While we favor a circular economy without landfilling or WTE/Incineration the nature of society (and consuming) does create waste that cannot be avoided or recycled. In that case waste should first be made inert, toxics destroyed, and materials and energy recovered so that landfilling, the worst option for dealing with waste, can be avoided by all means possible. A circular economy is essential for sustainable development and the continued existence of human society. When landfilled,…
Unfortunately, these extreme events, and the conditions they foster – flooding, wildfires, property damage, loss of life – are becoming the new normal, thanks to global warming. And there are other, less obvious but equally damaging, effects as well. As the ocean warms and becomes more saturated with carbon dioxide, fish and other creatures in the marine food chain are adversely affected. Diseases once limited to the tropics are spreading into the temperate zones. Coastlines, from Louisiana to Alaska, are receding, due to more frequent and more powerful storms, rising sea levels, and, in Alaska, the loss of sea ice. The message should be clear: we are running out of time to turn this trend around. Even insurance companies have stopped insuring the homes in particularly affected areas.
…
What can be done now to reduce emissions relatively quickly? The answer is simple: the US must stop landfilling untreated municipal solid waste. A recent (July, 2020) article in the journal Environmental Health and Safety stated that with regard to waste management, “Landfilling is the most greenhouse gas (GHG)-intensive option, emitting nearly 400 kg CO2e per tonne of organic waste…the GHG footprint of landfilling organic waste is higher relative to composting or waste-to-energy by as much as a factor of 9, even when landfill gas is captured and utilized.”
On Wednesday evening, April 27th 2022, the King County Solid Waste Division (SWD) held a virtual meeting to provide an update on the expansion and operation of the Cedar Hills landfill, an exercise that can best be described as attempting to put lipstick on a pig. The landfill, originally slated to close decades ago, has been given another 7-10 years via some “sleight of hand” design, but as SWD Director Pat McLaughlin said in response…
February 17th 2022 In December of 2021, after months of questioning the King County Solid Waste Division (KCSWD) about their plans to expand the Cedar Hill Landfill, the Institute for Energy, Waste and Resource Management sent a challenge to the Director of the SWD. In it we took issue with their decision to expand, their claim of a recycling rate of better than 50%, their plans to improve that rate, their failure to take action on recommendations for improvement provided by consultant reports that they commissioned, and, last but most important, their claim that they capture more than 90% of the methane generated by the solid waste in the landfill. You can read the letter exchange here. For years we have heard from experts that capture of more than 50% is just not possible. The USEPA recently announced that methane from landfills is underestimated by a factor of two, and that methods for estimating emissions via computer models are outdated and based on faulty assumptions. And so, we issued a challenge: measure the methane escaping from the landfill, using proven, peer-reviewed technology, and see the results. We pointed out that this could be done for a very modest cost (less than $50,000) and in a very short time (less than amonth). And it would show the County government, and the citizens and taxpayers, what is really happening. The letter we received in reply was non-responsive and condescending. It merely restated the claims that we had questioned, noted that the most recent Comprehensive Plan included goals for improvement (although not the improvements their consultants had recommended), and declined our challenge to measure, rather than estimate, the methane emissions, saying that the KCSWD was “following the procedures.” In other words, they didn’t care that recycling rates can’t be proven, that their collection methods decrease the amount of material fit for recycling, and that methane emissions are probably much higher than they claim. But they’re “following the procedures,” so everything is okay. Our response to this letter pointed out its errors and called out the SWD for its failures, particularly its failure to take the advice of its consultants to begin moving away from landfilling. Why is this important? For three reasons: 1.) The Environment. Municipal Solid Waste includes toxic materials and chemicals such as flame retardants and that can accumulate in body tissue. They can pollute the air, water and soil. The methane generated is a greenhouse gas,…
October 18th, 2021 Joe Manchin, the Democratic Senator from West Virginia, has found himself in a position of great influence, given the 50-50 split in the US Senate and the administration’s desire to pass a $3.5 trillion bill that includes a number of measures to combat global warming. Currently, the part of the bill that he opposes is the Clean Electricity Performance Program, or CEPP, which would reward utilities for increasing their production of clean energy, and penalize those that don’t. His argument is that companies should not be rewarded for something that they are already doing, but his real concern is that companies that don’t produce more clean energy should not be penalized. In the long-standing tradition of American politics, he’s taking care of his constituency at the expense of the country. Manchin, after all, represents West Virginia, the nation’s second largest coal producer and the fifth largest energy producer, according to the US Energy Information Administration. More than 90% of the energy produced there comes from coal-fired power plants, and Manchin, Chair of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, is very dedicated in his efforts to preserve that mix. Not surprisingly, energy companies have supported him, contributing nearly $500,000 to his campaign in the most recent election cycle, another long-standing tradition of American politics. Yet even with Manchin’s considerable assistance, the coal industry in West Virginia is fighting a rear-guard action. The state produced a total of 93 million tons in 2018, well down from peak production of 169 million tons in 1990. Employment in the mining industry has fallen by about a third over the past decade as well. More than one-third of the state’s production in recent years has been exported, chiefly to China, India, and South Korea. Renewable energy installations, although small, are increasing, with wind generation recently overtaking hydropower. The state suffers, however, from limited wind potential, and other forms of renewable energy, such as solar and biomass, account for less than 0.01% of utility-scale generation. This gives the coal and utility industries greater influence than one would expect. Manchin’s dilemma, therefore, is whether to continue protecting what most acknowledge is a dying industry, or to assist in the transition to a new paradigm, one that will provide jobs to a state with a 16% poverty rate and will help reduce the threat of global warming to the country and the world. Unfortunately, it appears that he has chosen to protect the special interests of his contributors over the well-being of the country. Energy and resource management