Thursday, September 13, 2012
Monday, September 10, 2012
Why Promoting recycling is a good thing!
I was preparing a list of talking points for some elected officials on the benefits of recycling and thought it might benefit others as well. We are making the case to our elected officials in Illinois that this is a great time
to promote recycling because it creates JOBS and isn't as partisan as
other environmental issues.
This is a brief video of EPA director, Lisa Jackson saying her #1 goal for the country with respect to the environment is more recycling. It's not a great quality video but it's a good promo for zero waste efforts and helps make the case that zero waste/recycling as an environmental issue is not passé as some in the midwest have a tendency to believe.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BMyj_FoHLXY
This is a good zero waste infographic which is also in video form:
http://www.mapsofworld.com/poll/can-we-become-a-zero-waste-planet-infographic.html#
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y0CNkYXm_3A
From the USEPA: (http://www.epa.gov/osw/conserve/rrr/recycle.htm)
Benefits of Recycling
• Recycling protects and expands US manufacturing jobs and increases US competitiveness.
• Recycling reduces the need for landfilling and incineration.
• Recycling prevents pollution caused by the manufacturing of products from virgin materials.
• Recycling saves energy.
• Recycling decreases emissions of greenhouse gases that contribute to global climate change.
• Recycling conserves natural resources such as timber, water, and minerals.
• Recycling helps sustain the environment for future generations.
• Recycling reduces our dependence on foreign oil and saves energy, preserves precious natural resources, creates less pollution and creates jobs.
JOBS and Economic benefit:
• Incinerating 10,000 tons of waste creates one job; landfilling 10,000 tons of waste creates six jobs; recycling 10,000 tons of waste creates 36 jobs. ( EPA, "Resource Conservation Challenge: Campaigning Against Waste," EPA 530-F-02-033, 2002)
• Numbers from EPA’s Recycling Economic Information (REI) study show that the U.S. is home to more than 56,000 recycling and reuse establishments that generate an annual payroll of nearly $37 billion and gross over $236 billion in annual receipts.
• The same study also indicates that beyond the 1.1 million people directly employed by recycling, there are an additional 1.4 million jobs with a $52 billion payroll in businesses that support the recycling and reuse industry.
• From a 2010 study done by the Illinois Dept. of Commerce and Economic Opportunity:
(http://www.illinoisbiz.biz/dceo/Bureaus/Energy_Recycling/Recycling/REI.htm)
Recycling in Illinois in 2010 created:
• A total of 111,500 jobs;
• Payroll of $3.6 billion;
• $30.3 billion in additional gross receipts; and,
• Over $1 billion in state and local taxes
• For every job created by burning and burying waste, 25 recycling-based manufacturing jobs can be created from the same amount of waste.
• On average, it costs $30 per ton to recycle trash, $50 to send it to the landfill, and $65 to $75 to incinerate it.
• Out of every $10 spent buying things, $1 (10%) goes for packaging that is thrown away. Packaging represents about 65% of household trash.
Energy Savings:
• In 2000, the national recycling rate of 30 percent saved the equivalent of more than five billion gallons of gasoline, reducing dependence on foreign oil by 114 million barrels.
(EPA, "Resource Conservation Challenge: Campaigning Against Waste," EPA 530-F-02-033, 2002)
• In 2000, recycling resulted in an annual energy savings equal to the amount of energy used in 6 million homes (over 660 trillion BTUs). In 2005, recycling was projected to save the amount of energy used in 9 million homes (900 trillion BTUs).
• According to the US EPA, energy saved from recycling one glass bottle can run a 100-watt light bulb for four hours or a compact fluorescent bulb for 20 hours.
• EPA also says that recycling one aluminum beverage can saves enough energy to run a 100 watt bulb for 20 hours, a computer for 3 hours, or a TV for 2 hours. (EPA)
• According to the Steel Recycling Institute, steel recycling in the United States saves the energy equivalent to electrical power for about one-fifth of American households for one year. (EPA)
• Recycling aluminum cans in the United States in 1996 saved enough energy to power a city the size of Philadelphia for one year. (From World Watch Institute, December 1998)
• It takes 95% less energy to recycle aluminum than it does to make it from raw materials. Making recycled steel saves 60%, recycled newspaper 40%, recycled plastics 70%, and recycled glass 40%. These savings far outweigh the energy created as by-products of incineration and landfilling.
• The amount of wood and paper we throw away each year is enough to heat 50,000,000 homes for 20 years.
