The workplace generates a lot of waste. No matter whether you work in an office, warehouse, factory or outside, waste is a natural by-product of nearly every occupation.

A lot of what we throw away when we are at work, however, can be recycled and it is increasingly important that we think abut the environment when we are at work – especially considering the amount of time many of us spend there.

One of the biggest wastages in the workplace is the amount of paper we get through. Even though everything is computerised these days, we still are using just as much – if not more – paper than ever.

And not enough of us are recycling it either and this is a terrible waste as paper is one of the easiest of our resources to recycle. Recycling bins and paper recycling bins should be in the corner of nearly every office. So much paper gets thrown away that if all workplaces ensured it went in the recycling bin it would make a huge difference in the waste that ends up on landfill sites – and the number of trees cut down.

But its no just paper that is a nuisance to the environment. Many workplaces have vending machines and while these are very convenient for a quick cuppa the polystyrene and plastic cups that are used mainly end up on landfills – where they can longer for decades.

These can be recycled and many vending machine manufacturers are using more eco friendlier materials to make the little cups from. Placing cup collectors near the vending machines and canteen to catch the empties will ensure that these extremely numerous cups end up recycled not in the rubbish bin.

Cans from vending machines, too, can be recycled; can collectors will ensure the empties get taken away for recycling.

There are other ways of being a little more eco friendly at work too, such as making use of email and electric means rather than the printer and making sure you don’t waste paper unnecessarily. The culmination of this, and all other recycling tips is that less rubbish gets chucked away in the skip or external bin.

Richard N Williams is interested in waste bins and rubbish removal. Please visit us website if you are interested in Recycling bins a or other rubbish bins.

Price: $14.95

Click here to buy from Amazon

The only way it is possible to define the zero waste philosophy is to study the schemes which describe themselves as zero waste projects around the world.

However, let me make it clear, nowhere that I know of does it mean literally “zero waste” to landfill. As I said, this is a term coined by politicians rather than waste management engineers.

The “Zero Waste” or “No Waste” goals in the places which were studied by the Green Alliance in 2006, were found to mean in effect no un-recycled waste, and not much more.

Yes, most are articulated as Zero Waste to landfill, however, none of the places in question at that time seemed to be planning an increase in incineration for example, which would reduce the waste tonnage greatly, and some appear to have ruled it out (Canberra, Kamikatusu, New Zealand, Philippines) citing negative public opinion.

Some of the Zero Waste goals have target dates attached (Kamikatsu, Japan, 2020; New Zealand, 2020; San Francisco 2020). For others, “Zero Waste” provides a notional target with some interim targets (Bath, Philippines).

Canberra’s target of no waste by 2010 is acknowledged to mean in practice 95 per cent diversion from landfill.

Those municipalities espousing zero waste will nevertheless be some of the highest recycling rate achievers, and studies appear to show recycling rates are and will be raised to between 37 per cent and 80 per cent

The experience of a Flanders, France experience was thought in 2006 to indicate that household recycling rates of 60 per cent ought to be obtainable in the UK with the right mix of instruments – although until the new UK government was elected in May 2010, it was expected that local authorities would be allowed to charge householders extra for non-recycled (black bag) waste, as way to achieve these high goals. However, the Conservative/Liberal Coalition has already announced that no such an incentive will be allowed by the new UK Government.

A common feature to many of the Zero Waste targeted schemes is rigorous source separation and collection of recyclables, but so far, in no case, does this appear to be mandatory.

In many places zero waste recycling is driven by pricing of landfill (Bath, Canberra, Flanders, New Zealand) and variable charging of householders (Flanders, San Francisco).

All case studies assume that good markets will exist from now onward for most recyclates, although some will always be awkwardly distant (China and India). So, this raises questions as to whether the goal of zero waste is sustainable, in a market sense, or whether recycling will continue to suffer from the recessionary effect on China’s need for imported secondary materials.

The notions of designing out waste, changing the nature of products and making producers responsible for the consequences of wasteful consumption are still not really on the agenda for zero waste advocates, but shouldn’t they be?

