A key step towards a sustainable future

Zero Waste 2020

Dr Paul Connett
Professor Emeritus of Chemistry St Lawrence University, Canton, NY

pconnett@gmail.com www.AmericanHealthStudies.org www.AmericanHealthStudies.or

OUTLINE
1.Waste management and the big picture 2.Arguments against incineration 3.Incineration air emissions 4.Incineration and dioxins 5.The alternative to landfills and incinerators: the Zero Waste Strategy 2020 6.“Zero Waste” initiatives worldwide 7.Waste reduction initiatives

1. Waste Management and the Big Picture

We are living on this planet as if we had another one to go to …

By the time a high school student leaves school, he or she will have watched over 350,000 TV commercials.
 

Paul Hawken The Ecology of Commerce

Over - advertisement produces Over - consumption

Myth versus Reality
Myth:

the more you consume the happier you become

Reality:  the more you consume the fatter you become! … and the more waste you produce

Modern ! Man

“The world has enough for everyone’s need but not for everyone’s greed” Mahatma Gandhi

 

We cannot run a throwaway society on a finite planet  We are robbing our own children and grandchildren  This is colonialism in time!  Landfills BURY the evidence  Incinerators BURN the evidence
  

We need to face the real problem…

O u r ta sk is to fig h t th e th ro w a w a y e th ic and o v e r- co n su m p tio n

N o t o n ly is o v e r- co n su m p tio n g iv in g u s a lo ca l w a ste crisis b u t a lso …

… g lo b a l w a rm in g

Global is the what is

warming symptom , the cause?

The global crisis

Since

the

Industrial we have

Revolution

imposed a linear society on a planet that functions in circles

A lin e a r so cie ty
ENERGY Extraction of virgin materials Solid waste Air pollution W pollution ater Carbon dioxide Solid waste produced by industrial production GLOBAL is 70 times those WARMING produced by citizens ENERGY Production of items

Consumptio n

Waste

INCINERATION & LANDFILLS
ENERGY Extraction of virgin materials Solid waste Air pollution W pollution ater Carbon dioxide ENERGY

Production of items

Consumptio n

Waste

RECYCLING OF MATERIALS
ENERGY Extraction of virgin materials Solid waste Air pollution W pollution ater Carbon dioxide ENERGY

Production of items

Consumptio n

Waste

GLOBAL WARMING

REUSE OF OBJECTS
ENERGY Extraction of virgin materials Solid waste Air pollution W pollution ater Carbon dioxide ENERGY

Production of items

Consumptio n

Waste

GLOBAL WARMING

COMPOSTING
ENERGY Extraction of virgin materials Solid waste Air pollution W pollution ater Carbon dioxide ENERGY

Production of items

Consumptio n

Waste

GLOBAL WARMING

WASTE REDUCTION INITIATIVES
ENERGY Extraction of virgin materials Solid waste Air pollution W pollution ater Carbon dioxide ENERGY

Advertising/TV

Production of items

Consumptio n

Waste

GLOBAL WARMING

We have to copy nature
Nature does not produce waste

Waste is an invention of man

Sustainable Society = Zero Waste Society

Like Sustainability, Zero Waste in an idealistic goal But Zero Waste 2020 puts this goal within a realistic timeframe

2. Arguments against incineration

Waste incinerators
They generate a toxic ash which is

poorly handled They generate toxic air emissions, which are poorly monitored They are extremely expensive and a poor investment for our children. They are very unpopular with the public and pushed into communities undemocratically Incineration is not sustainable There are better alternatives…

Incineration is extremely unpopular
In

the US incinerator defeated since

over 300 proposals 1985

 US has not permitted a

new trash since 1995.

incinerator

Incineration is a poor investment
Most of the money spent on

incinerators goes complicated machinery leaves the community,
 

into and

 The

whereas

money spent on the alternatives goes into jobs and stays in the community.

Incineration is not sustainable
 It wastes material resources

It wastes energy

It wastes the opportunity to fight

global warming and the many other impacts of extracting and processing virgin materials

T h in k o f a n in cin e ra to r a s th re e b o x e s
The Furnace which converts 100’s of tons of trash into trillions of tiny particles and gases.

1.

The Air Pollution control devices which attempt to capture the tiny particles and some of the gases

2.

A depository for the tiny particles captured (the fly ash) and the bottom ash

3.