• Because incinerators are inefficient at generating electricity from burning waste, and recycling and composting conserve three to five times more energy than is produced by incinerating waste, the amount of energy wasted in the U.S. by not recycling is equal to the output of 15 medium-sized power plants. (Clean Air Council)
Preservation of Resources:
• In the past 50 years, humans have consumed more resources than in all previous history. (U.S. EPA, 2009. Sustainable Materials Management: The Road Ahead.)
• The average American uses seven trees a year in paper, wood, and other products made from trees. This amounts to about 2,000,000,000 trees per year!
• Approximately 1 billion trees worth of paper are thrown away every year in the U.S.
• The U.S. buried or burned more than 166 million tons of resources—paper, plastic, metals, glass and organic materials—in landfills and incinerators in 2008. We recycled and composted only one-third of our discards. (U.S. EPA, 2009. Municipal Solid Waste Generation, Recycling, and Disposal in the United States, Detailed Tables and Figures for 2008.)
• It is estimated that currently 80 - 90% of all waste can be recycled.
• Each year the US population discards 16,000,000,000 diapers, 1,600,000,000 pens, 2,000,000,000 razor blades, 220,000,000 car tires, and enough aluminum to rebuild the US commercial air fleet four times over.
Pollution reduction:
• Recycling benefits the air and water by creating a net reduction in ten major categories of air pollutants and eight major categories of water pollutants.
• More than 2 million people globally die prematurely every year due to outdoor and indoor air pollution. (United Nations Environment Programme, 2007. Global Environment Outlook 4: Summary for Decision Makers.)
• According to the EPA, landfills are a leading source of man-made methane – a greenhouse gas that is 72 times more potent that CO2 – and waste incinerators release more climate pollution (per unit of electricity produced) than coal power plants. While landfill gas is a good fuel, most landfills are not efficiently collecting it. The EPA estimates 75% gas collection efficiency, but some landfills are as low as 9 percent. The 2006 IPCC report used an estimated recovery efficiency of just 20 percent.
• Also from EPA: Recycling bottles causes 20% less air pollution and 50% less water pollution than when a new bottle is made from raw materials.
• It is estimated that over 1 million sea creatures die each year due the dumping of plastics in the sea (80% brought from land)
• The Great Pacific Garbage patch has an area of 6,79,540 square miles with a high degree of plastic concentration.
• A single quart of motor oil, if disposed of improperly, can contaminate up to 2,000,000 gallons of fresh water.
US and world waste generation and consumption:
• The U.S. is the #1 trash-producing country in the world at 1,609 pounds per person per year. This means that 5% of the world's people generate 40% of the world's waste.
• The U.S. consumes over 30% of the world’s resources, producing 22% of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions and 40% of the world’s waste. The US and China combined produce 2/3 of the world's waste.
• Between 1970 and 1995, the U.S. represented about one-third of the world’s total material consumption. With less than 5% of the world’s population, the U.S. consumes 33% of paper, 25% of oil, 15% of coal, 17% of aluminum, and 15% of copper. (U.S. EPA, 2009. Sustainable Materials Management: The Road Ahead.)
• Americans use 2,500,000 plastic bottles every hour! 80% of which are thrown away!
• On average, each one of us produces 4.4 pounds of solid waste each day. This adds up to almost a ton of trash per person, per year.
• Every year, Americans throw away enough paper and plastic cups, forks, and spoons to circle the equator 300 times. (Clean Air Council)
This is a brief video of EPA director, Lisa Jackson saying her #1 goal for the country with respect to the environment is more recycling. It's not a great quality video but it's a good promo for zero waste efforts and helps make the case that zero waste/recycling as an environmental issue is not passé as some in the midwest have a tendency to believe.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BMyj_FoHLXY
This is a good zero waste infographic which is also in video form:
http://www.mapsofworld.com/poll/can-we-become-a-zero-waste-planet-infographic.html#
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y0CNkYXm_3A
From the USEPA: (http://www.epa.gov/osw/conserve/rrr/recycle.htm)
Benefits of Recycling
• Recycling protects and expands US manufacturing jobs and increases US competitiveness.
• Recycling reduces the need for landfilling and incineration.
• Recycling prevents pollution caused by the manufacturing of products from virgin materials.
• Recycling saves energy.
• Recycling decreases emissions of greenhouse gases that contribute to global climate change.
• Recycling conserves natural resources such as timber, water, and minerals.
• Recycling helps sustain the environment for future generations.
Here are some talking points/recycling facts on the benefits of recycling:
• Recycling reduces our dependence on foreign oil and saves energy, preserves precious natural resources, creates less pollution and creates jobs.
