Cities that have slashed their waste by 80 percent

Llandfill after a landslide in Alpacoma, near La Paz, Bolivia, in January. (David Mercado/Reuters)
Terrence McCoy reports for The Washington Post

Little Kamikatsu was facing a big problem. The rural Japanese town of 1,500 residents didn’t know what it was going to do with its trash. Residents had always burned it, first in front of their homes or on the farms, then in a large community pit, then in an incinerator the government quickly banned out of fear of pollutants. The town didn’t have money for a newer, safer incinerator. It had to find a new way.“They had to look into zero waste,” said Akira Sakano, chair of the board of directors of the Zero Waste Academy, an educational institution in Kamikatsu, explaining the discussions of those days in the early 2000s.That research introduced the town to what was then a virtual unknown but has since grown into one of the most widespread and successful recycling efforts in history, bringing cities the world over to the precipice of what once seemed fantastical: the elimination of waste. Today, places in rural Japan to metropolitan Sweden send very little of their trash to the landfill. Many more — including the District — have a “Zero Waste” plan. In the United States, San Francisco leads the way, diverting more than 80 percent of its waste — two and a half times more than the national average. It has become a lifestyle, with millions of images flooding Instagram touting a #zerowaste existence, and generating new businesses. The  concept calls on people to think differently about waste. It starts with the creation of categories. There are recyclables, like aluminum cans and glass bottles. Reusables such as clothing. Compostables such as uneaten food. And then those that shouldn’t be used at all such as plastic bags, which are very difficult to recycle. The number of categories might expand or contract depending on the location, but the goal behind the zero waste philosophy is the same: to vastly reduce the amount of trash going to the landfill — “diverting” it, in the parlance of waste experts, away from landfills and incinerators.

Debbie Raphael, director of the San Francisco Department of the Environment, who oversees the city’s zero-waste initiative, said it’s top-down and bottom-up. In San Francisco, there are three bins, one for recycling, one for compost and one for the landfill. The categorization is left to residents, and the sorting is left to the city contractor, Recology. “It takes policy,” Raphael said of the zero-waste philosophy, which has purportedly cut the city’s waste in half. “It takes financial incentives. It takes consequences for not participating. And it takes an ethic . . . of a sense of responsibility for the health of our planet.”

It is a planet drowning in trash. Every year, the world is making more of it. In 2016 alone, the world’s cities produced more than 2 billion tons of solid waste. Americans produce a disproportionate amount, throwing away the equivalent of their own body weight every month. And as the planet’s population grows, the problems are poised to become significantly worse. Large landfills, according to a Washington Post project on trash, get as many as 10,000 tons of waste every day and are filling quickly. Within three decades, trash will outweigh fish in the ocean, according to the World Economic Forum.If zero waste has an origin story, it would wind back more than 40 years to a man in Berkeley, Calif., named Dan Knapp. At the time, he was out of sorts. He’d just lost his job. His wife had left him. He was living with a college buddy in town, having just hitchhiked from Eugene, Ore. And he couldn’t stop thinking about trash. “My curiosity was inflamed,” he said.A former college professor with a PhD in sociology, he rode his bike to the Berkeley landfill nearly every day and scavenged — hands going through refuse for valuable metals, mind going through big questions. Where does all of this stuff come from? In the chaos of a landfill, could order be found? Patterns began to emerge, and from those patterns, categories. Here were the textiles. And the glass piles. And rotting food. And soil hauled from construction sites. This wasn’t at all what he’d expected. He’d thought he’d find a bunch of unusable stuff. But it was an untapped resource.


Dan Knapp first found at the Berkeley landfill, around 1979. (Courtesy of Dan Knapp)

Recycling, he realized, could go way beyond what was then a lofty goal of 35 percent, beyond aluminum cans and paper. Our trash just needed to be categorized appropriately, he said. Recycling shouldn’t be made simple. It should be made complex. The thought ultimately led to a taxology of trash — called the “twelve master categories of recyclable materials” — laying some of the initial groundwork for the “zero waste” concept.But few people were listening. Knapp was just another Berkeley environmentalist — long hair, beard, the works. It took a city on the other side of the world, working on a plan that seemed stripped from the pages of the hippie manual. “In a natural ecosystem there is a balance,” began “No Waste by 2010,” a plan that Canberra, Australia, initiated in 1996. “The wastes from one process become the resources for other processes. Nothing is wasted. In a consumer society waste is an accepted part of life. A strategy is needed to reverse this trend.”Knapp, the owner of Urban Ore, which salvages Berkeley’s waste, said he was flown in as a consultant to advise the city. He brought back the town’s plan and soon was passing it around. He’d been calling his idea “total recycling.” But here was something much catchier, right there on the plan’s cover: No Waste, which quickly transformed to “zero waste,” according to interviews with environmentalists. “Dan was very instrumental in bringing [the plan] over,” said Neil Seldman, an official with the Institute of Local Self-Reliance in Washington.Read the full storyLike this? Click to receive free updates

