California's showdown over waste feedstocks

A showdown is looming in the California State Senate this summer over an issue that is at the heart of the nationwide drive to develop and deploy bioenergy conversion technologies.

In a state that prides itself on its landmark achievements in outlining Global Warming Solutions (AB 32), Bioenergy Action plans, and Low Carbon Fuel Standards, access to some of the most sustainable feedstocks for conversion to bioenergy is currently blocked by inexact statutory language and permitting regulations. As a result, municipalities and utilities are frustrated in their ability to exercise local authority over how they meet stringent waste diversion goals to reduce reliance on landfills for dumping post-recycled waste.

Post-recycled municipal solid waste is considered to be the most sustainable feedstock for biomass conversion into biofuels and biopower because, unconverted, this waste emits greenhouse gases while it decomposes. It is the only feedstock that has "negative" cost - receiving facilities receive per ton "tipping fees" that vary from region to region. Socially, it could provide good urban jobs that cannot be off-shored.

At the rate that municipal landfills are filling up and closing down, there is no time to wait. The state's largest landfill in Puente Hills, which services Los Angeles County, is scheduled to close in 2013. MSW currently disposed of there will instead be sent by train to a landfill 200 miles away!

Legendary former California State Senator (President Pro Tem) David Roberti and his Bioenergy Producers Association (BPA) is working overtime this month lining up support for passage of the bipartisan California Assembly Bill 222. With over 60 organizations supporting it (including municipalities, utilities, labor organizations, waste disposal facilities, and others) the bill was unanimously approved by the Assembly Utilities and Commerce Committee on April 27, 2009, and passed the State Assembly by a vote o 54-13 on Monday, June 1st. The Senate is expected to be a much more challenging battleground where, without support, the act might not get out of committee.

AB 222 proposes to update the Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989. It is one of those seemingly innocuous pieces of legislation that only a policy wonk could love, but it is extremely important because without its passage municipalities will continue to find it virtually impossible to permit and fund deployment of municipal solid waste conversion technologies around the state. In a Catch-22 they are penalized for not deploying solutions that achieve minimum state diversion targets..

If passed, deployment of such facilities could divert approximately 30 million tons of post-recyclables from landfills while producing biopower and biofuels in accord with state (AB 32) and national initiatives (EISA, the Farm Bill, and pending Waxman/Markey cap and trade bill) to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

The strongest opposition to the legislation is being coordinated by Californians Against Waste (CAW). They see the bill as a threat to their sizable influence over waste streams in California. The BPA acknowledges the contributions that CAW has made to reducing, reusing, and recycling MSW in the state but dispute the contention that this measure will set recycling back. Instead, they emphatically assert it will help expand recycling in the state.

To point out other discrepancies, BPA is currently distributing a document titled CAW Misrepresents Renewable Energy Bill (AB 222) throughout Sacramento itemizing CAW's objections ("myths") and countering them with the facts at the foundation of AB 222 as written. The document charges that "Californians Against Waste has repeatedly attempted to discredit or thwart legislative and regulatory initiatives that would make possible the production of advanced biofuels and green power from these resources."

At a common sense level, if society can't even agree that post-recyclables are qualified feedstock for conversion to alternative forms of energy then the likelihood of other feedstocks being qualified is virtually nil. It is time for legislators to put more authority back in the hands of municipal governments to meet their diversion goals and to determine what is and what is not safe and sustainable. Public and private industries will always have to meet stringent standards on emissions and pollution for any solutions they deploy.

----------------
technorati bioenergy, biofuels, waste, pollution, urban, landfill, legislation, California

CA Draft Scoping Plan comment: Recycling and Waste

This is one of a series of comments submitted to the California Air Resources Board for their draft version of the California Climate Change Draft Scoping Plan. Other BIOenergy BlogRing comments are linked here:
• Challenge the Status Quo
• Recycling and Waste
• Sustainable Forests
----------------

The Draft Scoping Plan correctly identifies recycling and waste management as a focus area for mitigation of greenhouse gases. According to CARB's own estimates, there are 40 million tons of unrecycled waste pouring into California's landfills each year. This is roughly equal to the amount that was accumulating before California's very successful recycling policies were enacted twenty years ago.