JOBS and Economic benefit:
• Incinerating 10,000 tons of waste creates one job; landfilling 10,000 tons of waste creates six jobs; recycling 10,000 tons of waste creates 36 jobs. ( EPA, "Resource Conservation Challenge: Campaigning Against Waste," EPA 530-F-02-033, 2002)
• Numbers from EPA’s Recycling Economic Information (REI) study show that the U.S. is home to more than 56,000 recycling and reuse establishments that generate an annual payroll of nearly $37 billion and gross over $236 billion in annual receipts.
• The same study also indicates that beyond the 1.1 million people directly employed by recycling, there are an additional 1.4 million jobs with a $52 billion payroll in businesses that support the recycling and reuse industry.
• From a 2010 study done by the Illinois Dept. of Commerce and Economic Opportunity:
(http://www.illinoisbiz.biz/dceo/Bureaus/Energy_Recycling/Recycling/REI.htm)
Recycling in Illinois in 2010 created:
• A total of 111,500 jobs;
• Payroll of $3.6 billion;
• $30.3 billion in additional gross receipts; and,
• Over $1 billion in state and local taxes
• For every job created by burning and burying waste, 25 recycling-based manufacturing jobs can be created from the same amount of waste.
• On average, it costs $30 per ton to recycle trash, $50 to send it to the landfill, and $65 to $75 to incinerate it.
• Out of every $10 spent buying things, $1 (10%) goes for packaging that is thrown away. Packaging represents about 65% of household trash.
Energy Savings:
• In 2000, the national recycling rate of 30 percent saved the equivalent of more than five billion gallons of gasoline, reducing dependence on foreign oil by 114 million barrels.
(EPA, "Resource Conservation Challenge: Campaigning Against Waste," EPA 530-F-02-033, 2002)
• In 2000, recycling resulted in an annual energy savings equal to the amount of energy used in 6 million homes (over 660 trillion BTUs). In 2005, recycling was projected to save the amount of energy used in 9 million homes (900 trillion BTUs).
• According to the US EPA, energy saved from recycling one glass bottle can run a 100-watt light bulb for four hours or a compact fluorescent bulb for 20 hours.
• EPA also says that recycling one aluminum beverage can saves enough energy to run a 100 watt bulb for 20 hours, a computer for 3 hours, or a TV for 2 hours. (EPA)
• According to the Steel Recycling Institute, steel recycling in the United States saves the energy equivalent to electrical power for about one-fifth of American households for one year. (EPA)
• Recycling aluminum cans in the United States in 1996 saved enough energy to power a city the size of Philadelphia for one year. (From World Watch Institute, December 1998)
• It takes 95% less energy to recycle aluminum than it does to make it from raw materials. Making recycled steel saves 60%, recycled newspaper 40%, recycled plastics 70%, and recycled glass 40%. These savings far outweigh the energy created as by-products of incineration and landfilling.
• The amount of wood and paper we throw away each year is enough to heat 50,000,000 homes for 20 years.
• Because incinerators are inefficient at generating electricity from burning waste, and recycling and composting conserve three to five times more energy than is produced by incinerating waste, the amount of energy wasted in the U.S. by not recycling is equal to the output of 15 medium-sized power plants. (Clean Air Council)
Preservation of Resources:
• In the past 50 years, humans have consumed more resources than in all previous history. (U.S. EPA, 2009. Sustainable Materials Management: The Road Ahead.)
• The average American uses seven trees a year in paper, wood, and other products made from trees. This amounts to about 2,000,000,000 trees per year!
• Approximately 1 billion trees worth of paper are thrown away every year in the U.S.
• The U.S. buried or burned more than 166 million tons of resources—paper, plastic, metals, glass and organic materials—in landfills and incinerators in 2008. We recycled and composted only one-third of our discards. (U.S. EPA, 2009. Municipal Solid Waste Generation, Recycling, and Disposal in the United States, Detailed Tables and Figures for 2008.)
• It is estimated that currently 80 - 90% of all waste can be recycled.
• Each year the US population discards 16,000,000,000 diapers, 1,600,000,000 pens, 2,000,000,000 razor blades, 220,000,000 car tires, and enough aluminum to rebuild the US commercial air fleet four times over.
Pollution reduction:
• Recycling benefits the air and water by creating a net reduction in ten major categories of air pollutants and eight major categories of water pollutants.
• More than 2 million people globally die prematurely every year due to outdoor and indoor air pollution. (United Nations Environment Programme, 2007. Global Environment Outlook 4: Summary for Decision Makers.)
• According to the EPA, landfills are a leading source of man-made methane – a greenhouse gas that is 72 times more potent that CO2 – and waste incinerators release more climate pollution (per unit of electricity produced) than coal power plants. While landfill gas is a good fuel, most landfills are not efficiently collecting it. The EPA estimates 75% gas collection efficiency, but some landfills are as low as 9 percent. The 2006 IPCC report used an estimated recovery efficiency of just 20 percent.