Cities that have slashed their waste by 80 percent Read More »

European Union votes to ban single-use plastics By 2021

Robin Andrews is a contributor to Forbes

Plastic isn’t recyclable, and much of it ends up in the seas and oceans where, eventually, it returns to us through our diet. (Fachrul Reza / Barcroft Images / Barcroft Media via Getty Images)
As reported by BBC News, the European Parliament has voted to ban single-use plastics across the board in an attempt to stop the unending stream of plastic pollution making its way into the oceans.
Such plastic products are, as the name suggests, used just once and then thrown away. They include things like straws, plates, cups and cotton buds, and can take several centuries to degrade in the oceans where they are increasingly observed to be consumed by marine life. According to the European Commission, such plastics make up 70 percent of all marine litter.
A ban was proposed in May after the public outcry and awareness over the issue reached a new zenith. A vote at the European Parliament was held earlier this week, with a huge majority of MEPs – 571 yays to 53 nays, with 34 abstentions – agreeing to enforce the ban by 2021.
The ban is, at a glance, comprehensive. Aside from the 2021 complete ban on plenty of single use products, the use of plastics for which no alternatives currently exist – mostly food packaging – will have to be cut down by 25 percent by 2025. Beverage bottles will also required to be collected and recycled at a rate of 90 percent by 2025. Cigarette butts, remarkably resilient components of plastic pollution, will have to be reduced by 50 percent by 2025, and 80 percent by 2030.
Thankfully, despite the persistent Brexit nightmare looming on the horizon, it’s possible – although not certain – that this rule will go into effect and apply to the UK too before the end of the transition period and the country’s grim divorce from the EU is complete.



Read the full story

European Union votes to ban single-use plastics By 2021 Read More »

Two plan challenges to indicted Philly Councilman Henon

City Councilman Bobby Henon attends a March budget hearing. (Emma Lee/WHYY)
Four years ago, Philadelphia City Councilman Bobby Henon was unopposed in the Democratic primary and the general election.
He won’t get a pass this time.
Henon was charged with powerful electricians’ union Local 98 Business Manager John Dougherty in a sweeping corruption indictment last month, and at least two candidates say they’ll challenge him this year’s municipal elections.

Democratic hopeful

Deborah Young, 49, of Mayfair says she’ll file to run in the Democratic primary for Henon’s seat in the 6th  district in Northeast Philadelphia.

Deborah Young, the Democratic candidate running against City Councilman Bobby Henon wants to develop more affordable housing and economic opportunities for Philadelphia families. (Dave Davies/WHYY)

Young, 49, says she is an advocate working on issues of homelessness and addiction, two problems she’s battled in her own life.
“I know what it’s like to be homeless. I know what it’s like not to have food, not to have that paycheck,” Young said in an interview.
“I go out and help families all the time.”
Young said she suffered sexual abuse as a child and began drinking heavily as a teenager. Two relationships with abusive men followed in adulthood, and Young said she eventually found the therapy and support she needed to stabilize her life.
“I’m in recovery for 13 years,” she said.
She said she wants to work on City Council to develop more affordable housing and economic opportunity for struggling families.
Is she running because the indictment made Henon vulnerable?
She said she was interested in running before, but that the charges solidified her decision.
“I’m a Christian woman, and I did a lot of praying on this,” Young said, “and I woke up Thursday [Jan. 30, the day after the indictment] and saw all those charges.”
Young is a political novice, so she faces a challenge in building a political campaign. Her first task will be to collect signatures on nominating petitions, which must be submitted by March 12.
She needs notarized petitions with the signatures of 750 registered Democrats within the district, and petitions are often challenged by opponents who have experience and expertise on their side.
She said she hopes to tap her network of advocates and people in recovery to help with that.
Another potential candidate, community activist Patty-Pat Kozlowski, is considering entering the primary.
Kozlowski was a former aide to Democratic City Councilwoman Joan Krajewski, who held the seat before Henon won in 2011.
Last year, Kozlowski ran unsuccessfully as a Republican candidate for the 177thstate legislative seat in Northeast Philadelphia, losing to attorney Joe Hohenstein.

Republican challenger

Pete Smith, 52, until recently the president of the Tacony Civic Association, will seek the Republican nomination for the 6th district seat. At the moment, he is unopposed in the primary.

