SCI 207

mrsaiz

Chap9.pdf

Home >Environmental science homework help >SCI 207

9 Managing Our Waste

CarryOnDroning/iStock/Getty Images Plus

Learning Outcomes

After reading this chapter, you should be able to

• Compare and contrast linear and cyclical systems of production. • Describe municipal solid waste, including practices and policies surrounding its disposal. • Evaluate the various practices for reducing or minimizing municipal solid waste. • Trace the various paths wastewater treatment can take. • Define industrial waste and explain how industrial ecology can help reduce it. • Identify different types of hazardous waste and the different ways of managing it. • Explain the dangers of e-waste. • Summarize different approaches to designing a cyclical economy.

310

The previous five chapters of this book have all had titles that started with the word sustain- ing. They focused on both the challenges and needed next steps in sustaining our agricultural resources, freshwater resources, oceans, energy resources, and atmosphere and climate.

This chapter is a little different in that it is primarily focused on managing. As we’ll discuss, however, managing our waste—and more specifically, minimizing or eliminating waste gen- eration in the first place—will go a long way toward helping sustain all of those resources covered in earlier chapters. Our waste problem is not mainly an issue of what we should do with all the waste we generate, although this is an important concern. It is that we are using vast amounts of resources to produce products that we often only use once and then throw away. The greatest concern with waste is the resource depletion and resulting environmental impact, not the trash generated at the end.

Take, for example, something as simple as an aluminum beverage can. Americans use about 100 billion aluminum cans every year, and we only recycle about half of that total. This means that every year we send roughly 50 billion aluminum cans to landfills or waste incinerators. And while dumping or burning this many cans every year creates environ- mental impacts, the far bigger environmental issue has to do with the impacts of producing aluminum cans in the first place.

Aluminum can production starts with baux- ite mining, an energy-intensive process that involves large, open-pit mines in places like Australia, Jamaica, and Brazil. Bauxite ore is then shipped all over the world in large tanker ships to be refined and converted into

a product known as alumina. Alumina refining is also quite energy intensive and produces a residual slurry that is highly toxic. Alumina then undergoes a process known as smelting, whereby it is heated to form aluminum blocks called ingots; the ingots are then heated and converted into aluminum sheets that can be used to make cans. The newly made aluminum cans can then be filled, labeled, and packaged for distribution and sale. These final steps are also energy intensive and produce a variety of other solid wastes.

As can be seen from this example, the environmental impacts of drinking a can of soda or beer and tossing the can away are mostly “upstream” in the process of producing the can, rather than “downstream” in its disposal. It’s for this reason that environmental scientists make use of an approach known as life-cycle analysis (LCA) in examining and comparing the envi- ronmental impact of a product or process from beginning to end, or “from cradle to grave.” An LCA of aluminum can production shows that it takes 20 times more energy to produce an aluminum can from virgin raw material than to make it from recycled aluminum cans. In this way, LCA can reveal where the biggest environmental impact of a product’s use are located.

This chapter will take a closer look at some of the challenges and opportunities associated with managing the waste products that are generated by our economy. In addition to the

Eye Ubiquitous/SuperStock Recycling aluminum cans cuts down on energy use, land disturbance, and other environmental problems associated with making cans from new raw materials, such as bauxite from this mine.

311

Section 9.1 What Is Waste?

familiar household waste (like aluminum cans) that we generate each day, we will also con- sider the impacts and appropriate management of wastewater, industrial waste, and hazard- ous waste. We’ll also consider the rapidly growing challenge of electronic waste, or e-waste. The final section of the chapter will consider a variety of approaches that promise to help substantially reduce or even eliminate waste as an environmental problem to begin with. These approaches are based on a fundamental redesign of our economic system and the ways in which we design, produce, market, consume, and dispose of the products we use in our daily lives.

9.1 What Is Waste?

Broadly speaking, waste is unwanted or unusable material discarded by humans. The word human is a key feature of this definition. This is because environmental scientists know that there is no such thing as waste in nature. In natural systems, all “waste” material that is dis- carded, excreted, or expelled from one organism is useful for another organism. At its most basic, in nature waste = food. For example, when winter arrives and the maple and oak trees in the forests of the book authors’ home state of Pennsylvania drop their leaves, those leaves don’t just pile up as waste. Instead, they become food for bacteria, fungi, worms, and other microorganisms that decompose them, producing humus and returning nutrients to the soil. We can see how natural systems are based on a cyclical design in which no real waste is generated.

For most of human history, humans were also part of these cyclical systems. Small population numbers and the organic nature of virtually all human waste at the time meant that any mate- rial discarded by humans could be broken down and utilized by other organisms. This began to change as human numbers grew and as settlements became larger and more concentrated. The volume of human waste began to grow too large for other organisms to break down, and waste started to pile up and pollute nearby land and water. In just the past few decades, with the introduction of plastics and other synthetic materials, the composition of human waste also changed. Today, with close to 8 billion people on the planet and our economic system generating increasingly novel synthetic materials, we are generating solid, liquid, and gaseous wastes at rates that have created a worldwide waste crisis.

Compared with the cyclical design of natu- ral systems, most human systems are highly linear. In the words of economist Kate Raworth, we have developed a “take-make- use-lose” model of economic activity. Con- sider again the example of the aluminum can. We take bauxite ore and fossil fuels from the ground to make aluminum cans. We then use the aluminum can for 5 or 10 minutes while we sip our favorite bever- age, and then, 50% of the time, we lose that can as waste in a garbage bin. This linear, one-way flow of material that eventually

Huguette Roe/iStock/Thinkstock The average American throws away the equivalent of his or her own body weight in trash every month.

312

Section 9.2 Municipal Solid Waste

becomes waste is known as the waste stream. Every time we dispose of an aluminum can, we are forced to go back “upstream” to the beginning of the process and extract more bauxite, fossil fuels, and other materials to make even more aluminum cans. This is a fundamentally different approach than what we find in nature, and it is this linear vs. cyclical contrast that lies at the root of our waste management challenge.

In other words, we can view the massive amounts of waste produced by human systems as a sign of a fundamental “design flaw” in the way we do things. We’ve developed a linear, take- make-use-lose economy that is increasingly focused on producing items that are used only once or a handful of times and then thrown away. Every time we do that, there are “upstream” and “downstream” effects. On the “upstream” side we have to keep extracting raw material from the Earth and must consume large quantities of energy to convert that raw material into useful products. On the “downstream” side we have to keep finding new places to dispose of our consumer and individual waste products.

The results of this design flaw are staggering. The average American throws away the equiva- lent of his or her own body weight in trash every month. This is the direct or “downstream” impact of our current economic system. The “upstream” impacts are even worse. The pro- duction of all the products we use and dispose of generates as much as 35–40 times more waste than what we directly throw away, meaning that our consumption patterns generate the equivalent of our own body weight in solid, liquid, and gaseous wastes every day (Mervis, 2012; Bradford, Broude, & Truelove, 2018). This 35-to-1 upstream–downstream ratio is even more pronounced for some products. For example, it’s estimated that the production of a lap- top computer weighing 2 kilograms (4.4 pounds) results in approximately 14,000 kilograms (31,000 pounds) of waste, when considering the full life cycle of its production—including mining, manufacturing, packaging, and distribution (Lepawsky, n.d.). This is a 7,000-to-1 waste-to-product ratio.

Recall the words of the late ecologist Barry Commoner (1971), who observed that “every- thing must go somewhere” and “there is no away” (p. 39). What then should we do with our waste? Over the long term, the best way to deal with the waste crisis is to fix the fundamen- tal design flaw of our economic system and move from a linear to a cyclical economy. Such a move would work to eliminate waste and create economic systems in which, as in nature, waste = food. Some companies and entrepreneurs are already moving in this direction, and you’ll learn more about their efforts later in the chapter. In the meantime, however, we have to manage the 3.2 million metric tons of solid waste generated worldwide every day, as well as the over 90 million metric tons of “upstream” solid, liquid, and gaseous waste generated each day to produce the products we throw away so quickly.

9.2 Municipal Solid Waste

Municipal solid waste (MSW) is what we usually refer to as “trash” or “garbage.” It consists of common household items like food waste, packaging, old clothing, junk mail, paper/plastic plates and cups, and so on. MSW also includes common office and retail waste, but it excludes industrial waste, hazardous waste, and construction waste. This section will first examine the types and rates of MSW generated in the United States and the methods used to deal with and

313

Section 9.2 Municipal Solid Waste

manage that waste. This will be followed by a discussion of some of the environmental and health impacts of MSW, as well as current laws and policies that are in place to manage this issue.

Statistics Figure 9.1 shows trends in MSW generation in the United States from 1960 to 2015. While MSW per capita, or per person, has declined slightly in recent years, Americans still gener- ate substantially more MSW per person than residents of other industrialized nations. For example, per capita generation of MSW is 3.7 pounds per day in Germany, 2.9 in the United Kingdom, and 2.8 in Sweden.

