A recent email is the perfect counter to the recently approved lifting of the incinerator moratorium by the Massachusetts DEP. Here is the email sent to me by reader MaryA.<\/p>\n
\nGreetings supporters of a Zero Waste
\nFuture,<\/span><\/div>\nEco-Cycle has sponsored and co-authored a
\nnew study which we think you will find interesting and useful in
\nyour work. We titled it:\u201cWhat
\nis the best disposal option for the \u201cLeftovers\u201d on the way to
\nZero Waste?<\/i><\/b><\/span><\/div>\nWaste incineration companies are
\nincreasingly promoting the belief that after maximizing recycling,
\ncomposting, and reuse the best thing a community can do with any
\nleftover waste that may still remain is to create energy with it.
\nBut a new lifecycle analysis report, which compares the
\nenvironmental impacts of the three most common waste disposal
\nmethods used globally, finds that the best approach to protecting
\nthe public health and the environment isn\u2019t mass burn
\nwaste-to-energy, and it isn\u2019t landfill gas-to-energy. The report
\nfound that, after aggressive community-wide recycling, reuse and
\ncomposting, the most environmentally-sound disposal option for the
\nremaining materials was a third option: Materials Recovery,
\nBiological Treatment (MRBT). MRBT is a variation of the<\/span>MBT systems used across Europe, but we\u2019ve put a new
\ntwist on it to recover even more resources and realize more
\nenvironmental benefits. (see media alert below for more detail)<\/span><\/div>\nAccording to Joan Marc Simon, Founder of
\nZero Waste Europe,\u201cThis
\nreport is exactly what we need at the right time to help guide the
\ndebate on what to do with residuals once we reach high separate
\ncollection rates. Europe has over-invested in waste incineration
\nand needs solutions that deliver environmental safety while still
\nfocusing on increasing recycling and reducing material
\nconsumption.\u201d<\/i><\/span><\/div>\nPleases<\/span><\/span>ign up for a webinar<\/span><\/span>(spots are limited)<\/span>with the report authors Dr. Jeffrey Morris, Dr. Enzo
\nFavoino, Kate Bailey and myself, on either May 23rd<\/sup>or May 30th <\/sup> at<\/span> www.ecocycle.org\/specialreports\/leftovers<\/a><\/span> to learn more about the benefits of MRBT and what this
\nmeans for communities trying to reach Zero Waste. Find the full
\nreport and more information at<\/span> www.ecocycle.org\/specialreports\/leftovers<\/a><\/span>.<\/span><\/div>\nWe look forward to furthering this
\ndiscussion with you,<\/span><\/div>\n\n\nEric Lombardi<\/span><\/b><\/i><\/p>\n
Executive Director<\/i>Eco-Cycle, Inc.
\n| Boulder, CO USA 303.444.6634<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\nPRESS RELEASE<\/b><\/div>\nNew Study Finds
\nWaste Incineration is NOT the Best Disposal Option<\/b><\/div>\n<\/b>for the
\n\u201cLeftovers\u201d That May Remain After Aggressive Source-Separated
\nRecycling and Composting<\/b><\/div>\nBoulder, CO (May 2) Waste incineration companies are
\nincreasingly promoting the belief that after maximizing recycling,
\nreuse and composting, the best thing a community can do with
\nleftover waste is to create energy with it. But a new lifecycle
\nanalysis report, which compares the environmental impacts of the
\nthree most common disposal methods used globally, finds thatthe best approach to
\nprotecting the public health and the environment isn\u2019t mass burn
\nwaste-to-energy, and it isn\u2019t landfill gas-to-energy. The report
\nfound that, after aggressive community-wide recycling, reuse and
\ncomposting, the most environmentally-sound disposal option for
\nany waste that may still remain is a third option: Materials
\nRecovery, Biological Treatment (MRBT).<\/b>The full report,
\n\u201cWhat is the best disposal option for the \u2018Leftovers\u2019 on the way
\nto Zero Waste?\u201d is available at http:\/\/www.ecocycle.org\/specialreports\/leftovers<\/a>.<\/span><\/div>\n<\/div>\nMaterial Recovery, Biological Treatment is a process
\nto \u201cpre-treat\u201d mixed waste before landfilling in order to recover
\neven more dry materials for recycling and minimize greenhouse gas
\nand other emissions caused by landfilling by stabilizing the
\norganic fraction with a composting-like process. Very similar to
\nthe MBT systems used widely in Europe, the<\/span>goal of MRBT is to
\ncapture any remaining recyclables and then create inert residuals
\nthat will produce little to no landfill gas when buried. The
\nsystem can also<\/span>classify non-recyclable
\ndry items for the purpose of identifying industrial design change
\nopportunities, which helps to drive further waste reduction.<\/span><\/div>\n<\/div>\nThis reportemphasizes<\/i><\/b>that source separation for
\nrecycling and composting is still the best environmental option
\nfor managing all discards and should be the focus of community
\nefforts. However, \u201con the way to Zero Waste\u201d there is still the
\nneed to reduce the negative impacts of disposal and minimize the
\nneed to invest in new disposal facilities. Communities should look
\nbeyond the two traditional options\u2014burying and burning\u2014toward
\nbuilding MRBT systems that have the lowest overall environmental
\nimpact of the technologies commercially available today.<\/span><\/div>\n<\/div>\nUsing a tool developed by economist Dr. Jeffrey
\nMorris called MEBCalcTM<\/sup>, or Measuring Environmental
\nBenefits Calculator, the study compared the three disposal
\nstrategies\u2014MRBT, mass burn waste-to-energy and landfill
\ngas-to-energy\u2014across seven environmental categories, including