Pete Smith is the Republican candidate running against Bobby Henon for city council. (Courtesy of Pete Smith)

“We have a lot of mismanagement going on in this city,” Smith said. “It always seems we’re raising taxes, or implementing new tax procedures to fund programs that aren’t working.”
Smith criticized the Kenney administration’s sweetened beverage tax, which he said has harmed local bottlers and food retailers.
Asked how voters should view the charges against Henon, he said, “I would say to everyone in the Northeast, ‘Read that indictment like I did and make an informed decision.’”
He declined to say Henon should resign.
Smith said he’s proud of his work with the Tacony Civic Association and the 15thpolice district to increase patrols and make the Torresdale Avenue business district safer.


Two plan challenges to indicted Philly Councilman Henon Read More »

Op-Ed: Experts agree PSEG handout is unneeded

The following op-ed was written by Janet Tauro, chairwoman of Clean Water Action, NJ.

It was published in the Asbury Park Press on Wednesday, February 13, 2019


EnviroPolitics welcomes the views of PSE&G and other participants in this important public debate
  __________________

It’s official. Two independent regulatory entities and an economist have issued reports stating that PSE&G did not prove financial hardship necessitating an annual $300 million ratepayer-funded handout ramrodded by the NJ legislature in 2018.

The reports, filed with the state Board of Public Utilities (BPU), which will ultimately decide whether PSE&G receives the funding, throw cold water on the company’s claims that it would be economically unfeasible to continue the operation of its three nuclear units in Salem County; Salem I and II and Hope Creek without the ratepayer handout. Exelon Corporation, the owner of the Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station in Lacey Township, has a financial stake in the Hope Creek nuke and would share in the handout.

As reported in NJ Spotlight, the in-depth analysis by the NJ ratepayer advocate, Stephanie Brand, and the operators of the Pennsylvania, Jersey, Maryland (PJM) grid, which distributes the state’s energy from various sources, states that PSE&G overstated costs and under-represented revenues. PSE&G also did not adequately take into account the role that renewables and energy efficiency will play in providing the state’s baseload energy needs, according to the report. Instead, the company limited its analysis to showing the outcome of closing its three nuclear units all at once.

Not only would PSE&G not be operating in the red, but it is projected that the company will make between $338 to $477 million in annual profits over the next ten years, according to analysis by Paul Sotkiewicz, PhD., a former PJM chief economist who filed a separate report with the BPU. Sotkiewicz drafted the report for the PJM Provider’s Group, a coalition of power suppliers.

New Jersey ratepayers’ bills are among the highest nationally, and individuals would not be the only ones whose utility bills would increase if BPU approves the windfall. Some of the State’s largest employers would be especially hard hit. That’s one reason why an odd-mix of opponents have drawn together to oppose the handout; the NJ Large Energy Users Coalition, small business Main St. Alliance, Chemistry Council, Petroleum Council, Gasoline Retailers, and Convenience Store Association, as well as consumer groups like AARP and NJ Citizen Action, as well as environmental groups. The portion large employers might pay could be in excess of $500,000 annually, with some paying more than $1 million. Jobs could be lost if businesses are forced to pay higher electric bills or leave the state.

PSE&G’s greatest ally has been the Legislature and Senate President Steven Sweeney, who feared a loss of a varied energy mix, jobs, and an increase in greenhouse gas emissions if the state had to meet its energy needs with carbon-producing natural fracked gas from out of state sources. Many Salem and Hope Creek employees live in Senator Sweeney’s district. Clean Water Action has publicly called for a just transition for workers, renewable energy job training, and a complete decommissioning of the Salem and Hope Creek nuclear reactors by plant employees.

Using nuclear power as an answer to climate change is a smokescreen. Life-cycle emissions from the nuclear fuel chain, from mining, processing, to disposal, puts nuclear power as the third highest carbon emitter after coal-fired plants and natural gas, according to research done by Beyond Nuclear, a nuclear watchdog group based in Tacoma, Maryland.

Nor is nuclear power emissions free. Nuclear power plants emit daily doses of low-level radiation. This lethal cocktail of radionucleotides are odorless, colorless, and tasteless, but they are present nonetheless.

Independent study by epidemiologist Joseph Mangano, MPH, MBA, director of the Radiation Public Health Project, found elevated cancer mortality rates in Salem County. Studies in Europe and Scotland have found elevated pediatric cancer rates in communities around nuclear plants. Citizens and environmental groups have called for a definitive national study, which has never happened. A federal National Academy of Sciences cancer study around older nuclear plants nationwide, including Oyster Creek, was abruptly canceled in 2015.

The independent analyses should weigh heavily on the BPU’s final decision expected in April. The board should flatly deny PSE&G’s $300 million annual goody bag. It will do nothing to boost renewables, expand a 21st Century green job market, and achieve Governor Murphy’s goal of 100 percent renewable energy by 2050.

