National Waste Prevention Network
March 16, 2010
From David Allaway, Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), Solid Waste Policy & Program Development, Portland, OR:
Here's some information about the environmental benefits of prevention relative to recycling and disposal, using drinking water as an example.
When I talk with "regular" people ("regular" = non environmental professionals) around Oregon, I often hear a common theme: "As long as I recycle (and buy recyclable product/packaging), it doesn't matter so much what I buy, right?" This perception – often expressed by individuals and business leaders who sincerely desire to protect the environment – is often informed by a belief that recycling is primarily a landfill avoidance strategy. Since both recycling and prevention are equally effective at keeping wastes out of landfills, the "logical" conclusion is that there's no reason to prefer one over the other. In my work on prevention, I often find that this perception is a significant barrier to engaging people in waste prevention (and reuse). Or as one businessperson told me: "I recycle, isn't that what you wanted me to do?"
Oregon DEQ recently published a study that sheds some environmental light on this dynamic. The study is a life cycle analysis of 48 different methods of delivering drinking water to consumers (tap, 5-gallon reusables, single-serve bottles). Among the options, it compares tap water in a variety of reusable bottles, single-serve bottles recycled, and single-serve bottles disposed of.
One of the key findings: Recycling single-use PET water bottles, compared to disposing of them, offers moderate reductions in energy consumption (~26% savings) and greenhouse gas emissions (~16% savings). Recycling does not offer meaningful benefits in other impact categories (cancer potential, acidification potential, etc.). In contrast, drinking water from the tap, even with frequent washing of a reusable bottle in an unusually water- (and energy-) intensive home dishwasher, reduces life cycle energy consumption by ~85% and greenhouse gas emissions by ~79%. Reductions on the order of 72% to 96% are observed in all other impact categories.
Another comparison: comparing a "best case" single-use bottle (recycled 100% of the time) against a "best case" tap water scenario, the best case single-use bottle (recycled) has lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions about 46 times higher than the best case tap water scenario.
So the study/example shows unequivocally that while recycling is better than disposal, the benefits of recycling are moderate at best, and pale in comparison against the benefits of prevention.
Here's a link to our press release: http://www.deq.state.or.us/news/prDisplay.asp?docID=3149 From there, you can access the project web page and reports, including the full life cycle analysis and a supplemental report that compares prevention, recycling, and disposal.
Our hope is that this kind of information will be used to help engage some of the public in a more informed discussion and understanding of prevention and recycling. I'd be interested in hearing from Listserve participants if they think this kind of information is useful. Thanks!
E-mail: Allaway.David@deq.state.or.us
Periodic posts of pertinent environmental news from David Assmann, Deputy Director of SF Environment.
About David
David Assmann is the Deputy Director of the SF Environment, San Francisco's Environment Department. He has been enlightening SFE staff for years with his picks of the day's environmental news.
Posts