Modern incineration of waste
ELECTRICITY TURBINE CHUTE SECONDARY STEAM TEMP CHAMBER BOILER < 200oC WET SCRUBBER FABRIC FILTER DE-NOX

SEMIDRY SCRUBBER

Ca(OH) 2 SUSPENSION GRATES TRASH ACTIVATED CHARCOAL AMMONIA INJECTION FLY ASH

BOTTOM ASH

For every three tons of trash you get about one ton of ash

Incinerators produce toxic ashes

Ash Management
In Germany and Switzerland fly ash put into nylon bags and placed in salt mines In Japan some incinerators vitrify the ash In the Netherlands they put the fly ash into asphalt and the bottom ash into road bed In Denmark… …they send all the ash to Norway In the US the fly ash to be EPA allows the bottom ash and mixed together before testing

3. Incineration air emissions

Incinerators emit toxic gases

Air Emissions

Respiratory Diseases
Allergy diseases Bronchial asthma Acute and chronic
PM 10

bronchitis Pulmonary emphysema Pulmonary tumours and generally of
PM 2.5

the

respiratory apparatus

Ashes, Heart and Stroke

Long-term exposition to air pollution and

incidence of cardio-vascular diseases in women

65,893 post-menopausal women; 36 metropolitan areas in USA from 1994 to 1998

“High levels of particulate pollution increase the risk of dead by stroke …”


N Engl J Med 2007;356:447-58.

Air Emissions
 CO + H O Acid Gases  HCI, HF, SO :, NO
2 2 2 X

Toxic Metals:  Pb, Cd, Hg, As, Cr etc... New  PCBscompounds: ) (Policlorobifenils PCDDs (Dioxins) PCDFs (Furans) Benzene clorihydrates Phenols Naphthalenes etc…

Nanoparticles

Air emissions versus fuel
(kgs per thousand kwh)
Carbon Sulfur dioxide dioxide NOx

PM

Mercury

Natural Gas RDF
(Refuse-derived fuel)

542 2268

0.0023 0.54 0.454 0.273 4.4 3.7

0.03 0.45 x 10-8 0.1 3147 x 10-8

Biomass 1777

0.62 598 x 10-8

Leaflet from Xcel Energy

Incinerators & Nanoparticles
 Dr.  Dr.  Dr. Antonietta Gatti Stefano Montanari Ernesto Burgio

Incinerators & Nanoparticles
§ Nanoparticles produced by incinerators are more dangerous than those produces by other combustions § They contain: qNeurotoxic metals qStabilised free radicals qThousands of newly synthesized compounds (including PCBs, dioxins and furans). § Any toxic element used in commerce has the potential to end up in nanoparticles produced by incinerators

Incinerators & Nanoparticles
Both morbidity and mortality in large

cities can be related to particulate matter (PM) (from traffic, power stations and industry) the particles get smaller relationship gets stronger modern hundreds or trash each nanoparticles the

As

A

incinerator converts thousands of tons of day into trillions of are the most

These

nanoparticles

Surface area, particle number, and size The table shows the physical characteristics of a cloud of particles with airborne mass concentration of 10 μg/m3 when it is composed of particles of various diameters. The number of particles per unit volume in the air increases dramatically along with the surface area per unit volume of air, as the particle size decreases. air,

Airborne mass concentration (μg/m3)

Particles diameter (μm)

Particles/ml of aria

Particle surface area (μ3/ml air)

10 10

2 0.5

1.2 153

24 120 3016

10 0.02 2,400,000 Table modified from data of G. Oberdorster

The relevance of this lies in the fact that any monitor collecting all of these particles in these three different conditions would always give the same airborne mass concentration of 10 μg/m3. However, the physical characteristics of the cloud are very different for particles number and surface area and both of these are properties that might have important impact on the lung.

Regulated size in incinerators’ emissions

Nanoparticles

The dangers of nanoparticles
Nanoparticles are not efficiently captured by air pollution control devices Travel long distances Remain in suspension for a long period of time Penetrate deep into the lungs

BLOOD

Nanoparticles are so small that can easily cross the membranes of the lungs

Relation between ultrafine particles and cellular structures in the lung. Idealised particles of 10, 1 e 0.1 μm are shown compared with a bronchial epithelium; note that the top end of the range of ultrafine particles (0.1 μm, 100 nm) is not really visible.

Nano Pathology
Nanoparticles can easily cross

the cell membranes of every tissue… barrier and membrane the

…including the blood

brain nuclear

Nanoparticles

can carry neurotoxic metals into the

Nano Pathology

When the

nanoparticles are in the blood can can easily cross the cell membranes of every tissue

P a rticu la te & re d g lo b u le s

____20u_____

_____10u____

Nano Pathology

Nanoparticles can cross the brain blood barrier

Nano Pathology

Nanoparticlescan

carry stabilized free radicals (which cause oxidative stress - inflammation - many degenerative diseases) into every tissue in the body

 Also dioxins and furans

Free Radical Attack

Aus: “Free Radicals Randox Ltd.

Barium, Cromium, Iron and Silicon in the brain

www.stefanomontanari.net

Ossidatori Catalitici

Diossine brominate/clorate e furani

Idrocarburi policlici aromatici

Idrocarburi Clorati

Zone 5 (cool zone<600° C)
We now suspect that the zone 2 and 3 reactions that form nanoparticles of soot/fly ash also transform metals into catalytically active forms and catalyze the formation of new toxic by-products in zone 5.  Once formed in zone 5, these pollutants are emitted into the atmosphere because temperatures are too low to result in their destruction.

