Why You Should Burn Your Trash

I've felt strongly for some time now that the energy of the future was going to be waste (ie. trash). I was introduced to this theory through the peer reviewed scientific lens of Back to the Future (which also introduced me to the possibility of flying skateboards, more on that in another post).

In the film, Doc Brown's original fuel for his time traveling DeLorean is plutonium, whose hard to obtain nature lands Doc in a pretty sticky situation. At the end of the film however, after Doc goes to the future and refits his machine with a new fangled flux capacitor, all it takes to fuel the DeLorean are a few choice items he pulls out of Marty's trash can, replacing forever Docs reliance on dangerous, hard to obtain nuclear fuel. I find this fable sums up pretty well my own opinions on the subject: why should we deal with dangerous, dirty fuels when we have more than enough waste full of untapped energy to go around?

The answer of course is that while there are many theoretical options for tapping into that energy -- cellulosic ethanol, methane from landfills, thermal energy from compost heaps, algea biofuels, the list goes on -- we are simply not there yet. We currently do not have the technology to turn waste into fuel in a way that is both cost effective, non-toxic. According to an article in yesterdays New York Times however, the technology may finally be here to do just that. The most amazing thing about this new technology technology? It's not even a new technology at all.

The idea of burning garbage as fuel has been around for a long time, but in the modern era it can be traced back to the 1970's. The recently formed OPEC was driving energy prices up, and cities were running out of landfill space. This obvious set of problems spurred a few entrepreneurs to develop "garbage to energy" systems: these systems burned garbage to make steam, or ground it into fuel pellets. What seemed like a slam dunk however quickly turned into a big problem:

"Garbage to Energy Plants were expensive, and to finance them, cities signed (were asked to sign) long term contracts to deliver and pay for a guaranteed supply of garbage. If the city didn’t have enough garbage, it had to pay anyway. The incentive to recycle would be gone. Also, the energy calculations started with garbage = 0. But Garbage wasn’t worthless – it was full of stuff that could be reused and recycled. You could save more energy and other resources by recycling paper than by burning it, and then cutting trees to make new paper." (www.garbage.org).

Add in the fact that burning garbage releases hundreds of toxic chemicals into the atmosphere, and by the 1980's the garbage burning movement was dead. After all, how could we possibly make up for all of these huge negatives?

According to The New York Times, Denmark, and several other forward thinking European countries including Germany and the Netherlands, have found a way:

"Far cleaner than conventional incinerators, this new type of plant converts local trash into heat and electricity. Dozens of filters catch pollutants, from mercury to dioxin, that would have emerged from its smokestack only a decade ago. In that time, such plants have become both the mainstay of garbage disposal and a crucial fuel source across Denmark, from wealthy exurbs like Horsholm to Copenhagen’s downtown area. Their use has not only reduced the country’s energy costs and reliance on oil and gas, but also benefited the environment, diminishing the use of landfills and cutting carbon dioxide emissions... With all these innovations, Denmark now regards garbage as a clean alternative fuel rather than a smelly, unsightly problem."

Additionally, the creation of these plants has not led to a drop in the recycling rate of these countries, in spite of the fact that they currently have some of the highest recycling rates in the world. This may be attributed to the fact that in these countries local governments usually manage all trash collection, incinerators and recycling centers, and financial incentives ensure that recyclable materials are not burned. For example, communities may recycle free of charge, but must pay to have garbage incinerated. Turns out government incentives CAN be a good thing.

Is this really possible? Can Denmark really have found a way to create energy and divert trash from the landfill in a way that doesn't release toxic chemicals into the environment or decrease our recycling rate?

There are of course downsides to the program. While scrubbers do keep the most toxic substances out of the environment, there is still no way to properly dispose of them and they must be stored forever in a way similar to nuclear waste. And there is still the American public to consider -- after 30 years of being told we do not want any plants of this sort built, can we really be convinced that it is now a good idea? An interesting debate to be sure, but whether we decide to follow Denmark's lead or not, I am still waiting for my own trash fueled flux capacitor.