\nclimate change, water pollution, air pollution and human health
\nimpacts. The MRBT system was shown to be the best choice for a
\ncommunity to dispose of its leftovers because it recovers the
\ngreatest amount of additional recyclables, stabilizes the organic
\nfraction of the residuals, reduces the amount of material to be
\ndisposed of in a landfill, and minimizes the negative
\nenvironmental and public health impacts of landfilling leftovers
\ncompared to the other disposal alternatives, landfill
\ngas-to-energy or mass-burn waste-to-energy.\u201cMRBT is not a
\nreplacement or substitution for source separation, but it is a
\ntool for helping communities reduce the environmental impacts of
\nmanaging their leftovers as they progress on their way to Zero
\nWaste,\u201d<\/i>says Eric
\nLombardi, the Executive Director of Eco-Cycle and sponsor of the
\nstudy.<\/span><\/div>\n<\/div>\nWhen utilized in a community with successful
\nrecycling and composting programs, MRBT has further benefits
\nbeyond its lower environmental impacts. Because the pre-treatment
\nprocess includes additional sorting and recovery of recyclable dry
\nmaterials, MRBT can help support very high levels of landfill
\ndiversion. The study modeled an 87% diversion rate for the city of
\nSeattle, Washington based on 71% diversion from current
\nsource-separated recycling efforts and an additional 16% from the
\nMRBT process, including increased recovery of recyclables and the
\nweight reduction of the organic materials from moisture
\nevaporation and biogenic carbon conversion to carbon dioxide.<\/span><\/div>\n<\/div>\nMRBT infrastructure is also flexible and
\ndual-purposed, able to handle both mixed waste and
\nsource-separated recyclables and organics. This means a community
\nis not tied to feeding the facility a continuous flow of mixed
\nwaste over the next several decades and is not investing in a
\nfuture of ever-more waste. Rather, as a community\u2019s Zero Waste
\nefforts improve, the MRBT model can adjust to a declining volume
\nof leftover waste and support the growth of source separated
\ncollection systems. In addition, MRBT infrastructure can be built
\nand operational on a shorter time scale than landfills and
\nincinerators, and can be modular in size to help communities
\nmanage their leftover waste more locally.<\/span><\/div>\n<\/div>\nAccording to Joan Marc Simon, Founder of Zero Waste
\nEurope,\u201cThis report
\nis exactly what we need at the right time to help guide the
\ndebate on what to do with residuals once we reach high separate
\ncollection rates. Europe has over-invested in waste incineration
\nand needs solutions that deliver environmental safety while
\nstill focusing on increasing recycling and reducing material
\nconsumption.\u201d<\/i><\/span><\/div>\n<\/div>\nThe full report, \u201cWhat is the best disposal option
\nfor the \u2018Leftovers\u2019 on the way to Zero Waste?\u201d is available at www.ecocycle.org\/specialreports\/leftovers<\/a>.
\nThe authors will hold two webinars to explain the results and
\nmethodology of the study on Thursday May 23rd<\/sup>and Thursday May 30th<\/sup>.
\nSign up at www.ecocycle.org\/specialreports\/leftovers<\/a>.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/div>\n<\/div>\nThe report was an international effort authored by
\nDr. Jeffrey Morris,<\/span>an economist and
\nlife-cycle assessment expert with Sound Resource Management Group
\nbased in Olympia, Washington; Dr. Enzo Favoino, Senior Researcher
\nat Scuola Agraria del Parco di Monza in Milan, Italy; Eric
\nLombardi, Executive Director of Eco-Cycle, a Zero Waste social
\nenterprise based in Boulder, Colorado; and Kate Bailey, Senior
\nAnalyst for Eco-Cycle.<\/span><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"A recent email is the perfect counter to the recently approved lifting of the incinerator moratorium by the Massachusetts DEP. Here is the email sent to me by reader MaryA. Greetings supporters of a Zero Waste Future, Eco-Cycle has sponsored and co-authored a new study which we think you will find interesting and useful in […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[166],"tags":[],"class_list":{"0":"post-13750","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","6":"category-stevegsposts","7":"czr-hentry"},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/ssgreenberg.name\/PoliticsBlog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13750","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/ssgreenberg.name\/PoliticsBlog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/ssgreenberg.name\/PoliticsBlog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ssgreenberg.name\/PoliticsBlog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ssgreenberg.name\/PoliticsBlog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=13750"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/ssgreenberg.name\/PoliticsBlog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13750\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":13752,"href":"https:\/\/ssgreenberg.name\/PoliticsBlog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13750\/revisions\/13752"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/ssgreenberg.name\/PoliticsBlog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=13750"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ssgreenberg.name\/PoliticsBlog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=13750"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ssgreenberg.name\/PoliticsBlog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=13750"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}