Blog

An Interview with Philipp Schmidt-Pathmann  President and CEO of IeRM ((Note: We asked Mr. Schmidt-Pathmann for his views on climate change, global efforts to mitigate the problem, and what he thought would be most effective. This is the first segment of his remarks, which have been edited for continuity.)) Over the past summer, we’ve seen ample evidence of climate change: excessive heat and drought, wildfires out of control, tropical storms more powerful and more damaging than ever before, flooding, loss of beach front – the list goes on. And while people seem to be waking up to the problem, there are very few if any proposals for action now. Some want to switch to renewable energy – 50% by 2050. Some look around for someone or something to blame – big coal, big oil. And some just throw up their hands and say, “what can we do, when China and India won’t cooperate.” The honest and sad truth is that we’ve dug ourselves a pretty deep hole, and we can’t wait for the world’s leaders to get together at their next summit and argue about reduction targets and revised timetables. We also have to recognize that we, as individuals, need to accept some responsibility for both the problem and the solutions. That means, to put it bluntly, changing our behavior. One area where we, as individuals, can have an impact pretty quickly is waste management. But wait, you say, that’s a government function. I pay my fee, I put out my trash, and somebody takes it away. Well, that’s true, to an extent, but think about it. Where does waste management start? In the home! That’s why the first and most important element in the international waste control hierarchy is called “source reduction.” It means, don’t throw so much away. Americans generate a lot of trash – over 1,600 lbs per person per year. That’s more than three-quarters of a ton. Here’s just one example: according to the US Dept. of Agriculture, between 30% and 40% of our annual food supply is wasted – nearly 300 pounds of food per person per year. Think of all the energy it took to grow that food, to irrigate it, to harvest and package it, and to deliver it to your local grocery store or specialty shop. Now think about how much carbon dioxide all those activities generated. Finally, consider the amount of methane all that wasted food will generate when thrown in a landfill. Agricultural activities contribute 25-30% of greenhouse gas emissions. By reducing food waste by 50%, we could make a big reduction in carbon emissions. And it would save you money! ((In the coming weeks, we’ll provide more of Mr. Schmidt-Pathmann’s remarks, as well as interviews with policy-makers,environmentalists, and corporate leaders.))

In your recently published book, How to Avoid A Climate Disaster, you state that ‘Humans need to stop adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere.’ While this is more than obvious, we wonder if you feel that the admonition also applies to you. We wonder this because, according to filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission, you are the top investor in Republic Services, a waste collection company and landfill operator; and the Gates Foundation’s second largest holding is $2.12 billion in Waste Management, a waste collection company and landfill operator. We’re seeing a trend here, and it’s not a good one. Landfills are a major source of methane, a greenhouse gas many times more potent than carbon dioxide. According to the USEPA,landfills are the least desirable means of waste disposal because of their methane emissions. Since your Foundation has offices inseveral European cities, we’re sure that you are aware that the European Union has voted to phase out landfilling completely, and infact several countries have already done so, with significant reductions in greenhouse gases as a result. So tell us, please, Mr.Gates. Why ‘invest’ in landfills? Millions of concerned citizens want to know. Sincerely yours, The Institute for Energy and Resource Management Institute of energy management

The waste management advocate said the decision to expand seems pre-determined despite assessment. By Cameron Sheppard Published Wednesday, September 15, 2021 Waste management experts from the non-profit Institute for Energy and Resource Management are calling King County’s assessment of the Cedar Hills Landfill a “boondoggle,” and a waste of time and money in favor of continuing what they believe is poor policy. Philipp Schmidt-Pathmann, President and CEO of the Institute for Energy and Resource Management, said King County’s recently completed Environmental Impact Statement for “potential” expansion of the Cedar Hills Landfill is yet another example of the County going through the motions but having the conclusion decided well beforehand. “If you look at the timetable the County set out months ago, you will see that the last item is ‘Construction of new landfill area within the Cedar Hills Regional Landfill property.’ There was never any question, regardless of public sentiment or scientific findings.” he said. The Cedar Hills Landfill environmental impact statement comes after a growing consideration for landfill alternatives such a Waste-To-Energy, which some county leaders have recently pushed for. Schmidt-Pathmann cited EPA studies that suggest landfilling is the “least desirable” waste management technique and he also claims landfilling is more expensive than most people consider because of the hidden and “perpetual” costs. Schmidt-Pathmann has conducted studies specific to King County’s adoption of an integrated waste management system that does not rely fully on landfilling as it does now. He also led the team that helped Los Angeles adopt a Waste-To-Energy program. He says landfills are a significant source of methane leaks which are a greenhouse gas negatively impacting climate change conditions. He said landfills in California contribute roughly 40 percent of the state’s methane emissions, more than both livestock and agriculture. Schmidt-Pathmann has advocated for an Integrated Waste Management System, which utilizes multiple waste management strategies including source reduction and reuse, improved recycling and composting, energy and material recovery from waste streams and better treatment and disposal. He said an integrated waste strategy could be implemented by 2030, could save billions of dollars in the coming decades and would reduce the environmental impacts of our waste system. “Anyone who cares about the environment and their property tax bill should be concerned about this,” said Schmidt-Pathmann. “It is critical that you contact your County Councilmember and let them know you don’t want any more public money sunk into the ‘landfill liability’ including transfer stations. There is a better – and cheaper – solution.” To read the story in the Kirkland Reporter click here; Seattle Weekly click here;