Figure 9.1: MSW generation rates, 1960–2015

Municipal solid waste per person has leveled off since around 1990, but total MSW generation continues to increase.

300

250

200

150

100

1960

2.68 2.96

3.25 3.25 3.66 3.83

4.57 4.52 4.74 4.69

4.45 4.48 88.1 104.4

121.1 127.8

151.6 166.3

1965 1970 2015

Year

1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

208.3 217.3

243.5 253.7 251.1

262.4

To ta

l M

S W

g e n

e ra

ti o

n (

m il li o

n t

o n

s )

P e r c

a p

ita g

e n

e ra

tio n

(lb s /p

e rs

o n

/d a y )

In terms of composition, we can look at the MSW we generate a couple of different ways. Fig- ure 9.2 presents the composition of U.S. MSW in 2015 by material in one pie chart and the composition of U.S. MSW by product category or use in the other. We see that close to 30% of all waste is packaging, and most of that packaging is of no real use to consumers and is sim- ply thrown away after an item is purchased and opened. Nondurable goods like clothing and newspapers account for 20% of MSW, while food waste and yard trimmings account for 28%.

https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2018-07/documents/2015_smm_msw_factsheet_07242018_fnl_508_002.pdf

314

Section 9.2 Municipal Solid Waste

The remaining 20.4% of MSW is made up of durable goods, including items like furniture and appliances, many of which could be repaired, refurbished, or recycled into other products if we had systems in place to do so.

Figure 9.2: MSW by material vs. use

We can categorize MSW by material (a) or by use (b).

Source: Adapted from “Advancing Sustainable Materials Management: 2015 Fact Sheet,” by US Environmental Protection Agency, 2018 (https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2018-07/documents/2015_smm_msw_factsheet _07242018_fnl_508_002.pdf ); adapted from “Trash in America,” by A. Bradford, S. Broude, and A. Truelove, 2018 (https://uspirgedfund.org/sites/pirg/files/reports/US%20 -%20Trash%20in%20America%20-%20Final.pdf ). CC BY.

(a)

(b)

Containers and packaging

29.7%

Other 3.6%

Other 1.5%

Glass 4.4%

Metals 9.1%

Yard trimmings

13.3%

Rubber, leather, and textiles

9.3%

Yard trimmings

13.3% Plastics 13.1%

Nondurable goods 20.2%

Food 15.1%

Durable goods 20.4%

Wood 6.2%

Food and other organic

materials 14.9%

Paper 25.9%

Management Practices MSW is currently managed in only a few ways in the United States. Slightly more than half (52.6%) of MSW is sent to landfills, while another 12.8% is burned in waste incinerators. A little over one fourth of MSW is recycled, and another 8.9% is composted. The combined impact of recycling and composting means that over 81 million metric tons of MSW is diverted from landfills and incinerators each year. Let’s look briefly at each of these waste manage- ment approaches.

https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2018-07/documents/2015_smm_msw_factsheet_07242018_fnl_508_002.pdf

https://uspirgedfund.org/sites/pirg/files/reports/US%20-%20Trash%20in%20America%20-%20Final.pdf

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

315

Section 9.2 Municipal Solid Waste

Landfills In industrialized countries like the United States, MSW is dumped and buried in what are known as sanitary landfills. Unlike open dumps, which are still common in many developing countries, sanitary landfills incorporate a number of features designed to minimize environ- mental impact, reduce unpleasant odors, and cut down on pests like flies and rats.

New waste brought to a sanitary landfill is dumped, spread, and then covered on a regu- lar basis with a thin layer of soil to reduce odors. More importantly, sanitary landfills are lined on the sides and bottom with clay, sand, and synthetic rubber liners to prevent liquid waste, known as leachate, from seeping into the ground and contaminating groundwater (see Figure 9.3). Leachate is produced as rain and snow falls on a landfill and slowly perco- lates through the layers of garbage. As leachate moves through a landfill, it picks up toxins and other hazardous material and carries it to the bottom. Pipes that run through a sanitary landfill’s liners collect the leachate, which is then pumped to a leachate treatment system.

Figure 9.3: Sanitary landfill

A sanitary landfill has features that minimize environmental impact. These include leachate collection systems that protect groundwater, and methane gas collection systems that capture “landfill gas” used to generate electricity.

Methane gas collection

system

Electrical generation

plant

Waste

Leachate collection

system

Sand

Synthetic rubber liner

Groundwater

Leachate storage and treatment

Clay

Waste

Leachate collection pipe

316

Section 9.2 Municipal Solid Waste

As waste decomposes in a landfill, it produces methane gas. Recall from Chapter 8 that meth- ane is a powerful greenhouse gas, and recall from Chapter 7 that it is the main constituent of natural gas. As a result, more and more sanitary landfills are putting systems in place to col- lect this so-called landfill gas and use it to generate electricity. Despite these efforts, sanitary landfills are the third largest source of methane emissions in the United States.

Overall, sanitary landfills are a vast improvement over open dumps, but they are not fool- proof. They take up space, and communities with landfills nearby have to deal with constant traffic, noise, dust, and smells.

The proportion of the MSW waste stream destined for landfills has declined from over 90% in 1960 to a little over 50% today (see Figure 9.4). However, because the total volume of MSW has roughly tripled in that time period, we are still sending close to 127 million metric tons of waste to landfills each year. In some regions of the country where open land is scarce and populations are high, such as the Northeast and the West Coast, space for new landfills is dif- ficult to find and older landfills are filling up. As a result, cities like New York are now forced to ship their MSW hundreds of miles to sanitary landfills in upstate New York and Pennsylvania. This has become expensive, and New York City’s residents and businesses now spend a com- bined total of over $2 billion every year to send their garbage somewhere else.

Figure 9.4: Management of MSW in the United States

The United States now sends only a little more than half of its waste to landfills, but because the total volume of waste has increased, that proportion still represents 127 million metric tons of waste.

Recycling 25.8%

Waste to energy 12.8%

Composting 8.9%

Landfilling 52.5%

As landfills fill up, local governments and waste management companies need to look for new sites or consider incineration. Once a landfill has reached capacity, it can be capped and cov- ered with grasses and other vegetation. However, because the waste contained in that landfill

https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2018-07/documents/2015_smm_msw_factsheet_07242018_fnl_508_002.pdf

317

Section 9.2 Municipal Solid Waste

will continue to gradually settle and shift, that land cannot be built on. Another concern is the long-term viability of landfills. Over time it’s expected that virtually every landfill, even some of the most well designed, will eventually leak. When a leak does occur, the leachate can enter groundwater and severely contaminate local drinking water supplies and nearby water- ways. Closed landfills need to be closely monitored for leaks, water contamination, methane buildup, and other possible issues.

Incinerators The United States currently incinerates or burns close to 13% of its MSW. Incineration reduces the weight of waste by about 75% and the volume by about 87%, leaving behind ash, which is usually sent to a landfill. About 90% of the MSW destined for incineration goes to what are known as waste-to-energy facilities. These incinerators burn MSW the same way a coal-fired power plant burns coal, using heat from the incineration process to boil water to produce steam to spin a turbine and generate electricity.

While waste-to-energy incinerators help reduce the weight and volume of our waste—and generate electricity in the process—they also have some downsides. Emissions from inciner- ators include greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide, particulate matter, and other pollutants. In addition, because some of the waste sent to incinerators contains toxic materials, burning that waste can release toxins to the nearby air. Environmental health experts are especially concerned about the release of dioxin from incinerators, as well as heavy metals like mercury. Dioxin is formed by burning chlorine compounds in incinerators, and it is a highly persistent toxin that does not break down easily once in the environment. Dioxins can cause reproduc- tive problems, weaken the immune system, and cause cancer. Burning some types of plas- tic and other synthetic materials can also potentially release hazardous gases and impact the health of local populations. Lastly, the ash that is removed from incinerators can also be highly toxic and must be handled carefully. It’s often the case that MSW incinerators are located in communities that have a higher proportion of low-income and minority residents, raising questions of environmental justice. Environmental justice refers to the fair treatment of all people when it comes to ensuring clean, healthy environments.

Learn More: Environmental Justice

The term environmental justice first came into widespread use in the early 1980s as a way to highlight situations in which low-income and/or minority communities appear to bear a greater burden of polluting factories, waste facilities, and other unwanted land-use activities. Prominent examples of environmental injustice include what is called “cancer alley” in predominantly African American communities of Louisiana, the impacts of uranium mining on Navajo Indian communities in New Mexico and Arizona, and the siting of a toxic waste facility in a poor, rural region of North Carolina. The environmental justice movement emerged as a way both to study and to document this form of environmental discrimination, as well as a social movement to fight back against such trends.