• Also from EPA: Recycling bottles causes 20% less air pollution and 50% less water pollution than when a new bottle is made from raw materials.
• It is estimated that over 1 million sea creatures die each year due the dumping of plastics in the sea (80% brought from land)
• The Great Pacific Garbage patch has an area of 6,79,540 square miles with a high degree of plastic concentration.
• A single quart of motor oil, if disposed of improperly, can contaminate up to 2,000,000 gallons of fresh water.
US and world waste generation and consumption:
• The U.S. is the #1 trash-producing country in the world at 1,609 pounds per person per year. This means that 5% of the world's people generate 40% of the world's waste.
• The U.S. consumes over 30% of the world’s resources, producing 22% of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions and 40% of the world’s waste. The US and China combined produce 2/3 of the world's waste.
• Between 1970 and 1995, the U.S. represented about one-third of the world’s total material consumption. With less than 5% of the world’s population, the U.S. consumes 33% of paper, 25% of oil, 15% of coal, 17% of aluminum, and 15% of copper. (U.S. EPA, 2009. Sustainable Materials Management: The Road Ahead.)
• Americans use 2,500,000 plastic bottles every hour! 80% of which are thrown away!
• On average, each one of us produces 4.4 pounds of solid waste each day. This adds up to almost a ton of trash per person, per year.
• Every year, Americans throw away enough paper and plastic cups, forks, and spoons to circle the equator 300 times. (Clean Air Council)
Sunday, December 11, 2011
Greening Your Holidays by Barbara Klipp
This is a reprint of an article a wrote for the Newsletter of the Woods & Wetlands Group of the Sierra Club.
In a constant quest to be ever-greener, (sorry I couldn't resist the pun), I was wondering whether it was better to get an artificial Christmas tree or a real one. Unabashed tree hugger that I am, I have never been able to bring myself to cut down a real tree to decorate my home for a few weeks despite the fresh pine aroma and beautiful appearance. However, I have recently questioned the wisdom of importing an artificial tree from China and was doing a mental life cycle analysis when I came across this article entitled, "Which is Greener a Real or Fake Christmas Tree" by Brian Howard from the Good Housekeeping "Consumer's Guide to Green" which answered the question to my satisfaction:
http://www.thedailygreen.com/environmental-news/latest/christmas-trees-picking-greenest-options-synd2?src=nl&mag=tdg&list=nl_dgr_got_hol_120111_greenest-xmas-tree-options&kw=ist
They also had a nice set of articles they call, "Everything You Need for Happy Green Holidays"
http://www.thedailygreen.com/green-homes/latest/green-christmas-holidays-2007-451120?click=main_sr
One of my personal favorite sites, "Practically Green" (www.practicallygreen.com) also has blog posts on "Gift Guide for a Practically Green Holiday", "Guide to Gift Wrap that's Eco-Friendly and Free", "Holiday Cards: Eco & Easy, Entertaining or Elegant - and Energy Saving", "12 Reasons to Shop Local - on Small Biz Saturday and Every Day!" & "Corporate Holiday Gifts" (http://blog.practicallygreen.com/category/green-celebrations/)
They also have a fantastic quiz you can take rating how green and sustainable you are living your life which ranks you on a scale from "barely green", "lightly green" through "impressively green", "wickedly green" to the ultimate "superbly green". The questions are pretty hard core including whether or not you reuse your greywater. No matter what level you score, they offer you suggestions as to the next steps you could take to live even more sustainably.
On Earth 911's web page entitled, "Green-Your-Holidays" you will find articles on "7 resolutions with a Green Twist", "2009 Holiday Gift Guide" which includes gifts made from recycled materials to fair trade practices and "Cleaning up Your Cooking" with eco-friendly and sustainable tips on buying, cooking and cleaning your food for the holidays and always.
http://earth911.com/seasonal/green-your-holidays/
The Sierra Club also has a great page they aptly call, "Green Holiday Tips" (http://www.sierraclub.org/tips/holidays.aspx) which includes a link to the "Sponsor a Wild Place" page where you can, not only find a cool and unique gift giving option, but have the satisfaction of knowing that your gift will help preserve America's wilds legacy. (and who can resist the Arctic Wildlife Refuge adorable stuffed polar bear?)
Lastly, consider giving the gift of an experience, volunteering or reusing a gift. Consider giving a friend or loved one the gift of your time, some help or perhaps that knickknack they have long admired which has outlived it's usefulness for you.
