: Mission Possible? Washington State Recycling Association - May 13, 2013 David Allaway Oregon Dept. of Environmental Quality allaway.david@deq.state.or.us
: Mission Possible? Mission Impossible?
Why Materials Management? Because Materials Matter Use is increasing, both here and abroad Our economy is tied to global materials markets We re increasingly dependent on non-renewable materials With dependence comes economic and geo-political risks Rapid rise in material use has led to serious environmental effects
Traditional Sector-Based View of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions (2006) Agriculture 8% Commercial 6% Residential 5% Electric Power Industry 34% Industry 19% Transportation 28% Source: US EPA (2009)
Materials Matter: Systems-Based Geographic Emissions Inventory (2006) Provision of Goods 29% Building Lighting and HVAC 25% Materials 42% Provision of Food 13% Transportation of People 24% Source: US EPA (2009) Use of Appliances and Devices 8% Infrastructure 1%
Materials Management: A Life Cycle View
For Materials, Upstream Emissions Dominate Provision of Materials 42% Freight 7.1% Landfills & Wastewater 2.2% Building Lighting and HVAC 25% Extraction and Manufacturing 32.2% Transportation of People 24% Use of Appliances and Devices 8% Infrastructure 1%
From Discards Management to Materials Management: A full view of impacts across the life cycle A full view of actions across the life cycle
From Discards Management to Materials Management:
From Discards Management to Materials Management:
From Discards Management to Materials Management: A full view of impacts across the life cycle A full view of actions across the life cycle Why? Because most impacts are upstream
Normalized impact (baseline w/37% recycling = 100) Mission Possible: Example of Actions Across the Life Cycle: PET Water Bottles 120.00 100.00 80.00 60.00 40.00 20.00-37% recycling rate 62% recycling rate Baseline = PET, half-liter, 13.3 grams, 0% post-consumer recycled content (PCR), on-site molding, purified municipal water (reverse osmosis, ozone and uv), 50 miles to retail, 5 miles home-to-retail, co-purchase w/24 other products, no chilling.
Normalized impact (baseline w/37% recycling = 100) Baseline = PET, half-liter, 13.3 grams, 0% post-consumer recycled content (PCR), on-site molding, purified municipal water (reverse osmosis, ozone and uv), 50 miles to retail, 5 miles home-to-retail, co-purchase w/24 other products, no chilling. Mission Possible: Example of Actions Across the Life Cycle: PET Water Bottles 120.00 100.00 80.00 60.00 40.00 20.00-37% recycling rate 62% recycling rate 62% recycling rate, lightweighted
Normalized impact (baseline w/37% recycling = 100) Mission Possible: Example of Actions Across the Life Cycle: PET Water Bottles 120.00 100.00 80.00 60.00 40.00 20.00-37% recycling rate 62% recycling rate 62% recycling rate, lightweighted tap water (worst case) Baseline = PET, half-liter, 13.3 grams, 0% post-consumer recycled content (PCR), on-site molding, purified municipal water (reverse osmosis, ozone and uv), 50 miles to retail, 5 miles home-to-retail, co-purchase w/24 other products, no chilling.
Normalized impact (baseline w/37% recycling = 100) Mission Possible: Example of Actions Across the Life Cycle: PET Water Bottles 120.00 100.00 80.00 60.00 40.00 20.00-37% recycling rate 62% recycling rate 62% recycling rate, lightweighted tap water (worst case) tap water (best case) Baseline = PET, half-liter, 13.3 grams, 0% post-consumer recycled content (PCR), on-site molding, purified municipal water (reverse osmosis, ozone and uv), 50 miles to retail, 5 miles home-to-retail, co-purchase w/24 other products, no chilling.
