Topics
9 Comments
-
'Pay As You Throw' Waste Schemes Encourage Household Recycling
2008-12-13 19:16:54 UTC
'Pay As You Throw' waste schemes encourage household recycling
New research has concluded that 'Pay As You Throw' waste collection schemes can increase levels of recycling among households, but should be accompanied by effective public information campaigns. Pay As You Throw waste schemes charge households and businesses according to the amount of mixed residual waste they generate. They have been proposed as an effective means of reducing the amount of waste going to landfill, thus helping local authorities meet the requirements of the EU Landfill Directive1. The study, conducted under the EU-funded PAYT (Pay As You Throw) project2, covered 157 local authority areas in the Czech Republic, with a total population of 2.6 million. All authorities were free to choose their method of charging for the collection of general waste in their area. Of these, 92 operated a Pay As You Throw system, and 65 operated a flat fee approach. The level of recycling among the first group was 12.1 per cent. This was almost double that of the second group's recycling rate of 6.9 per cent. The amount of mixed residual waste generated in the Pay As You Throw areas was on average 240 kg per head annually, compared with 260kg in the areas charging a flat fee. The researchers believe that a fixed flat fee does not encourage households to separate waste or reduce the volume of mixed residual waste. They believe that although Pay As You Throw models incur a higher initial cost to the authority, they encourage a higher level of separation. The researchers also conducted a survey among householders in Prague, to assess recycling behaviour. 179 households in 17 districts of Prague were surveyed, and of these, 138 households separated their waste. These households also produced significantly less residual waste - 635 litres annually, compared with 712 litres from non-separating households. Possible factors were identified which influence separating and recycling behaviour. These included technical factors such as conditions in the house for waste separation (e.g. the size of the kitchen), social factors such as the availability of information, and political factors, for example, whether the waste management strategy corresponded with national legislation. The most important factors were found to be technical, namely the availability of regularly emptied containers in the community for placing recycled waste and the ease of recycling in the home. Households were less influenced by the cost of the service, as the price paid for waste treatment is relatively low (1.7 Euros per household member per month), and this fee was often hidden in total rent costs. The level of awareness of methods for separating waste was also important, as was the degree to which the waste management strategy was perceived to be in line with national legislation. The extent to which recycled waste was used as a secondary raw material was also a strong factor.
See: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/landfill_index.htm
This study was conducted as part of the EU PAYT (Pay As You Throw) project, supported by the European Commission under the Fifth Framework Programme, under the priority 'Energy, Environment and Sustainable Development'.
See: http://web.tu-dresden.de/intecuspayt/
The paper was supported by the Czech grant GACR No.402/06/0806
Source: Sauer, P., Parízková, L. and Hadrabová, A. (2008). Charging systems for municipal solid waste: Experience from the Czech Republic. Waste Management. 28(12): 2772-2777. Contact: [email protected]
Nadia McLaren
18 Torrens Street,
College Park (Adelaide)
South Australia 5069
+61 (0)8 83 63 46 74
+61 (0)4 34 33 46 74 (mobile)
[email protected]
skype nadia.mclaren
http://www.linkedin.com/in/nadiamclaren
-
Re: Creative Educational Display for Food Waste
2008-08-03 08:24:30 UTC
Not directly responding to your "food waste in canteens" request, but certainly attention-grabbing and gross -- and relevant in the larger context of overconsumption and waste -- are the images of:
1. Danish sculptor Jens Galschit Website: AIDOH (Art In Defence Of Humanism) http://sculptures.aidoh.dk/ notably his 2002 exhibitions Survival of the Fattest - a sculpture about the worlds imbalance A huge fat woman from the West is sitting on the shoulders of starved African man. The 3.5 metres high sculpture epitomizes the imbalanced distribution of the worlds resources, preserved by means of a biased and unjust world trade http://www.aidoh.dk/?categoryID=71 The Hunger March / Hunger Boys http://www.aidoh.dk/?categoryID=53
2. Photographer Chris Jordan Website: http://www.chrisjordan.com/ Some of his image series from Running the Numbers: An American Self-Portrait Plastic Cups, 2008 Plastic Bottles, 2007 Cans Seurat, 2007 and Intolerable Beauty: Portraits of American Mass Consumption Chris Jordan's TED presentation (20 minute video) http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/chris_jordan_pictures_some_shocking_stats.html http://www.ted.com/index.php/speakers/chris_jordan.html
