Comment Log Display

Summary - Include emphasis on solid waste programs in the mix.

Research we have conducted (presented at several conferences, EPA
webinars, and upcoming articles) indicates that, although energy
and transportation initiatives seem the most promising for
achieving GHG / carbon reductions (because of the EPA pie chart
showing waste a 3% contributor, etc.), research we have done and
several comunities we have tracked indicates that a number of
recycling and SOLID WASTE programs should be in the mix (and the
early mix) of programs.  They 1) are CHEAPER to implement per MTCE
than many of the residential and commercial energy efficiency and
other programs, 2) they are FASTER to implement than many of the
energy and especially transportation programs (and are a great
“bridge” while you wait for others to kick in – plus they are
long-lasting/retained!), 3) they have greater COVERAGE - with
recycling, with a ban or a program or etc. you hit all residential
or commercial folks at once (for example) rather than piecemeal
audits / retrofits with energy programs; and 4) the city has
AUTHORITY over the service in most cases, UNLIKE energy or many
mass transit issues.  One town we worked with found that 5 years
after adopting their GHG goals, they had achieved 40% of the
progress to date from the solid waste initiatives.  Note that
EPA's revised emissions chart shows contributions from solid waste
activities (production / disposal of "goods") is more than 1/3 of
the contribution to GHG - exceeding transportion or building
energy.  This is an inkling of our results, and I would be happy
to talk at length with the proper folks, or participate in the
dialog.  Citation / These conclusions come from Skumatz, Lisa A.,
Ph.D.,  "Recycling, Energy, and Climate Change:  Finding the
"Biggest Bang" Community Strategy for Reducing Greenhouse Gas
Emissions", Skumatz Economic Research Associates, Inc. Superior,
CO, July 2008.  My email is skumatz@serainc.com if you have
questions.