The California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB) needs to pursue a more aggressive approach than merely extending methane capture and composting solutions. California's waste management companies already lead the nation in their efficiency for capturing methane from landfills. The closure of landfills, not methane capture, is the urgent problem that requires attention.

Composting is not a solution for two reasons: 1) the resulting compost does not meet a consistent purity standard to make it marketable and 2) the demand for compost is so low that these programs are not economically sustainable.

Environmental sustainability will only come with economic sustainability. For this reason Zero waste as currently defined by some recycling groups is an unattainable idealistic vision for which the costs will grow geometrically as it approaches zero percent. The biggest reduction in the rate of landfilling will come if clean conversion technologies, which are economically sustainable, are developed as an extension of recycling.

Most unrecyclable trash can be used for generating renewable electricity or converting into carbon-neutral biofuels. Some of our biggest landfills in our largest cities are scheduled to close within the next decade necessitating trans-shipment to other sites - sometimes hundreds of miles away. This is a waste of GHG emitting trucking and rail energy (see independent 2005 UC/Riverside analysis). Instead, conversion technologies sited at waste sorting facilities, a plan already under development in Los Angeles, can cleanly reduce the volume going to landfills by approximately 85%.

Without question, municipalities should receive diversion credit for redirecting unrecycleable biomass from landfills to conversion technologies that can cleanly produce bioenergy and bioproducts from the refuse.

I personally believe there should be a recycling integrity clause in the Scoping Plan that insures that all recycled waste is turned into products within California to reduce and control global GHG emissions. That is the only way that the hard choices about waste stream recycling, greenhouse gas emissions, and economic sustainability can be honestly addressed. Currently most recyclables are shipped to China (at great GHG expense) because of that country's poor wages, lack of workers rights, and appallingly low pollution standards.

----------------
technorati bioenergy, biofuels, waste, landfill, legislation, California

Navigating to Zero Waste in California

The non-profit California Resource Recovery Association (CRRA) recently held its 31st annual CRRA Conference and Trade Show in the coastal city of San Pedro in Los Angeles County attracting recycling professionals from throughout the state. The theme of this year's event was "Navigating to Zero Waste." As a global leader in the environmental sustainability field...

The CRRA works to expand markets for recycled materials, promotes sustainable materials policies and is a clearinghouse for information, innovation, and industry and governmental initiatives. CRRA newsletters, workshops and conferences provide up-to-the-minute information on issues that shape the recycling and composting fields.

Responding to the goals of California's landmark Integrated Waste Management Act (AB 939) of 1989 the CRRA is to be credited for helping communities throughout the state divert over 54% of its urban waste from landfills through recycling. What goes unrecorded is the amount of waste that never makes it to the municipal recovery facilities (MRFs) through many of the coordinated programs it has helped to foster and implement to significantly reduce the source of waste. This is achieved by identifying major sources of waste production and helping the producers recognize their responsibility to streamline wasteful and waste producing practices.

Unfortunately, "Navigating to Zero Waste" will never be reached simply through application of the 3 R's (Reduce, Reuse, and Recycle) using existing technologies at the rate at which waste grows in the state. Even if 60% of waste is diverted, the same principal volume is likely to remain. This threatens urban landfills like L.A.'s vast Puente Hills landfill (which will close in 2013) and a San Diego landfill (which will close in 2012) and other close proximity urban repositories. The remaining refuse will then be shipped at great expense and fuel usage to outlaying landfills as far as 200 miles away.

So it was heartening to see that two of the plenary speakers were Councilmember Greig Smith and California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB) member Rosalie Mulé.