I'll share a reuse experience/experiment I did 2 years ago. My, then 6 year-old, daughter was mad about Barbies. I, like most parents, wanted to indulge her yearning but was also confronting my own rampant consumerism. In the spirit of reuse, I decided to purchase 1 new Barbie so that she'd have something new and contracted to purchase several used Barbies from a few of my students. The students were glad to resell the Barbies they had outgrown and get a little extra money for their own gift giving. By Christmas Day, I had about 14 Barbies total, 11 of which had all of their limbs all for about $10. The students were so excited about the deal that they threw in various extra items of clothing, a few cars and a small Barbie house. I put the Barbies with the missing parts in a bag and set them aside and gave her the remaining collection.
She was beside herself with excitement when she saw them and showed absolutely no preference for the new Barbie over the used ones. Several days later she found the bag with what we now refer to as the "physically challenged" Barbies and was a little miffed that I had been holding out on her. She taught me a valuable lesson that Christmas. Instead of the usual m.o. of overindulging our children in consumerism, maybe we can have Christmas be a teachable moment?"
In a constant quest to be ever-greener, (sorry I couldn't resist the pun), I was wondering whether it was better to get an artificial Christmas tree or a real one. Unabashed tree hugger that I am, I have never been able to bring myself to cut down a real tree to decorate my home for a few weeks despite the fresh pine aroma and beautiful appearance. However, I have recently questioned the wisdom of importing an artificial tree from China and was doing a mental life cycle analysis when I came across this article entitled, "Which is Greener a Real or Fake Christmas Tree" by Brian Howard from the Good Housekeeping "Consumer's Guide to Green" which answered the question to my satisfaction:
http://www.thedailygreen.com/environmental-news/latest/christmas-trees-picking-greenest-options-synd2?src=nl&mag=tdg&list=nl_dgr_got_hol_120111_greenest-xmas-tree-options&kw=ist
They also had a nice set of articles they call, "Everything You Need for Happy Green Holidays"
http://www.thedailygreen.com/green-homes/latest/green-christmas-holidays-2007-451120?click=main_sr
One of my personal favorite sites, "Practically Green" (www.practicallygreen.com) also has blog posts on "Gift Guide for a Practically Green Holiday", "Guide to Gift Wrap that's Eco-Friendly and Free", "Holiday Cards: Eco & Easy, Entertaining or Elegant - and Energy Saving", "12 Reasons to Shop Local - on Small Biz Saturday and Every Day!" & "Corporate Holiday Gifts" (http://blog.practicallygreen.com/category/green-celebrations/)
They also have a fantastic quiz you can take rating how green and sustainable you are living your life which ranks you on a scale from "barely green", "lightly green" through "impressively green", "wickedly green" to the ultimate "superbly green". The questions are pretty hard core including whether or not you reuse your greywater. No matter what level you score, they offer you suggestions as to the next steps you could take to live even more sustainably.
On Earth 911's web page entitled, "Green-Your-Holidays" you will find articles on "7 resolutions with a Green Twist", "2009 Holiday Gift Guide" which includes gifts made from recycled materials to fair trade practices and "Cleaning up Your Cooking" with eco-friendly and sustainable tips on buying, cooking and cleaning your food for the holidays and always.
http://earth911.com/seasonal/green-your-holidays/
The Sierra Club also has a great page they aptly call, "Green Holiday Tips" (http://www.sierraclub.org/tips/holidays.aspx) which includes a link to the "Sponsor a Wild Place" page where you can, not only find a cool and unique gift giving option, but have the satisfaction of knowing that your gift will help preserve America's wilds legacy. (and who can resist the Arctic Wildlife Refuge adorable stuffed polar bear?)
Lastly, consider giving the gift of an experience, volunteering or reusing a gift. Consider giving a friend or loved one the gift of your time, some help or perhaps that knickknack they have long admired which has outlived it's usefulness for you.
I'll share a reuse experience/experiment I did 2 years ago. My, then 6 year-old, daughter was mad about Barbies. I, like most parents, wanted to indulge her yearning but was also confronting my own rampant consumerism. In the spirit of reuse, I decided to purchase 1 new Barbie so that she'd have something new and contracted to purchase several used Barbies from a few of my students. The students were glad to resell the Barbies they had outgrown and get a little extra money for their own gift giving. By Christmas Day, I had about 14 Barbies total, 11 of which had all of their limbs all for about $10. The students were so excited about the deal that they threw in various extra items of clothing, a few cars and a small Barbie house. I put the Barbies with the missing parts in a bag and set them aside and gave her the remaining collection.
She was beside herself with excitement when she saw them and showed absolutely no preference for the new Barbie over the used ones. Several days later she found the bag with what we now refer to as the "physically challenged" Barbies and was a little miffed that I had been holding out on her. She taught me a valuable lesson that Christmas. Instead of the usual m.o. of overindulging our children in consumerism, maybe we can have Christmas be a teachable moment?"