(continued)

318

Section 9.2 Municipal Solid Waste

Recycling One way to reduce the volume of MSW destined for landfills and incinerators is to recycle it, or process it so it can be used to make something else. Advocates for recycling will often argue that this approach helps conserve scarce landfill space. While this may be true, we know from the last section that landfill scarcity is a less important rationale for recycling compared to all the energy and resources saved by not having to make an aluminum can, glass bottle, or sheet of paper from virgin raw material. Currently, a little over half of Americans are able to leave their recyclables out for pickup, an approach known as curbside recycling. The growth in curbside recycling programs and general environmental awareness have led to an overall increase in recycling rates in the United States, although rates are uneven by region and by product. We currently recycle or compost over 50% of paper, yard trimmings, and aluminum but only 30% of glass containers and 10% of plastics.

On the face of it, driving heavy trucks around to pick up empty aluminum cans and plas- tic bottles may not seem like a very envi- ronmentally friendly thing to do. But LCAs reveal that in most cases, and especially for aluminum and metal, recycling delivers clear environmental advantages.

One of the main challenges with recycling in the United States has to do with economics and market conditions. Markets for some recycled materials, especially plastics, are not always well developed in every region of the country, because there may be a lack of companies and facilities that process these materials as well as a lack of industries that

Learn More: Environmental Justice (continued)

Environmental justice researchers have found evidence that the cleanup and mitigation of hazardous sites tend to take longer in such communities compared with wealthier and/ or predominantly White communities. While environmental discrimination and injustice continue to be problems in the United States and in other countries around the world, the environmental justice movement has helped shine a light on this issue and empower communities to challenge developments that threaten their air, water, and health.

To learn more about the history of the environmental justice movement, examples of battles for environmental justice, and what is being done to help communities fight back against this trend, check out these resources:

• https://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice • https://www.nrdc.org/stories/environmental-justice-movement • http://www.columbia.edu/cu/EJ/index.html • https://www.sierraclub.org/environmental-justice

hroe/iStock/Getty Images Plus Recycling is one way to divert volume from our landfills. However, in the United States currently only about 50% of paper, 30% of glass, and 10% of plastics are recycled.

https://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice

https://www.nrdc.org/stories/environmental-justice-movement

http://www.columbia.edu/cu/EJ/index.html

https://www.sierraclub.org/environmental-justice

319

Section 9.2 Municipal Solid Waste

can make use of the recycled material. Prior to 2018 as much as 70% of the plastic material collected in American recycling programs (an estimated 4,000 shipping containers every day [Carrig, 2018]) was shipped to China for processing. However, in 2018, citing local environ- mental conditions, China announced that it was banning imports of recyclable material that did not meet strict contamination standards (Parker & Elliott, 2018). Overnight, recycling programs in the United States that relied on exporting their collected materials to China were stuck with thousands of tons of paper, plastic, and cardboard and were unsure what to do with it (see the Close to Home feature). In some cases this recyclable material has been redirected to landfills and incinerators. Other shipments of recyclable materials have been diverted to Vietnam, Malaysia, or the Philippines, but in many cases these countries have not always been equipped to deal with the sudden influx.

Despite these setbacks and challenges, recycling programs still divert close to 64 million met- ric tons of MSW from landfills and incinerators each year, in the process reducing “upstream” environmental impacts associated with making new products from virgin raw material.

Close to Home: Reducing Solid Waste

Ever since China implemented its 2018 ban on recycling imports, developed nations have been scrambling to find new ways to handle their recycling waste. It is a perfect example of a global environmental issue. However, if we look at the fallout of China’s ban more closely, we will see that global issues like this can have very local consequences.

Take rural communities, for example. Small towns often lack the resources to build their own recycling facilities. In the past many rural areas have relied on inexpensive Chinese services to make their recycling programs financially viable. With the implementation of the recycling ban, many of these small recycling programs have had to cut back on services in order to deal with rising costs. Phenix City, Alabama, for example, stopped accepting all plastic materials, while Deltona, Florida, stopped providing curbside pickups. Other locations like Kingsport, Tennessee, were hit harder by the ban and suspended all recycling operations.

Larger municipalities are being impacted as well. Some cities have been forced to expand their waste processing facilities or find new international destinations for their recycling. Unfortunately, these solutions are not always convenient or cost-effective. Sacramento had to stop accepting plastics numbered 4–7 until its facilities could catch up, and Philadelphia began incinerating large amounts of its recyclables in response to higher processing fees.

(continued)

Steve Parsons/EMPPL PA Wire/Associated Press China’s ban on recycling imports has caused recyclable materials to pile up in towns across the United States.

320

Section 9.2 Municipal Solid Waste

Composting Composting is the biological decomposition of organic material in the presence of oxygen and water. Composting converts food waste, leaves and yard trimmings, and other organic waste into a rich mulch that is an excellent additive to gardens. Composting can be prac- ticed at a variety of different scales. Small kitchen composting tubs and bins can be used to compost kitchen waste right in a house or apartment. Larger backyard composting bins can handle kitchen and food waste as well as leaves and yard trimmings. At a much larger scale, municipal or institutional composting facilities can handle thousands of pounds of composta- ble material every day and produce nutrient-rich mulch for local parks and gardens. Allegh- eny, the residential college where the book authors teach in Pennsylvania, processes close to 454 kilograms (1,000 pounds) of food waste and compostable paper each day, combining it with landscaping materials and wood chips to produce a mulch that is used on campus lawns, gardens, and playing fields.

Close to Home: Reducing Solid Waste (continued)

Not all the consequences of China’s recycling ban are negative, however. Chinese recycling services were inexpensive, but by some estimates they were also responsible for more than 25% of the world’s mismanaged waste. Mismanaged waste is waste that is not safely recycled or disposed of in controlled landfills, and a large fraction of it ends up polluting waterways and oceans. Some environmentalists are hopeful that China’s ban will result in the expansion of local recycling systems that are regulated and closely monitored.

If you are curious about how China’s recycling ban is affecting your community, search online for the phrase “how recycling is changing in all 50 states” and see if you can find Waste Dive’s recycling news tracker. Waste Dive is an online industry publication that began tracking the effects of China’s recycling ban on U.S. recycling programs in 2017. Find your state and see if its waste systems have been significantly impacted. You can also look for specific changes to local recycling programs in your state’s news feed. What kinds of changes are happening in your neighborhood? Do these changes make it more difficult or less difficult to manage waste in your region? Do you think there will be a significant environmental impact as a result of these changes?

Of course, recycling is just one of many strategies for reducing the environmental impacts of our waste. Often the best options involve reusing waste materials or avoiding them completely. Now that you have a little more knowledge about your local waste systems, can you come up with some strategies to reduce your waste stream and ease the burden on your local recycling programs?

321

Section 9.2 Municipal Solid Waste

Waste Minimization While sanitary landfills, waste-to-energy incinerators, recycling, and composting are cur- rently accepted ways to deal with MSW, they all deal with the problem of waste after it is already generated. A better approach to waste management is known as source reduction or waste minimization. The idea behind these approaches is to prevent waste from being generated in the first place. Source reduction strategies are often based on what are known as the “four Rs” of waste reduction: refuse, reduce, reuse, and if necessary, recycle. Ask yourself if you really need something or if you can “refuse” extra packaging or a plastic bag that might come with the purchase of a product. Next, consider ways to reduce the use of a product, such as drinking from a fountain or using your own refillable water bottle rather than buying a plastic bottle of water. Finally, find ways to reuse the products that you do have to buy, and consider buying those items that are better suited for reuse in the first place. For example, you might reuse take-out containers or plastic bags, or you might buy a higher quality razor rather than cheaper disposables. Only after we have tried refusing, reducing, and reusing to minimize our waste generation should we consider recycling or disposal.

Mukhina1/iStock/Getty Images Plus OceanProd/iStock/Getty Images Plus

Composting can happen in a home’s kitchen or backyard, as well as at a larger municipal level. Those without backyards can save their food scraps in a bin on the countertop or in the freezer and take them to a compost facility or community garden—or blend them for their own plants or invest in a worm bin.

Learn More: Composting at Allegheny

Watch the following video to learn more about how Allegheny College handles its composting.

• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=luWCapS5oKQ&feature=youtu.be

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=luWCapS5oKQ&feature=youtu.be

322

Section 9.2 Municipal Solid Waste

Figure 9.5 shows the desired outcome of a source reduction or waste minimization strategy. The first triangle shows what we currently do—landfill over half of our MSW, recycle and com- post a little over one third, and incinerate the rest. The second triangle shows what we could or should be doing, flipping the triangle so that our first approach for dealing with MSW is to not generate waste to begin with. While it’s tempting to blame the absence of waste minimization on people being too lazy or not caring enough about the environment, the reality is a bit more complicated than that. As consumers we often have limited choice over how the things we need are packaged, and following the four Rs can take time that many of us don’t always have. As a result, more and more “eco-entrepreneurs” are looking for ways to make “doing the right thing” a little easier. We’ll learn more about some of their ideas later in the chapter.

