The Recycling Association of Minnesota s GreenCorps Project. Exploring Waste Reduction for School Milk

Transcription

1 The Recycling Association of Minnesota s GreenCorps Project Exploring Waste Reduction for School Milk

2 Overview Mission statement Introduction Carton recycling project Overview Pros and cons Milk dispenser project Overview Pros and cons Choosing the right fit

3 Mission The Recycling Association of Minnesota (RAM) is committed to promoting resource conservation through waste prevention, reuse, recycling, composting and purchasing practices using the most cost effective and environmentally sound methods available in Minnesota.

4 Introduction Two initiatives explored: milk carton recycling and bulk milk dispensers Both can be used in tandem in Minnesota Both initiatives have unique pros and cons

5 Carton Recycling Project Saving valuable paper from the landfill

6 Overview Better for the environment when compared to landfilling or incinerating Reduces greenhouse gases, carbon footprint Cartons are primarily made from virgin paper Paper is valuable to end markets once recovered Turned into tissue, paper towels, wallboard, sheathing, ceiling tiles, and backerboard Can save money for schools as recycling services are typically lower than trash No solid waste tax No environmental tax Can right size trash and recycling after contracts are over

7 Materials in cartons Gable-top (refrigerated): 80% paper and 20% polyethylene Aseptic (shelf-stable): 74% paper, 22% polyethylene, 4% aluminum

8 Pros and Cons Pros Preferable to landfilling/incinerating Encourages environmental stewardship from students Conserves trees Potential to save money Cons Can be smelly Can be messy Not available in every city in MN Transportation of product to end market may increase greenhouse gases Requires students to empty milk carton Potential to increase labor for custodial staff

9 Bulk Milk Dispenser Project Moving from disposable to reusable containers

10 Overview Waste reduction is preferable to recycling under MN waste hierarchy Pilot set up in public k-12 school to test feasibility of milk dispensers Examined both environmental and economic costs/benefits Collaboration between RAM, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Jeffers Foundation, Silver King, and New London-Spicer School District

11 Requirements for Schools Five meal components: milk, meat, grains, vegetables, fruit Students must take ½ cup of fruit or vegetables In offer vs. serve (must be used for 9-12 grades; optional for younger grades), student may decline two of the five categories as long as they have fruit or vegetables Milk can be declined but must be provided as option Requirements for reimbursement for all components: must be on tray before reaching the cashier Milk must be at least 8 oz. For schools utilizing the serve option: milk is required component of lunch Must provide more than one variety of milk: flavored milk must be 0% fat content; non-flavored milk can be 1% or 0% fat content

12 Pros and Cons Pros Colder milk: better refrigeration Increased milk consumption* Reduction in energy consumption* Saves trees Potential to save money on waste and recycling hauling services Cons Increase in water usage from school* Requires dishwasher Capital costs expensive Can increase labor for custodial and food service staff Waste created from bulk milk bags is not recyclable *As seen in pilot study results

13 Choosing the right fit Milk carton recycling or milk dispensers?

14 Things to consider Location: does your city offer carton recycling? Can you receive bulked milk? Labor: how much additional labor is your staff willing to take on? Cost: which initiative will be more cost-effective for your school long-term? Space: does your school have room for extra recycling bins? Can it accommodate dispensers located before cashiers?

15 Resources Helpful tools

16 Carton recycling RAM s resources

17 Milk dispensers RAM s resources Milk dispenser program in Olympia, WA