At 01:49 PM 11/18/95 -0800, you wrote:
>On Sat, 18 Nov 1995, Bret Diamond wrote:
>
>> Please send me the abstracts of the papers you listed to:
>> 1earth@tao.sosc.osshe.edu Thank you.
>>
>*** Please send abstracts to me, also: damesser@pacifier.com.
>THANKS!!
>
>// Don Messerschmidt
>13215-C8 S.E.Mill Plain #189, Vancouver, WA 98684-6991 USA
>Phone & Facsimile: (360) 256-8596
>Email: < damesser@pacifier.com > or < damesser@oregon.uoregon.edu >
>___________________________________________________________________
>
> `Preserve Cultural Diversity'
>___________________________________________________________________
>
>
Abstract
Does the Solid Waste Heirarchy Make Sense?:
A Technical, Economic and Environmental Justification for the Priority of
Source Reduction and Recycling
by:
John Schall
This paper examines the technical, economic and environmental justification
for the solid waste management hierarchy. The hierarchy ranks waste
management methods, prescribing that it is best to reduce the generation of
waste at the source, then to recycle and compost what cannot be reduced, and
finally to incinerate or landfill the remainder. While the hierarchy has
received widespread support from environmentalists, industry groups and
elected officials, over the past two years critics have attacked its
extensive reliance on source reduction and recycling as misguided and
expensive. This paper provides conceptual grounding and systematic
empirical support for the priority of reduction and recycling and argues
against several claims by the hierarchy's critics.
Managing waste has effects on both the solid waste system and the
production system (i.e., industries that extract raw materials and
manufacture products and packages). This paper identifies a series of solid
waste and production system questions that must be addressed to determine
the validity of the solid waste hierarchy. It uses several major research
studies conducted by the Tellus Institute as well as industry data and
reports to answer the questions posed. A key component of this research is
the development and application of a methodology for estimating the monetary
value of the environmental impacts of various types of pollution that occur
in both production and waste management. By combining what would otherwise
be "unpriced" environmental impacts with the conventional costs of
collecting, processing and disposing of waste, a full cost comparison of
options is made possible.
The paper argues that following the hierarchy is a technically feasible,
cost-effective and environmentally desirable approach to managing solid
waste. It shows that source reduction produces significant cost savings for
the solid waste management system. Using data from the tri-state
metropolitan New York City region, an area that includes 8% of the U.S.
population and 10% of the U.S. municipal waste stream, the cost savings are
shown to be approximately $100/ton of waste prevented, or 70% of the average
cost of managing a ton of waste in the region's solid waste system.
Further, the environmental impacts avoided by preventing the generation of
waste through source reduction activities are almost twice as large as the
conventional cost savings.
Recycling (and composting) up to 50% of the remaining waste is shown to be
the next most beneficial waste management method. The findings show that, in
the region studied, it is technically feasible to recover this quantity of
waste in recycling and composting programs at a cost no greater than the
cost to operate a disposal-only solid waste system. Further, the
environmental impacts of the recycling-intensive approach are no greater
(but no less) than the disposal-only approach when the solid waste
management portion of the system is examined.
The greatest benefit from pursuing a reduction- and recycling-intensive
waste management strategy, however, occurs in the production system. Using
materials recovered from the waste stream instead of virgin resources as raw
materials in manufacturing has significant environmental benefits. The
utilization of 50% of the waste stream as raw materials is technically
feasible and would reduce environmental impacts from materials production by
nearly $1 billion per year in the study region. The paper also suggests,
from as yet incomplete data, that the economic cost of increasing the
utilization of recycled content in production processes is not prohibitive.
Thus, managing waste according to the hierarchy reduces costs and
environmental impacts in the solid waste system. Further, it significantly
reduces the environmental impacts arising from production. The paper
concludes by examining the applicability of these results for the United
States as a whole and argues for the need to address solid waste management
as part of larger national resource policy in order to implement the
hierarchy successfully.
