Fwd: [ZWIA] FW: [gaia.eu] PRESS ALERT! Dirty Industries Attempt to Hijack Global Climate Talks!

[Richard Anthony]

-----Original Message-----
From: Maxine Narburgh <max...@brightgreen.org.uk>
Sent: Thu, Dec 3, 2009 8:22 am
PRESS ALERT! Dirty Industries Attempt to Hijack Global Climate Talks!

Dear All,

There is a need to reclaim the resources and climate change agenda, and give a helping hand to our friends in Copenhagen (zerowastefo...@googlemail.com &  ne...@no-burn.org ) working on the above. If you could contribute it would be appreciated.

 

A White Paper will be presented for the first time at the ISWA event (running today and tomorrow): two days of technical sessions on waste and climate issues that will conclude with the development of key messages that will be brought by the ISWA participants to the UN conference.

 

The white paper has not been released yet but (in anticipation) we have found the following papers that have been published and are being used to ‘inform’ the ISWA debate. We’ve had a quick read through, notes below, we’re not technological experts but these are the points that struck us – your feedback on these points and any other issues that you pick up would be great.

 

Pre conference journal release in Waste Management & Research 2009:27:850-860

Global warming factor of municipal solid waste management in Europe

Emmanuel Gentil and Thomas Christensen from the Technical University of Denmark in Kongens Lyngby, Denmark along with Emmanuelle Aoustin of Veolia Environnement, Paris, France analysed and compared the four main types of GHG accounting in waste management. http://wmr.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/27/9/850

editorial by Jens Aage Hansen online at http://wmr.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/27/9/837

 

ISSUES

A LCA that considers landfill, incineration, MBT with RDF, minimal recycling NO reuse or waste prevention. AD is dismissed. Very narrow view point with dubious results.

·         Conclusion – when substituting marginal energy, member states (MS) relying mainly on incineration would outperform a MS relying on material recycling

·         LCA approach using fossil fuel (2 scenarios 100% coal & 100% gas) substitution to promote incineration – shows net benefit

·         100 yrs assumption on landfill gas from biogenic carbon

·         Home composting, reuse and waste prevention have not been modeled

·         GWF - incineration is based on the energy production efficiency results from ISWA 2006 Energy from Waste, State of the Art Report.

·         Assumptions: based on fossil fuel substitution to grid (sold energy) based on MS energy mix. No energy inputs were included to run the incinerator assumed they are self sufficient – no energy mass balance re input:output. Finally it appears that all energy produced by incinerators substitutes electricity and heat production from fossil fuels with NO transmission losses!

·         Landfill. Overestimates on landfill performance with 100% of landfills capturing between 50-70% of landfill gas at an energy efficiency of 60-80% - so this assumes all heat is captured?

 

 New Directions for Greenhouse Gas Controls, Renewable Energy and Solid Waste Management in North America

John H. Skinner, Solid Waste Association of North America

http://swana.org/Portals/Officers/Skinner_ISWA_2009_Paper.pdf

 

This paper does acknowledge waste reduction, recycling, composting as means to reduce GHG. The focus is however, waste to energy & landfill gas, as clean renewable forms of energy that should be included in carbon trading programmes. Drivers for this include the American Recovery & Reinvestment Act & Clean Energy & Security Act 2009 & other fiscal and policy drivers.

This will probably be used to promote WtE & landfill gas as appropriate for CDM projects.

 

Cheers

Maxine

 

Making sense of greenhouse gas accounting

Published: Monday, November 30, 2009 - 16:29 in Earth & Climate

Los Angeles, London, New Delhi, Singapore and Washington DC (November 26, 2009) – Waste management is increasingly gaining the recognition that it deserves as a major contributor to mitigating climate change. But with at least four different methods of accounting for greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions currently in play, it is vitally important to ensure that all stakeholders are counting emissions accurately and transparently. A study released this week in a special issue of the journal Waste Management & Research published by SAGE describes methods currently used to quantify GHG emissions in waste management, and proposes a new framework that enables stakeholders to use consistently and transparently core emission data, which can then be implemented in any accounting procedure. GHG accounting has become a major focus within waste management, but due to complex and overlapping methodologies, confusion can and does arise. Emmanuel Gentil and Thomas Christensen from the Technical University of Denmark in Kongens Lyngby, Denmark along with Emmanuelle Aoustin of Veolia Environnement, Paris, France analysed and compared the four main types of GHG accounting in waste management.

The authors have analysed that the four main accounting approaches are based on common technical data from waste technologies and plants. "But the different accounting procedure scopes lead to many ways of quantifying emissions which is confusing to the waste management industry and wider stakeholders," says Gentil. The different GHG accounting methods include or exclude upstream and downstream processes, depending on their scope. "This naturally leads to different results, all likely to be fully justifiable," Gentil adds.