Unfortunately, there is not any type of industrial filter able to stop the 2.5 micron particulate or smaller, but, according to current laws, this does not matter: the “incinerator” produces very low PM10 (the law on incinerator still prescribes the search for the so-called total ashes and is even more obsolete) and the enormous quantity of microparticulate does not enter any evaluation: therefore, according to the law, the air is clean…

Nanoparticles Summary
Nanoparticles are not efficiently captured by air pollution control devices, are transported over long distances, and penetrate deep into the respiratory system. All of which enhance the potential negative health impact.

D’Alesio A, D’Anna A, Gambi G, Minutolo P, Sgro LA, Violi A. 1999. Combustion generated nanoparticles. Chim Ind 81:1001–1006. Kauppinen EI, Pakkanen TA. 1990. Coal combustion aerosols, a field-study. Environ Sci Technol 24:1811–181

4. Dioxins and Incineration

Dioxins - Major health concerns
Dioxins accumulate in animal fat. One liter of cows’ milk gives the same dose of dioxin as breathing air next to the cows for EIGHT MONTHS (Connett and Webster, 1987). In one day a grazing cow puts as much dioxin into its body as a human being would get in 14 years of breathing (McLachlan, 1995)! Dioxins steadily accumulate in human body fat. The man cannot get rid of them BUT A woman can…


…by having a baby!


Thus the highest dose of dioxin goes to the fetus and then to the new born infant via breastfeeding… This is very worring because dioxin interfers with

Dioxin: the highest dose goes to the fetus

In nine months, much of the dioxin accumulated in 20-30 years in the mother’s fat goes to the

Dioxins interfere with fetal and infant development
Dioxins act like fat soluble hormones  Disrupt at least six different

hormonal systems: male and female sex hormones; thyroid hormones; insulin; gastrin and gluocorticoid.

Linda S. Birnbaum (Health Effects Research Laboratory, US EPA) Developmental Effects of Dioxins Environmental Health Perspectives, 103: 89-94, 1995

Effects of dioxins on thyroid function of new born babies
Examined 38 new born babies, divided them

into 2 groups:

 Low-exposed (mothers had average 18.6 ppt

dioxins in milk fat, range 8.7 - 28)  High-exposed (mothers had average 37.5 ppt dioxins in milk fat, range 29 - 63)


  

H.J. Pluim et al., The Lancet, May 23, 1992. (Volume 339, 1303)

Effect of Dioxins on Neonatal Thyroid Function after Low-exposure and High-exposure at various ages
Lowexposure (mean)

Highexposure (mean)

P*

At birth

T4 T4/TBG

122.5 0.240

134.3 0.232

0.071 0.45

1 week

TSH T4

10.4 154.5

11.9 178.7

0.58 0.006*

T4/TBG TSH
 

0.291 2.93

0.332 2.56

0.006* 0.51

11weeks

T4 T4/TBG
 

111.1 0.220
 

122.2 0.247
 

0.033* 0.040*
 

TSH

1.81

2.50

0.044*

W E W A N T D IO X IN

O U T O F O U R B A B IE S !

Institute of Medicine (USA), 2003

Dioxins and Dioxin-like Compounds in the Food Supply

Strategies to Decrease Exposure

July 1, 2003

Institute of Medicine (USA), 2003
Fetuses

and breastfeeding infants may be at particular risk from exposure to dioxin like compounds (DLCs) due to their potential to cause adverse neurodevelopmental, neurobehavioral, and immune system effects in developing systems…

Institute of Medicine (USA), 2003
…The

committee recommends that the government place a high public health priority on reducing DLC intakes by girls and young women in the years well before pregnancy is likely to occur. for whole milk, (and)… foods lower in animal fat…

 (by) Substituting low-fat or skim milk,

Our Stolen Future

How Man-made Chemicals are Threatening our Fertility, Intelligence and Survival

Theo Colborn, John Peterson Myers and Dianne Dumanoski, 1994

W E W A N T D IO X IN

O U T O F O U R FO O D !

Do not build incinerators within 50 km of food production particularly grazing animals

Promoters say that modern incinerators have solved the dioxin problem , but have they?

Yang & Kim (2004). Characteristics of dioxins and metals emission from radwaste plasma arc melter system.  Chemosphere 57: 421-428
When PVC was fed into the high-temperature

melter, a significant quantity of PCDD/Fs, cadmium and lead was emitted. as a low temperature two-step fine filtration, or both of them together cannot effectively control the volatile metal species and gas-phase PCDD/Fs.

