Category Archives: Recycling

Report Shows Schools’ Environmental Progress

Posted on by
Reply

Cambridge Public Schools published its 2012 Sustainability Year-In-Review this summer and celebrated several environmental successes. The report outlines the schools’ environmental progress and accomplishments in energy reduction, recycling, eco-friendly products and other green topics.

Over the past two years, multiple energy-efficiency projects have been implemented. The result is a net projected annual savings of $295,738 for the whole school district; 618,313 kWh of electricity savings; and 29,863 therms. Projects included:

  • the installation of a high-efficiency condensing boiler at the Longfellow School Building
  • high-efficiency lighting and occupancy sensors at the Peabody School, Kennedy-Longfellow School, Baldwin School, Haggerty School, Morse School, Solomon Garage, and High School Field House
  • the installation of Direct Digital Control systems at nine schools
  • additional energy upgrades

But energy isn’t the only area of improvement. Custodians now use metered green cleaning supplies, and six schools are now composting their lunch leftovers. From March 2009 through April 2012 the King Open School alone composted nearly 20 tons of food scraps. The school’s food waste is picked up and taken to a farming facility in Massachusetts for composting as part of the “Food to Flowers” program. The Cambridge Green Schools Initiative also partners with local organizations such as “Walk-Ride Days” and the Cambridge Health Alliance to promote sustainable and healthy modes of transportation.

Cities Lead the Way

Posted on by
1

Last night, I attended a meeting hosted by SF Environment, a department of the city and county of San Francisco.  I was in awe and inspired by how much one city can accomplish when it comes to educating the public about energy efficiency and environmental consciousness.  Not only is San Francisco leading the domestic urban composting charge with a city-wide composting program, whereby the city mandates composting in addition to recycling, but the city is making the process of being an ecoconsumer easier and easier.

When I relocated here two months ago, I was astounded at how commonplace composting was – the city simply places compost bins throughout the city and provides them to each city resident.  In addition, SF Environment provides free compost containers for your kitchen so you can easily discard of food scraps.  The city has also instated a ban on styrofoam and plastic bags and provides easy access for toxic waste disposal and removal. Thus far, the plastic bags ban remains in effect predominantly at larger retailers, however, SF Environment expects to push this ban across a wider market.

And the data is impressive. Over 5,000 restaurants and businesses, in addition to city residents, compost over 600 tons of food scraps and other compostable materials each day. This compost is then used to produce and foster the organic food sold to these same restaurants and consumers.  The cycle is continuous and is saving the city money by reducing the amount of food waste that goes to landfills. In fact, today SF recovers a remarkable 77% of the materials it discards, bringing the city closer to its goal of zero waste by 2020.

Like San Francisco, Cambridge has also focused on recycling and waste reduction for several decades, which is why waste currently contributes only  1% of greenhouse gas emissions. Residents can bring compost to the DPW recycling center and to the local Whole Foods stores.  While composting and waste reduction are excellent everyday actions that residents can do to reduce waste, there are also other ways to make a big impact on the City’s greenhouse gas emissions through energy efficiency in one’s home or business.  Heating, cooling and lighting buildings contributes to 80% of greenhouse gas emissions.  In addition, a free home energy audit can address energy waste, helping move Cambridge toward zero-waste in both recycling and energy usage.

Cities like San Francisco and Cambridge are leading the way in the United States when it comes to progressive environmental measures and programs.  It’s truly a win-win situation that other cities across the United States, and the world, should emulate for a more prosperous, sustainable and localized economy.

Fostering Sustainable Behavior

Posted on by
1

Tara Holmes

This past Friday, I attended a workshop lead by Dr. Doug McKenzie-Mohr entitled “An Introduction to Community-Based Social Marketing: Fostering Sustainable Behavior.”  As someone who’s personally very intrigued by the oftentimes overlooked (and dare I say critical) link between our everyday psychology and environmental sustainability, I was eager to attend. What I learned was both enlightening and somewhat anticipated.

In brief, humans, at least the populations Dr. McKenzie-Mohr has studied, tend to default to the easiest common denominator of behavior when it comes to environmentalism.  Of course, this isn’t to say there aren’t outlier personalities who go above and beyond the “green” call, but overall, unless regulated to do so, or cajoled by neighbors or friends, most people will resort to the path of least resistance. Knowing this intrinsic behavior trend, Dr. McKenzie-Mohr was able to extrapolate on how to best create systems whereby these same individuals could easily do their part to create a more sustainable, healthy and balanced planet.

