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

UPDATE -- Let's Kill All the Animals (Even the Cute Ones)

Well, there we have it. As predicted, the Japanese succeeded in convincing enough countries to do an about face on protecting the porbeagle shark to bring that ban up for another vote and defeat it. That means that all eleven oceanic species up for CITES protection -- bluefin tuna, eight species of shark (not four as I posted yesterday, apparently they are listing each species of hammerhead separately) and two species of coral -- have been refused that protection.

Major freaking bummer.

Let's Kill All the Animals (Even the Cute Ones)

What a crappy month to be an animal.

Last week the UN Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) began in the city of Doha, Qatar. Basically, every two and a half years nations from all over the world send representatives to this meeting with the express aim of regulating international trade in endangered species. This year, the species up for protection included bluefin tuna, sharks, and polar bears.

Now, no one expected winning protections for all these species at the convention was going to be easy -- there are many countries around the world, big and small, who benefit from this trade. Still, many people, myself included, had hope that at least a few of these species might receive the protection they so clearly need. The actual result? A big FU to endangered species.

First came the vote on tuna. Sponsored by the US and Monaco, most observers expected this to be the toughest of the protections to actually achieve -- Japan consumes massive quantities of bluefin (Japan alone imports 80% of all the bluefin caught in the Atlantic) and many African countries bordering the Atlantic make money by either selling bluefin directly to Japan or selling the rights for Japanese boats to fish in their waters. At the end of the day, this bloc has some serious pull (according to the CITES charter, all bans require a 2/3 majority to pass). Despite the fact that bluefin stocks are down more than 70% from their 1957 levels, this ban was, disappointingly but not unexpectedly, shot down.

Next up was a ban on the trade four different species of sharks: scalloped hammerhead, oceanic whitetips, porbeagles and spiny dogfish sharks. Again, the big opponents of this bill were Asian countries, namely China and Japan, where sharkfin soup is still a delicacy. Shark fins are generally obtained by catching a shark, cutting off it's fin, and then just tossing the now debilitated shark back into the ocean where it slowly sinks to the bottom and drowns. Say what you will about American farming techniques (and I've said PLENTY), there are few things more cruel and wasteful than shark finning.

Each of these species were voted on in a separate bill. While all of the bills received majority backing, only the bill regulating porbeagle sharks was able to reach the 2/3 majority threshold, and then by only the slimmest of margins. As for this one glimmer of hope, backroom negotiations are already under way -- China and Japan hope to swing enough votes in their direction to bring this bill up for another vote before the week is out and overturn the decision.

Last on the docket: the polar bear. Honestly -- what kind of a person do you have to be to not want to save the POLAR BEAR? This majestic creature is currently under enormous strain, and most observers agree that with the additional pressure of global warming, polar bears could very conceivably disappear in the wild within the next century. So clearly, the world managed to agree that we could ban the sale of polar bear parts and skins right?

Nope, it turns out the world couldn't do that either. We can't even agree not to kill and sell pieces of the mascot for global waring endangerment. Sorry endangered animals; you didn't do to well at this conference. Better luck in two and a half years.

Image provided by flickrfavorites

Government Incentives Can Be A Good Thing

This post is a little more political than I usually like to get (at least on this blog) but I just finished reading a great article on energy efficiency and why some direct government involvement is necessary to make that happen, and I thought the article deserved a shout out. You can read the full article and it's in-depth awesomeness here (Energy Efficiency), but the main points are that:

• Resource intelligence (aka energy efficiency) is profitable. Study after study (after study) shows that homes and businesses have available a range of investments, technologies, and practices that cut energy use and pay handsome returns. (For example, this three-year study of efficiency in buildings.)

• Resource intelligence isn’t happening on its own. Despite the aforementioned studies, people aren’t taking advantage of the opportunities at anything close to the available scale. The low-hanging fruit stubbornly remains unplucked. (Maybe because the people looking at that fruit aren't doing enough synergizing and social media research)
  

• Resource intelligence is central to the climate/energy challenge. The International Energy Agency describes a scenario for achieving 450 ppm (the widely shared though likely inadequate target for atmospheric concentrations of CO2). Of the emission reductions they project, energy efficiency is responsible for 54%.

• There’s need for public-private partnerships to restructure markets or create new ones. Market economics leads to a somewhat passive view of public life, wherein our collective welfare is entrusted to markets, to millions of allegedly rational individuals. But here we have a problem—the deterioration of the atmosphere—that presents us with great urgency, and a solution—resource intelligence—that requires our active intervention.

Basically, we have a situation where a 100% rational person would be investing in energy efficiency, but they aren't for any number of reasons, some good and some completely ridiculous. In order to get these people to make the decisions which are good for their health, their wallets and the environment as a whole, we need to educate them and/or give them some more incentives. Sounds good to you? Me too.

Obama Administration Cancels Drilling Leases in Utah

Ken Salazaar, in his first of what I hope will be many good environmental moves, has decided to cancel all of the oil drilling leases sold during the last weeks of the Bush administration. Koodos Ken -- this is what I like to see. Hopefully now we can move one step further and get this hero out of trouble.