Do we have the right goals? Applying lifecycle thinking to materials management goals. Presented to The Evergreen Chapter of SWANA April 27, 2017

Transcription

1 Do we have the right goals? Applying lifecycle thinking to materials management goals Presented to The Evergreen Chapter of SWANA April 27, 2017

2 Our Recycling Impact WM has 3 MRFs is Washington and recycled over 800,000 tons in Washington State in 2016 WM s 2016 Recycling/Composting Tonnages Material Tonnage Paper/OCC 8,925,573 Mixed Organics 2,694,334 Glass 766,038 C&D/Wood 100,982 Total all materials: Material Page 2 Tonnage Metals 525,473 Plastics 416,160 E waste/other 117,618 Fly Ash 1,177,618 14,723,193 Impact: Million Metric Tons (MTCO2E) of GHG emissions reduced

3 West Coast versus U.S. all states are not created equal Policy drivers are in place in WA, OR and CA to drive high recycling rates: Convenient recycling PAYT Organics recycling Public education Community investments and support (recycling is a community value) As a result, recycling rates are much higher on the West Coast than in other parts of the U.S. SF/OAK Zero Waste by 2020 SEA 70% by 2025 PDX Comm + MF to 75% CA 75% WA 50% OR 50% LA 90% by 2025 NV 25% AK ID AZ UT MT 25% WY CO NM 50% HI 50% 100% by 2040 Austin ND 40% SD 35% NE 50% TX 40% KS OK 60% by 2030 Dallas MN 75% - Metro 35% - Other IA 50% WI MI 30 % IN 5 0 % OH 50% NY 50% PA 25% IL WV VA MO KY 25% 40% 25% NC TN 50% 40% AR SC 45% MS GA 35% AL 50% 25 LA % F L 7 FW/YW Ban/Mandate 5% Yardwaste ban YW LFGTE exemption No requirements City FW Ban/mandates ME 35 VT % 50NH % 40MA-40% % RI NYC Zero to landfill 70% by CT-60% 2030 NJ 65% DE MD- 80%

4 Recycling rates in large cities in the U.S.

5 Current recycling goals For 30 years, weight based recycling has been our measure of material management performance States, cities and corporations have developed high goals: 50%, 75%, 100% Cities added more materials and convenient programs to help achieve their goals. Current goals do not consider environmental outcomes Do we have the right goals?

6 Social & behavioral trends impacting recycling Demographics changes & on the go lifestyles Baby Boomers / Aging population Millennials Smaller household size = Smaller portions & more pre-prepared food 79 million this year (larger than baby boomers) Not bound to traditional packaging (cans, jars and bottles)

7 Evolution of Packaging

8 What we recycle now

9 E Commerce: Explosive Growth Online sales account for just 3% of the $795B CPG market While revenue from traditional retail drew 1.5% in 2015, on line sales revenue grew by 14.5% A projected four-year compounded average growth rate of 18% means that nearly half of the growth the industry will experience through 2020 will come through digital channels. Bemis Corporation Millennials are digital savvy consumers and are approaching their peak spending years. Much of their spending will be online.

10 Relevance to Packaging & Recycling Bemis Corporation As companies pivot toward e-commerce, they are moving away from rigid or glass packaging that may be prone to damage when shipped to a consumer s home. Flexible pouches are easier to ship, offer a lower total package cost, and optimize the product-to-package ratio.

11 Packaging Peaked in 2000 Per capita packaging generation has fallen from 0.27 tons per person annually in 2000 to less than 0.24 tons in 2013 Per capita packaging is roughly equivalent to 1983 levels. Courtesy: SPC

12 Weight/volume trends WEIGHT VOLUME 8% increase in weight 37% increase in volume 100 1,273,741 Tons ,300 77, ,627 Cubic Yards Glass Metal Plastic Paper

13 Are our recycling goals realistic? Easily Diverted Recyclable Materials 30 40% Low cost, hi diversion potential Common materials OCC, paper, metals, basic plastics, glass Local infrastructure available Success through best practices Today Harder to Divert Organics 20 30% Food waste, green waste Infrastructure limited Higher level of segregation and best practices req d Growing Challenging to Divert 10% Small rigids, flexible packaging, etc. Not compatible w/ existing infrastructure Contamination potential Investment needed to prove solutions Tomorrow Manageable? 20% Not separable Sanitary wastes, dirty streams, Trash High cost to separate/clean If not landfill, need alt infrastructure Unknown Diversion Focused Mgmnt Sustainable Materials Mgmnt Materials Management Two different approaches Informed by science Focused solely on environment

14 Shifting Perspective: Changing the Goal Is our goal to recycle more tons? Or reduce environmental impact? o The goal is to reduce environmental impacts. Recycling is one way to achieve the goal. Reduction is a better way to achieve the goal.