Figure 9.5: Source reduction

The left triangle represents our current approach to waste, in which we dispose of most of it before recycling and reusing. The right triangle represents what we should be doing: focusing on minimizing waste by minimizing our consumption (refusing and reducing) and then reusing and recycling the waste we do create. Disposal should be a last resort.

More preferable

Less preferable

Current approach Desired approach

Dispose

Incinerate

Recycle

Refuse/ Reduce/ Reuse

Refuse

Reduce

Reuse

Recycle

Dispose

Incinerate

Policies As the volume of solid waste has grown over time in the United States, so have the number of federal, state, and local laws and regulations designed to manage this challenge. At the federal level, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976 is the major legisla- tion pertaining to MSW management. The RCRA gives authority to the EPA to more closely regulate and set mandates for waste management practices. Those mandates are the basis for states and local governments to develop integrated waste management plans that set goals for recycling, waste reduction, and landfill and incinerator standards. In recent years, more

323

Section 9.3 Wastewater

and more state and local governments have gone further and instituted bans on single-use plastic bags at retail stores. California and Hawaii were the first states to pass a plastic bag ban, and New York State’s ban will go into effect in March 2020. Notable U.S. cities with plastic bag bans include Boston, Chicago, New York, San Francisco, Seattle, and Washington, D.C.

9.3 Wastewater

Wastewater is liquid waste in the form of sewage; water from showers, sinks, and household drains; storm water runoff; and water used in commercial and industrial facilities. Up until about a century ago, wastewater from homes and businesses was simply dumped into nearby rivers, lakes, and other waterways—the “solution to pollution is dilution” approach. As popu- lations increased, and as concerns over wastewater pollution and potential health dangers from exposure to wastewater grew, wastewater treatment facilities became more common. Unfortunately, the kind of wastewater treatment that most of us take for granted in developed countries like the United States is not always affordable in poorer regions of the world.

Recall from Chapters 4 and 5 that nutrients from wastewater (especially nitrogen and phos- phorous) can cause eutrophication and dead zones in waterways. Therefore, one of the pri- mary goals of wastewater treatment is to remove those nutrients from wastewater before returning it to the environment. Wastewater treatment typically happens in one of two ways in the United States, depending on where you live. Roughly 80% of Americans rely on munici- pal sewage treatment plants (MSTPs) to treat their wastewater. If you reside in a city or town, the wastewater from your home or apartment is probably treated in an MSTP. If you are part of the other 20%—who typically live in a rural area not serviced by an MSTP—you make use of a septic system.

Municipal Sewage Treatment Plants MSTPs use a series of steps to convert raw sewage and other wastewater into treated water that is clean enough to be returned to streams and waterways. Before wastewater even enters an MSTP, it is pretreated to remove large solids like plastic bottles, rags, and femi- nine hygiene products that may have been flushed down toilets or washed into storm drains. Wastewater then flows into settling tanks for primary treatment. Smaller sol- ids and particles sink to the bottom of the tanks, where they form a sludge that is removed and sent to landfills.

Wastewater is then pumped to another set of tanks for secondary treatment. Second- ary treatment is sometimes called biologi- cal treatment because it uses bacteria and other microorganisms to decompose the

SKY2014/iStock/Getty Images Plus At municipal treatment plants, raw sewage is treated before being released to nearby rivers and streams.

324

Section 9.3 Wastewater

organic waste present in the wastewater. These microorganisms are doing exactly what they do in nature, consuming organic waste in order to utilize the nitrogen, phosphorous, and other nutrients in that waste for their own survival (remember, in nature waste = food). As these microorganisms die, they also sink to the bottom of the secondary tanks and form a sludge that is rich in nutrients. In some locations, MSTP operators remove and dry this sludge in greenhouses before making it available to local farmers as fertilizer. Some MSTPs are now also turning that sludge into nutrient-rich pellets that can be sold to farmers and gardeners.

After secondary treatment, wastewater will be handled differently, depending on how advanced the MSTP is and where the wastewater will be sent after treatment. Most MSTPs in the United States simply pump wastewater from secondary treatment tanks into lagoons, where it is treated with chlorine to kill any dangerous pathogens that might be present. This wastewater, now called treated water, is discharged into nearby streams, rivers, or other waterways. Newer MSTP designs can include advanced treatment options that are able to remove even more nutrients and any remaining pathogens from the wastewater. For example, UV lamps can be used to kill all pathogens in the wastewater. Advanced treatment has now made possible the use of treated wastewater for direct human consumption, an option that may not sound very appealing but is becoming more and more of a necessity in drought- prone regions facing severe water shortages.

Septic Systems Septic systems make use of a septic tank buried on the property near the home. Wastewater flows from the home into the septic tank, where the solids sink to the bottom and liquids flow outward into an area known as a leach field or drain field. The solids at the bottom of the sep- tic tank are broken down by microorganisms in much the same way as in an MSTP. The liquids that flow into the leach field are likewise broken down by microorganisms naturally present in the soil. Every few years septic tanks need to be pumped out by a professional service to remove solids that have settled to the bottom.

Alternative Systems A handful of cities and municipalities in the United States are making use of alternative waste- water treatment systems that mimic the way wastes are treated in nature. Arcata, California, for example, pumps wastewater into treatment wetlands or marshes, where microorganisms and plants consume nutrients present in the wastewater. Just as wastewater moves through steps or stages in a traditional MSTP, Arcata’s wetland system involves a series of treatment and water-quality enhancement marshes. Some of these wetland treatment systems are built around existing marshes, whereas others are deliberately built as constructed wetland waste- water treatment systems.

Another novel approach to wastewater management involves what are known as liv- ing machines. Living machines are usually indoor systems that treat wastewater from that building by moving it through a series of tanks filled with plants, fish, and microorganisms that feed on and break down organic waste. While the thought of treating wastewater (aka

325

Section 9.4 Industrial Waste

sewage) inside a building may not sound appealing, living machines have proved to be attrac- tive additions to public spaces in corporate headquarter buildings, colleges and universities, and middle and high schools.

9.4 Industrial Waste

Industrial waste includes all the unwanted solid, liquid, and gaseous materials from fac- tories, mining operations, agricultural facilities, and other large-scale commercial activities. The EPA (n.d.b) estimates that over 6 billion metric tons of industrial waste is generated in this country every year, with over 90% of that total in the form of wastewater. Because most industrial waste is managed on-site by the company that produces it, we know less about the exact composition and management of this waste stream than we do for MSW or municipal wastewater. And while industrial waste is also subject to government regulation, it takes so many different forms and is produced in so many different ways that regulatory oversight is not always so straightforward. Some of the top sources of solid industrial waste include min- ing operations, metal production (e.g., steel mills), electric power plants, petrochemical refin- eries, and oil and gas production. The largest sources of liquid industrial waste are oil and gas wells, animal feedlots, dairies, and other agricultural activities.

As a general rule, businesses have a number of incentives to try to reduce their generation of industrial wastes. For starters, managing and properly disposing of or treating industrial waste can be expensive. Second, high levels of industrial waste could be a sign of an inefficient operation. You could say that “waste is waste,” and smart businesspeople are usually on the lookout for ways to reduce waste and become more efficient. One problem with this, how- ever, is that in the United States we often subsidize product inputs (such as with fossil fuel subsidies) and fail to penalize or closely regulate industrial waste output. This reduces the financial incentive for businesses to try to minimize wastes.

One approach to managing and reducing industrial waste is known as industrial ecology. Just as ecology is the study of the relationships and interactions between living organisms and their surrounding environment, industrial ecology is the study of how materials and energy flow through industrial systems—and how to lessen their impact while maximizing their value. Industrial ecologists work to design industrial systems that mimic the way natu- ral systems handle waste. Since we know that in natural systems there really is no such thing as waste (waste = food), industrial ecology attempts to arrange factories and other industrial facilities so that the waste products from one might be a useful input to another.

One of the first large-scale examples of industrial ecology developed naturally as cooperation between industries in the industrial city of Kalundborg, Denmark. There an electric power plant shares waste heat with local greenhouses, fish farms, and an oil refinery, helping reduce overall energy use. The power plant also sends the ash left after combustion (known as fly ash) to a local cement manufacturer and wallboard factory. In addition, the fish farms share nutrient-rich fish waste with local farmers, while the oil refinery sends waste sulfur to a chemical refinery and surplus natural gas to the wallboard factory and power plant.