Beyond European or European-style agreements on recycling of packaging and WEEE, there seems little real appetite for imposing more biting producer responsibility. The “Cradle to Cradle” concepts of beneficial products and continual recycling of biological and non-renewable materials are being developed, but are not yet necessarily a part of the Zero Waste philosophy in many places.

The UK is well investing heavily to take a lead on waste prevention with large amounts of landfill tax money being channelled into bodies such as WRAP, Envirowise, BREW, and the Centre for Sustainable Design. Let’s hope they will soon be able to produce some truly ground-breaking ideas and initiatives to actually achieve close to what the public must think the politicians and the waste industry mean by zero waste..

Underpinning the philosophy of zero waste is an aspiration for continuous improvement that goes beyond being compliant with legislation, targets or contracts. While practically delivering zero waste is a significant challenge, the desire to do more and do it better is perhaps the most important lesson we can draw from these case studies.

Zero waste had been portrayed as utopian and undeliverable, yet getting as close to it as possible is worth striving for, and the zero waste concept is already delivering results. Let’s hope the backwash from the press and media, and the public when they realise that most of the landfills will stay open, is not too great.

Visit the web-site: www.green-alliance.org.uk .

“Pay as you throw” charges for household waste have been ruled out by Communities Secretary Eric Pickles.

Plans to let English councils pilot schemes which would charge or reward people according to the waste thrown out had been drawn up by Labour.

But councils shunned the trials, aimed at cutting landfill, and Mr Pickles said the government backed rewarding people for recycling instead.

Labour said it should be up to councils to choose how to collect waste.

The UK must reduce the amount of waste sent to landfill by nearly two-thirds by 2020 to meet EU targets.
‘Bin tax’

Government says No! To bin tax.

Powers to allow five councils in England to trial the scheme from April 2009 were included in the Climate Change Act – but none applied, saying they had not been told how it would operate.

Critics said the “bin tax” idea could encourage fly-tipping and prompt people to burn rubbish at home.

You should treat people with respect instead of having a bunch of bin inspectors

Eric Pickles Communities Secretary

Mr Pickles has effectively ruled out a charging scheme, instead backing a recycling reward scheme pioneered by Windsor and Maidenhead council in Berkshire.

Households in the borough – which Mr Pickles visited on Monday to draw attention to the scheme – are being awarded points for the amount they recycle, which can be redeemed at shops, restaurants and leisure centres, or donated to schools.

Mr Pickles said the scheme had increased recycling by 35% and an incentive-based approach was more effective than taxes or fines in reducing the amount of rubbish sent to landfill sites.

“You should treat people with respect instead of having a bunch of bin inspectors, bin police,” Mr Pickles told BBC Radio 4′s The World at One.

Incentivising people was the quickest way to increase recycling levels, which he said would be badly needed if the UK was to meet its target of becoming “one of the green economies of Europe”.

“It does not put the costs up,” he added. “Actually what it does is it increases the recycling rate and puts money into the local economy.”

Windsor and Maidenhead council is inviting more than 60,000 households to join its RecycleBank service from Monday.

Councillor Liam Maxwell said: “Paying the public to recycle works. It increases recycling rates, reduces our environmental impact, reduces council tax and helps local businesses.

More at BBC News.

The United Kingdom (UK) has traditionally used landfill disposal as the main method of waste management. However, it has long been recognised that landfilling is unsustainable due to its long term harmful effects on the environment and public health.

Landfill also places a high long term risk on groundwater quality, which could threaten the availability of clean water for future generations.

Under the European Union (EU) Landfill Directive, and starting in 2006, member nations were required to divert biodegradable municipal waste (BMW) from landfills. The UK has also committed to the EU Renewable Energy Directive, which binds it to sourcing at least 15% of its energy mix from renewables by 2020.

Through the last decade the emphasis was on recycling, and this is still the case, but recycling will only achieve waste diversion up to a point. Therefore, to meet these targets, the UK is developing alternative waste management options as well as planning to achieve considerable deployment of renewables.

