What Is Source Reduction? A Critique and Comparative Analysis of Polish and American Students

/ Source reduction is recognized as the preferred form of waste management, but its definition is ambiguous. This study proposes four underlying dimensions of the source reduction concept. Source reduction is foremost a preventive activity that reduces the number or extent of environmental impacts. Second, source reduction can prevent both resource consumption and pollution generation impacts. Third, source reduction may be viewed as both a producer and consumer activity. Lastly, it may include frugal and more efficient activities. In surveys exploring these fourdimensions, Polish and American university students evaluated whether 20 activities were examples of source reduction. The American students gave higher ratings to preventive activities over adaptive activities. The Polish students most prominently rated efficient over frugal activities. Factor analysis indicated that both samples identified a group of consumer-based resource conservation activities, with the American students recognizing a cluster of recycling activities. In a separate ranking of environmental protection priorities, the Polish students endorsed pollution prevention, whereas the American students favored both efficient and frugal resource conservation. These findings suggest that the conceptualization of source reduction varies according to contextual factors and that prevention is still an obscure environmental management theme. KEY WORDS: Source reduction; Pollution prevention; Resource conservation; Frugality; Poland     

Life cycle assessment of waste paper management: The importance of technology data and system boundaries in assessing recycling and incineration

The significance of technical data, as well as the significance of system boundary choices, when modelling the environmental impact from recycling and incineration of waste paper has been studied by a life cycle assessment focusing on global warming potentials. The consequence of choosing a specific set of data for the reprocessing technology, the virgin paper manufacturing technology and the incineration technology, as well as the importance of the recycling rate was studied. Furthermore, the system was expanded to include forestry and to include fossil fuel energy substitution from saved biomass, in order to study the importance of the system boundary choices. For recycling, the choice of virgin paper manufacturing data is most important, but the results show that also the impacts from the reprocessing technologies fluctuate greatly. For the overall results the choice of the technology data is of importance when comparing recycling including virgin paper substitution with incineration including energy substitution. Combining an environmentally high or low performing recycling technology with an environmentally high or low performing incineration technology can give quite different results. The modelling showed that recycling of paper, from a life cycle point of view, is environmentally equal or better than incineration with energy recovery only when the recycling technology is at a high environmental performance level. However, the modelling also showed that expanding the system to include substitution of fossil fuel energy by production of energy from the saved biomass associated with recycling will give a completely different result. In this case recycling is always more beneficial than incineration, thus increased recycling is desirable. Expanding the system to include forestry was shown to have a minor effect on the results. As assessments are often performed with a set choice of data and a set recycling rate, it is questionable how useful the results from this kind of LCA are for a policy maker. The high significance of the system boundary choices stresses the importance of scientific discussion on how to best address system analysis of recycling, for paper and other recyclable materials.     

Allocation solutions for secondary material production and end of life recovery: Proposals for product policy initiatives

This paper aims at analysing how secondary materials production and end of life recovery processes are modelled in life cycle-based environmental assessment methods in order to discuss their suitability in product policy-support contexts, with a focus on Sustainable Consumption and Production (SCP) policies. The equations prescribed in three published, widely recognised standards are evaluated. In addition, more recent modelling approaches that have been adopted in the context of two EU product policy initiatives (the Product Environmental Footprint (PEF) and the Resource Efficiency Assessment of Products (REAPro)) are similarly analysed. All of the methods are scrutinised against eight criteria which we deem to be important in product policy-support contexts, including comprehensiveness, accommodation of open-loop and closed-loop product systems, and consideration of recyclability/recoverability rates, to name a few. Based on this analysis, it is suggested that the PEF and REAPro modelling approaches appear to be better suited for use in product policy-support contexts than do the currently widely endorsed methods that we considered.     

Environmental assessment of different management options for individual waste fractions by means of life-cycle assessment modelling

Several alternatives exist for handling of individual waste fractions, including recycling, incineration and landfilling. From an environmental point of view, the latter is commonly considered as the least desirable option. Many studies based on life-cycle assessment (LCA) highlight the environmental benefits offered by incineration and especially by recycling. However, the landfilling option is often approached unjustly in these studies, maybe disregarding the remarkable technological improvements that landfills have undergone in the last decades in many parts of the world.This study, by means of LCA-modelling, aims at comparing the environmental performance of three major management options (landfilling, recycling and incineration or composting) for a number of individual waste fractions. The landfilling option is here approached comprehensively, accounting for all technical and environmental factors involved, including energy generation from landfill gas and storage of biogenic carbon. Leachate and gas emissions associated to each individual waste fraction have been estimated by means of a mathematical modelling. This approach towards landfilling emissions allows for a more precise quantification of the landfill impacts when comparing management options for selected waste fractions.Results from the life-cycle impact assessment (LCIA) show that the environmental performance estimated for landfilling with energy recovery of the fractions “organics” and “recyclable paper” is comparable with composting (for “organics”) and incineration (for “recyclable paper”). This however requires high degree of control over gas and leachate emissions, high gas collection efficiency and extensive gas utilization at the landfill. For the other waste fractions, recycling and incineration are favourable, although specific emissions of a variety of toxic compounds (VOCs, PAHs, NO_x, heavy metals, etc.) may significantly worsen their environmental performance.