326

Section 9.5 Hazardous Waste

While industrial waste has not been eliminated in Kalundborg, the industrial ecology approach has helped move a linear production system to one that is more cyclical and in line with what’s found in nature. The businesses that are involved in this system in Kalundborg were motivated to take these steps due to a combination of regulatory pressure and a simple desire to cut costs and increase profits. This demonstrates that there is a lot of promise in a combined approach whereby environmental regulations are used to set goals and expecta- tions but businesses are given some freedom to find a way to meet those goals.

9.5 Hazardous Waste

Hazardous waste is discarded solid or liquid material that contains substances that are toxic or poisonous, ignitable or flammable, corrosive, or reactive or explosive. The EPA estimates that industrial activities in the United States generate about 240 million metric tons of haz- ardous waste every year, with the chemical and petroleum industries responsible for roughly 70% of this waste.

In addition to the industrial hazardous waste produced, environmental scientists are also call- ing attention to household hazardous waste. This includes items like dead batteries, unused paints and paint thinners, certain household cleaners, fluorescent lightbulbs, motor oil, and lawn chemicals like herbicides and pesticides. The EPA estimates that the average American generates about 5 kilograms (11 pounds) of household hazardous wastes each year. Because we tend to let these items accumulate in basements and garages, the EPA also estimates that the average American home has nearly 50 kilograms (110 pounds) of household hazardous waste stored in it. If not stored properly, these wastes pose a serious health risk to children and pets. Also, most of us don’t know how to properly dispose of household hazardous waste. As much as 90% of these materials are currently being poured down drains or thrown out with regular garbage, rather than being brought to designated household hazardous waste collection sites.

Learn More: Disposing of Hazardous Waste

There are a number of resources out there to help individual consumers safely and responsibly dispose of household hazardous wastes. Here are a few:

• https://www.epa.gov/hw/household-hazardous-waste-hhw • https://davidsuzuki.org/queen-of-green/dispose-household-hazardous-waste • https://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/HomeHazWaste

Another form of hazardous waste that is extremely dangerous is radioactive waste. The most dangerous form of radioactive waste, known as high-level radioactive waste, is spent uranium fuel rods from nuclear power plants (see the Apply Your Knowledge feature box). At present, high-level radioactive wastes from nuclear power plants in the United States are

https://www.epa.gov/hw/household-hazardous-waste-hhw

https://davidsuzuki.org/queen-of-green/dispose-household-hazardous-waste

https://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/HomeHazWaste

327

Section 9.5 Hazardous Waste

stored on-site at these facilities. Fuel rods are first placed in “spent fuel pools” made of reinforced concrete with steel liners. These pools are typically about 40 feet (12 m) deep and filled with water to keep the spent fuel rods cool. After about 5 to 10 years, fuel rods are transferred from pools to what is known as “dry cask” storage, stainless steel canisters encased in concrete. But spent fuel pools and dry cask storage are only con- sidered to be temporary storage solutions since high-level radioactive waste remains dangerous for thousands of years.

Low-level radioactive waste from hospitals and research labs is less dangerous but more common. Currently, these forms of waste are stored on-site until enough volume has accumulated for it to be shipped to one of only a handful of licensed low-level radioactive waste disposal facilities in the United States.

KYDPL KYODO/Associated Press Nuclear waste is first stored in spent fuel pools. This is the cooling pool for the No. 4 reactor building for the now disabled Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant.

Apply Your Knowledge: How Long Will Radioactive Waste Persist?

In Chapter 3 we saw that much of human history has been characterized by what we call exponential growth, whereby greater numbers of people are added to the planet each year. A process called exponential decay operates in the opposite direction. Instead of creating more and more of something, you remove less and less of it with time. Exponential decay can be used to describe a variety of processes that slow over time, including the way in which some hazardous waste materials break down in the environment. Radioactive materials found in nuclear waste falls into this category, and there are certain challenges when it comes to managing materials that persist in the environment.

In the field of nuclear physics, heavy atoms are those that contain large numbers of protons and neutrons in their atomic nuclei. Radioactive decay is a process by which heavy atoms like uranium, plutonium, and thorium naturally break down into lighter atoms. Large amounts of energy can be released during radioactive decay, and when harnessed effectively, this mechanism can power nuclear bombs and nuclear reactors. Unfortunately, the energy that is released during many decay processes can damage living tissue. Exposure to large amounts of radioactive material can lead to illness or death from radiation sickness. Low levels of exposure over prolonged periods can also increase the risk of certain kinds of cancer. As a result, many environmentalists are concerned about the waste products from old weapons facilities, nuclear power plants, and coal power plants that are often highly radioactive.

(continued)

328

Section 9.5 Hazardous Waste

Apply Your Knowledge: How Long Will Radioactive Waste Persist? (continued)

The data in Figure 9.6 describe radioactive waste materials from a nuclear power plant that is fueled by highly processed uranium. In this figure, time is plotted along the x-axis while radioactivity is plotted along the y-axis. Radioactivity refers to the amount of energy being released by the material as it decays. It also indicates the amount of radioactive material that remains and the danger that it poses to humans. We can see that the nuclear material in this example decays very quickly at first, but as time goes on, the amount of material leaving the environment begins to slow. If you look closely, you will notice that the hazardous waste is still radioactive after 500 years.

(continued)

Figure 9.6: Decay of nuclear waste

This graph shows the radioactivity of nuclear waste over hundreds of years. The process is an example of exponential decay, and radioactivity remains even after 500 years.

Source: Data from Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development Nuclear Energy Agency, 1996.

100 200

Time (years)

300 400 500

300,000

200,000

100,000

R a d

io a c ti

v it

y (

G B

q )

329

Section 9.5 Hazardous Waste

Apply Your Knowledge: How Long Will Radioactive Waste Persist? (continued)

We can also replot this data using a logarithmic scale, as shown with the solid line in Figure 9.7, meaning that the numbers along the two axes increase by factors of 10 instead of regular intervals. This allows us to analyze a larger range of values on the two axes and observe trends that are occurring at lower levels of radioactivity. In this format, we can compare the radioactivity of nuclear waste (the solid line) with a level that represents a safe amount of radioactivity (the dashed line). Use this information to estimate the amount of time it would take before the waste in this example could be considered safe.

Materials like these take thousands of years to decay, and this can pose some major logistical challenges for waste management. Where do we put long-lived hazardous waste so that it says safely away from people? Once we do this, how do we ensure that stored waste does not become disturbed by future development and natural disasters? Even though some environmentalists argue that nuclear power provides a powerful tool for combating climate change, others are wary of producing such long-lasting hazardous waste. Certainly, all these questions and many others need to be considered before producing large quantities of hazardous waste that decay slowly.

Figure 9.7: Decay of nuclear waste using logarithmic scales

The solid line indicates the radioactivity of high-level nuclear waste. The dashed line represents a safe level of radioactivity. How long would it take for this nuclear waste to be considered safe?

Source: Data from Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development Nuclear Energy Agency, 1996.

10,000,000

1,000,000

100,000

10,000

1,000

R a d

io a c ti

v it

y (

G B

q )

10 100 1,000 10,000

Time (years)

Nuclear waste

Safe level of radioactivity

330

Section 9.5 Hazardous Waste

Environmental Health Risks Hazardous waste, and hazardous materials generally, pose a number of environmental health risks. Outside of substances that are highly flammable, explosive, or corrosive, environmental health experts are particularly worried about the effect of certain toxic materials found in hazardous wastes and even in regular household items on human health.

First, exposure to heavy metals like lead, mercury, arsenic, and cadmium can damage the human nervous system. Humans are exposed to heavy metals in a variety of ways, such as through air and water pollution.

Second, a number of synthetic materials derived from petroleum and used in pesticides, syn- thetic fibers, plastics, and hundreds of other products may pose a variety of health risks such as cancer, liver and kidney damage, and disruption of reproductive systems. These synthetic materials are also implicated in the formation of dioxins and furans during the incineration process.

Among these synthetic materials, there is growing concern over the possible health impacts of exposure to a handful of chemicals used widely in plastics production, specifically in plas- tics that come in contact with food like baby bottles, water bottles, and take-out containers. Among these chemicals are bisphenol A (BPA) and phthalates, and scientists worry about their role as endocrine disruptors. Endocrine-disrupting chemicals can harm reproductive organs (i.e., they are teratogenic), cause cancer (i.e., they are carcinogenic), and lead to behav- ioral changes in children. These chemicals can leach from containers into the food or drink the containers are holding, especially if a container is heated improperly or damaged.

Learn More: Endocrine Disruptors

The endocrine system is a network of glands and organs that produce and release hormones into the bloodstream. The endocrine system plays a critical role in regulating growth, development, behavior, learning, and sexual reproduction. Endocrine disruptors are synthetic chemicals that have a molecular shape similar to natural hormones. This similarity allows them to trick the body into thinking they are hormones.