Throughout 2009 a number of aspects of UK waste management policy that have been in place for some time came together so that for the first time a genuine shift in the industry could be detected. Investors began to see the wisdom of those that have already anticipated this new vision and have committed to investment in the waste technologies, as many of the smaller more nimbly operators have begun to make profits. Where profit is to be made others will now follow to secure waste contracts for the resource that collected material provides them.

If asked what the single biggest influence on this was during 2009, I would say it as the government’s Landfill Tax escalator policy which meant that for most waste disposers, for the first time, landfill disposal actually became more expensive than recycling. You can argue around the detail here, but I had not before the summer of 2009 witnessed recycling companies able to say they could offer price competitive disposal prices when head to head with the traditional landfill operators.

Another major driving force in UK waste management which is powering the evolution from a disposal problem to a resource optimisation opportunity are the high targets for waste diversion from landfill, and 20 year or longer integrated waste management contracts. These are public/private partnership projects which the UK government is pushing ahead with now in order to achieve those targets.

Here to, we saw a major milestone achieved while the recession was biting the hardest early in 2009. This was the successful planning application, and award of contract, for the £4 billion Greater Manchester Waste PFI Contract, the largest of its kind in Europe, and all built upon stakeholder involvement. However, the Greater Manchester PFI Contract is only the most high profile example of a procurement revolution which probably reached its peak of activity during 2009, and saw similar contracts either largely in place or planned throughout the nation.

The year also saw a number of these projects hit the headlines, and some Energy from Waste schemes being pushed back at planning (Cornwall and Edinburgh for example).

However, the trend continued and accelerated so that for all waste streams and/or locations where re-use or recycling of waste is not viable, energy recovery is being reinforced as the preferred option, with disposal used only as a last resort.

For a long while the major Energy from Waste producer has been from landfills, and it has been landfill gas (LFG) utilisation. However, the relative importance to LFG utilisation as a proportion of total energy from waste production will now be expected to decline.

Each month in the years to come we will see the rollout of new energy from waste (EfW) projects coming on-stream. However, while the adoption of new waste technologies is being supported in the UK by government departments, the perceived high risk for the PFI partnerships, has remained high. 2009 was not good for implementing the more innovative of these.

The increased cautiousness of the banks funding the private element of these projects has come at a very unfortunate time, as it has in my view severely detracted against the bankability of schemes using these new technologies. In fact, 2009 saw the shelving of quite a number of the more adventurous new waste technology options in favour of more traditional incineration technology.

During the year events also reinforced the wisdom of encouraging the use of EfW and other home grown renewable energy source, within the global scene. Most will remember that early in 2009 we saw the deep rationing of natural gas supplies to some European nations which were themselves unconnected with a producer country dispute. This held up supplies during the coldest weather and in a completely arbitrary fashion.

Most now strongly support the benefits of renewable energy for its improved energy supply security, ability to provide climate change mitigation when combined with stiff recycling targets and the highest possible waste diversion, and not least its resource efficiency.

However, good though that may be for waste as an opportunity, the main event of the year was the new found security to the recyclers which came with the attainment of the economic tipping point, whereby landfilling has become more expensive than most forms of main stream recycling activity. From now on the markets in recyclates will operate on a progressively more stable and normal economic basis.

Recycling has always made sense for the environment, but from now on it will also become a natural economically favourable option as well We can also look forward to the future knowing that the landfill tax will rise again in April 2010, taking us further into the new UK era of waste as a resource of opportunity.

Clients have named Enviros the best consultancy in four categories in the 2009 Edie Awards for Environmental Excellence after being shortlisted for all nine consultancy awards.

• Best Consultancy for Climate Change and Renewables 
• Best Consultancy for Waste and Recycling
• Best Consultancy for Due Diligence
• Best Consultancy for Water and Wastewater.

 

The contract, which is for five years with a potential extension of up to a further four years, will cover four local authorities: Bristol city council (as lead authority), Bath & North East Somerset council, North Somerset council and South Gloucestershire council. Five bids were invited for the work, but only three received.

The aim of the contract is to ensure that there is sufficient treatment capacity to divert waste from landfill to meet the Authorities’ annual LATS allowances over the period 2011/12 to 2015/16. The award forms phase two of a four phase joint waste management strategy approved by the Partnership in June.

