Estimating national landfill methane emissions: an application of the 2006 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Waste Model in Panama

This paper estimates national methane emissions from solid waste disposal sites in Panama over the time period 1990-2020 using both the 2006 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Waste Model spreadsheet and the default emissions estimate approach presented in the 1996 IPCC Good Practice Guidelines. The IPCC Waste Model has the ability to calculate emissions from a variety of solid waste disposal site types, taking into account country- or region-specific waste composition and climate information, and can be used with a limited amount of data. Countries with detailed data can also run the model with country-specific values. The paper discusses methane emissions from solid waste disposal; explains the differences between the two methodologies in terms of data needs, assumptions, and results; describes solid waste disposal circumstances in Panama; and presents the results of this analysis. It also demonstrates the Waste Model's ability to incorporate landfill gas recovery data and to make projections. The former default method methane emissions estimates are 25 Gg in 1994, and range from 23.1 Gg in 1990 to a projected 37.5 Gg in 2020. The Waste Model estimates are 26.7 Gg in 1994, ranging from 24.6 Gg in 1990 to 41.6 Gg in 2020. Emissions estimates for Panama produced by the new model were, on average, 8% higher than estimates produced by the former default methodology. The increased estimate can be attributed to the inclusion of all solid waste disposal in Panama (as opposed to only disposal in managed landfills), but the increase was offset somewhat by the different default factors and regional waste values between the 1996 and 2006 IPCC guidelines, and the use of the first-order decay model with a time delay for waste degradation in the IPCC Waste Model.     

A global community-sourced assessment of the state of conservation technology

Conservation technology holds the potential to vastly increase conservationists’ ability to understand and address critical environmental challenges, but systemic constraints appear to hamper its development and adoption. Understanding of these constraints and opportunities for advancement remains limited. We conducted a global online survey of 248 conservation technology users and developers to identify perceptions of existing tools’ current performance and potential impact, user and developer constraints, and key opportunities for growth. We also conducted focus groups with 45 leading experts to triangulate findings. The technologies with the highest perceived potential were machine learning and computer vision, eDNA and genomics, and networked sensors. A total of 95%, 94%, and 92% respondents, respectively, rated them as very helpful or game changers. The most pressing challenges affecting the field as a whole were competition for limited funding, duplication of efforts, and inadequate capacity building. A total of 76%, 67%, and 55% respondents, respectively, identified these as primary concerns. The key opportunities for growth identified in focus groups were increasing collaboration and information sharing, improving the interoperability of tools, and enhancing capacity for data analyses at scale. Some constraints appeared to disproportionately affect marginalized groups. Respondents in countries with developing economies were more likely to report being constrained by upfront costs, maintenance costs, and development funding (p = 0.048, odds ratio [OR] = 2.78; p = 0.005, OR = 4.23; p = 0.024, OR = 4.26), and female respondents were more likely to report being constrained by development funding and perceived technical skills (p = 0.027, OR = 3.98; p = 0.048, OR = 2.33). To our knowledge, this is the first attempt to formally capture the perspectives and needs of the global conservation technology community, providing foundational data that can serve as a benchmark to measure progress. We see tremendous potential for this community to further the vision they define, in which collaboration trumps competition; solutions are open, accessible, and interoperable; and user-friendly processing tools empower the rapid translation of data into conservation action. Article impact statement: Addressing financing, coordination, and capacity-building constraints is critical to the development and adoption of conservation technology.     

Biodegradation of Bloodmeal-Based Thermoplastics in Green-Waste Composting

Polymers that are compostable and manufactured from renewable resources have gained significant importance in recent years. The objective of this work was to assess the biodegradability of bloodmeal-based thermoplastics in a commercial green-waste composting situation. Materials plasticised with tri-ethylene–glycol lost about 45% of their original mass after 12 weeks composting while unplasticised samples lost 35%. Degradation appeared to have been in two phases; an initial loss of soluble, low molecular compounds in the mesophilic phase followed by degradation of high molecular compounds as the temperature exceeded about 40 °C in the thermophilic phase. It was found that as degradation proceeded materials became more soluble. In addition, plasticised and unplasticized samples contained about 60 wt% moisture after 4 weeks of composting conditioning at 50% relative humidity resulted in approximately 8–10 wt% moisture, unaffected by the extent of degradation. FTIR revealed that proteins underwent hydrolytic cleavage resulting in the formation of primary amines. A significant reduction in combustion temperature was observed, indicative of a reduction in covalent bonding, likely due to shorter chains lengths or less cross-linking.     

CCA-treated wood disposed in landfills and life-cycle trade-offs with waste-to-energy and MSW landfill disposal

Chromated copper arsenate (CCA)-treated wood is a preservative treated wood construction product that grew in use in the 1970s for both residential and industrial applications. Although some countries have banned the use of the product for some applications, others have not, and the product continues to enter the waste stream from construction, demolition and remodeling projects. CCA-treated wood as a solid waste is managed in various ways throughout the world. In the US, CCA-treated wood is disposed primarily within landfills; however some of the wood is combusted in waste-to-energy (WTE) facilities. In other countries, the predominant disposal option for wood, sometimes including CCA-treated wood, is combustion for the production of energy. This paper presents an estimate of the quantity of CCA-treated wood entering the disposal stream in the US, as well as an examination of the trade-offs between landfilling and WTE combustion of CCA-treated wood through a life-cycle assessment and decision support tool (MSW DST). Based upon production statistics, the estimated life span and the phaseout of CCA-treated wood, recent disposal projections estimate the peak US disposal rate to occur in 2008, at 9.7 million m(3). CCA-treated wood, when disposed with construction and demolition (C&D) debris and municipal solid waste (MSW), has been found to increase arsenic and chromium concentrations in leachate. For this reason, and because MSW landfills are lined, MSW landfills have been recommended as a preferred disposal option over unlined C&D debris landfills. Between landfilling and WTE for the same mass of CCA-treated wood, WTE is more expensive (nearly twice the cost), but when operated in accordance with US Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) regulations, it produces energy and does not emit fossil carbon emissions. If the wood is managed via WTE, less landfill area is required, which could be an influential trade-off in some countries. Although metals are concentrated in the ash in the WTE scenario, the MSW landfill scenario releases a greater amount of arsenic from leachate in a more dilute form. The WTE scenario releases more chromium from the ash on an annual basis. The WTE facility and subsequent ash disposal greatly concentrates the chromium, often oxidizing it to the more toxic and mobile Cr(VI) form. Elevated arsenic and chromium concentrations in the ash leachate may increase leachate management costs.