Image provided by Richard Berg

NASCAR Going Green?

I should admit up front that I am no NASCAR or Indy 500 fan, and that I have a limited understanding of the sport and what goes on at these events. What I do know is that race car driving is not only the single most popular spectator "sport" in America, but that it is also not exactly “environmentally friendly.” Enter Leilani Munter. I was listening to NPR a few weeks ago and heard the following interview with Leilani, a professional race car driver. As it turns out, not only is she one of a mere handful of women in this male dominated sport, but she is also an ardent environmentalist committed to doing everything she can to “green up” this carbon intensive activity.

Listen to the NPR interview here

Basically, Leilani has been an environmentalist her whole life. She is a longtime animal lover and vegetarian, and she didn’t even get into race car driving until after receiving a degree in biology (specializing in ecology) from UCSD. When she did finally get behind the wheel of a race car, it didn’t take her long to come to the conclusion that her environmental views were somewhat at odds with her new profession. However, instead of abandoning race car driving altogether, she decided to use her platform as an important figure in the nation’s number one spectator sport to help move it in a new direction. As Leilani says, “It's a hugely popular sport, and… you can't leave behind a hundred million race fans.”

Since she started speaking out, Leilani has definitely run into mixed reactions. “Some people were telling me that they… wanted to see more people talking about our environmental problems on the racing circuit. But then, there were also others that were… very negative and kind of saying I was brainwashed by Al Gore.” Even with the mixed reaction, Leilani is hopeful, saying that “the important thing that I tried to look at is that I was getting them talking about it… to go into a NASCAR forum and see them arguing and talking about global warming and talking about climate change… Those kinds of things weren't necessarily taking place in NASCAR forums before.”

But Leilani's general awesomeness doesn't end there. In addition to bringing awareness of the green movement to racing fans, Leilani is also opening the way for smaller, green businesses to advertise in the racetrack. The way sponsorships usually work (based on my extensive research ie. Google) is that one major company will sponsor a car, meaning that each car becomes a giant billboard for that one company. Leilani’s vision is to buck that trend by breaking her car up into several smaller sponsorships placements that mid-size green companies can afford, and to have the main spot on the race car reserved as a "call to action" message for race fans: “One of the messages I wanted to send was about CFL light bulbs, and I would like to run a race car that has a CFL label on the side of it… And then the next race we'd run something different. It might be a race car that says, no more paper, no more plastic, and then I can talk about the plastic bags and how many of them aren't getting recycled.”

And as if all that wasn't enough, Leilani is also trying to take her green message directly to the fans. Apparently, another aspect of the race car world that I was unaware of is that each driver gets some space at the racetrack to sell their merchandise. Usually, this means action figures, jerseys, hats and bobble head dolls. Not at Leilani’s booth: “I'm going to be selling CFL light bulbs and canvas grocery bags and just giving them tips on things that they can do to go green.”

While I still don’t personally understand what people find entertaining about cars going around a circle for five hours, and while there is absolutely no escaping the fact that car racing will be one of the most carbon intensive sports for some time to come, I can’t help but be inspired by one woman’s efforts to bring her passion to her work in a way that will (hopefully) get all of us a little closer to a sustainable planet.

Read all about Leilani's newest actions at her blog: carbonfreegirl.com

Image provided by Wikipedia

Publishing Industry to Cut Carbon Emissions 20 Percent by 2020, 80 Percent by 2050

I used to work in the publishing industry, and while it was a super awesome place to work (as my homeboy Thomas Jefferson once said "I cannot live without books"), I was always bummed by the amount of waste we created every day. For example, we would have a pdf file of a first draft of a manuscript, and instead of e-mailing that pdf file around, my boss would have me print out a separate copy for each person who needed it (single sides, anywhere in between 100 and 300 pages).

Even worse, we didn't even have accessible recycling bins. There was literally one recycling bin on each floor, and people were too busy to go to it. They would just dump piles and piles of paper in the trash every day. And this was only for the first draft - same thing would happen with successive drafts, with the promo copies, and with the preview copies we sent for around for PR. And all of this before the printing of the actual book!