One accounting approach is provided by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) guidance documents and focus on the direct operating GHG emissions of landfill and mass burn incinerators. At the corporate level, GHG accounting is part of the annual reporting on environmental issues and social responsibility. While the IPCC accounting is organised around large industrial sectors, the corporate accounting mechanism is focusing on organisational boundaries, using traditional financial accounting procedures. A further approach is life-cycle assessment (LCA), as an environmental basis for assessing waste management systems and technologies, which aims at including upstream, operating and downstream environmental effects. Finally, the carbon trading methodology, and more specifically, the clean development mechanism (CDM) methodology, were introduced to support cost-effective reduction in GHG emissions for specific projects, such as landfill gas recovery. This approach aims at assessing the saved emissions due to the project compared to emissions that would have occurred without the implementation of the project.

Due to limited data availability and the different scopes of each accounting model, GHG emissions calculations can lead to different results, which taken out of their context, could lead to erroneous decisions. The authors reinforce the importance of transparency in GHG accounting when it comes to waste type, waste composition, time period considered, GHGs included, global warming potential (GWP) assigned to the GHGs, carbon cycle within waste management, choice of system boundaries, interactions with energy and other industrial systems, and the use of generic emissions factors.

In order to enhance transparency and consistency, Gentil and colleagues propose a format called the upstream-operating-downstream framework (UOD). This framework is to report basic or core technology-related data regarding GHG emissions. It shows a clear distinction between direct operating emissions from waste management technologies (e.g. landfill gas), indirect upstream (e.g. emissions from electricity use) and indirect downstream activities (e.g. recycling of scrap metals).

This framework may go some way to meeting one need identified in the International Solid Waste Association (ISWA) Waste & Climate White Paper, due for publication in December 2009. This paper calls for a method that would allow researchers to capture the complete scope of waste activities to yield better recognition of the sector's important GHG reduction and avoidance potential from downstream GHG savings.

"Efforts to improve the quantification and reporting should be continued in order to reduce the uncertainty of emission estimation at the various levels and to harmonize the approaches using common core set of emission data," according to the ISWA white paper. For many stakeholders, this harmonization will be a welcome and timely step towards more comprehensive GHG accounting in order to support better and more sustainable decision making processes.

Public release date: 26-Nov-2009
[ Print | E-mail | Share ] [ Close Window ]

Contact: Mithu Lucraft
mithu....@sagepub.co.uk
44-020-732-42223

Danish Eco City proves waste management can reverse greenhouse trend

Published: Monday, November 30, 2009 - 16:29 in Earth & Climate

Los Angeles, London, New Delhi, Singapore and Washington DC (November 26, 2009) – Cities can progress from consuming energy and emitting greenhouse gases (GHG) to actually producing energy while saving on GHG emissions, due to substitution of fossil fuels elsewhere. These findings are based on research in the city of Aalborg in Northern Denmark, published this week in Waste Management & Research, published by SAGE. Cities following similar waste management strategies are already having a far-reaching impact on GHG emissions in some regions of Europe. Given the global interest in GHG emissions it is perhaps surprising that to date few scientists have produced studies that measure the impact of waste treatment system changes over the longer term. Tjalfe Poulsen and Jens Aage Hansen from Aalborg University in Denmark used historical data from their own municipality of Aalborg to gain a broader, longer term overview of how a 'joined-up' approach to waste impacts GHG emissions. The assessment included sewage sludge, food waste, yard waste and other organic waste (including paper and plastic).

Aalborg's citizens have already implemented a package of measures to take on waste that benefits the environment. In 1970 Aalborg's municipal organic waste management system resulted in net GHG emissions with methane from landfill accounting for almost 100%. But between 1970 and 2005, the city changed its waste treatment strategy to include yard waste composting, with the city's remaining organic waste incinerated for combined heat and power production. Of this, waste incineration contributed 80% to net energy production and GHG turnover, wastewater treatment (including sludge digestion) contributed another 10%, while other waste treatment processes used (composting, transport, and land application of treated waste) had minor impacts.

"Generally incineration with or without energy production and biogas production with energy extraction are the two most important processes for the overall energy balance mainly due to the substitution of fossil fuel-based energy," says Poulsen.

Poulsen and Hansen calculate that the energy potential tied up in municipal organic waste in Denmark is equivalent to 5% of the country's total energy consumption including transport. The Aalborg municipality represents about four percent of the Danish population.

The researchers also looked forward to 2020, and predict that further improvements are possible by reducing energy consumed by wastewater treatment (for aeration), increasing anaerobic digestion and incineration process efficiency and source separating food waste for anaerobic co-digestion.

Aalborg's progress shows how far reaching waste management can be in reaching energy and GHG goals, and should offer encouragement to other cities embarking on greener waste management strategies for the future.

Within the European Union (EU), municipal waste management has already reduced GHG emissions significantly, from 64 to 28 million tonnes CO2 per year between 1990 and 2007, which is equivalent to a drop from 130 to 60 kg CO2 each year per capita. The EU municipal waste sector will achieve 18 percent of the reduction target set for Europe before 2012 according to the Kyoto agreement. The International Solid Waste Association (ISWA) discusses these findings in its Waste & Climate White Paper, due for publication in December. Looking forward, between 2012 and 2020 the EU municipal waste sector will become a net saver of GHG emissions according to current predictions. Aalborg is not alone among Northern European cities where citizens are already reducing overall GHG emissions thanks to optimised waste management.