Tuesday, September 7, 2010
Visit to the Berkeley, CA recycling center
On a visit today to the City of Berkeley, CA recycling center/transfer station, I met with Tania Levy, Associate Management Analyst. The City of Berkeley was one of the first municipal recycling centers in the country and the transfer center and recycling facility are owned by the City of Berkeley and operated by The Ecology Center and Community Conservation Center. BTW, The City of Berkeley also uses Priuses for their city cars. How cool is that?
The Ecology Center is a community based, non-profit which operates Berkeley's curbside recycling program and uses these cool split hauling trucks (see photo) and split bins which ask customers to split their recyclable discards into fiber (paper) on one side and cans and bottles in the other. Here's a link to their website: http://www.ecologycenter.org/
The Community Conservation Center, another non-profit runs the recycling center. Here's an excerpt from their site: "Community Conservation Centers (CCC) has been operating Berkeley Recycling at Second and Gilman Streets in Berkeley since September 1982. CCC operates programs that buy recyclables and provides for convenient drop-off of recyclables. The City-owned facility is also home to the Ecology Center, which operates the residential curbside pick-up program. The City of Berkeley operates the commercial pick-up program which collects recyclables from commercial establishments throughout the city. Together, the three programs collect about 18,000 tons per year of various materials, including newspaper, cardboard, glass and plastic bottles, scrap metals and household hazardous waste. The following are programs operated by CCC." (http://berkeleyrecycling.org/page.php?id=8).
I had been referred to Tania by Neil Seldman and Tania has a long history in recycling and anti-incineration activism. Tania suggested several things both for IFLC and for the Lake County Recycling Task Force.
#1. She suggests subscribing to Biocycle Magazine (http://www.jgpress.com/biocycle.htm) and reading Sally Brown's articles. (Several other recycling experts wholeheartedly agree)
#2. She said we should bring a composting expert onto our team.
#3. Consider finding an agricultural ally who can help us promote using composted materials and help develop aftermarkets for food-scrap compost. Conventional agricultural practices depend heavily upon petroleum products. Using compost conserves water in the soil, and promotes healthier, stronger plants which are better positioned as global warming increases. I know that Illinois State University's dept of Agriculture has a learning farm which is interested in composting. Perhaps that's a source?
#4. Contact the US Composting Council.
She said the main composting facility (food scrap and landscape waste) they use is Grover Landscape Services which is approx. 90 miles away from them. This means that a compost facility would not necessarily have to be in Lake County. Here's an article about Grover's composting facility: http://www.jgpress.com/archives/_free/001708.html
Alameda County, California recycling history:
California passed AB939 (http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/Laws/Legislation/calhist/1985to1989.htm) in 1989 which, among other things, changed from a "County Solid Waste Management Plan" to "Integrated Waste Management Planning" and asked each county to "establish a task force to coordinate the development of city Source Reduction and Recycling Elements (SRREs) and a countywide siting element". They also "required each city or county plan to include an implementation schedule which shows: diversion of 25 percent of all solid waste from landfill or transformation facilities by January 1, 1995 through source reduction, recycling, and composting activities; and, diversion of 50 percent of all solid waste by January 1, 2000 through source reduction, recycling, and composting activities." This, as I understand it, laid the groundwork for what was to follow.
Next, several local recycling activists in Alameda County wrote, proposed and passed "Measure D" also known as the "Almeda County Waste Reduction and Recycling Initiative", a proposition which required that they could charge $7 per ton to fund recycling and waste reduction efforts in the county as they felt AB939 was essentially an unfunded mandate. Stop Waste told me that every one $ per ton they charge costs the consumers approx 7 cents per month.
Here's a link to Stop Waste's page which has the download for the measure: http://www.stopwaste.org/home/index.asp?page=512
It's a great read for anyone (read Garbage Geeks) interested in recycling programs.
Here's an excerpt:
The people of Alameda County find and declare that:
A. The increasing consumption of single-use and environmentally harmful products depletes natural resources, produces huge quantities of refuse -- most of which is disposed of in ways that damage the environment -- and, ultimately, will injure future generations;
B. The use of terms such as "garbage" and "solid waste" result from -- and serve to reinforce wasteful attitudes; the materials referred to by these terms retain their value as natural resources, and should instead be described and treated as "'discarded materials" to be recycled rather than incinerated or landfilled;
C. At least ninety percent of the discarded materials generated within Alameda County are landfilled (almost exactly the same as Lake County's) as are vast quantities of discarded materials from neighboring counties; existing landfill capacity in the Bay Area will be exhausted in less than twenty-five years, while new landfills are increasingly difficult and expensive to site; landfill is neither a long-term, nor a sustainable, nor an environmentally safe option for disposal of discardedmaterials;(sound familiar?)