Endocrine disruptors have been linked to a number of health problems in humans as well as in certain forms of wildlife such as frogs and other amphibians. Human health impacts include reduced sperm counts in men, sex organ abnormalities, changes in puberty, impacts on the nervous system and immune system, obesity, heart problems, cancers, and learning disabilities. High exposure to endocrine disruptors can be especially problematic during fetal development and early childhood, when organs are developing.

(continued)

331

Section 9.5 Hazardous Waste

Management Practices There are currently four main approaches to managing hazardous wastes. First, these wastes can be recycled or reused, as in industrial ecology. However, because of the hazardous nature of these wastes, it is important for the companies involved in such recycling and reuse to handle them properly.

Second, hazardous wastes can be converted to a less hazardous form or detoxified. This includes physical methods such as filtering or chemical methods that change the chemical composition of the waste. Some hazardous wastes can also be incinerated, although this poses health risks to nearby communities if strict pollution controls are not in place. A high-tech method of incineration is known as plasma gasification. This involves using arcs of electrical energy to burn hazardous waste at extremely high temperatures, producing a synthetic gas and encasing toxic material in glass-like lumps of rock.

Third, bioremediation is the use of living organisms such as plants, bacteria, and fungi to break down or remove hazardous wastes in soils or in water. For example, sunflowers are effective at extracting heavy metal pollutants from the soil. Poplar trees have been used to contain the spread of the chemical fuel additive MTBE from underground tanks. And micro- organisms are now routinely used to clean up chemical and oil spills in water.

Finally, for hazardous waste that can’t be recycled, detoxified, or bioremediated, long-term disposal in secure landfills would be the best option. Much like sanitary landfills, secure landfills include features that prevent contamination of the surrounding environment. However, because these landfills are expensive, many companies opt to simply store their

Learn More: Endocrine Disruptors (continued)

Humans are exposed to endocrine disruptors through pesticides sprayed on foods; chemicals that leach from plastic bottles and containers; flame retardants found in electronics, building materials, and furniture; personal care products like sunscreen and antibacterial soaps; and chemical coatings found on clothing, food wrappers, and microwave popcorn bags. It’s currently estimated that as many as 1,000 of the hundreds of thousands of synthetic chemicals produced by humans have the potential to act as endocrine disruptors. Visit the sites below to learn more about how endocrine disruptors work, how they impact human health and wildlife, and what you can do to minimize your exposure to them.

• https://www.niehs.nih.gov/health/topics/agents/endocrine/index.cfm • https://www.epa.gov/endocrine-disruption/what-endocrine-disruption • https://www.nrdc.org/stories/9-ways-avoid-hormone-disrupting-chemicals • https://www.ewg.org/research/dirty-dozen-list-endocrine-disruptors

https://www.niehs.nih.gov/health/topics/agents/endocrine/index.cfm

https://www.epa.gov/endocrine-disruption/what-endocrine-disruption

https://www.nrdc.org/stories/9-ways-avoid-hormone-disrupting-chemicals

https://www.ewg.org/research/dirty-dozen-list-endocrine-disruptors

332

Section 9.5 Hazardous Waste

hazardous wastes on-site or, in the case of liquid hazardous wastes, pump them underground using a technique known as deep-well disposal. It’s estimated that close to two thirds of liq- uid hazardous waste in the United States is disposed of in this manner, and the volume of that waste is growing. One reason for the growth in liquid hazardous waste is because of the boom in hydraulic fracturing (fracking) of natural gas wells. Fracking involves the injection of large volumes of pressurized fracking fluids into natural gas deposits, and much of that fluid flows back to the surface as flowback water. Flowback water can contain a mixture of hazardous chemicals included in the original fracking fluid, as well as salts, metals, and even radioactive elements from below the surface.

Policies There are two main pieces of federal legis- lation in the United States that govern haz- ardous waste management—the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976 and the Comprehensive Environmen- tal Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980. The RCRA developed rules for hazardous waste handling and shipping, as well as standards for hazard- ous waste disposal. CERCLA requires the cleanup of sites contaminated with hazard- ous wastes and is sometimes referred to as the Superfund. CERCLA also operates on the “polluter pays” principle, whereby com- panies that are responsible for producing hazardous materials pay a tax that is used to fund hazardous waste cleanup of aban- doned industrial sites, or Superfund sites.

CERCLA has also resulted in the development of the EPA’s Toxics Release Inventory (TRI). CERCLA requires companies to report on their use, release, or transfer of hazardous sub- stances, and this information is posted to the TRI website, where you can investigate for your- self sources of hazardous material near where you live. Analysis of TRI data and mapping of superfund sites and secure landfills confirm that environmental justice is an issue. More often than not, facilities that generate or treat hazardous wastes are located in or near communities made up disproportionately of minority and low-income residents. Furthermore, fines and penalties that have been assessed for violating hazardous waste management rules have been found to be 6 to 7 times higher when they occur in a predominantly White area compared to when they occur in largely minority areas.

As with other forms of waste, the first and best option for dealing with the challenge of hazard- ous wastes should be not to produce them in the first place. The European Union is moving in that direction through the Registration, Evaluation and Authorisation of Chemicals (REACH)

nicolecioe/iStock/Getty Images Plus The Gowanus Canal in Brooklyn, New York, was designated a Superfund site in 2010 due to contamination from sewage and industrial runoff dating back to the mid-1800s. Today the EPA is in the process of finalizing and implementing a $500 million plan to clean up and decontaminate the canal.

https://www.epa.gov/toxics-release-inventory-tri-program

333

Section 9.6 Electronic Waste

policy. REACH mandates that chemical companies and other industries first try to avoid the use of hazardous substances before they can receive permission to use them. One way to do this is through what has become known as green chemistry, which involves finding ways to substitute nonhazardous materials for hazardous ones. Green chemistry principles have been applied to the development of biodegradable plastics and nontoxic paints, as well as efforts to eliminate toxic materials from medicines and cosmetics, among other breakthroughs.

9.6 Electronic Waste

One of the fastest growing waste problems facing us today is that of electronic waste, or e-waste. E-waste could be considered a type of hazardous waste because many of the elec- tronic devices that we use and dispose of contain heavy metals like lead, cadmium, and mer- cury. While the volume of e-waste is relatively small—roughly 2.8 million metric tons of e-waste were in the U.S. municipal waste stream in 2015—the dangers posed by this form of waste are attracting increased attention. Of the 2.8 million metric tons of e-waste that enter the U.S. municipal waste stream, 1.1 million metric tons (39%) was recovered for recycling, while the remainder ended up in landfills or burned in incinerators, setting up a potential release of toxic materials.

The scope of the e-waste problem has grown as we rely on more and more electronic devices. Close to 300 million electronic computing and communica- tion devices (excluding TVs, MP3 play- ers, video game consoles, cameras, and other electronic items) were purchased in the United States in 2017. Globally, smartphone sales alone topped 1.5 bil- lion in 2017. One key factor driving this rapid growth in demand for new electronic devices is known as planned obsolescence. Planned obsolescence refers to the practice of designing a product so that it becomes obsolete or unfashionable after an artificially short time period. This is particularly true in the electronics industry, creating social pressure on consumers to constantly upgrade to the newest model even if their existing device is still functioning adequately. It’s estimated that the average Ameri- can keeps his or her smartphone for 28 months, while “replacement time” is even shorter in Asia and Europe. One outcome of this rush to upgrade is that most American homes are now storing multiple e-waste items, a fact that will set up even larger increases in the volume of e-waste in the near future.

Bradford Veley/Cartoon Collections

334

Section 9.7 Designing a Cyclical Economy

Much of the 39% of U.S. e-waste that is captured for recycling ends up being shipped to China, India, and other countries in Asia and Africa for disassembly and recapture of components. Investigative journalists have discovered that working and environmental conditions in some of these e-waste “recycling facilities” are abysmal and that in many cases they make wide- spread use of child labor (Larmer, 2018; Ahmed, 2016; Semuels, 2019; Center for Interna- tional Environmental Law, n.d.). Workers in these facilities, including children as young as 10, break open discarded TVs, computers, and smartphones to extract materials and compo- nents that can be reused or marketed as scrap. In order to extract some of the metals in these electronic devices, workers use fire or acid baths, releasing highly toxic fumes in the process. Seldom, if ever, do these workers wear gloves, masks, or eye protection, and so exposure to hazardous materials combined with generally dangerous working conditions can sicken or even kill workers in these facilities.

The growing awareness of just how horrible conditions are in e-waste recycling facilities is prompting a global call for tighter regulations on e-waste shipments as well as for electronics companies to take responsibility for the products they produce (we’ll learn more about this approach in the next section). The European Union has imposed a tax on the sale of electronic devices and then uses the revenue generated from that tax to set up legitimate and regulated e-waste recycling facilities. Finally, more and more companies are designing electronic prod- ucts that do not use as much toxic and hazardous materials in the first place.