One interesting example is recycling.  Initially in the 1980s, recycling was seen as a confusing burden to the majority of consumers.  Today however, many people view recycling as commonplace and most US cities have recycling facilities in operation.  Now, to what extent these materials actually are recycled is another policy issue altogether (Cambridge has historically recycled at a rate of 35% and now with added single-stream recycling, that’s expected to increase by 10-25% in recycling tons). Even so, the mere act of recycling, sorting out plastic from paper and glass from cardboard is today viewed as a commonplace action that requires little thought.  So, how did this behavior change happen?  Interestingly, Dr. McKenzie-Mohr cites community influence and social norms coupled with municipality engagement.  If a person sees their neighbors, family members or friends recycling, they may begin to question their own behavior and adapt accordingly.

Energy efficiency and green energy demand is another example.  Today, consumers have a multitude of product options from CFLs via utility rebates to energy-saving Energy Star appliances, but, as Dr. McKenzie-Mohr pointed out, there remains a disconnect between awareness of the the product’s existence, where to get the rebate for said product and product installation. These barriers may seem trivial, but they can lead to significant impacts, both environmentally and programmatically.  During the workshop, Dr. McKenzie-Mohr cited an example of a user who purchased a low-flow shower head only to have it sit in a drawer due to installation confusion.  It’s thereby key to not only increase awareness of energy efficiency products, but to educate the consumer on proper follow through behavior and maintenance resources to ensure the true benefit of the product is achieved.

In brief, sustainable behavior impediments can be boiled down to the following barriers: commitment, affordability, convenience, and incentives. The Cambridge Energy Alliance, like many local and national energy efficiency organizations, strives to reach consumers and the community via outreach and education and aims to address each of the mentioned barriers, which is a key first step. The critical next step is up to the consumer: application and follow through.  Only then do they – and the planet – reap the true benefits of increased sustainable behavior.

Dreaming of a Green Christmas Tree?

Posted on by
Reply

MCCALL HOMEMAKING COVER, XMAS TREE by George Eastman House

Debating on whether or not to get a real or fake Christmas tree this year?  Well, if you haven’t already, then think twice: a recent article by the New York Times reported that unless you keep your fake tree for 20 years or more, it’s more environmentally conscientious to purchase a real tree. It sounds counterintuitive – aren’t Christmas tree farms agriculturally damaging and don’t we need more trees intact to act as carbon sinks? Turns out, it might not be that clear cut.

Using calculations that included greenhouse gas emissions, use of resources and human health impacts, a Montreal-based environmental consulting firm found that the annual carbon emissions associated with using a real tree every year were one-third of those created by an artificial tree over a standard six-year lifespan. Additionally, fake trees often contain polyvinyl chloride, or PVC, which produces carcinogens during manufacturing and disposal. “The natural tree is a better option,” said Jean-Sebastien Trudel, founder of the firm, Ellipsos, that released the independent study last year.

Most fake trees found in Target or Walmart are produced in China, adding further transportation and manufacturing cost to the environment. Nonetheless, many American consumers continue to believe that reusing the same tree year after year is a better, more environmentally sound option. “You’re [actually] not doing any harm by cutting down a Christmas tree,” said Clint Springer, a botanist and professor of biology at Saint Joseph’s University in Philadelphia. “A lot of people think artificial is better because you’re preserving the life of a tree. But in this case, you’ve got a crop that’s being raised for that purpose.”

Americans have many consumer options this Christmas. It can be daunting to make the best choice for the environment while immersed in wrapping paper, plastic bags and shopping malls, but remember to think twice about getting the fake tree and instead opt for the real, local Christmas tree this year.  Oh, and they smell better too!

Touring the Casella Recycling Plant

Posted on by
3

The front of the warehouse, where trucks unload.

On Wednesday I went on a tour of the Casella recycling plant. Cambridge’s recycling director, Randi Mail, is hosting tours before the town switches over to single-stream recycling October 25. Casella is already handling single-stream loads from many towns in Massachusetts, including Boston. It was fascinating to see the elaborate sorting process.

First, giant piles of recyclables are dumped off the trucks and bulldozed onto a conveyer belt, which levels them out into more manageable amounts.

A teeny tiny bulldozer pushes the recyclables onto a conveyer belt.

Then the mass of recyclables are spun around a tunnel with 1-inch holes in the sides. Centrifugal force holds lighter materials to the side while glass falls to the bottom and shatters, over and over again, until it can fall through the holes.

Heavier metals (pots & pans…) and rigid plastic (like laundry baskets) are pulled out by hand and dropped into chutes. More than 20 people are stationed at various spots on the line to hand sort, but 99% of their job is to pull out plastic bags before they can gum up the works.

A magnetic conveyer belt runs over the line to pull out metal. Since aluminum isn’t magnetic, a later spot in the line reverses the polarity of the aluminum to repel it over a barrier and onto another belt.