3. Other resources that may be useful
Eaten Up
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article20378.htm
Raj Patel's book Stuffed and Starved predicted the current global food crisis - spiralling food prices, starvation and obesity. Ed Pilkington meets the soothsayer of agro-economics and talks about what will happen when all the food finally runs out
12 Myths About Hunger http://rehydrate.org/facts/hunger.htm
Who Is Responsible for the World Food Shortage http://www.larouchepub.com/other/1995/2249_food_intro.html Video (20 mins):
Paul Collier: 4 ways to improve the lives of the "bottom billion" http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/paul_collier_shares_4_ways_to_help_the_bottom_billion.html
Best
Nadia
Nadia McLaren
18 Torrens Street,
College Park (Adelaide)
South Australia 5069
+61 (0)8 83 63 46 74
+61 (0)4 34 33 46 74 (mobile)
[email protected]
skype nadia.mclaren -
Population Control / Reduction
2007-10-29 07:08:14 UTC
Friends,
Someone in the list touched on this subject in the last week. Some of my colleagues view this as THE most critical and strategic action we can take. If anyone is interested in a "high-powered" discussion listserve on this subject, go to http://ca.groups.yahoo.com/group/downslope_strategies/join
A random example of the exchange below.
Nadia McLaren
EcoIntegrity Adelaide, Australia
http://www.ecointegrity.org/
+61 (0)8 83 63 46 74
+61 (0)4 34 33 46 74 (mobile)
+61 (0)8 82 68 87 99 (fax)
[email protected]
skype: nadia.mclaren
RE: there is a time to control... turn, turn, turn Phil says "Maybe we should think of finding some arbitrary way to set a limit to how much of nature we control" Yes indeed, but to work I think that logically still needs to add that the population remaining does not continually multiply the amount of nature they try to control. Jack's proposal that you shrink population in matching proportion to the multiplying rate they increase their control of nature doesn't seem to work since the amount controlled per person would still multiply leading to 'screwing up badly' anyway. The discussion about lowering the total number of humans, and leaving vast amounts of the real estate they had occupied to return to wilderness during the next couple of centuries involves a WAY TO LIMIT HOW MUCH OF NATURE WE CONTROL. Reducing population is definitely one option IF each individual's control of and burden on nature is constant. That combination seems to be what is needed, with neither half working without the other. I think I mentioned in a previous post that Alan Weisman's new and very popular book 'THE WORLD WITHOUT US' suggests ONE CHILD PER FAMILY (OCPF) and gives projections of what the population of the Earth would be in 50, 100 and 200 years if OCPF were adopted right now. Weisman's book is a great read and very informative, using the device of explaining how the multitude of ecosystems we're abusing would recover as a story telling device. I think, however, I've proven solidly on a number of occasions that One Child Per Family is hardly sufficient to correct the problem of our growing abuse of nature. The basic dilemma is that the impacts of human control of nature grow more or less in proportion to money, and money doubles every 20 years in the present system. Therefore you need to halve the population every 20 years, to keep pace... Q.E.D. OCPF is not enough. Even If you shortened lifetimes so the population halved every 20 years, if the remaining population doubled its control of nature every 20 years, they would still rapidly get to a point where they would 'screw up badly' with it getting too much for them to handle. What you need to do in addition to limiting population is to either stabilize or harm the growth system! It might be hard to explain how to stabilize it, and easy to explain how to harm it, but I don't think that is significant in determining which is the better choice.
Phil
-
Re: Carbon Tracking and Labeling- Going Local
2007-10-24 17:53:14 UTC
One case study I'd like to explore is the carbon story of my favorite bottle of Australian wine between the time the bottle was made (and whether recycled glass was involved) and the grapes were grown....to the time the bottle is consumed, put into the recycling bin and finally recycled. I suspect the embedded carbon in the bottle will be far more than in the grapes and fermentation....but I don't know. Hardy Wines in South Australia has done this exercise for part of the cycle; "from weighbridge to warehouse" - not from the vineyard nor to freight dispatch and retailer to customer. I've attached a powerpoint slide (personally, not the the list for reasons of size).
