management systems. Int J Life Cycle Assess 24, 1587–1601. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s11367-019-01592-z.
Hertwich, E.G., Gibon, T., Bouman, E.A., Arvesen, A., Suh, S., Heath, G.A., Bergesen, J.
D., Ramirez, A., Vega, M.I., Shi, L., 2015. Integrated life-cycle assessment of
electricity-supply scenarios confirms global environmental benefit of low-
carbon technologies. PNAS 112, 6277–6282. https://doi.org/10.1073/
pnas.1312753111.
Hodge, K.L., Levis, J.W., DeCarolis, J.F., Barlaz, M.A., 2016. Systematic evaluation of
industrial, commercial, and institutional food waste management strategies in
179
Waste Management 126 (2021) 170–179
the United States. Environ. Sci. Technol. 50, 8444–8452. https://doi.org/
10.1021/acs.est.6b00893.
IPCC, 2013. The Physical Science Basis: Working Group I Contribution to the Fifth
Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY,
USA. doi: 10.1017/CBO9781107415324.018.
Kaplan, P.O., DeCarolis, J., Thorneloe, S., 2009. Is it better to burn or bury waste for
clean electricity generation? Environ. Sci. Technol. 43, 1711–1717. https://doi.
org/10.1021/es802395e.
Levasseur, A., Lesage, P., Margni, M., Deschênes, L., Samson, R., 2010. Considering
time in LCA: dynamic LCA and its application to global warming impact
assessments. Environ. Sci. Technol. 44, 3169–3174. https://doi.org/10.1021/
es9030003.
Morris, J., 2017. Recycle, bury, or burn wood waste biomass?: LCA answer depends
on carbon accounting, emissions controls, displaced fuels, and impact costs. J.
Ind. Ecol. 21, 844–856. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12469.
Morris, J., 2010. Bury or burn North America MSW? LCAs provide answers for
climate impacts & carbon neutral power potential. Environ. Sci. Technol. 44,
7944–7949. https://doi.org/10.1021/es100529f.
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, 2016. Solid Waste
Diversion and Disposal Datalayer [WWW Document]. URL https://docs.
digital.mass.gov/dataset/massgis-data-massdep-solid-waste-diversion-and-
disposal (accessed 4.11.20).
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, 2017. 2016 Waste
Characterization Study in Support of Class II Recycling Program (Saugus,
SEMASS, Haverhill).
San Francisco Department of the Environment, 2019. Zero Waste [WWW
Document]. sfenvironment.org. URL https://sfenvironment.org/zero-waste-in-
SF-is-recycling-composting-and-reuse (accessed 9.5.19).
Sandson, K., Broad Leib, E., 2019. Bans and Beyond: Designing and Implementing
Organic Waste Bans and Mandatory Organics Recycling Laws. Harvard Law
School Food Law and Policy Clinic & Center for EcoTechnology.
Seltenrich, N., 2016. Emerging waste-to-energy technologies: solid waste solution
or dead end?. Environ Health Perspect 124, A106–A111. https://doi.org/
10.1289/ehp.124-A106.
Song, Q., Li, J., Zeng, X., 2015. Minimizing the increasing solid waste through zero
waste strategy. J. Cleaner Prod. 104, 199–210. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2014.08.027.
Sun, W., Wang, X., DeCarolis, J.F., Barlaz, M.A., 2019. Evaluation of optimal model
parameters for prediction of methane generation from selected U.S. landfills.
Waste Manage. 91, 120–127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2019.05.004.
US EPA, 2016. Documentation Chapters for Greenhouse Gas Emission and Energy
Factors Used in the Waste Reduction Model (WARM) [WWW Document]. US
EPA. URL https://www.epa.gov/warm/documentation-chapters-greenhouse-
gas-emission-and-energy-factors-used-waste-reduction-model (accessed
8.13.18).
US EPA, 2015. Emissions & Generation Resource Integrated Database (eGRID)
[WWW Document]. US EPA. URL https://www.epa.gov/energy/emissions-
generation-resource-integrated-database-egrid (accessed 4.11.20).
Van Brunt, M., 2018. Personal Communication.
Ximenes, F.A., Björdal, C., Kathuria, A., Barlaz, M.A., Cowie, A.L., 2019. Improving
understanding of carbon storage in wood in landfills: Evidence from reactor
studies. Waste Manage. 85, 341–350. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
wasman.2019.01.004.
Zaman, A., Ahsan, T., 2020. Zero-Waste: Reconsidering Waste Management for the
Future. Routledge.
Zaman, A.U., 2015. A comprehensive review of the development of zero waste
management: lessons learned and guidelines. J. Cleaner Prod. 91, 12–25.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.12.013.
Zero Waste International Alliance, 2009. Standards & Policies [WWW Document].
Zero Waste International Alliance. URL http://zwia.org/standards/ (accessed
9.20.18).