Paper and cardboard slides up rollers spaced at intervals. The paper glides over the top of the rollers, but heavier materials like plastics fall through. It’s amazing how well sorted everything is by the end of the line.

Eight sets of optical sensors ID different kinds of plastics and trigger jets of air to shoot them over a barrier onto another belt.

The end results are baled for transport. The system works remarkably well: the plant director told us that their buyers only allow 2% contamination of each material with another, so it has to be well sorted. Anything that didn’t get separated is run through the system again to capture as much as possible.

Bales of recycling are stacked way over your head.

I expected the warehouse to stink, but it didn’t. I guess that’s a testament to how well people rinse their recyclables. But it was very noisy and very dusty. And hot! I guess an 80-degree day wasn’t the best for a tour.

Some take-aways for me:

  • Plastic bags are death to the machines. The line is only running about 70% of the time, mostly because of plastic bags. So don’t toss them into recycling bins.
  • Plastic smaller than 3 inches falls through and doesn’t get recycled. So bottle caps should always be put back on their bottles.
  • Paper attached to glass gets thrown away, because tiny glass particles stick to it at the plant. So if you want to recycle it, pull it off at home.

If you’re interested in going on a tour yourself, Cambridge is hosting two more this year, on October 28 and November 18. To sign up, email recycle@cambridgema.gov or call 617-349-4815. If you can’t make the tour, you can also watch a video about single-stream recycling on Casella’s website.

For all the pictures, and larger versions of them, see the original article at the link below.

Cross-posted on pragmaticenvironmentalism.com

Interview with Cambridge Recycling Director Randi Mail, Part 2

Posted on by
Reply

On Tuesday, I shared my conversation with Randi Mail, recycling director for the City of Cambridge, about Cambridge’s new single-stream recycling program. In the process we touched on some general waste and recycling questions that I thought I’d share here. If you have any other questions or want to attend the recycling facility tour, let me know in the comments and I’ll pass it on to Randi.

Are there any plans for collecting compost in the future?

The limiting factor on that right now is that there is no facility within reasonable driving distance of the city that can handle the kind of volume of food scraps that we’d get if we had a curbside collection program for residents. There are a few private companies that are moving forward with plans to build new facilities for the Boston area, so that needs to come first. We need a facility that can process yard waste and food waste together, similar to the way that the San Francisco and the Seattle programs work. The programs in place for businesses and for the drop-off program, that food waste is being taken to farms that are basically at capacity. They can’t handle the kind of volume that we’d get with the curbside program.

What farms are they being taken to right now?

There’s Rocky Hill Farm in Saugus and Brick-Ends Farm in Hamilton. They’re large-scale facilities, but they’re small when we’re talking about providing collection to everybody in Cambridge. I’ve estimated that we’d see at least 3,000 tons a year; it could be three times that. The food waste drop-off program is basically 50 tons a year—we’d be doing about 50 tons a week.

The farms are doing outdoor composting in windrows, long piles they turn every day. It would be impossible, I think, to site an outdoor composting facility in the Boston area. You’ve got neighbors and odor concerns. So the companies are looking at this technology called anaerobic digestion, where you can do composting indoors in an environment where there’s no oxygen, and they can capture the methane that is emitted during that composting for electricity or fuel. The city of Toronto has a few of these, and it’s very popular in Europe in urban areas.

The city is watching what the private sector is exploring. Casella Recycling, is looking at anaerobic digestion, as well as Save That Stuff, a local hauler. There are a few other projects that are being considered.

I think within the next two to three years we’ll be in a better position to consider curbside organics collection. We’ve had the drop-off program for residents for two years, and businesses have had the curbside organics for four years. We get a lot of questions about this, and I hope we will be in a position to offer it.

The best option, of course, is to try to compost at home. If you have backyard space, DPW sells compost bins for $50. Apartment dwellers can compost indoors with a worm bin.

If you’re not sure whether something is recyclable in your town, is it better to toss it in the bin for them to sort at the center or should you just not include it?

Well, the top items that are not accepted are food, plastic bags, Styrofoam, VCR tapes, liquids, and light bulbs. We don’t take glass dishes or cups, and no plate glass, like picture frames or windows, which can be leaded glass. Currently no pizza boxes, but the new program is going to accept empty pizza boxes. Other than those items, we do accept a lot of materials: all paper, all plastics, glass bottles, metal can, and cardboard. With the new program, any stiff plastic will be accepted, even if it doesn’t have a number on it.

Ultimately, if you’re not sure, I’d say, “When in doubt, throw it out.” But call or visit the website and check. The big no-nos are plastic bags and food waste.