 Wet scrubbing with rapid quenching, as well

 The removal of PVC from the feed waste

stream must also be effective to reduce the emissions of the PCDD/Fs, cadmium and

While modern incinerators have reduced dioxin emissions there is no real accountability in most countries

YOU THE

NEED THREE THINGS PUBLIC FROM TOXIC

TO PROTECT EMISSIONS

STRONG REGULATIONS

ADEQUATE MONITORING

TOUGH ENFORCEMENT

THE PUBLIC IS NOT PROTECTED

IF ANY LINK IS WEAK

Incineration is dangerous
In cities because the fine particles can get deeply into our lungs  In rural areas because the dioxins can get into our food

Incineration is a waste of energy!

A combination of reuse, recycling and composting saves 3-4 times more energy than that obtained by incineration

Contact: Dr. Jeffrey Morris

jeff.morris@zerowaste.com

ECONOMIC COSTS
Natural Gas Burner for ROCK-

TENN

= $ 11.2 million

 RDF(Refuse-derived

fuel)/biomass Burner  $300 - $500 million ?????

Waste Management Options and Climate Change. AEA 2002
“Overall, source segregation of

MSW (Municipal Solid Waste), followed by recycling (for paper, metals, textiles and plastics) and composting/AD (for putrescible wastes) gives the lowest net flux of greenhouse gases compared to other forms of treatment of

Energy Comparison: Recycling versus incineration
(ICF Consulting, 2005)
Energy output from incineration GJ/tonne

Material
Other paper

Energy savings from recycling GJ/tonne

Energy savings recycling versus incineration

9.49 64.27 85.16 52.09

2.25 6.30 3.22 4.76

4.2 10.2 26.4 10.9

HDPE PET
Other plastic

Kg Greenhouse gas/tonne Municipal Waste
Riecycling and composting Mechanical-Biological Treatment and storage Incineration producing electricity

-461 -366 46 X -10

Waste Management Options and Climate Change. AEA 2002 Slide by Attilio Tornavacca

Financial Costs
The greater part of the money spent

in incinerating goes into complicate machinery and leaves the community , whereas
Money

spent into alternatives goes into the production of jobs and remains within the community

“ Even if we made incineration safe we would never make it sensible . It simply does not make sense to spend so much money destroying resources we should be sharing with the future .” ( Paul Connett )

Incineration is not sustainable

Waste & Agriculture
1.Landfills use up valuable land 2. 3.Incinerators put persistent toxics into the soil and food 4. 5.Rifiuti Zero 2020 attempts to maximize the return of nutrients to the soil and conserve soil quality

STE W A ERO Z
NO TO INCINERATORS

of resource management and industrial design for sustainabilit y
ZERO WASTE 2020 YES TO A SUSTAINABLE SOCIETY

MOVING TO THE FRONT END

NO TO LANDFILLS NO TO A THROW AWAY SOCIETY

DIFFERENTS TIMES DIFFERENT QUESTIONS
20TH CENTURY WASTE MANAGEMENT 21ST CENTURY RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

“ How do we get rid of our waste efficiently with minimum damage to our health and the Key point was environment ? ”

SAFETY

“ How do we handle our discarded resources in ways which do not deprive future Key point is generations of some , if not all , of their SUSTAINABILITY value? ”

Incineration: Perfecting 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!

5. The Sustainable alternative to landfills and incineration : the ZERO WASTE 2020 strategy

Waste is not a a technical problem but a problem of organization , education and industrial design

To achieve Zero Waste

We need three things:

1.INDUSTRIAL RESPONSIBILITY  (at the front end) 2.COMMUNITY RESPONSIBILITY  (at the back end) 3.GOOD LEADERSHIP  (in both places)

INDUSTRIAL RESPONSIBILITY
1.Design for sustainability 2. 3.Clean production 4. 5.Extended Producer Responsibility
   

Extended Producer Responsibility - Packaging
The Ontario (Canada) Beer industry has been using refillable glass bottles for 50 years 98% recovered Each bottle reused 18 times It saves the company money 2000 jobs in collection and cleaning No cost to municipality

Extended Producer Responsibilty - Products
X E R O X C O R P O R A T IO N E U R O P E
nRecovers

copying machines from 16 different countries nTakes them to huge warehouses in the Netherlands, where the machines are stripped down for parts and materials n95% of materials recovered for reuse or recycling! nThis is saving Xerox $76 millions a year!!

Solid waste is the visible face of inefficiency !

For more examples of Industrial Responsibility
Contact

Gary gary@garyliss.com

Liss

at

 For more information on EPR

initiatives contact Bill Sheehan at Bill@productpolicy.org


COMMUNITY RESPONSIBILITY
qCommunity responsibility begins with Source Separation q qOne container for compostables (i.e. the organic fraction) q qOne (or more) containers for recyclables q qOne container for the residuals

COMMUNITY RESPONSIBILITY Our discarded materials

1. Avoidables (ex. disposable plastic
items)

2. Reusables (ex. furniture,
appliances)

3. 4. 5.
 