Whatever approach is used, the e-waste challenge will continue to grow rapidly in the years ahead as all of those old laptops, TVs, and game consoles sitting in garages and closets find their way into the waste stream. The next section will introduce a number of approaches to dealing with the e-waste challenge and the problem of waste in general.

9.7 Designing a Cyclical Economy

At one level, our modern industrial economy is a marvel of productivity and consumer choice. We produce a dizzying array of consumer items and ship them all over the world to be avail- able in a matter of days or hours at the click of a button. And yet, at another fundamental level, that take-make-use-lose linear economy is completely unsustainable. It has to constantly extract raw material from the Earth to feed its factories. It generates waste at rates that are hard to keep up with and that sicken communities that have waste dumped or burned in their backyards. And it is based on the consumption of nonrenewable fossil fuels that are changing the climate and threatening the very future of the planet.

Faced with this stark reality, a growing group of scientists, designers, entrepreneurs, engi- neers, and others are hard at work imagining and developing a new economy. This new econ- omy moves us from linear approaches to cyclical ones. It recognizes that for all of our ingenu- ity, nature has been at work much longer, designing and developing systems for millions of years. It is natural systems like tropical rain forests, coral reefs, and wetland ecosystems that are true marvels of productivity and diversity of outputs.

335

Section 9.7 Designing a Cyclical Economy

Imitating nature in the design and production of goods, structures, and systems is known as biomimicry. Biomimicry has been applied to the development of high-speed trains, buildings, medical devices, telecommunications, and many other sectors. Biomimicry can also be seen in systems that are truly “zero waste” or adopt a waste = food approach. We’ve touched on a few such systems in this chapter: the use of wetland-based systems to purify wastewater (Section 9.3) and the way industrial ecology repurposes one company’s industrial waste as an input (or “food”) for another company (Section 9.4). Essentially, a cyclical economy will involve rethink- ing the way we design, manufacture, market, consume, and dispose of our products.

BrianEKushner/iStock/Getty Images Plus Sean2008/iStock/Getty Images Plus

Biomimicry is the process of using nature as inspiration for the design of human products. The belted kingfisher, a bird with a sleek profile, helped inspire the design for high speed trains.

Rethinking Design One zero-waste approach that can help us move toward a cyclical economy is extended prod- uct responsibility (EPR), alluded to in the earlier e-waste discussion. This approach requires producers to take back their products when the products’ usefulness ends and to properly dis- pose of, recycle, or reuse them. In the United States EPR takes the form of e-waste “take-back” and recycling programs in states like Maryland and California. EPR has been taken further in the European Union, where the Waste Electronic and Electrical Equipment (WEEE) Directive has been in place since 2003. The WEEE Directive requires electronics manufacturers to take back their products when customers are finished with them, at no charge to the customer.

The basic idea behind these take-back regulations is that at the end of the useful life of most consumer goods, the bulk of the material and components in those products are still perfectly useful. We dispose of a TV or laptop computer because one tiny component breaks or mal- functions, even if everything else in the product is perfectly reusable.

336

Section 9.7 Designing a Cyclical Economy

Once take-back regulations are put in place, manufacturers begin to look at these products and their life cycles differently. Because companies will have to take back and dispose of all these products, they are incentivized to make products that are more durable and longer last- ing, rather than defaulting to planned obsolescence. Manufacturers are also more motivated to design products that can be more easily disassembled after they are taken back from the customer. This design-for-disassembly (DfD) approach allows manufacturers to reuse per- fectly good material from returned items in the making of new products.

Rethinking Manufacturing Another fundamental change that will move us closer to a cyclical economy requires manu- facturing to reuse products and their components rather than depending on raw materials extracted from the Earth. This is known as cradle-to-cradle (C2C) design and contrasts with the traditional “cradle-to-grave” manufacturing, use, and disposal process. In a C2C economy we wouldn’t think of waste as waste but rather as a resource or input to another cycle of production.

C2C relies on take-back programs and DfD approaches. While C2C has attracted a lot of atten- tion, the design approaches it favors are not yet very widespread. One challenge is that raw materials like energy and metals are still heavily subsidized in most industrial countries, and so manufacturers lack strong economic incentives to shift to a system that relies on recycled or reused material.

Rethinking Consumption Yet another way to rethink our economy is in how products are marketed and consumed. In a product-as-service mind-set, consumers and businesses are not interested in a physical product but rather the service that product provides. Consumers and businesses do not need the physical computer, carpet, chair, or refrigerator itself, but the computing, floor covering, seating, and food preservation services those products provide. Therefore, why do they need to purchase and own these products? What if we could arrange for companies to provide us with these items for as long as we need their services and then take them back afterward? The product-as-service approach is similar in some ways to leasing programs, and it accomplishes the same outcomes as take-back and DfD approaches. You’ll learn much more about one of the most successful product-as-service approaches in Chapter 10 when you read about Ray C. Anderson and Interface Inc.

Rethinking Disposal Rather than disposing of empty containers or broken electronic devices by sending them to the landfill, incinerator, or recycling center, in a cyclical economy we’re more likely to see those items returned to a facility that will reuse them for a new round of production. A final example of this approach is a new venture that involves some of the biggest brand names in the U.S. economy. Faced with the reality of ocean garbage patches, overflowing landfills,

337

Section 9.7 Designing a Cyclical Economy

toxic incinerators, and other manifestations of the waste crisis, companies like Procter & Gamble, Unilever, PepsiCo, and Nestlé are now working together on a new system known as Loop.

The idea behind Loop is to go back to the “milkman model.” Consumers use Loop to order everyday products like Tide deter- gent, Pantene shampoo, or Häagen-Dazs ice cream, and all these items are delivered to their homes in reusable containers. When the products are used up, the consumer orders a new shipment and leaves the empty containers from the last delivery out for pickup. Those containers can then be washed, refilled, and shipped back to other

customers. Because Loop emphasizes reuse, it is an improvement over simple recycling. And while energy is used by delivery trucks to drop off and pick up Loop products and packaging, it’s estimated that this actually amounts to less energy use than if those consumers drove to the store individually to buy those very same products. As of August 2019, Loop was being test-marketed across the mid-Atlantic United States and in cities in France, the United King- dom, and Canada.

Predicting Outcomes The various ideas presented in this section—DfD, C2C, and product-as-service approaches— are slowly beginning to move from the fringes to the mainstream. Companies like General Electric, 3M, Hewlett-Packard, and the Ford Motor Company have all either adopted some of these ideas (at least in a limited sense) or are seriously considering them. As companies do so, and as cyclical economy, zero-waste, and waste = food approaches become more common, we can expect to see a number of changes in the way we design, manufacture, market, consume, and dispose of the products we use.

The outcome of these changes could be profound in terms of environmental degradation, energy use, climate change, air and water pollution, waste management, and economic impact. As we move to these cyclical approaches, we will have less need for new raw materials. This will cut down on the need for new mining and extractive activities that are so destructive to natural ecosystems. These cyclical approaches are also much less energy intensive, reducing fossil fuel extraction, air pollution, and climate change impacts. And by creating a system based on take back and reuse, we directly confront the current take-make-use-lose model of economic production and replace it with cyclical flows of material that mimic the sustainable systems that have been refined and developed over millions of years in nature. Lastly, while some critics of these approaches claim that they will “cost jobs” and harm the economy, the opposite is more likely to happen. In reality, product take back and disassembly, product- as-service approaches, and programs like Loop all require more workers than the current

Newman Studio/iStock/Getty Images Plus Some retailers are trying to cut back on the amount of waste produced by making it easier for consumers to purchase products in reusable containers.

338

Bringing It All Together

take-make-use-lose model (Nguyen, Stuchtey, & Zils, 2014; Zils, 2014; Ellen Macarthur Foun- dation, n.d.). The main thing that these new approaches will definitely reduce are raw mate- rial extraction on the upstream side and waste disposal on the downstream side. In addi- tion, because material extraction and haphazard waste disposal impose significant external costs on us—meaning the true cost is not reflected in the price we actually pay—these new approaches could actually improve our overall economy and health.

Bringing It All Together

This chapter demonstrates that, at least in developed countries like the United States, waste management practices are doing a reasonably good job of keeping the waste products of our economic system from causing too much environmental, health, or aesthetic impact. While our waste management systems are not perfect, we also don’t usually have to deal with open garbage dumps, burning garbage piles, raw sewage flowing into rivers and streams, or large volumes of hazardous wastes going unmanaged. This suggests that environmental regula- tions and health concerns have combined to motivate us to “fix” the waste problems we have already created. We go to elaborate lengths and deploy complex and expensive technologies to safely dispose of municipal, industrial, and hazardous wastes, treat wastewater, contain radioactive wastes, and recycle some proportion of the e-waste and millions of tons of other waste we generate each year.