D. Refuse incinerators are a poor alternative to source reduction and recycling: such incinerators damage the environment by wasting natural resources that could instead be recycled, by accelerating the release of greenhouse gasses -- which worsen global warming -- and by generating toxic substances;
E. Each person discards materials and should therefore be involved in solving the problems caused by the disposal of such materials; this involvement must include changes in individual behavior resulting from each person's awareness of her or his role in creating or finding solutions to environmental problems; only through such changes can sustainable consumption and disposal patterns be established and the biosphere restored:
F. The County government shares a responsibility with Alameda County cities and sanitary districts to provide a comprehensive source reduction and recycling program which will foster these necessary changes in individual behavior as well as ensure that the goals set by state law are met; and
G. The best available method for funding the Recycling Plan is a surcharge on materials disposed of at landfills.
Hats off to the people of Alameda County for passing this measure!
The last thing I learned from Tania is that Pay-as-you-Throw works great in the short term, but as they became more efficient at recycling, they were receiving less income and ran into some trouble. They are considering a fixed charge to all households as a base and then adding pay as you throw on top of that. This gives them a somewhat fixed income.
More later from Tom Padia, the Source Reduction and Recycling Director for StopWaste, "the Alameda County Waste Management Authority and the Alameda County Source Reduction and Recycling Board operating as one public agency."
Photos:
City of Berkeley's organics collection 9/8/10, Ecology Center's split truck, a dual sort recycling bin to go with the split truck, Berkeley's battery and fluorescent light collection (2), a 3 hour haul for Urban Ore salvagers from the transfer station (more on Urban Ore later this week), the floor of the City of Berkeley's transfer station.
The Ecology Center is a community based, non-profit which operates Berkeley's curbside recycling program and uses these cool split hauling trucks (see photo) and split bins which ask customers to split their recyclable discards into fiber (paper) on one side and cans and bottles in the other. Here's a link to their website: http://www.ecologycenter.org/
The Community Conservation Center, another non-profit runs the recycling center. Here's an excerpt from their site: "Community Conservation Centers (CCC) has been operating Berkeley Recycling at Second and Gilman Streets in Berkeley since September 1982. CCC operates programs that buy recyclables and provides for convenient drop-off of recyclables. The City-owned facility is also home to the Ecology Center, which operates the residential curbside pick-up program. The City of Berkeley operates the commercial pick-up program which collects recyclables from commercial establishments throughout the city. Together, the three programs collect about 18,000 tons per year of various materials, including newspaper, cardboard, glass and plastic bottles, scrap metals and household hazardous waste. The following are programs operated by CCC." (http://berkeleyrecycling.org/page.php?id=8).
I had been referred to Tania by Neil Seldman and Tania has a long history in recycling and anti-incineration activism. Tania suggested several things both for IFLC and for the Lake County Recycling Task Force.
#1. She suggests subscribing to Biocycle Magazine (http://www.jgpress.com/biocycle.htm) and reading Sally Brown's articles. (Several other recycling experts wholeheartedly agree)
#2. She said we should bring a composting expert onto our team.
#3. Consider finding an agricultural ally who can help us promote using composted materials and help develop aftermarkets for food-scrap compost. Conventional agricultural practices depend heavily upon petroleum products. Using compost conserves water in the soil, and promotes healthier, stronger plants which are better positioned as global warming increases. I know that Illinois State University's dept of Agriculture has a learning farm which is interested in composting. Perhaps that's a source?
#4. Contact the US Composting Council.
She said the main composting facility (food scrap and landscape waste) they use is Grover Landscape Services which is approx. 90 miles away from them. This means that a compost facility would not necessarily have to be in Lake County. Here's an article about Grover's composting facility: http://www.jgpress.com/archives/_free/001708.html
Alameda County, California recycling history:
California passed AB939 (http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/Laws/Legislation/calhist/1985to1989.htm) in 1989 which, among other things, changed from a "County Solid Waste Management Plan" to "Integrated Waste Management Planning" and asked each county to "establish a task force to coordinate the development of city Source Reduction and Recycling Elements (SRREs) and a countywide siting element". They also "required each city or county plan to include an implementation schedule which shows: diversion of 25 percent of all solid waste from landfill or transformation facilities by January 1, 1995 through source reduction, recycling, and composting activities; and, diversion of 50 percent of all solid waste by January 1, 2000 through source reduction, recycling, and composting activities." This, as I understand it, laid the groundwork for what was to follow.