Phase one of the Partnership’s work was source segregation contracts for organic wastes. There is still the possibility that the authorities might opt for incineration as a third stage although there is some uncertainty about this. In the recent local authority elections, the Liberal Democrats won Bristol and they campaigned on the back of not having an incinerator in the region.
MBT solution

Now, New Earth Solutions will be bringing a mechanical biological treatment solution to the West of England with construction of a plant in the Avonmouth area. The plant is to be 200,000 tonnes in size and will be New Earth’s largest development to date. This allows for 80,000 tonnes of merchant capacity.

Of the 120,000 tonnes fed in to the plant, more than 50% will be reduced through losses in mass. Non-ferrous, ferrous and high grade plastics will be recovered, totalling about 15% of the input and about 15% will be used as a compost like output for land. The balance will be used for a biomass refuse derived fuel which could be used in complementary plant near the MBT facility.

Value of the contract has not yet been disclosed but is thought to be about £50 million and the plant is due to be operational in April 2011.

Councillor Carl Francis-Pester, chair of the Partnership’s joint waste management committee, said: “New Earth Solutions will provide the councils with a cleaner, cheaper and more sustainable way to dispose of residual household waste.”

Chris Cox, managing director of New Earth Solutions, told letsrecycle.com: “We are delighted to have been chosen by the West of England Partnership.”
Related links

* New Earth Solutions
* West of England Partnership

Cost of the contract is based on the principle that any contract procured by the Partnership will be operated on a partnership basis with costs shared and allocated on an equitable basis. According to the Partnership, the New Earth Solutions project requires each authority to identify and then commit, on an annual basis, the delivery of a specified volume of waste to the treatment facility.

The Partnership said: “Each authority will have a minimum tonnage assigned to it for each of the initial five years of the contract, in order that the partnership can fulfil its overall minimum tonnage obligations to the contractor. Each authority will commit to pay its share of the contract costs, the pooled haulage costs and the project management and administrative costs in respect of its guaranteed minimum tonnage for the duration of the initial five years of the contract, irrespective of whether it delivers the agreed tonnage or a lower tonnage.

More at LetsRecycle..

Sponsored by the Teton Conservation District and BioCycle magazine, this three-day conference:

ORGANIC WASTE DIVERSION IN THE ROCKIES
will focus on

Economics, Operations and Marketing

The Conference is being held at the
Snow King Resort in Jackson, Wyoming
July 19-22, 2009

Here is your opportunity to network and learn from the experienced, knowledgeable faculty of speakers who will discuss how to successfully implement diversion programs when markets are distant; integrating new programs with existing infrastructure; and developing markets for woody biomass.

Speakers like:
Randy Williams, Teton Conservation District; Mark Barron, Mayor,Town of Jackson, Wyoming;
Kathy O’Hern, Gallatin County (Montana)/West Yellowstone Composting Facility; Chuck Wilson and Bob Yost, A1 Organics; Phil Hayes, Pinetop/Lake (Arizona) Sanitary District; Nora Goldstein, BioCycle; Jerry Wright, Rapid City, South Dakota Public Works Department; Kate Blevins, Verde Earth Works; Roy Petermean, Brigham Young University; Jonathan Schechter, One Percent for the Tetons; Dane Buk, Terra Firma Organics; Steve Michael, Jackson Whole Grocer; Laura Cuddy, Four Seasons Resort; Bruce Fullford, City Soil and Greenhouse;
Dave Atkins, Fuels for Schools, US Forest Service Northern and Intermountain Regions;
Al Christophersen, Director of Habitat Stewardship Services, Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation … and many more.

Where else can you talk face to face with experts like these to help you find ways to turn organic materials into valuable resources?

Conference sessions will be held on Monday and Tuesday, July 20 and 21 at the Snow King Resort. Monday’s program opens at 8:30 am with sessions on MSW and biosolids composting and collection, processing and marketing of recyclable materials. On Monday Afternoon , from 1 – 5:00 pm, participants will tour Jackson Community Recycling Center and the Teton Country Transfer Station and Compost Facility, returning to the hotel for a Reception in the Exhibit area.