The Bogeyman of Waste
Pitfalls of the Waste Bogeyman: 1. Leads us to potentially unhelpful solutions Burning garbage at home Reuse and recycle everything Everything must be recyclable (and/or made from recycled content)
0% Recycled Content LDPE Air Packets 0% Recycled Content Polystyrene Loose Fill 0% Recycled Content Corn Starch Loose Fill 0% Recycled Content Kraft Paper Dunnage 10% Recycled Content Newsprint Dunnage 30% Recycled Content LDPE Air Packets 30% Recycled Content Polystyrene Loose Fill 50% Recycled Content Kraft Paper Dunnage 50% Recycled Content Newsprint Dunnage 100% Recycled Content Molded Pulp Loose Fill Lbs CO2e*/10,000 packages Mission Possible: Void Fills in E-Commerce Packaging (Boxes) 12000 10000 8000 6000 4000 2000 0 *on a cradle-to-distribution center basis
Pitfalls of the Waste Bogeyman: 1. Leads us to potentially unhelpful solutions Burning garbage at home Reuse and recycle everything Everything must be recyclable (and/or made from recycled content) Zero waste * *As commonly interpreted as zero landfilling
Ecotoxicity Potential (lb 2,4 D eq per 1000 gallons drinking water) Mission Possible: Compostable (PLA) and Recyclable (PET) Water Packaging Ecotoxicity Potential 250 220 200 150 111 111 100 50 0-50 PLA, disposed PLA, 62% composted PET, 62% recycled Darker colors are upstream impacts; lighter colors are downstream impacts (discards management)
Eutrophication Potential (lb N eq. per 1000 gallons drinking water) Mission Possible: Compostable (PLA) and Recyclable (PET) Water Packaging Eutrophication Potential 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.79 0.79 0.4 0.3 0.22 0.2 0.1 0-0.1 PLA, disposed PLA, 62% composted PET, 62% recycled Darker colors are upstream impacts; lighter colors are downstream impacts (discards management)
Global Warming Potential (lb CO2 eq. per 1000 gallons drinking water) Compostable (PLA) and Recyclable (PET) Water Packaging Global Warming Potential (PLA decomposes in landfill) 2000 1,810 1500 1,464 1,120 1000 500 0 PLA, disposed PLA, 62% composted PET, 62% recycled -500 Darker colors are upstream impacts; lighter colors are downstream impacts (discards management)
Global Warming Potential (lb CO2 eq. per 1000 gallons drinking water) Compostable (PLA) and Recyclable (PET) Water Packaging Global Warming Potential (PLA inert in landfill) 1400 865 1,105 1,120 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0-200 -400 PLA, disposed PLA, 62% composted PET, 62% recycled -600 Darker colors are upstream impacts; lighter colors are downstream impacts (discards management)
Pitfalls of the Waste Bogeyman: 1. Leads us to unhelpful solutions 2. Downstream actions have limited potential
The importance... and limitations... of discards management provision of materials 42% appliances & devices buildings transporting people 2006 U.S. GHG inventory with 32% recovery (MSW) provision of materials 36% savings 6% appliances & devices buildings transporting people 2006 U.S. GHG inventory with very high recovery rate (~95% MSW + >70% C&D)
Pitfalls of the Waste Bogeyman: 1. Leads us to unhelpful solutions 2. Downstream actions have limited potential 3. Distracts us from working upstream... or worse, makes it harder to do so
An update to Oregon s State Integrated Resource and Solid Waste Management Plan (1995-2005)
Materials Management Workgroup
2050 Vision for Sustainable Materials Management in Oregon Intended to set a clear picture of where we hope to land Addresses materials produced and used in Oregon Expressed in summary form and with detailed desired outcomes
2050 Vision for Materials Management in Oregon: Oregonians in 2050 produce and use materials responsibly conserving resources protecting the environment living well
Desired Outcomes for 2050 Producers make products sustainably. Every option is a sustainable option. People live well and consume sustainably. Materials have the most useful life possible before and after discard.
Framework for Action Not an implementation plan Currently prioritizing actions DEQ will reevaluate every six years
Oregon s 2050 Vision and Framework for Action
Background Papers Documents available: www.deq.state.or.us/lq/sw/materialsmgmtplan bkgrddocs.htm
Background Papers BMPs for managing food scraps Conversion technologies Review of the waste hierarchy Trends in waste generation; potential for additional recovery Rare earth metals Materials management and greenhouse gases Other environmental criteria Waste prevention Materials and green building Sustainable consumption opportunities and challenges Policy and program options to advance sustainable production and consumption Product stewardship What are sustainable materials and sustainable materials management?
Implementation: Short-Term Priorities Program realignment Research projects: highest-and-best use Waste plastics Waste food
Implementation: Short-Term Priorities (continued) Potential statutory changes Goals and measures Oregon s recycling opportunity model Program funding Redesign of website; new information Upstream projects Green building Environmental footprint of products Existing work
38 Looking back 37 years
: Mission Impossible? Mission Possible?
: Mission Possible! Washington State Recycling Association - May 13, 2013 David Allaway Oregon Dept. of Environmental Quality allaway.david@deq.state.or.us