Waste Expert: ‘It’s Madness’ that Waste isn’t a Bigger International Priority

Stephen Lacey
Climate Progress / News Report
Published: Sunday 24 June 2012
With global municipal solid waste set to double in by 2025 — mostly in developing countries without the capabilities to manage that waste — many say it’s one of the most pressing environmental problems of our time.
Article image

It was too perfect. And sad. On my way to see experts at Rio+20 speak about the growing waste problem in the developing world, I watched a man on his cell phone walk up to a recycling bin and dump his trash in the wrong receptacle. He walked off without even realizing what he had done.

It perfectly encapsulated the challenge. If people with access to proper recycling and waste management services aren’t using them properly, what about countries without those services?

According to experts at Rio+20, the problem is far greater than the international community is recognizing. With global municipal solid waste set to double in by 2025 — mostly in developing countries without the capabilities to manage that waste — many say it’s one of the most pressing environmental problems of our time.

“We are creating an environmental disaster that developing countries are ignoring at their own peril,” said David Newman, a board member with the International Solid Waste Association.

Less than half the world’s population has access to proper waste disposal, causing mountains of hazardous trash — including a growing amount of e-waste — to pile up. By 2020, e-waste from consumer electronics will jump 500% in some countries. That’s causing toxic chemicals to leach into groundwater and putting a financial burden on economically-constrained countries.

The United Nations has identified waste reduction strategies as a key part of its sustainable development goals. Chemical and municipal waste is mentioned frequently in the draft text that negotiators are putting together at Rio+20.

We recognize the importance of adopting a life-cycle approach and of further development and implementation of policies for resource efficiency and environmentally sound waste management. We therefore commit to further reduce, reuse and recycle waste (3Rs) as well as to increase energy recovery from waste with a view to managing the majority of global waste in an environmentally sound manner and where possible as a resource. Solid wastes, such as electronic waste and plastics, pose particular challenges which should be addressed. We call for the development and enforcement of comprehensive national and local waste management policies, strategies, laws and regulations.

While the text “recognizes” the solid waste problem and urges action through existing conventions, Newman says the international aid community doesn’t seem to be focused on the scale of the problem.

According to him, 0.25 percent of all development aid goes to helping with waste disposal strategies, or less than $400 million per year. “It’s nothing,” says Newman. “We have to raise the profile of this emergency on the international agenda. The consequences of doing nothing are disastrous.”

The World Bank issued a report on urban waste in March, finding that waste is cities around the world would grow by 100 percent by 2025. However, developing countries would face the greatest burden — with five-fold cost increases expected.

All that waste has more than just local environmental consequences. Waste disposal is responsible for 12 percent of methane, a greenhouse gas that is 20 times more potent than carbon dioxide over a 100-year period. With global waste streams set to double — more than two thirds of which will not be recycled — the global environmental consequences are stark.

“It’s madness. We’re on a downward resource spiral, yet we fail to recover 70 percent of the resources we consume. Are we crazy?” asked Newman.

Maybe that question is better asked of the man who dumped his tray of trash into the recycling bin at a global sustainability conference.



Get Email Alerts from NationofChange
ABOUT Stephen Lacey

STEPHEN LACEY is a reporter/blogger for Climate Progress, where he writes on clean energy policy, technologies, and finance. Before joining CP, he was an editor/producer with RenewableEnergyWorld.com. He received his B.A. in journalism from Franklin Pierce University.

Top Stories

6 comments on "Waste Expert: ‘It’s Madness’ that Waste isn’t a Bigger International Priority"

Issyco

June 26, 2012 1:33pm

Since we keep creating more and more waste every year as our populations grow, why the heck aren't we converting this waste, our own, our animals' waste, etc. into fuel? Many countries in the world are already doing this. Why are we so damned slow to get on the bandwagon??? I remember a few years (probably 5 or more), Howard Buffett was going into business with a Butterball Turkey plant in Missouri to convert the left over turkey parts into energy we could use to heat our homes. It was going to be the signature plant for the entire country to start converting our waste into fuel! Let's go America!!!