15 Sustainable Materials Management/Lifecycle Thinking SMM encourages life cycle based decisionmaking and collaborative and integrative approaches to problem solving. It encourages the least costly, most beneficial system improvement, but does not prescribe any one particular approach.

16 How is Sustainable Materials Management (SMM) different from Reduce, Reuse, Recycle? The 3 R s waste hierarchy doesn t look at the environmental benefits of Reduce, Reuse, and Recycle. The hierarchy is an implied measure of how we should manage material but uses no data. Conversely, SMM uses data to analyze materials management strategies to the highest environmental benefits. This data allows us to prioritize our efforts based on environmental and economic inputs. We care about all environmental impacts, so SMM gives us a more complete picture of how we should manage materials, goods and services. SMM is a paradigm shift in how we think about managing waste materials

17 Source: US EPA

18 Weight based recovery measurement

19 GHG Impact of One Ton Recycled Material (MTCO2e)

20 WM Spectrum Project: An evaluation of the environmental impacts & costs w/in our industry US EPA 2013 Facts & Figures 214 million ton base Best practice recycling = 85% Food recovery = 50% US EPA WARM Model GHG emissions focus National average disposal cost WM collection & processing cost 10-year average recycling values Landfill Add Landfill + with gas to energy (LFGTE) Add Residential Recycling Add Commercial Recycling Add Residential Yardwaste Add Foodwaste Add post recycing residual recycling Add Gasification

21 WM Spectrum Overview 84% of GHG reduction benefit from 32% diversion through Residential & Commercial SS Recycling Scenarios build upon each other 84% GHG benefit from aggressive LFG capture & use + recycling 32% of MSW More processing = high incremental cost for low incremental GHG reduction 21

22 Recycling drives significant reduction of GHG GHG Emissions Reduction (Emissions Increase) from Baseline (1b, in Millions Metric Tons CO2e) Greatest GHG benefits from recycling 20 LF LFGTE RSS Current CSS YW FW RMRF GAS WTE Collection Plastic to Oil Methane Capture & Use Recycling Composting Anaerobic Digestion Engineered Fuel Gasification GHG impact from collection is negligible. NGV trucks reduces collection GHG impact 20%, but off small base Above x axis = emissions reductions Recycling is bulk of the potential GHG emissions reductions 22

23 $350 $300 $250 Collections = 70 80% of cost with traditional disposal & recycling services Price breakdown by Category Processing costs become significant for waste conversion technologies $200 Price Per Ton MSW $150 $100 $50 $ LF LFGTE RSS Current CSS YW FW RMRF GAS $(50) $(100) Product Sales Collection Price Landfill Transfer & Disposal Cost Processing Costs + Overhead Capital Collections is 70 80% of integrated costs until post processing options Infrastructure cost of new technologies is very high Different constituents Different parts Different metrics 23

24 $500 HDPE Marginal GHG reduction benefit by material type (COLLECTION + PROCESSING + AVOIDED DISPOSAL) Marginal benefit of GHG reduction ($/MTCO2e) $400 $300 $200 $100 $ $(100) $(200) $(300) $(400) PET Aluminum Steel Cans Corrugated Containers Mixed Paper Newspaper $(500) Glass Marginal Benefit per MTCO2e Abated (WM 10 yr avg Commodity Pricing) CA LCFS Credit Price (Dec 2016) EPA Social Cost Carbon (3%, 95% Percentile) Assumes:WMRS variable processing cost by material type, 10 yr avg WM commodity pricing, 2013 EPA recovered tons & LF Baseline for GHG calculations Environmental benefits & cost per ton of carbon reduction for recycling only Includes collection, processing and commodity values 24 Results show the benefits of recycling paper, metal and plastic bottles

25 Strategic Recycling Efforts Focus on recycling more of the right things, better

26 Commercial Generator Weight GHG Emissions Scenario Baseline Source Separated Mixed Recyclables Foodwaste added 37 Cardboard Glass Mixed waste [CATEG ORY NAME] Mixed Plastics Mixed Paper Foodwaste Glass [CATEG ORY NAME] Mixed Metals Mixed Recyclables Cardboard Cost/ton

27 Ontario Materials Study Source: Dr Calvin Lakham, York University MRF feedstock increased by 15% over the past decade Cost increased by 63% (adjusted for inflation) Analysis indicates that 7 materials caused the increased cost with negligible contribution to recycling: Gable Top Cartons, Aseptic Containers, Paper Laminates, Plastic Film, Plastic Laminates, Polystyrene and Other Plastics.

28 Summary Keep the focus on waste reduction and recycling quality Focus on Design for Recycling and using post consumer materials Prioritize programs for best overall environmental results Continue to work along the entire value chain to coordinate programs and messaging. Policies should focus on the primary goal: Reducing overall environmental impact

29 Thank you!