Greig is a refreshing example of a local politician who responds to the voting public by listening to their concerns, enlisting professionals to create a solution, and making sure that the solution gets significant political support that will outlive the terms of the signatories. L.A.'s 20-year RENEW LA plan obligates the Los Angeles Bureau of Sanitation to divert unrecycled trash to biorefineries located at MRFs thereby reducing waste volume by 85% while co-generating electricity and very possibly producing biofuels (biooils and ethanol). He reported that selection of the exact technology to be implemented at the first site will be made later this summer.

Rosalie Mulé was appointed to the CIWMB by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger because of her experience working in the private sector waste industry. She reiterated the Board's commitment to advancing programs that minimize waste, manage landfills, promote producer responsibility, and maximize waste usage. She applauded the efforts of organizations such as CRRA to make California a leader in the world for how to create and implement recycling programs. During her speech she stated:

We also want to encourage innovations and technologies that will provide for the most efficient and effective management and reuse of material. There are a lot of new technologies on the horizon, some of them are proven and some of them are not but I like to compare them to space exploration. We would not have the things we have today had we not gone out there and conducted the research and done the exploration and navigated the uncharted waters.

It is time to move beyond the current established methods of waste reuse to develop new waste conversion alternatives. Many of these practices are being employed successfully in Europe and Japan where population density mandates technological solutions that place waste conversion facilities within close proximity to populated areas. We have the luxury of space but new popular standards, like AB32 the Global Warming Solutions Act, require renewed industry action on a timely basis.

technorati BIOwaste, bioenergy, biofuels, waste, urban, landfill, legislation, California

Fortune looks at waste source reduction

California generates roughly 40 million tons of unrecyclable waste each year. When asked what alternatives do recycling activists have planned for diverting this waste from landfills the first response is usually "source reduction."

Is source reduction a realistic answer to the problem of landfills? Will it satisfy the needs of urban centers like Los Angeles which are running out of landfill space at an alarming rate - faster than even herculean efforts to reduce, reuse, and recycle can attain? Marc Gunther of Fortune magazine recently wrote a positive yet simplistic sounding essay on the subject.

While any reduction is a welcome development, it stretches credibility to believe that source reduction alone will solve the landfill problem - particularly in a free enterprise and free trade country that imports more than it produces. The costs of re-engineering will impact competitive pricing ceding even more business to developing countries not saddled with our idealism.

Here are some excerpts from Marc's article...

----------------
The end of garbage
Can you imagine a world of zero waste? Cities and towns across the world - and a surprising number of companies - have adopted that goal, says Fortune's Marc Gunther
By Marc Gunther, Fortune senior writer

Zero waste is just what it sounds like - producing, consuming, and recycling products without throwing anything away. Getting to a wasteless world will require nothing less than a total makeover of the global economy, which thinkers such as entrepreneur Paul Hawken, consultant Amory Lovins, and architect William McDonough have called the Next Industrial Revolution.

They want industry to mimic biology, where one species' excrement is another's food. "We're not talking here about eliminating waste," McDonough explains. "We're talking about eliminating the entire concept of waste."

While the concept of zero waste is as old as nature, recycling is newer. In 1968, Madison, Wis., became the first U.S. city to offer curbside recycling, for newspapers. Recycling got a boost with Earth Day in 1970, and again after the EPA imposed strict regulations on landfills in 1991. When done right, recycling saves energy, preserves natural resources, reduces greenhouse-gas emissions, and keeps toxins from leaking out of landfills.

"When you look at a dumpster, you see trash," David Redfield says. "When I look at it, I see materials and money." Redfield, a Bentonville, Ark., native who has put in 15 years at Wal-Mart, is the man in charge of getting the world's biggest retailer closer to its zero-waste goal. It's good for the planet, he says, and for the company's bottom line. As Wal-Mart CEO Lee Scott has explained, "If we had to throw it away, we had to buy it first. So we pay twice: once to get it, once to take it away."

technorati BIOblog, BIOwaste, waste, urban, landfill, California