There are some "good" reasons for why we had to print all these copies out instead of sending pdf files. My generation is the first generation to really get used to spending more than 30 minutes reading on a screen, and even we are still slightly uncomfortable with it. My guess is that it won't be until the next generation that people are completely committed to online or electronic books. All of the higher ups, even in the publishing industry, just can't handle reading an entire manuscript on their screen.

A perfect example of this is the Amazon Kindle. Here is this amazing device, the same size as a book, where you can buy "books" for cheaper than in their paper versions and where you can carry 50 or so "books" around at the same time and in the same amount of space as a single book would usually take. People should be buying these by the truckload! And while Kindle sales are taking off, they are doing so very slowly and mostly with the younger generation. But I digress.

The fact of the matter is that people who grew up reading physical books still like reading physical books. They are uncomfortable reading them on a computer screen. The end result of this is that the publishing industry routinely cuts down 30 MILLION trees to make into the books that we buy each year.

There is some good news though: The Book Industry Environmental Council said today that it has set goals of cutting the U.S. book industry's greenhouse gas emissions 20 percent by 2020 -- and slashing them 80 percent by 2050.

While my problem with the publishing industry has more to do with the physical waste of paper than with overall CO2 emissions, cutting down on CO2 will also mean cutting down on paper waste. According to ClimateBiz.com, "the production, acquisition and use of paper are responsible for 65 percent of the U.S. book industry's carbon footprint. Increasing the use of recycled paper, ramping up the efficient use of all paper products, reducing returns and diverting books from landfills are among the steps that companies can take to reach the emissions goals."

It may not be perfect, but until we help out by doing all our reading electronically (something I admit I do not do, I LOVE my dog-eared paper books) it is a huge step in the right direction.

China Wants Importers to Cover Emission Costs

Chinese officials, speaking about the current negotiations on a worldwide climate change treaty, said Monday that anyone importing Chinese goods should be held responsible for the carbon dioxide emitted by the factories that make them:

"About 15 percent to 25 percent of China's emissions come from the products which we make for the world, which should not be taken by us," said Gao Li, director of China's Department of Climate Change.

Oh-oh. Looks like our cheap Chinese labor – and the amazing gadgets and toys it produces – are about to get a whole lot more expensive.

Gao added that "this share of emission should be taken by the consumers, not the producers" and called the demand a "very important item to make (for a) fair agreement."

This is a very interesting proposal which reflects an equally inconvenient truth – a large portion of China’s carbon emissions come from manufacturing, and a large portion of that manufacturing is for products which are not consumed in China. However, this deal has a few ways of working, none of which work nearly as well as a straight carbon tax. My flow charts:

Carbon tax > More expensive for companies to operate > Higher costs passed on to the consumer > Chinese government get more money. Grade = A

Or

China makes no changes at all > Importers have to pay a carbon tax > Higher costs passed on to the consumer > Someone gets this money, but it is not necessarily the Chinese government. Grade = B

Or

China makes no changes at all > Importers make no changes at all > Importing countries are required to offset the emissions > Importing countries do nothing as they are already struggling to meet their own carbon reduction goals > The world gets hotter until we all die. Grade C-

Once again, it is very important to understand that China is getting a really bad deal no matter what happens. While we (we being the West, and America in particular) were industrializing, we spewed tons of carbon into the air, basically causing the situation we are in now. Now that China is industrializing, we are trying to stick them with the same responsibilities we have in cleaning up this mess, even though they caused a significantly smaller part of it. Even though we are spewing roughly the same amount of carbon today, the lifetime carbon footprint of our respective countries is still skewed way in favor of American output. Additionally, on a per capita basis, America still spews 3x as much CO2 into the atmosphere as China does.

While I think China is essentially trying to get off the hook by proposing what I am almost certain is the #3 scenario above, we all need to recognize that Western countries have a much bigger responsibility here than the Chinese. Getting them involved in the process is very important, but it is no excuse to stop taking action on our own right away.

Image provided by Rennett Stowe