Stop all land application of “biosolids”:Land application of sludge that contains PFAS, including composted sludge, is not safe. Continuing to allow this practice will result in water contamination and destroy land for future use as farmland. As farmers in Maine and elsewhere have discovered, once contaminated with PFAS, it is virtually impossible to make soils safe for farming. While EPA has taken initial steps that could change how PFAS-contaminated wastes are regulated in the future, the timing and scope of any changes are up in the air. There is no indication yet that EPA plans to revisit its biosolids rule. States have the authority to act, and doing so will incentivize the removal of PFAS from wastewater discharges and consumer products and prompt speedier development of safe PFAS  destruction technologies.

Continue Reading

“If nothing else will drive the message home about the present threat that climate change poses to our global society, this should,” said Lachlan McIver, a Doctors Without Borders physician who was not involved in writing the Lancet report. “Your health, my health, the health of our parents and our children are at stake.”

Continue Reading

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.))

Continue Reading

While there is no doubt that the prevention of municipal solid waste (MSW) generation should sit at the top of any public policy, industrial strategy and individual behaviour, just like reducing the consumption of energy, this proposition might mislead the public into thinking that waste can suddenly disappear if only we had the will to make it happen. Despite these unattainable expectations, the ‘Zero Waste’ concept has become a viral and omnipresent phrase in recent years. A Google search of this term shows around half a million hits, as of March 2020, and countless government and non-governmental organisation initiatives worldwide. Zero Waste seems to be the only acceptable aim for today’s politicians who embrace an environmentally friendly platform. As a result, countries and municipalities all over the globe have committed themselves to achieving the goal of Zero Waste. So far, however, nobody has managed it, and given the many scientific and practical roadblocks, no one ever will.

Continue Reading

to top