On Tuesday, July 21, sessions will cover composting, woody biomass, food waste composting, anaerobic digestion of animal waste, food waste recycling in resorts and parks, and much more.

An optional tour of Yellowstone National Park recycling and composting facilities will be held on Wednesday, July 22, from 7:30 am – 5:30 pm.

And on Sunday, July 19, there is an optional Workshop, “Foundations of Composting Training,” from 8:00 am – 4:30 pm. Instructors Robert Rynk of State University of New York Cobleskill, and Matt Cotton of Integrated Waste Management Consulting, will provide a foundation for novice compost operators, managers and regulators, and will refresh veteran composters on the underlying scientific principles, helping prepare for expanded job responsibilities, managerial duties and certification requirements.

REGISTER BY JUNE 5 TO GET EARLY BIRD DISCOUNT HERE.

In Merthyr Tydfil, the funding will be used for a door-knocking campaign to encourage more households to recycle their waste and help Wales become a greener, more sustainable country. The council reported a 26.2% municipal waste recycling and composting rate in 2006/07.

The remainder of the £800,000 is expected to be used to support plastics recycling in Wales and develop “Zero waste places” – although full details have yet to emerge.

The move comes ahead of the launch of the revised Welsh Waste Strategy for consultation next month, which will set out a new framework for governing waste across the principality.

Jane Davidson, minister for the environment, sustainability and housing, said: “We all have a responsibility for our environment and to reduce Wales’ ecological footprint. A huge part of this is reducing the amount of rubbish we send to landfill. This is no longer sustainable environmentally or financially. I am delighted to be supporting this new scheme to help Merthyr households with their recycling.

“The more we recycle and the less we throw away into landfill the greater our impact will be as individuals in guarding our environment.

“It is important that residual waste is managed in the most sustainable way and that the waste we produce is progressively reduced over time. Then, perhaps, in the more distant future we can contemplate true ‘zero waste – or not producing any waste at all,” she added.

Mike Thomas, head of environmental services for Merthyr Tydfil county borough council, welcomed the funding, which he said would help to boost participation in recycling. More at LetsRecycle.

At the Wasters blog we started the year by reporting the gap between Ireland’s actual rates of recycling and waste diversion away from landfill, and the target requirements. It seems that Ireland will need to speed up its progress or soon face fines from the EU for failing to comply with the targets set up in the Landfill Directive.

This contrasted strongly against stories of success from the United Kingdom which were posted on our blog throughout the year. In fact, the Environment Secretary for Scotland announced ambitious plans to exceed the EU targets, for waste management in Scotland. The new targets amount to 60 percent recycling by 2020 and 70 percent by 2025. Also, incineration received a knock as a part of this plan, when it became clear that no more than 25 percent of waste is to be used to generate energy. The ultimate target is that they will reduce municipal waste being sent to landfill to just 5 percent by 2025. That is quite a target to go for! Especially as the easy option of incineration will be severely capped.

All the time last year, new announcements of new waste collection and massive investment in waste and secondary resource processing facilities planned were being made by the big five waste management companies, and indeed newcomers to the PFI Contracts, especially for the very large big-city contracts.

At the start of the year all were surprised that the Greater Manchester Waste Disposal Authority (GMWDA) was still in extended negotiation for its PFI Contract. In March we were told that they would very soon be announcing the award. However, the end of April arrived before there was a further delay announced. Even now the deal is not resolved.

Of course, all large contract negotiations are suffering from the much tougher bank lending rules which have been in place since the credit crunch really began to bite in the summer. The contractors bidding have found that the banks have been pulling back on their borrowing and at the very least their interest rates will have no doubt been revised. At a contract value in the region of reported £3 billion, and said to be the largest municipal waste contract in Europe, the GMWDA deal must be extremely hard to clinch.

The latest News (from LetsRecycle.com) about the Manchester PFI contract, at the start of December was that the banks were completing final formalities with a hoped for Christmas signing. The Waster has not seen an announcement so far, so we will hopefully receive the good news as one of the first events in the UK waste management scene in 2009!