-----------------------
Abstract
Less Waste on the Loading Dock:
Competitive Strategy and the Reduction of Logistical Packaging Waste
by:
Diana Twede
Michigan State University
This paper assesses the potential for the reduction of logistical packaging
waste by examining the competitive structure of the industries that make,
use and dispose of this packaging. Logistical packaging is packaging used
for transport, handling and storage, including corrugated boxes, plastic
wraps, polystyrene foam inserts and pallets. The opportunities and
incentives for reduction of logistical packaging are increasing because of
changes in the competitive structure of the relevant industries. First,
transportation deregulation has reduced barriers to using new packaging
materials and new distribution methods that can reduce waste. Second,
government mandates, rising disposal costs and new technology have increased
the market threat from substitute materials that are lighter weight and less
bulky. Finally, the relative bargaining power of packaging suppliers,
product manufacturers and retailers has shifted away from suppliers and
toward the retailer interested in reducing disposal costs.
Arguing that the reduction of packaging waste can be a source of
competitive advantage, the paper concludes by evaluating the policy
implications for four constituencies. Firms and organizations at the end of
the transport packaging supply chain, including retailers and government
agencies, have leverage to negotiate waste reduction in proportion to their
size and the strength of the relationship with the manufacturers from whom
they buy. Manufacturers who buy packaging are best positioned to negotiate
for waste-reduced packaging by establishing performance specifications to
exploit substitutes for traditional materials and distribution systems.
Packaging producers can promote waste reduction by using recycled materials
and facilitating recycling of their products. Lastly, policy makers can
take advantage of market forces by incorporating the environmental costs of
solid waste in the price of disposal through taxation.
---------------------------
Abstract
What Won't Get Harvested, Where and When:
Effects Of Increased Paper Recycling On Timber Harvest
by:
Peter J. Ince
USDA Forest Service
Pulp and paper production and paper recycling have increased to
unprecedented levels worldwide in recent decades. This paper presents a
review and comparison of regional trends in these areas. On a worldwide
basis, increased recycling will have the greatest effects on potential
timber harvest in North America and Europe as a result of the large
magnitude of pulp and paper production and the potential for increased
recycling in those regions. Recycling will likely have less of an effect on
timber harvests in South America, Africa, Oceania, and Asia because of
established patterns of wood use or relatively small volumes of pulpwood
obtained from native forests. The worldwide demand for wood fiber will
continue to grow, and overall pulpwood consumption is not likely to diminish
substantially in any region. Projected effects of recycling on timber
harvest in North America were developed by comparing projections of pulpwood
harvest with and without expected increases in paper recycling. The results
show that increased recycling will have great effects on softwood pulpwood
harvest, mainly in the western and southern United States, and on hardwood
pulpwood harvest in the South; increased recycling will have a more modest
effect on pulpwood harvest in Canada and the northern United States.
------------------------
ORDERING INFORMATION FOR YALE WORKING PAPERS ON SOLID WASTE POLICY
Thank you for inquiring about the Yale Working Papers on Solid Waste Policy.
Currently, we have three working papers available:
1. "Does the Solid Waste Hierarchy Make Sense? A Technical, Economic and
Environmental Justification for the Priority of Source Reduction and
Recycling," John Schall. (October 1992). $12.00
2. "Less Waste on the Loading Dock: Competitive Strategy and the
Reduction of Logistical Packaging Waste," Diana Twede. (September 1995). $10.00
3. "What Won't Get Harvested, Where and When: The Effects of Increased
Paper Recycling on Timber Harvest," Peter Ince. (October 1995). $15.00
--------------------------------------------------------
If you would like to order any of the above working papers please send the
following information with payment to:
Working Papers
Yale Program on Solid Waste Policy
School of Forestry and Environmental Studies
205 Prospect St.
New Haven, CT 06511-2106
USA
1. Include Your:
Name, Title
Mailing address
Telephone and Fax number
E-mail address
2. Which paper(s) you would like to order:
paper #
quantity
price*
total cost**
3. Whether or not you would like to be added to our mailing list [if
possible, please indicate your e-mail address]
4. With a check made out to: Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies
*Please add US$4.50 per paper for international orders. Due to the high cost
of bank processing fees, international orders outside of Canada must be in
the form of international money orders or checks written on American banks.
**Papers will be sent 3rd class mail. If you desire faster delivery,
- add $2.50 for 1st class mail per order
- send us your federal express account #
Abstracts of each working paper are also available through e-mail. Just send
a message to pswp@yale.edu indicating which abstract you would like to
receive.
----------------------------------------------------------
Program on Solid Waste Policy
School of Forestry and Environmental Studies
Yale University
205 Prospect Street
New Haven,CT 06511-2106
USA
203-423-3253 (telephone)
203-432-5912 (fax)
pswp@yale.edu
Mail converted by
MHonArc 1.1.0