Toxics (ex. paints, oils, batteries) Compostables (ex. food scrap) Recyclables (ex. paper, glass,
metals)

6. Residuals  Residuals =

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.
 

Avoidables Reusables Toxics Compostables Recyclables Residuals

COMMUNITY RESPONSIBILITY Our discarded materials

D o o r to D oor D o o r to D oor D o o r to

Door to Door Collection

The “Fantastic 3”

The San Francisco System

A good example of Door to Door collection
  

San Francisco, California

Composting Facility

Composting

ALL FOOD SCRAPS, YARD TRIMMINGS AND COMPOSTABLE PAPER GO IN THE GREEN CART

City

Rural Areas

Composting Facility

T h e so u rce se p a ra te d o rg a n ics g o to a co m p o stin g fa cility

For San Francisco

Aerazione forzata
Pages by Enzo Favoino

Forced Ventilation

THE COMPOST IS SOLD TO LOCAL FARMERS

THE FOOD PRODUCED GOES BACK TO SAN FRANCISCO

City

Rural Areas

Materials Recovery Facility

Composting Facility

Recycling

ALL BOTTLES, CANS AND RECYCLABLE PAPER GO IN THE BLUE CART

Recycling

Composting Facility

Materials Recovery Facility

M a te ria ls R e co v e ry F a cility

at Pier 96

W e h a v e to m in im ize w h a t g o e s in to co n ta in e r 3 – th e re sid u a ls

Composting Facility

Materials Recovery Facility

Community Initiatives to Reduce Waste

?

Waste Reduction Initiatives

Composting Facility

Materials Recovery Facility

Community Initiatives to Reduce Waste

Reuse & Repair Centre

?

Burlington, Vermont
Recycle North (27 employees, gross

income over $700,000) offers an excellent model of reuse, repair, job training and deconstruction. www.recyclenorth.org See also Urban Ore, Berkeley Revolve, Canberra, Australia Waste Wise, Georgetown, Ontario EcoCycle, Boulder, Colorado Eureka Recycling, St. Paul, MN

Reuse, Repair and Decostruction

Reuse, Repair and Decostruction

Financial Incentives

Composting Facility

Materials Recovery Facility

Community Initiatives to Reduce Waste

Reuse & Repair Centre

Residual s

Decostruction

?

the key difference between incineration and the Zero Waste strategy
Incineration attempts to make the residuals disappear Zero Waste 2020 needs to make the residuals VERY VISIBLE, because…  Residual Fraction  =  Bad industrial design  &  Poor purchasing decisions

W e n e e d b e tte r in d u stria l d e sig n , co m m u n ity o rg a n iza tio n and in d iv id u a l re sp o n sib ility to m o v e to w a rd s

Residual Screening Facility and Research Centre

Nova Scotia, Canada
These Residual Screening Facilities in operation

They build these facilities in front of landfills

No residual can go to without differentiation

landfill

RESIDUAL SCREENING FACILITY

O p e ra tin g in N ova S co tia
DIRTY ORGANIC FRACTION

MORE RECYCLABLES

MORE TOXICS

BIOLOGICAL STABILIZATION

INTERIM LANDFILL

What we need

RESIDUAL SCREENING & RESEARCH FACILITY

MORE RECYCLABLES

MORE TOXICS NON-TOXIC, NONBIODEGRADABLE FRACTION

DIRTY ORGANIC FRACTION

RESEARCH CENTER
INTERIM LANDFILL

BIOLOGICAL STABILIZATION

RESIDUAL SCREENING & RESEARCH FACILITY

MORE RECYCLABLES

MORE TOXICS NON-TOXIC, NONBIODEGRADABLE FRACTION

DIRTY ORGANIC FRACTION

RESEARCH CENTER
Interim Landfill

BIOLOGICAL STABILIZATION

RESIDUAL SCREENING & RESEARCH FACILITY

MORE RECYCLABLES

MORE TOXICS NON-TOXIC, NONBIODEGRADABLE FRACTION

DIRTY ORGANIC FRACTION

RESEARCH CENTER
Interim Landfill

2020

RESIDUAL SCREENING & RESEARCH FACILITY
NON-RECYCLABLE MATERIALS

Local University

OR Technical College

SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH ON NEW USES OF THE MATERIALS OBTAINED FROM WASTE AND BETTER INDUSTRIAL DESIGN

RESIDUAL SCREENING & RESEARCH FACILITY

TOXICS
Local University
OR Technical College

SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH “FOR A CLEAN PRODUCTION”

RESEARCH CENTER
Improves capture rate of reusables,

recyclables and clean compostables (Captain Garbage - make it fun!) Recommends waste avoidance strategies for local businesses Develops some local uses for some materials Recommends better industrial designs to industry on packaging, etc… Develops alternatives to some of the toxics in products (batteries, paints,

The Residual Screening & Research Facility
Is the key link between Community Responsibility and Industrial Responsibility

Networking for Sustainability
Need

a network of local research centers linked to state, regional and federal research institutes working on a SUSTAINABLE FUTURE

I suggest…
 

…the creation of a

“National Institute for a  Sustainable Society”

with the function of coordinating local and regional research at Residual Screening and Research Facility (= bad industrial design)

RESIDUALS – Capannori T h is is th e a n a ly sis (Italy) o f th e 1 7 % remaining after th e se p a ra tio n o f th e 83% o f th e m a te ria l co lle cte d

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10 .