Grace Adams

June 25, 2012 8:04am

Apparently at least a significant minority of earth's residents do not have enough on the ball to consistently sort recyclables as directed. Back around 1970, there was talk in New York City of hiring low wage not competent to do much else workers to be trained to sort straight run solid waste for recycling what is recyclable, composting what is compostable, and either incinerating or landfilling what can be neither recycled nor composted. That scheme would have made good use of many otherwise unemployable workers, keeping them busy and out of mischief earning a modest living. Maybe it should be reconsidred.

jeltez42

June 24, 2012 1:21pm

May we please stop with the alarmist 20 times more dangerous that CO2 lie? Molecules are not sponges, they cannot soak up all the energy that is in their area. Secondly, molecules are limited to absorbing only certain wavelenghts of engergy. Methane absorbs in two very limited bands around 4.5 and 7 micrometers. Most all of the IR that Earth emits is around 10 micrometers. If the electromagnetic radiation is not in the correct wavelenght, the molecule will not absorb it. CO2 peak absorption is around 17 micrometers. There are two very small absorption bands around 3 and 5 micrometers. Again, if it is not the correct wavelenght, the electromagnetic radiation just goes right on by. Water vapor on the other hand has a broad absorption band and does manage to absorb a good deal of the energy the Earth emits. A brief touch on chemical thermodynamics. If you are a good absorber at say 10 microns, you will be a good emitter at 10, microns. In other words, if you are a bad absorber at 10 microns, you won't absorb the radiation.

Now to put a number to these evil doers of methane and carbon dioxide. Methane exists in our atmosphere in a concentration of 1.7 parts per million. This means if you have 1 million molecules of air in a container, you will have an average of 1.7 molecules of methane, I'll round up to 2 because you cannot have .7 of a molecule. Now remember that these two molecules can only absorb at one of two wavelengths and again, molecules are very limited to the amount of energy they can hold. Our other villian, CO2 exists at around 380 parts per million and has a bit broader absorption band. This does not mean there isn't very many molecules of either in the atmosphere, there is, but the ratio is what is important. Fun fact, a white puffy cloud you see floating by has around 200 tonnes of water vapor in it. Or about 100 elephants. Storm clouds, closer to 200,000 elephants.

So let's be realistic. Methane is not 20 times more dangerous than CO2. CO2 even at 6 times the concentration will still not reach the concentration of water vapor. Water is the major greenhouse gas and IPCC states this clearly. People are fixated on CO2 for money. Thirty years ago, they were fixated on methane and wanted to fit farm animals with devices that would capture methane because all of their vapors were going to bake the planet to ashes.

The data comes from CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, and Meteorology Today, by C Donald Arhens. The elephant cloud measure, Bill Nye, the Science Guy. IPCC 4th and 5th reports for the percentage of warming due to CO2 and water vapor.

jeltez42

June 24, 2012 12:17pm

Sure those that survive will learn, their children will somewhat remember, but 2 generations on, greed and disregard for life and the planet may creep back in. Example, The Great Depression in the US. The generation that survived that and the Great Dust Bowl remembered and lived sustainably, but their children and grand children, not so much to not at all. The mantra in the former Dust Bowl region is Till up Everything and irrigate.

frigate

June 24, 2012 12:08pm

Overpopulation and extreme wealth concentration are bringing things to a head. But after shit hits the fan, will survivors learn from our mistakes?

Issyco

June 26, 2012 1:41pm

There will probably be an Ecotopia-type of population left on the planet by then, an interesting book by Ernest Callenbach. It's about Northern California, Washington and Oregon seceding from the U.S. and forming their own country. Actually, they didn't get to secede, the U.S. fought them with all their weaponry and lost! This new country used wood for most everything, no plastic other than recycling what there already was, no cars, no gas, electric buses and trains, living in communal-type housing and small towns. Allowing the forests to come back and hunting for wild game, as well as farming the organic way. The air cleaned up in five years to beyond perfect once they dismantled all the factories, etc. A wonderful concept for how life would be if we gave up all the BS.