 

 

 

 

From: gaia.e...@lists.riseup.net [mailto:gaia.e...@lists.riseup.net] On Behalf Of Jeni Mackay
Sent: 02 December 2009 22:47
To: undisclosed-recipients:
Subject: [gaia.eu] PRESS ALERT! Dirty Industries Attempt to Hijack Global Climate Talks!

 

 

"Alert! Dirty Industries Attempt to Hijack Global Climate Talks!"
Copenhagen, 3 December 2009

Global Anti Incineration Alliance (GAIA)  Press Release: Embargoed until 03/12/09 00:01 GMT


As the world’s governments convene here in Copenhagen to solve the unfolding climate crisis, polluting industries are putting up a fight. The incinerator industry, one of the world’s dirtiest, is trying to repackage itself as a “climate solution” in order to grab climate subsidies meant to support the development of clean technologies.

The incinerator industry are gathering today for the International Solid Waste Assiciation (ISWA )/Danish Komptencecenter for Waste (DAKOFA), Waste and Climate Change conference in Copenhagen where they will launch a white paper on climate change and create their message for COP15.

Global Anti Incineration Alliance (GAIA) are strongly advising delegates to demand that recycling, reuse and waste prevention are placed high on the ISWA message to COP15 and to recognise that Zero Waste is the ‘real’ solution to climate change and not incineration. The climate talks about to take place over the next 2 weeks, are a crucial time to come to a solution on climate change and climate justice particularly in the south, there should be no place for hijacking and promotion of bad solutions.

Neil Tangri from GAIA said:
“The idea that we can burn our way to climate stability is nothing short of ludicrous,” said Neil Tangri from GAIA “We need to reduce, recycle and compost, not burn waste.”

He continued:
“Recycling is not only commonplace in the developing world, it also provides employment to millions of poor people. These jobs, and the climate benefits of recycling, are threatened by the incinerator industry’s push to burn waste”

Recycling is up to 30 times more effective at reducing emissions than incineration.[i] and It provides employment to approximately 15 million people worldwide.[ii]

ISWA is a international organisation which promotes the development of this unsound solution to dealing with waste For example ISWA signed an agreement with the Plastics Institute PLASTIVIDA to develop and promote waste-to-energy technologies for plastics in Brazil  http://www.abrelpe.org.br/noticias_releases.php?codeps=MzE=

In many countries, ISWA organizes pro-incineration conferences for governments, bringing incineration companies from the North to promote their expensive, wasting and polluting technologies to the South.  Such companies who are major sponsors of the event, such as Veolia, Covanta, Ramboll, Vestforbraending and Amagerforbraending, have a reputation as big players in the energy from waste sector. As part of the ISWA climate change task force who have developed the white paper and the event , they will be pushing the misconception and poorly researched view that energy from waste (other than anaerobic digestion)  is the waste sectors solution to climate change.


Jeni Mackay from GAIA said”
“With the conference being dominated over two days by energy from waste companies and on developing the issue of incineration, it is hard to see where ISWA its self, can claim to promote an independent perspective and works in the publics interest to promote and develop international sustainable waste management”


GAIA will be keeping a close eye on the out comes of the ISWA conference over the next 2 days.

 
For press enquiries please contact

Jeni Mackay, GAIA, +447760231768(UK)

Neil Tangri, GAIA , +4550105822 (present in Copenhagen)

 or  email:  zerowastefo...@googlmail.com
 
Refferences

________________________________

[i] according to a recent study “Cooling Agents” by Chintan, a New Delhi-based NGO.

[ii] according to the World Bank.

 

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ZWIA" group.
To post to this group, send email to zw...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to zwia+uns...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/zwia?hl=en.

[Caroline Eader]

If it is helpful to debunk the assumption, that there was no energy inputs to run an incinerator, that "...they are self sufficient – no energy mass balance re input:output. ...that all energy produced by incinerators substitutes electricity and heat production from fossil fuels with NO transmission losses!"; then someone may want to reference the May 2009 monthly report  from Montgomery County, Maryland Division of Solid Waste Services wherein it states, "The plant purchased 382.7 MWh of electricity during the cold iron outage."

Here is part of what someone shared when they read this report, "380 Megawatts is unbelievable. At $.1052 per kilowatt which is the average industrial rate for Maryland from the DOE site below, that's like $40K for what, a week's downtime. Then add to that the power that didn't go out because they were down and you have a pretty good sum for just one event."

EIA

I wonder how many households it would take to use $40,000 of electricity in one month's time?

Caroline
www.zerowastetrips.com

You received this message because you are subscribed to Google
Groups "GreenYes" group.
To post to this group, send email to Gree...@googlegroups.com

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to

GreenYes+u...@googlegroups.com
To change email delivery options visit http://groups.google.com/group/GreenYes?hl=en