Textile and Leather Diaper Kitchen organic materials Other plastic : non packaging Policoupled cellulosic packaging Policoupled plastic packaging Plastic flexible packaging Garden organic materials Plastic rigid packaging ( non bottles ) Newsprint ( newspapers and magazines )

16 . 52 % 13 . 95 % 10 . 56 % 9 . 98 % 8 . 05 % 7 . 45 % 6 . 81 % 4 . 64 % 3 . 23 % 2 . 54 %

Composting Facility

Materials Recovery Facility

Community Initiatives to Reduce Waste

Reuse & Repair Centre

Decostruction

Residual Screening & Research Facility

qReduction qReuse qReparation qDoor to Door qComposting qRecycling qCollection of Residuals q70% + Diversion

Remember that an incinerator obtains only a 75% of Reduction (at least one forth remains as ASH)

Let ’ s compare
qReduction qReuse qReparation qDoor to Door qComposting qRecycling qCollection of Residuals q+70% Diversion

The incinerator option

Incinerator Residual Ashes

+

Landfill Ashes

The Zero Waste option
Residuals Screening & Research Centre

+

Stabilized Interim Landfill

With incineration …
 

… we convert 3 tons of trash into:
 

1 ton of tossic ashes

that nobody wants!!!

With the Zero Waste Strategy

We convert 3 tons of waste  into: 1 ton of compostables  1 ton of recyclables  and  1 ton of awareness

The Message to Industry
qIf we can’t reuse it, recycle it or compost it,
q

qIndustry shouldn’t be making it!!!
q

qAnd we shouldn’t be buying it!

Another three reasons why Zero Waste 2020 is better than incineration
Jobs! 

Jobs!! 

Jobs!!!

Economy
Reusing and repairing makes money Decostructing makes money Composting saves money (less expensive then landfilling and incinerating) Recycling makes money (less expensive then landfilling and incinerating) If the recycled materials are used by local businnes recycling can

Completing the passage from waste disposal to resource recovery

Rick Anthony Discarded resources divided into 12 market categories
 

Eric Lombardi The Zero Waste Park

Discarded resources divided into 12 market categories
Note : Half of the pie is composed by Organic Material suitable for Composting Chemicals Reuse
3% Polymers 11% 0% Metals 6% Glass 3% Ceramic 2%

Textiles 4%

Plants trimmings 10%

Paper 37%

Putrescibles 19%

Soil 1% Wood 4%

The Zero Waste Park

www.ecocycle.org

Summary

Separation at the origin

Door to door collection Waste Reduction Initiatives Separazione del Residuo e Centro di ricerca

Composting

Recycling

Reuse and Repair 12 categories & Resource Recovery Park

Financial Incentives

Interim Landfill

202

The waste problem
Is

too important to be left to “waste experts” We need all sectors involved if we are to move towards a sustainable society As far as sustainability is concerned the waste problem is a fabulous place to start

Sustainable agriculture Industrial Design & Labour Unions

Education

Zero Waste 2020
Sustainable Economic Development

Architecture

Community development

Sustainable Energy

“ Zero Waste ” initiatives worldwide

6.

Zero waste initiatives around the world
www.GRRN.org  www.ZWIA.org  www.CRRA.org www.ecocycle.org

Nova Scotia (Canada)
50% diversion in 5 years (Halifax ~ 60%) (programme chosen by citizens and designed by Dr. Jeffrey Morris) 1000 jobs created collecting and treating discarded materials since April 1996 Another 2000 jobs created in the industries handling the collected material 1000 + 2000 = 3000 jobs The Brescia (Italy) incinerator costs €300,000,000 but created only 80

The Brescia (Italy) incinerator

This incinerator costs €300,000,000 without including the cost of the city’s heating facilities

British Columbia, Canada
The following regional declared zero waste: districts have q Nelson q Kootenay q Smithers q Cowichan Valley q Nanaimo www.ZWIA.org

Ontario, Canada
The city of Markham (north

of Toronto) has diverted 70% from landfill in 2 years.