The Manchester contract, and many others, need signing soon and then to move into the construction stage for the new facilities planned and much needed in order for the UK recycling and waste diversion targets to be met in the years to come.

One of the highlights for the Waster (who has been described as “born to landfill”) was a German research paper reported in April to be recommending the use of landfill as a carbon sink, as in carbon sequestration/storage. The posting was titled “Carbon Storage – A Renaissance for Landfill?”. How refreshing it was for a landfill lover like the Waster to be told that landfilling should be increased and encouraged and certainly not reduced. Wonderful! More of it please!

Autumn news showed the waste industry to be remarkably resilient to the economic slowdown, although landfill operators were, and still are, reporting the current remarkable rarity of once ever-present construction waste vehicles arriving at their landfill gates.

Of course part of the reduction might be due to better management of waste at the construction sites themselves, and in particular this may have had a small effect after the introduction, in the spring by the UK government, of a new legal requirement. The new rule is that all large construction sites produce Site Waste Management Plans (SWMPs) for every site from now on.

However, the lack of much SWMP activity reportedly being seen from the construction industry in setting up these plans shows that it is the economic slowdown rather than much better construction site waste minimisation and recycling that is the predominant effect here!

All in all, the UK waste management industry continues in the path set for it by the politicians in the 1986 Maastricht Treaty. Don’t forget that ALL EU member nation policy on waste-related legislation is derived from the EU commission and through qualified majority voting (unanimity in these matters is a thing of the past). The Waster is UK based and from his point of view the waste legislation has nothing directly to do with public health or environmental health issues in the UK.

In effect this means that the degree to which EU targets are set and goals derived make no allowance for national differences, bear no relationship to what might be more or less sustainable from a climate change perspective, and make no allowance for cost/benefit to local communities.

The Waster’s view is that this is nowhere more obvious than in the last of the big news events of the year. That is the autumn’s big and ever-rising cost of recycling due to the economic slowdown. How can it be right that policy is so inflexible that the ratepayers have to pick up whatever bill the waste industry incurs when the raw materials price falls through the floor?

In any other market there would be a market self-correction when the recyclers reduced their output to match the value gained from the recycled materials. In fact, the recycling market is bound to create these huge fluctuations as it is so distorted by inflexible EU policy.

As the Waster has been around for a long time, he continues to see it as remarkable that the current waste policies have lasted for as long as they have in their current form and ever increasingly are being built with huge investment into the fabric of our nation.

The concern must be how well technically they are based, when MBT in all its forms is put forward as better than incineration by our policy makers. Given public hostility in the UK to incineration it may be convenient to neglect the fact that no proper primary research has been done into the long-term impacts of MBT residues which receive only scant drying or composting treatment in order to declassify them from being organic waste. This allows this supposedly processed material to be sent to landfill without, on paper, contributing the the organic waste sent to landfill. This must surely be bending the rules beyond the point of forgiveness, purely for convenience?

Furthermore, why all the obsession we see with the carbon cycle within the waste regulators and impacts – to the almost complete neglect of consideration of the nitrogen cycle?

Both must be got right for a healthy environment and both need very careful consideration. However, the Waster is not aware of any recent research into the fate of nitrogen from waste residues, which he considers must be highly neglectful.

As we said earlier, the Waster does have a long memory, and he does remember that the UK only signed up to the Landfill Directive after resisting doing so for 11 years, in exchange for a deal with the Spanish on fishing quotas!

We did not know then what that had to do with sound waste management or environmental protection, and that has not changed.

So, the Waster will continue through 2009 to take a critical view of the waste scene as it implements EU legislation, and will plea for ALL aspects of policy to be founded on sound principles, rather than embarking on huge investments in waste technology in waste processing without good research to back up politically convenient theory.

Those were the main issues for the Wastersblog in 2008, and that ends our look back at the year 2008.

Your comments on this blog posting will, as always, be highly welcomed. Don’t be shy – comment away! (Email me direct if you have any problems with the commenting system on the blog site. All previous problems you might have experienced with the comments system have been rectified.)

The Waster would like to take this opportunity to wish all his readers a happy and prosperous new year.