But even if our current approaches are reasonably good at keeping us from being overrun with wastes and sickened by toxins, they are not sustainable. Because our waste manage- ment practices are premised on a linear, take-make-use-lose economic approach, they run the risk of eventually being overwhelmed by a continual stream of new waste products being generated year in and year out. More importantly, our current approach is unsustain- able because it is premised on the constant extraction of raw materials on the upstream side of the system. This results in land degradation, habitat destruction, biodiversity loss, air and water pollution, and global climate change, among a host of other environmental and health challenges. Therefore, even the best waste management approaches amount to nothing more than putting a bandage on a massive and spreading wound. In order to truly address the waste crisis and move toward a more sustainable approach to waste management and production, we need to fundamentally rethink the way we produce and use the products we depend on. This chapter has given us some examples of what such new approaches might look like. The next, and final, chapter will give us reasons to have some optimism that these new and sustainable approaches are within reach.

Additional Resources

Our Waste

In July 2019 the global consulting firm Verisk Maplecroft came out with a comprehensive study of the worldwide waste crisis and reached the conclusion that the United States lags behind many other countries in terms of reducing waste production and recycling. You can learn more about the firm’s findings here:

• https://www.maplecroft.com/insights/analysis/us-tops-list-of-countries -fuelling-the-mounting-waste-crisis

https://www.maplecroft.com/insights/analysis/us-tops-list-of-countries-fuelling-the-mounting-waste-crisis

339

Bringing It All Together

The Story of Stuff is a project that uses easy-to-follow animated videos to explain our linear production system and the environmental and social impacts of the ways in which we pro- duce and consume “stuff.” You can watch the original Story of Stuff video and other similar videos at this site:

• https://storyofstuff.org/movies/story-of-stuff

The Washington Post published a story in 2017 titled “The World Is Drowning in Ever- Growing Mounds of Garbage.” The print story was accompanied by a photo and video essay that illustrated the waste crisis in six cities around the world (Jakarta, Tokyo, Lagos, New York, São Paulo, and Amsterdam). You can read the story and view the photo and video essay at these sites:

• https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/africa/the-world-is-drowning-in-ever -growing-mounds-of-garbage/2017/11/21/cf22e4bd-17a4-473c-89f8-873d48f 968cd_story.html

• https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/world/global-waste

As with other topics in this book, there are a number of TED Talks that can inform our understanding of waste management and alternative approaches. This TED-Ed lesson helps us understand what happens to the plastic we throw away by following the life cycles of three different bottles.

• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_6xlNyWPpB8

The recent decision by China to ban the import of many recyclable materials has had ripple effects on recycling markets and programs across the United States and has also impacted other countries that agreed to take some of these materials after China would not. You can learn more about these impacts here:

• https://e360.yale.edu/features/piling-up-how-chinas-ban-on-importing-waste -has-stalled-global-recycling

• https://www.huffpost.com/entry/china-recycling-ban-pollution_n_5c6ef4f9e4b0e 2f4d8a3e2d5

• https://www.huffpost.com/entry/malaysia-plastic-recycling_n_5c7f64a9e4b020b5 4d7ffdee

• https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/29/climate/recycling-landfills-plastic -papers.html

Designing a Cyclical Economy

In this TED Talk, architect William McDonough considers what C2C design for buildings and products might look like.

• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IoRjz8iTVoo

https://storyofstuff.org/movies/story-of-stuff

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/africa/the-world-is-drowning-in-ever-growing-mounds-of-garbage/2017/11/21/cf22e4bd-17a4-473c-89f8-873d48f968cd_story.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/world/global-waste

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_6xlNyWPpB8

https://e360.yale.edu/features/piling-up-how-chinas-ban-on-importing-waste-has-stalled-global-recycling

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/china-recycling-ban-pollution_n_5c6ef4f9e4b0e2f4d8a3e2d5

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/malaysia-plastic-recycling_n_5c7f64a9e4b020b54d7ffdee

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/29/climate/recycling-landfills-plastic-papers.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IoRjz8iTVoo

340

Bringing It All Together

Economist Kate Raworth coined the description of a “take-make-use-lose” economy. You can learn more about her and her work at the following links.

• https://www.kateraworth.com/about • Kate Raworth, A Healthy Economy Should Be Designed to Thrive, Not Grow:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rhcrbcg8HBw

The Zero Waste Home movement is just what it sounds like: an effort to reduce the produc- tion of waste in homes to zero. You can learn more about this movement and other tips to minimize your waste generation at these sites:

• https://zerowastehome.com • Bea Johnson, Zero Waste Home: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nmfDTtduRh4 • http://lessismore.org/materials/29-tips-to-reduce-waste

E-waste

Two articles on e-waste help explain just how big a problem this has become and what some of the dangers—and opportunities—are for e-waste management.

• https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/05/magazine/e-waste-offers-an-economic -opportunity-as-well-as-toxicity.html

• https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2016/09/the-global-cost-of -electronic-waste/502019

Key Terms biomimicry The imitation of nature in the design and production of goods, structures, and systems.

bioremediation The use of living organisms (plants, bacteria, fungi) to break down or remove hazardous wastes in soils or water.

composting The biological decomposition of organic material in the presence of oxygen and water.

cradle-to-cradle (C2C) design A zero- waste approach in which products, components, and materials are reused in manufacturing instead of disposed of.

deep-well disposal A method of disposing of liquid hazardous waste by pumping it underground.

design-for-disassembly (DfD) approach A zero-waste approach in which products are designed to be easily taken apart so manufacturers can reuse parts.

endocrine disruptors Toxic chemicals that interfere with endocrine system functions and cause abnormalities in reproductive organs and in development.

environmental justice A social movement focused on the fair treatment of all people when it comes to ensuring clean and healthy environments.

https://www.kateraworth.com/about

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rhcrbcg8HBw

https://zerowastehome.com

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nmfDTtduRh4 http://lessismore.org/materials/29-tips-to-reduce-waste

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/05/magazine/e-waste-offers-an-economic-opportunity-as-well-as-toxicity.html

https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2016/09/the-global-cost-of-electronic-waste/502019

341

Bringing It All Together

e-waste Discarded electronic devices.

extended product responsibility (EPR) An approach that requires producers to take back their products when the products’ usefulness ends and properly dispose of, recycle, or reuse them.

hazardous waste Discarded solid or liquid material that contains substances that are toxic, flammable, corrosive, or reactive.

incineration Destruction by burning, in this case municipal solid waste.

industrial ecology The study of how materials and energy flow through industrial systems—and how to lessen their impact while maximizing their value.

industrial waste Unwanted solid, liquid, and gaseous materials generated by large-scale commercial activities.

integrated waste management plans Documents that outline a city’s or state’s goals for recycling, waste reduction, and landfill and incinerator standards.

leachate Liquid waste that drains from landfills.

life-cycle analysis (LCA) An examination of the environmental impact of a product or process from its beginning to its end.

municipal sewage treatment plants (MSTPs) Facilities that treat wastewater from cities and towns.

municipal solid waste (MSW) Trash, garbage, and everyday items that are discarded.

planned obsolescence The practice of designing a product so that it becomes obsolete or unfashionable after an artificially short time period.

primary treatment A step in wastewater treatment that involves removing materials that have sunk to the bottom of a settling tank.

product-as-service A zero-waste approach that emphasizes the service a product provides, rather than the physical object itself.

radioactive waste Discarded nuclear material.

recycle To process waste so that it can be used to make something else.

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Legislation signed in 1976 that authorizes the EPA to regulate and set mandates for waste management practices.

sanitary landfills Garbage dumps that include features designed to minimize environmental impact, reduce unpleasant odors, and cut down on pests like flies and rats. Features include lining and pipes that prevent leachate from seeping into the ground.

secondary treatment A step in wastewater treatment that involves biologically treating the water, using bacteria and other microorganisms to decompose the organic waste present in the wastewater.

secure landfills Hazardous waste dumps that include features designed to minimize environmental impact.

septic systems A water treatment system, typically used in individual homes or buildings, that consists of an underground tank (a septic tank).

source reduction The prevention of waste generation. Also known as waste minimization.

342

Bringing It All Together

Superfund A name for the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), which requires cleanup of sites contaminated with hazardous wastes.

Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) A database containing information about companies’ use, release, and transfer of hazardous substances.

waste Unwanted or unusable material discarded by humans.

waste minimization See source reduction.

waste stream The entire flow of waste from its source to its final disposal.

waste-to-energy The process of burning waste in an incinerator to generate electricity.

wastewater Liquid waste in the form of sewage; water from showers, sinks, and household drains; storm water runoff; and water used in commercial and industrial facilities.