Contact: Councillor Erin Shapiro eshapero@markam.ca www.Markham.ca


Prince Edward Island, Canada

Whole island has door to door collection of recyclables and compostables

United Kingdom
The following have declared a zero waste objective: qDoncaster qBath qNE Somerset District Council www.ZWIA.org

California, USA
Counties that declared a zero waste strategy: q Del Norte q San Luis Obispo q Santa Cruz q San Diego q City e County of San Francisco q Sonoma q Marin

California, USA

More than 500 towns have diverted more than 50%

San Francisco, USA
Population = 850,000 Very little space 50% waste diverted by 2000 63% waste diverted by 2004 69% waste diverted by 2007 75% waste diverted by 2010

(goal) 100% (or very close!) by 2020 – Zero Waste

Los Angeles, USA
4 million of people Current diversion = 60% Goal for 2015 = 70% Goal for 2025 = 90%

Burlington, Vermont, USA
Has an excellent example of REUSE AND REPAIR CENTRE  Income ~$1 million/year  27 full-time JOBS  Includes training and building deconstruction

Australia
The following have declared a zero waste goal: q Canberra q The State of South Australia q The State of Western Australia q The State of Victoria www.ZWIA.org

Canberra, Australia
Passed law “No Waste by 2010”  Currently over 70% diversion  Setting up a “Resource Recovery Park” to locate all the industries which can make products out of separated materials

New Zealand

Over 70% of communities have declared a Zero Waste strategy

Door to Door
Italy has pioneered a new

Italy

“door to door” collection systems to maximize the collection of clean organic material Important work done by Enzo Favorino from the Agricultural School in the Parco Monza, near Milan.

Italy

Over 2000 communities in Italy are achieving over 50% diversion using a “door to door” collection systems

Communities in the Lazio region that have diverted more than 50% using a door-to-door collection system in only one year!
Commune Sonnino Sermoneta Lenola Monterosi Bassiano Castelforte Population 7.154 7.000 4.200 3.029 1.670 4.700
% diverted

54% 64% 65% 54% 50% 52%

Italy

In the North, Novara

(population 100.000) at 70% diversion in only 18 months!

Italy
In the province of Treviso 22 Communes reached 76% diversion in 5 years 4 communes > 80% Diversion is less expensive

74 vs. 92 Euro/ton

Italy

Villafranca d’Asti

(population 30.000) diverted 85%

Italy
Province of Naples
San Sebastiano al Vesuvio > 70% Volla > 70% Meta di Sorrento > 70% Vico Equense > 70% Sorrento > 70% Quartiere Colli Aminei = 73% (in three

months!)

Near Treviso

Priula Consortium


QUANTITATIVE RESULTS INCREASE % OF DIVERSION

80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%
CONSORZIO ANNO 2000 (14 COMUNI) CONSORZIO ANNO 2001 (14 COMUNI) CONSORZIO ANNO 2002 (14 COMUNI) CONSORZIO ANNO 2003 (18 COMUNI) CONSORZIO ANNO 2004 (22 COMUNI) CONSORZIO ANNO 2005 (22 COMUNI)

65,64% 33,64%

70,42%

73,82%

75,63%

27,18%

10,00%

20,00%

30,00%

40,00%

50,00%

60,00%

70,00%

80,00%

90,00%

Arcade 80,20% 78,53% 75,04% 74,41% 79,09% 75,36% 35,40% 15,06% 19,45% 35,46% 18,94% 18,48% 18,23% 32,43% 48,41% 45,98% Preganziol Zero Branco Casale sul Sile Roncade S. Biagio di Callalta Zenson di Piave CONSORZIO PRIULA 33,74% 11,55% 47,01% 55,16% 46,13% 54,96% 72,41% 72,52% 75,44% 78,75% 74,32% 72,35% 70,83% 68,70% 75,62% 73,69% 67,89% 82,06% 75,08% 79,98% 81,45% 78,79% 81,29% 75,63% Breda di Piave 32,53% 31,68% 25,22% 25,11% 19,05% Carbonera Giavera del Montello Maserada sul Piave Nervesa della Battaglia Paese Ponzano Veneto Povegliano Quinto di Treviso Silea Spresiano Susegana

Q U A N T IT A T IV E R E S U LT S IN C R E A S E % O F D IV E R S IO N

ANNO 2005
Villorba Casier Monastier

0,00% 42,19%

ANNO 2000

IS DIVERSION MORE EXPENSIVE?
A D M T D E O E S E A TREND OF N A ONESENI CR TICI G ATIOFERPE IATIV OPERATINGOA D LTSD NEOANDAA COSTS WITHENR T WITHOUT DIVERSION C N Z A C O IF Z

€1 0 0 0 ,0 € 9 ,6 1 4 € 9 ,0 0 0

€ 8 ,0 0 0 € 7 ,9 3 2 € 6 ,6 7 8 € 7 ,0 0 0 € 6 ,5 0 8 € 6 ,6 5 9

€/ab

€ 6 ,0 0 0

€ 5 ,0 0 0

Operating costs without diversion Operating costs with diversion
19 97 19 98 19 99 20 00 20 01 20 02 20 03 20 04 20 05

€ 4 ,0 0 0

€ 3 ,0 0 0

A N NO

Paolo Contò consorzio@priula.it

7. Examples of waste reduction initiaves

A pinch of creativity at the front end could save millions at the back end

Tasmania, Australia

In 2003, Cole’s Bay, Tasmania, forbid plastic bags. Since then 80 communities did the same.