Next, several local recycling activists in Alameda County wrote, proposed and passed "Measure D" also known as the "Almeda County Waste Reduction and Recycling Initiative", a proposition which required that they could charge $7 per ton to fund recycling and waste reduction efforts in the county as they felt AB939 was essentially an unfunded mandate. Stop Waste told me that every one $ per ton they charge costs the consumers approx 7 cents per month.
Here's a link to Stop Waste's page which has the download for the measure: http://www.stopwaste.org/home/index.asp?page=512
It's a great read for anyone (read Garbage Geeks) interested in recycling programs.
Here's an excerpt:
The people of Alameda County find and declare that:
A. The increasing consumption of single-use and environmentally harmful products depletes natural resources, produces huge quantities of refuse -- most of which is disposed of in ways that damage the environment -- and, ultimately, will injure future generations;
B. The use of terms such as "garbage" and "solid waste" result from -- and serve to reinforce wasteful attitudes; the materials referred to by these terms retain their value as natural resources, and should instead be described and treated as "'discarded materials" to be recycled rather than incinerated or landfilled;
C. At least ninety percent of the discarded materials generated within Alameda County are landfilled (almost exactly the same as Lake County's) as are vast quantities of discarded materials from neighboring counties; existing landfill capacity in the Bay Area will be exhausted in less than twenty-five years, while new landfills are increasingly difficult and expensive to site; landfill is neither a long-term, nor a sustainable, nor an environmentally safe option for disposal of discardedmaterials;(sound familiar?)
D. Refuse incinerators are a poor alternative to source reduction and recycling: such incinerators damage the environment by wasting natural resources that could instead be recycled, by accelerating the release of greenhouse gasses -- which worsen global warming -- and by generating toxic substances;
E. Each person discards materials and should therefore be involved in solving the problems caused by the disposal of such materials; this involvement must include changes in individual behavior resulting from each person's awareness of her or his role in creating or finding solutions to environmental problems; only through such changes can sustainable consumption and disposal patterns be established and the biosphere restored:
F. The County government shares a responsibility with Alameda County cities and sanitary districts to provide a comprehensive source reduction and recycling program which will foster these necessary changes in individual behavior as well as ensure that the goals set by state law are met; and
G. The best available method for funding the Recycling Plan is a surcharge on materials disposed of at landfills.
Hats off to the people of Alameda County for passing this measure!
The last thing I learned from Tania is that Pay-as-you-Throw works great in the short term, but as they became more efficient at recycling, they were receiving less income and ran into some trouble. They are considering a fixed charge to all households as a base and then adding pay as you throw on top of that. This gives them a somewhat fixed income.
More later from Tom Padia, the Source Reduction and Recycling Director for StopWaste, "the Alameda County Waste Management Authority and the Alameda County Source Reduction and Recycling Board operating as one public agency."
Photos:
City of Berkeley's organics collection 9/8/10, Ecology Center's split truck, a dual sort recycling bin to go with the split truck, Berkeley's battery and fluorescent light collection (2), a 3 hour haul for Urban Ore salvagers from the transfer station (more on Urban Ore later this week), the floor of the City of Berkeley's transfer station.
Thursday, August 26, 2010
Welcome to our Blog!
Incinerator Free is so excited to welcome you to our new blog. We launched this blog in order to keep you up to date on our travels and efforts in bringing greater recycling and diversion rates to our beautiful county of Lake in Illinois just north of Chicago.
We originally formed in November of 2009 when we found out that Lake County wanted to include the option of incineration in its 5-year solid waste plan. Because we wanted our county to take a more progressive approach to waste disposal, we launched a campaign to educate our county board members on alternatives to incineration.
After months of hard work, petitioning and speaking at county board meetings, we succeeded in April 2010! The county board removed all forms of incineration from the waste disposal plan due to our efforts!
After our victory, the county invited us to be part of a recycling task force and this blog will follow our progress and include posts from research excursions and updates from the recycling task force meetings.
Stay tuned as one of our members heads to California to investigate recycling and zero waste efforts out west!
We originally formed in November of 2009 when we found out that Lake County wanted to include the option of incineration in its 5-year solid waste plan. Because we wanted our county to take a more progressive approach to waste disposal, we launched a campaign to educate our county board members on alternatives to incineration.
After months of hard work, petitioning and speaking at county board meetings, we succeeded in April 2010! The county board removed all forms of incineration from the waste disposal plan due to our efforts!
After our victory, the county invited us to be part of a recycling task force and this blog will follow our progress and include posts from research excursions and updates from the recycling task force meetings.
Stay tuned as one of our members heads to California to investigate recycling and zero waste efforts out west!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)