WEAI/AERE 2009 - Individual Paper Abstract


Title: Recycling vs. Energy Efficiency Programs: Which are More Cost-Effective for Reducing GHGs?

Author(s):

Lisa A. Skumatz, Skumatz Economic Research Associates, Inc. (SERA), 762 Eldorado Drive, Superior, CO 80027, phone: 303/494-1178, fax: 303/494-1177, email: Skumatz@serainc.com

Abstract:

Jurisdictions across the U.S. are adopting green, or sustainability goals, and are implementing wide-ranging strategies to move toward those goals. Given the traditional information from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (Washington) on the sources of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, which indicate waste management contributes only about three percent of GHG emission sources, communities and policymakers have tended to focus their efforts and plans on energy- or transportation- related programs that represent much bigger sources of emissions.

However, the size of emission potential is only part of the story. Strategies should be undertaken if they have advantages in terms of one or more of the following: large impact, low cost, advantageous timing, or other advantages (low risk, etc.).

Traditional EPA figures indicate that solid waste strategies would tend not to have a large impact. However, it is important to look beyond just size of impact. The question arises whether solid waste strategies may be more cost-effective than other strategies, or be quicker to implement. If so, solid waste strategies should potentially be part of the policy arsenal for addressing GHG.

Background

Solid waste initiatives--whether strategies, policies or programs--work to divert materials from disposal in a landfill or other site to beneficial uses in three main ways:

  • Recycling: Recycling reduces the use of virgin materials and the emissions generated during their production and transportation, and generally reduces the energy and resource demand, while significantly reducing the processing efforts and costs associated with end-product production.
  • Composting: Composting avoids anaerobic conversion of compostables in a landfill, thus avoiding the production of significant amounts of methane. Methane has been shown to be 23-times as potent a GHG as carbon dioxide, and has an especially high impact within the first 20 years. Instead, composting uses an aerobic process to produce a usable product, and does not produce methane or harmful GHG constituents.
  • Re-use, waste prevention and source reduction: Re-use and waste prevention programs reduce the production of new materials, resulting in fewer GHG emissions during mining and input acquisition, production, transportation and, ultimately, disposal at end of a product's life.

The authors undertook to explore the question: How does this combination of effects from solid waste programs compare with the cost of achieving similar GHG reductions from energy strategies?

Method and Results

We gathered information on the costs and typical energy savings from a variety of energy efficiency strategies from around the country. We used a combination of internal and external models to compute the GHG effects from energy efficiency programs. Our analysis of the costs per metric ton of carbon dioxide equivalent (MTCO2E) of GHG emissions avoided indicated that faster and cheaper progress in reducing GHG could be made if communities, counties, or state agencies include an early focus on solid waste programs. The research also recognized three other considerations related to solid waste programs that provide important policy implications: timing, coverage and authority. Our research indicated:

  • Recycling and PAYT initiatives appear to be cheaper per MTCO2E than the standard types of energy efficiency programs
  • These programs can be implemented more quickly than standard energy efficiency programs. When implemented, these programs immediately cover all households, not just a fraction of the customer base, as found in most energy efficiency programs
  • The limited list of solid waste programs we studied are often more directly in the control of communities and jurisdictions.

These results indicated that solid waste programs provide quick and substantial reductions in GHG emissions and serve as a bridge to impacts from energy efficiency strategies.