Anything else about the program that you want to share?

I’d love to get the word out about the recycling tours. We’ve got one a month: September 29, October 28, and November 18. They’re open to the public, and it’s a really great way for people to see the recycling process in action and feel confident that what they’re putting in their bin is really getting sorted and sent to companies to be made into new products. Recycling is real, and it’s an important industry in our economy. We have a six-minute video on our website of the recycling processes in Charlestown, so if you can’t make the tour, you can also watch that. To sign up, e-mail recycle@cambridgema.gov or call 617-349-4815.

Cross-posted on pragmaticenvironmentalism.com

Only you can prevent tyre pyres

Posted on by
Reply

MBTA Flyer Trolleybus 4023 by bradlee9119 Recycling directory website, 1-800-RECYCLING has a recent story about the obscure problem of tire—or tyre in most Commonwealth nations—disposal, accompanied by some pretty astonishing photographs. There aren’t too many major reuses for old tires where the resource doesn’t go up in smoke, so they keep piling up, but research is under way. Off hand, it seems like ground tire might be usable as some part of a road bed or surface, maybe even as a playground tan-bark replacement …except for the heavy metals; which one ends up breathing anyhow. Other uses? Ten Thousand Villages—including the Central Square location—sells wallets made of repurposed tire. The adventurous can also try making their own sandals or resoling shoes.

Ultimate Re-Use: Storage Container Buildings

Posted on by
Reply

A new type of architecture has been infiltrating the traditional world for years; homes, condominiums, offices, and all other manner of buildings are being built from industrial storage containers that we would normally see on the back of an 18-wheeler or a shipping barge. The containers are easily stacked, and work quite well for the inhabitants once they are properly insulated, and turned into homes.

These new structures are subtly environmentally-friendly, in the most obvious way. We are all familiar with the chant “Reduce, re-use, recycle,” and this type of construction is a legitimate way of re-using the excess industrial storage containers that are finished with their initial use.

Shipping container architecture has been around for several years, but this topic presently comes to light again because the American firm Lot-EK, once again, takes it to a new level.

Their soon-to-be constructed Anyang Public Art Project (APAP) Open Art school in Korea has made news, and that’s not surprising at all upon taking a look. This is a project meant to engage the local community with its open structure, including an amphitheater layout, leading down to the river it is set along. The building will feature offices, open galleries, open meeting space, as well as work space for researchers; as has been the trend with these buildings, the non-traditional shape takes nothing away from the functionality of the new structure. These structures are a method of waste-management that results in beautification and functionality wherever they are planted: The ultimate re-use!

Is trash to energy part of the solution?

Posted on by
1

The Incinerator by jimmyboyhay When it comes to environmental discussion, waste management is an environmental concern that many feel needs to be addressed. Many also feel that clean energy innovations are needed to ensure a greener earth. Yet, what many fail to realize is that the solution to the garbage and clean energy problem may be garbage itself.

Denmark has installed a number of garbage plants that take trash and make it into energy. These plants are at the forefront of waste/energy technology. How they operate is that the waste taken into the plant is incinerated which creates heat that generates steam for a turbine that goes on to run generators that create electricity and even heat. Statistics have shown that plants like the ones in Denmark, while creating new forms of energy, also help to cut down on waste caused emissions. 0.56 metric tons of CO2 is emitted from these conversion plants, which is considerably smaller than the 3.35 metric tons of CO2 that is emitted from landfills. Denmark has shown that there are other answers to waste problem than the common practice of landfills, but some countries like the United States are still hesitate to make the change.

There are over 13,000 active and inactive landfills in the United States alone. These landfills make up 54% of the nation’s waste management, which compared to the 4% in Denmark shows the differences in the way garbage is taken care of between the two countries. The negatives of landfills are that they take up space, have been known to leak toxins, and have almost six times the emission rate than that of trash energy plants. So what is stopping the United States from embracing the change? Well, it may be coming from an unlikely opponent: environmentalists.

Some environmentalists feel that incinerators, even ones that help to create energy, are counterproductive to the cause. In their opinion, incinerators promote a waste culture instead of a culture based around recycling. Yet, many American organizations like the Clinton Global Initiative (an international aid and philanthropy organization started by former President Clinton and adviser Doug Band back in 2005) see carbon emissions as the true environmental problem regardless of where it comes from. This is why CGI has worked tirelessly to create green initiatives that cut down on CO2 emissions.

What the waste conversion plants in Denmark have shown is that there are plenty of solutions to environment worries around the world waiting to be utilized. The United States may not be eager to join just yet, but the victory is that the world is thinking of ways to create cleaner energy even if it’s from a trashy source.