Nadia
Nadia McLaren
EcoIntegrity
Adelaide, Australia
http://www.ecointegrity.org/
+61 (0)8 83 63 46 74
+61 (0)4 34 33 46 74 (mobile)
+61 (0)8 82 68 87 99 (fax)
[email protected]
skype: nadia.mclaren -
Footprint of Different Diets
2007-10-08 19:25:55 UTC
Diet For Small Planet May be Most Efficient if it Includes Dairy and a Little Meat, Cornell Researchers Report
A low-fat vegetarian diet is very efficient in terms of how much land is needed to support it. But adding some dairy products and a limited amount of meat may actually increase this efficiency, Cornell researchers suggest. This deduction stems from the findings of their new study, which concludes that if everyone in New York state followed a low-fat vegetarian diet, the state could directly support almost 50 percent more people, or about 32 percent of its population, agriculturally. With today's high-meat, high-dairy diet, the state is able to support directly only 22 percent of its population, say the researchers.
Nadia McLaren
EcoIntegrity
Adelaide, Australia
http://www.ecointegrity.org/
+61 (0)8 83 63 46 74
+61 (0)4 34 33 46 74 (mobile)
+61 (0)8 82 68 87 99 (fax)
[email protected]
skype: nadia.mclaren
-
EIO-LCA Model
2007-10-03 01:12:45 UTC
Here's a tool to estimate the overall environmental impacts from producing a certain dollar amount of any of 500 commodities or services in the United States. Baseline data needs updating.
www.eiolca.net/
Using the EIO-LCA model will get you well on your way to understanding the environmental impacts of producing goods or services. This site allows you to estimate the overall environmental impacts from producing a certain dollar amount of any of 500 commodities or services in the United States. It will provide rough guidance on the relative impacts of different types of products, materials, services, or industries with respect to resource use and emissions throughout the U.S. The entire supply chain of requirements is included, so that the effects of producing a $20,000 car would include not only the impacts of final assembly, but also the impact from mining of metals, making electronic parts, forming windows, etc. that are needed for parts to build the car. This analysis is a form of life cycle assessment based upon an economic input output model of the United States, publicly available data and linear algebra calculation methods.
Nadia McLaren
EcoIntegrity
Adelaide, Australia
http://www.ecointegrity.org/
+61 (0)8 83 63 46 74
+61 (0)4 34 33 46 74 (mobile)
+61 (0)8 82 68 87 99 (fax)
skype: nadia.mclaren
-
Another set of resources on meat eating and energy saving
2007-09-25 22:54:34 UTC
Slow Climate Change By Eating Less Meat
This site has reposted the article (text below) and also has a swathe of further online references.
Nadia
Nadia McLaren
EcoIntegrity Adelaide, Australia
http://www.ecointegrity.org/
+61 (0)8 83 63 46 74
+61 (0)4 34 33 46 74
(mobile) +61 (0)8 82 68 87 99
(fax) [email protected]
skype: nadia.mclaren
EATING LESS MEAT MAY SLOW CLIMATE CHANGE
By Maria Cheng
Associated Press
September 12, 2007
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070913/ap_on_sc/eating_less_meat
LONDON - Eating less meat could help slow global warming by reducing the number of livestock and thereby decreasing the amount of methane flatulence from the animals, scientists said on Thursday. In a special energy and health series of the medical journal The Lancet, experts said people should eat fewer steaks and hamburgers. Reducing global red meat consumption by 10 percent, they said, would cut the gases emitted by cows, sheep and goats that contribute to global warming. We are at a significant tipping point, said Geri Brewster, a nutritionist at Northern Westchester Hospital in New York, who was not connected to the study. If people knew that they were threatening the environment by eating more meat, they might think twice before ordering a burger, Brewster said. Other ways of reducing greenhouse gases from farming practices, like feeding animals higher- quality grains, would only have a limited impact on cutting emissions. Gases from animals destined for dinner plates account for nearly a quarter of all emissions worldwide. That leaves reducing demand for meat as the only real option,said Dr. John Powles, a public health expert at Cambridge University, one of the study's authors. The amount of meat eaten varies considerably worldwide. In developed countries, people typically eat about 224 grams per day. But in Africa, most people only get about 31 grams a day. With demand for meat increasing worldwide, experts worry that this increased livestock production will mean more gases like methane and nitrous oxide heating up the atmosphere. In China, for instance, people are eating