Ireland
In 2003 Ireland introduced a 15 cent tax on plastic shopping bags:

Use of plastic bags reduced by over 90% in one year …

In 2003 the remaining 8% generated over €12,7 million …

Germany

Italy
A

supermarket chain near Florence is providing dispensers which allow customers to refill shampoo and detergent bottles…

 Others wine, water and milk

Italian initiatives for reduction

Principles for a Wise Waste Management in the 21st century
Keep the solutions q SIMPLE,
q

q LOCAL &
q

q FLEXIBLE q FOR BIG INVESTMENTS OF MONEY 1. Maximize the creation of jobs & the development of small enterprises
2.

3. Maximize the return components to the soil

of

organic

Principles for a Wise Waste Management in the 21st century
3.Integrate with sustainability: education; agriculture; architecture e construction; conservation of energy; industrial design; tourism; community development and economic other aspects of

Incineration
Violates almost all the previous principles

The ZeroWaste 2020 strategy does not

Then, why does a Zero Waste 2020 strategy exists?

W a ste is n o t a a technical problem b u t a p ro b le m o f in d u stria l d e sig n

The modern incinerator is an attempt to perfect a very bad idea
Our task in the 21st century is not just to find the best ways to destroy discarded materials

But to stop the production of packaging and of items that have to be destructed!

RESIDUAL SCREENING & RESEARCH FACILITY
NON-RECYCLABLE MATERIALS

Local University

OR Technical College

SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH

Household Toxic Waste

Composting Facility

Materials Recovery Facility

Community Initiatives to Reduce Waste

Household toxic

Reuse & Repair Centre

Residual Screening & Research Facility

Decostruction

Good leadership

A GOOD LEADERSHIP

We need political and economic leaders with

big vision

imagination and …

WHO ARE NOT BORING!

HUMAN “BORINGS”
Have no imagination Have no vision Have no sense of humour Are obsessively tidy Confuse being clever with being wise Have more faith in machines than

people Believe science and technology fix every problem Believe man is the centre of universe... ...and a woman’s place is in

can the the

Boring experts think with the wrong end of their bodies!

A BACK END thinker…
1. A CUP 2. A BUCKET 3. A FOOT PUMP 4. AN ELECTRIC PUMP

A FRONT END thinker…

O u r ta sk is to fig h t th e th ro w a w a y e th ic and o v e r- co n su m p tio n

Community development is the antidote to overconsumption
Over-consumption is based on the accumulation of objects

Community revolves relations

development around human

Make not

love , waste !

But there is a major obstacle:

T h e B ad Law
Le ve l of p oll ut io n

Naples

Level of corruption

The Good Law
Le ve l of p oll ut io n Level of public participation

Public Opposition
In the USA over 300 proposals of incinerators defeated between 1985 and 1995

USA have not allowed waste incinerators

TO CITIZENS: Don’t let the “experts” take your common sense away. TO POLITICIANS: Put your faith back in people - stop trying to solve all your problems with overpaid consultants and magic machines!  TO ACTIVISTS:

Three final messages

HAVE FUN!

Conclusions
We don’t need incinerators!

There are better alternatives: q better because sicure, q better for the economy, q better for our children, e q better for the planet.

“ W hen you b u ild an in cin e ra to r, you are a d v e rtisin g to th e w o rld th e y o u a re n o t cle v e r enough e ith e r p o litica lly o r te ch n ica lly - to re co v e r y o u r d isca rd e d re so u rce s ”
TH IS FO IS N CO M R TH OT R MU OF E E N TH DE AD ITY CE E M Y N T 21 A N UR ST DS Y.

TAX PAYERS $ DOLLARS JOBS ENERGY SMALL BUSINESS OPPORTUNITIES FLEXIBILITY VISION RESOURCES IMMAGINATION

CREATIVITY

COMMUNITY RESPONSABILITY INDUSTRIAL RESPONSABILITY

SUSTAINABILITY

God recycles, the devil burns

“ The Battle Hymn ” of garbage
(Coro)

We don’t want incineration We don’t want incineration We don’t want incineration We know there’s a better way!

“ The Battle Hymn ” of garbage
Mine eyes have seen the garbage That’s a smoldering on the grate We must stop incineration Before it is too late Unless we wish the dangers We had better separate And we must do it now!

Master your semester with Scribd & The New York Times

Special offer for students: Only $4.99/month.

Master your semester with Scribd & The New York Times

Cancel anytime.