Solid Waste PrimerOur culture of consumption and waste is not sustainable. The millions of tons of useful materials we dispose is costly, consumes limited resources, pollutes our air and water, accelerates global warming, and degrades our health and quality of life.
|
Production, Pollution and Waste
* landfilling produces methane, which is 20 X more potent a greenhouse gas than CO2.
|
 How has the State funded efforts to solve our waste problems?o The Clean Environment Fund (CEF) was created in 1990 by the Legislature (MGL Ch 94 Sec. 323F). All unclaimed bottle deposits were to go into the CEF. The law stated that all monies in the Fund were to fund recycling, composting, solid waste and source reduction infrastructure, outreach, projects and programs through Executive Office of Environmental Affairs and Dept. of Environmental Protection. Funding actually appropriated by the legislature for recycling from CEF peaked in FY02 at $15.8M (2 line items, 2010-0100, 2210-0110). The legislature consistently ignored its own law, which Governor Romney repealed in 2003 (along with most other “dedicated funds”) to remedy the budget crisis. The legislature did not overturn the repeal in spite of our pleas. o The CEF took in over $37M in FY03, and had a surplus of $25M at the time of its repeal. The money that was intended to fund waste reduction efforts was absorbed into the General Fund. o Funding for waste reduction dropped to $3.5M in FY04, of which $1.4 was earmarked to subsidize redemption center operations. o The earmark for redemption centers was moved to its own line item (2010-0200) in FY05, leaving recycling line (2010-0100) at $2.1M. This amount was marginally increased to $2.4M in FY06. o The Recycling line item is used to maintain support staff of about 25 at Mass. DEP, who set waste policy and provide technical assistance and guidance to all municipalities, private sector and nonprofits. In FY05, they distributed about $200K in equipment grants for such items as compost bins, kitchen scrap buckets, public area recycling containers, setout bins, Pay as You Throw startup costs, bin stickers, and wheeled carts. The SSRC received assistance to place paid ads in the local papers, leveraged by a larger grant from SEMASS to run concurrent radio ads on the same topics. o DEP has been doing a lot with a little, but the efforts pale in comparison with what needs to be done to reduce and manage our trash in state. o A report released in 2003 by the Tellus Institute (“Waste Reduction Program Assessment and Analysis for Mass.” http://www.tellus.org/index.asp?action=4 ), concluded that to achieve the goals of the Solid Waste Master Plan and achieve sustainable waste management by 2010, funding would need to be returned to a level of $15M/year through 2010. |
Why should our State's leaders increase funding for recycling, and revive the CEF?o Mismanaging trash by disposing of vast amounts of useful materials is costly, consumes limited resources, pollutes the air and water, and adversely affects our health and quality of life. o Massachusetts used to be recognized as having the most progressive recycling programs in the country. Dedicated funds available through the CEF had made this possible. Examples include: § The CRT waste ban and electronics recycling infrastructure, first developed in Massachusetts, which was possible because CEF funds were available to support electronics collection programs in the early stages. § MRIP program has been highly effective in motivating municipalities to improve programs on multiple levels (see below) § WasteCap of Mass. and the Chelsea Center provided practical guidance to businesses, and research on innovative uses for waste products such as fish guts. Programs supported by DEP Recycling funding have been reduced to bare minima or eliminated: o Municipal Recycling Incentive Program (MRIP) required munis to set up proven programs to qualify for no-strings payments based on recycling tonnage; often paid recycling staff - GONE o Municipal recycling equipment grants – greatly reduced o Technical assistance grants – hanging on o WasteCap Business Alliance – unstaffed phone number and website now o Chelsea Center for Recycling and Economic Development - GONE o Lowell Center for Sustainable Production - GONE o Grants and loans to businesses investing in recycling equipment and recycled material use in products – GONE |
What does the SSRC Recommend?o Reinstate the CEF - Section 323F, to revive the development of recycling infrastructure and education. wise use of this would reduce our generation of burned or buried trash and increase recovery of useful materials currently disposed by 2.5 million tons per year o Increase funding for Statewide recycling programs to at least pre-2002 levels of $8-9M/year. Ideally, appropriate the full CEF to its intended target of sustainable waste management. o Raise deposit bottle handling fee from $.0225 to $.0275 or $.03 per bottle, or provide regulatory relief and use $1.375M subsidy they now need for other recycling related programs and services that have greater impact. o Update the Bottle Bill to include all on-the-go beverage containers. This would double the recovery rate for nondeposit water, juice and sports drink containers, and collect more unclaimed deposits to fund programs to further increase their capture. About 35% of nondeposit containers are recycled, while about 68% of deposit containers are redeemed. (It is not known how many unredeemed containers are recycled through municipal programs). o Increase the bottle deposit from a nickel to a dime. This would increase the redemption rate of deposit containers well above the current 68%. |
| The Environmental Benefits of Recycling1
in Massachusetts: An Overview for 20022
http://www.nerc.org/fsheets/ma-factsht.html (Greenhouse gas
emissions) What are greenhouse gases? Jean-Marc Jancovici ...in order to be able to compare them ..., it is possible to calculate, for each, a "global warming potential", or GWP in short, that allows to know how much additional greenhouse effect we generate when we emit one kg of a given gas. Here are the relative GWPs of the 6 gases of gas families covered by the Kyoto protocol (Perfluorocarbons and Hydrofluorocarbons are sub-famillies of halocarbons),
The above table means that if we emit today 1 kg of methane in the atmosphere, we will increase the cumulated greenhouse effect, for the coming century, just as much as 23 kg of CO2 (also emitted today). In short, we could say that a kg of methane "makes" 23 times the greenhouse effect that a kg of CO2 makes, or that methane is a greenhouse gas 23 times more potent than CO2. In the same idea, regarding the greenhouse effect, a kg of sulfur hexafluoride equals 23,9 (metric) tonnes of CO2, that is the annual emissions of 3 French ! (or of one American). Fortunately, the emitted quantities remain low for the moment (see below). At last, rather than mentionning the mass of carbon dioxide, engineers and economists often use the carbon equivalent. Just as lenghts are measured in meters, greenhouse gas emissions are measured in carbon equivalent. By definition, a kg of CO2 is worth 0,2727 kg carbon equivalent, that is the weight of the sole carbon in a kg of CO2. For the other gases gaz, the carbon equivalent is definded as : carbon equivalent = relative GWP x 0,2727 It may seem very complicated, but actually it is very simple, because that way when we burn one kg of pure carbon, we obtain one kg of carbon equivalent in CO2. This then enables to know how much carbon equivalent a hydrocarbon will produce when burning, by simply measuring the weight of carbon per kg of hydrocarbon burnt (burning hydrogen produces water, not taken into account as explained at the top of the page). And then the carbon equivalent of a kg of hydrocarbon that is burnt is simply the weight of carbon in this kg. Simple, I said ! For our main greenhouse gases, the carbon equivalents are therefore the following :
|