double the amount of meat they used to a decade ago. Powles said that if the global average were 90 grams per day, that would prevent the levels of gases from speeding up climate change. Eating less red meat would also improve health in general. Powles and his co-authors estimate that reducing meat consumption would reduce the numbers of people with heart disease and cancer. One study has estimated that the risk of colorectal cancer drops by about a third for every 100 grams of red meat that is cut out of your diet. As a society, we are overconsuming protein," Brewster said. "If we ate less red meat, it would also help stop the obesity epidemic. Experts said that it would probably take decades to wane the public off of its meat-eating tendency. "We need to better understand the implications of our diet," said Dr. Maria Neira, director of director of the World Health Organization's department of public health and the environment. "It is an interesting theory that needs to be further examined," she said. "But eating less meat could definitely be one way to reduce gas emissions and climate change." -
Re: Seeking high-impact low-barrier actions to reduce energy
2007-09-25 22:22:47 UTC
Joel / Adam,
About the energy-saving measure of not eating meat. Sorry to throw the quotation without thinking about the figures. Yes, the light-bulb comparison is clearly off. I have deleted the email I took it from, but I notice the same error is promulgated on the web, eg http://tinyurl.com/36lcvl
Here's a better version of the same point expressed in what I assume are the original metric units: According to a study published in July by Japanese scientists, a kilogram of beef generates the equivalent of 36.4 kilograms of carbon dioxide, more than the equivalent of driving for three hours while leaving all the lights on back home. (from Cut red meat intake to save planet, http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22411234-30417,00.html)
We seem to agree about the critical issue. Modern agriculture is highly energy consumptive. Cutting back on meat is the simplest thing we can do to reduce that. Of course it depends on the animal and how it is raised. Big difference between chooks in the back yard, free-range lamb and stall-raised veal.
Here's a few more resources on this subject.
Factoring meat into our carbon footprint http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=6167
Vegetarian is the New Prius http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kathy-freston/vegetarian-is-the-new-pri_b_39014.html
Change your diet, save the planet http://foodpolitics.vox.com/library/post/change-your-diet-save-the-planet.html
As well as PETA, EVANA (European Vegetarian and Animal News Agency) is a good source of news.
Cheers
Nadia
btw I cannot understand why we have so much difficulty persuading Australians that if they must eat meat, eat kangaroo (not the endangered ones; we have around 50 species and a couple are very abundant). It must be our Anglo racial memory that equates with sheep, pigs, cows and the like. The side benefit of substituting kangaroo for introduced animals is, of course, that they are soft-footed and don't damage the soil surface like hoofed grazing animals. -
Re: Seeking high-impact low-barrier actions to reduce energy
2007-09-22 20:32:28 UTC
Cut back on red meat (exception: abundant wild, indigenous meat).
Here's an edited version of a recent email I received.
Agricultural activity around the world is responsible for about 22 percent of total greenhouse gas emissions, roughly the same as industry and more than transportation. Livestock production accounts for 80 percent of agriculture’s share, mainly in the form of methane. In a paper published online September 13, 2007 in the medical journal Lancet, researchers from Australia suggest that emissions related to livestock production could be stabilized by 2050 if meat eaters in developed countries cut their daily consumption of meat from roughly eight ounces to 3.17 ounces per day. (This is assuming that no other efforts are made to reduce emissions and that global population increases by 40 percent, as projected.) More food for thought: a Japanese study published in the August, 2007 issue of Animal Science Journal showed that producing 2.2 pounds of beef generates the equivalent of 80.08 pounds of carbon dioxide, more than you would personally account for by driving for three hours or letting a light bulb burn for nearly 20 hours.
Nadia McLaren
EcoIntegrity
Adelaide, Australia
http://www.ecointegrity.org/
+61 (0)8 83 63 46 74
+61 (0)4 34 33 46 74 (mobile)
+61 (0)8 82 68 87 99 (fax)
[email protected]
skype: nadia.mclaren
0 Recommends
You haven't saved any recommendations.
Messaging 0 colleagues