Janet Tauro
Clean Water Action, NJ Board Chair


Like this? Click to receive free updates

Op-Ed: Experts agree PSEG handout is unneeded Read More »

With a dozen power plants and pipeline projects on the drawing board, can NJ Gov. Murphy hit his green goals?

Scott Fallon reports for the North Jersey Record:

Gov. Phil Murphy will not be able to make his ambitious clean energy goals if he fails to stop 12 fossil fuel projects from moving forward, according to a report issued Wednesday by a coalition of environmental groups.

Advocates say four proposed power plants along with eight pipelines and other natural gas infrastructure would increase New Jersey’s greenhouse gas output by 30 percent and would derail Murphy’s efforts to power the state by renewable energy by mid-century.

“You can’t get to 100 percent renewable by 2050 by building more power plants and pipelines,” said Amy Goldsmith, state director of Clean Water Action. “You can’t build a single one of these projects and hope to achieve these goals.”

PSE&G’s Bergen Generating Station – one of the biggest contributors of greenhouse gases in New Jersey. (Photo11: File photo)

Among the projects are a power plant in the Meadowlands to produce electricity to New York, two pipelines through the protected Pinelands, a pipeline under Raritan Bay and New York Harbor to Queens and a pipeline from Pennsylvania through Central Jersey.

A full list and descriptions are below.

Those projects continue a decades-long trend in New Jersey, which saw pipelines and other infrastructure built to move an abundant supply of gas fracked in northern Pennsylvania to a large swath of customers in the Northeast.

Murphy inherited almost all of these projects from the pro-fossil-fuel Christie administration. But Murphy came into office last year championing an environmental agenda to transition New Jersey’s energy production to wind and solar power.

Construction of the Tennessee Gas pipeline through the protected New Jersey Highlands in 2013. The pipeline was built to allow more natural gas fracked from northern Pennsylvania to reach customers in the Northeast and elsewhere. (Photo11: THOMAS E. FRANKLIN/THE RECORD)

Alexandra Altman, a Murphy spokeswoman, said the governor “has directed his team to take a hard look at energy infrastructure projects as part of an updated Energy Master Plan, which will focus on renewable energy and shift away from outdated energy sources.”

Over the past year, Murphy has made moves to reduce the state’s contribution to global warming by rejoining a regional cap and trade system and laying the groundwork to build one of the nation’s largest offshore wind farms – a project that has been stalled for at least a decade.

His aggressive clean energy mandate requires 50 percent of all electricity sold in the state to come from renewable sources by 2030 and 100 percent by 2050.

But advocates say his efforts will be in vain unless he takes a strong stand against the natural gas industry, which generated 58 percent of electricity in New Jersey as of October. Only 3.5 percent came from renewable sources.

Opponents of the Penn East pipeline have objected to the federal government’s review process of the proposal. (Photo11: ~File)

The four power plants plus a recently completed PSEG plant in Woodbridge would spike carbon dioxide and methane emissions from New Jersey’s power plants by 76 percent, according to the report.

“It’s kind of scary that no one until now has done the basic math around these cumulative impacts or shared it,” said Ken Dolsky of the Don’t Gas the Meadowlands Coalition and a primary author of the report. “Our research shows building these gas projects would make it impossible to achieve Governor Murphy’s objectives.”

Dolsky and other members of a coalition called Empower New Jersey held a rally in Trenton on Wednesday calling for Murphy to pass a moratorium to halt progress on the dozen projects.


With a dozen power plants and pipeline projects on the drawing board, can NJ Gov. Murphy hit his green goals? Read More »

Three offshore energy vendors competing for NY contract

© Dawid S Swierczek / Adobe Stock
                                                                                           © Dawid S Swierczek / Adobe Stock
Eric Haun is editor of Offshore Engineer
Equinor, Vineyard Wind and Ørsted are among the offshore wind players who have submitted separate bids to supply New York with power from planned projects off the coast of Long Island.
The bids come in response to New York’s 800 MW procurement, its first formal solicitation targeted the developing U.S. offshore wind industry. New York is expected to announce the chosen supplier(s) later this spring.
Equinor’s 80,000-acre Empire Wind project site is located between 14 and 35 miles south of Long Island in the New York Bight, with a potential capacity of up to 2,000 MW of renewable power.
Vineyard Wind’s Liberty Wind proposal includes 400, 800 and 1,200 MW project size options and would be located in federal waters 85 miles away from the nearest New York shore.
Ørsted, alongside partner Eversource Energy, has submitted a proposal for the Sunrise Wind project which would be built more than 30 miles east of Montauk.
New York Governor Andrew Cuomo has stated it is his objective to eventually develop 9,000 MW of offshore wind energy to supply New York.

Three offshore energy vendors competing for NY contract Read More »