The garbage indicator: What trash is

telling us about the economy now

Alex Rosenberg | @AcesRose
Tuesday, 1 Nov 2016 | 1:02 PM ETCNBC.com

257
COMMENTSJoin the Discussion

The garbage indicator tracks economic

growth Monday, 31 Oct 2016 | 3:52 PM ET |
03:17
It is said that one man's trash is another man's treasure. It also happens that all of
our trash could collectively make for a great economic indicator.

In addition to other, more conventional indicators, Deutsche Bank's chief

international economist, Torsten Slok, consults freight rail waste data put out by the
Association of American Railroads for a check on how the economy is doing.

PUBLICIDAD
inRead invented by Teads
Given the drop in oil prices and rise in the dollar, "a lot of economic statistics were
distorted and you did see a slowdown in a lot of places. ... This indicator is an
attempt to get a more pure view of where the business cycle is at the moment,"
Slok said Monday on CNBC's "Trading Nation."

At this point, the garbage transport gauge "is indeed suggesting that the recovery
continues, or that the economic expansion is moving forward from here."

Slok isn't the first to notice the connection between waste carloads and
the GDP growth. Michael McDonough, an economist at Bloomberg, has followed
growth in the waste carloads indicator for years.
Indeed, the data series has been shown to have a high correlation to changes in
GDP. This makes some intuitive sense, given that consumption, construction and
other such activities generally create waste.

While peering deeply into trash may sound strange, "all joking aside, this is really
an attempt to capture what is the economic activity when we measure it from a
whole different angle than we normally do," Slok said.

He added that it generally confirms what economic data have shown, but "if
anything, this also points to that there are some upside risks to the outlook from
where we are at the moment."

In more conventional data, Tuesday's ISM reading showed that the manufacturing
sector expanded in October. The October employment report is set to be released
Friday.

If we want to combat climate change,

we must re-engineer our landfills
AUTHOR
Adrian Tylim
PUBLISHED
Oct. 31, 2016

Editor's Note: This piece was written by Shift Energy Holdings CTO Adrian
Tylim, a renewable energy expert and former adjunct professor of
sustainability. The opinions represented in this piece are independent of Waste
Dive's views.

Leaders around the world have been celebrating the news of ratification of the
Paris Climate agreement by major economies like the U.S., China and India.
For the U.S., our commitment means reducing emissions more than 25% below
our 2005 level by 2025.

While we thought that implementing the policies and mandates enacted by

Congress, enforced by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and trickled
down to the state level might help us achieve this worthy goal, new analysis
shows that this does not appear to be the case.

It feels as if we lost before we started although, this is not totally accurate.

Recent work by Jeffery Greenblatt and Max Wei, two researchers at Lawrence
Berkeley National Laboratory, shows that America's current contribution plans
to reduce the impact of climate change is insufficient to meet the Paris
Agreement. So, as we are ratifying the agreement, after counting all inputs and
outputs based on current and programmed reduction practices, the scientists
tell us that in essence our plans fall short. It feels as if we lost before we
started although, this is not totally accurate. Many states like California have
demonstrated over and over that clean energy is the way to a better
environment and improved economy.

Part of this accounting shortcoming is a reflection of new, more accurate

inventory data and estimates regarding methane (CH4) gas emissions that we
did not prior have. Methane's global warming potential is 25 times higher than
carbon dioxide. Having credible data to account for all gases emitted and
implementing a comprehensive strategy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions
is imperative to ensure that the U.S. can indeed meet its target.

In the U.S., methane represents 11% of total greenhouse gas emissions.

Methane gas emissions resulting from man-made activities are largely
generated by the oil and gas industry followed by agriculture and landfill
practices. The latter represents one-fifth of all methane emissions.

Credit: EPA
On the bright side, significant reduction in greenhouse gases from oil and gas
emissions will continue to be achieved as more renewable energy and cleaner
technologies are deployed. Obvious economic benefits are pushing more
people to replace their cars and trucks with better, more efficient hybrid and
electric equivalents. Both commercial and residential building owners are
implementing energy efficiency technologies that reduce their carbon footprint
because they save money. Regardless of the reason, we embrace any positive
contribution to climate change.

We need to urgently focus on an area that requires an immediate and extensive

makeover: our landfills.

But, in spite of the progress achieved in transportation and the built

environment, we need to urgently focus on an area that requires an immediate
and extensive makeover: our landfills.

Although waste management practices have improved in recent years, we have

not done enough to improve landfill operations in a meaningful way. We have
looked at the totality of waste generation and implemented recycling to divert
waste from landfills. But recycling has not been very successful in the U.S.
for a number of reasons including lack of a uniform and cohesive
communication strategies about recycling practices from utilities and collection
companies.

In general, messaging is confusing and inconsistent from city to city. People

cant figure out best recycling practices and default to comingling waste and
negatively impacting recycling rates. A Pew Research Center study conceded
that recycling rates have decreased from its peak of 34.7% in 2011. Recently,
the largest waste management company in the U.S. acknowledged this issue as
a basis to decrease activities and investment in recycling. So, the landfill still
stands as our final repository of waste in spite of our good intention.

Almost the same landfilling practices that originated with the Romans and
Greeks thousands of years ago are still being used in many places around the
world. Landfills affect surrounding communities and the natural environment.
Downwind odors cant be contained. Leachate is a nasty polluting liquid that
can severely affect water reservoirs, animals and plants.

To deal with this problem, tighter EPA regulations mandating leachate control
and technology for capturing the methane gas produced by the decomposition
of waste have been implemented. In a recent rule, EPA determined that a well-
designed and well-operated landfill gas collection-and-control system remains
the best system of emissions reduction for controlling landfill gases. It further
determines that flaring gas is an acceptable gas control method.

Mind you, these are our "best practices" to reduce the effect of landfills on
climate change. They are short and they are ineffective. This cannot be an
acceptable way to deal with basic infrastructure problem in America in the 21st
Century. We can do better. Many examples abound in the European Union and
Japan where significant and almost complete elimination of landfill practices
have been achieved by converting municipal solid waste to energy, for
example.

It is high time for us to re-engineer landfills into renewable manufacturing plants.

Today we can find, around the world, commercially proven technologies that
can be integrated to convert all of the waste from an environmental nuisance
into renewable commodities. Investment in this type of infrastructure should be
a welcomed opportunity and acceptable risk for global investors given the
predictability of waste volumes, availability of proven technologies and the
ability to produce marketable renewable commodities.

It is high time for us to re-engineer landfills into renewable manufacturing

plants.

There is no reason why the U.S. and other countries cannot focus on a path to
ridding the world of a practice almost as old as humanity that is contributing to
the destruction of our standard of living and the demise of many species
around the world.

Can major US cities reach 'zero waste' without waste-to-energy?

AUTHOR

Cole Rosengren@ColeRosengren

PUBLISHED

Oct. 26, 2016

Editor's Note: This story has been updated to include comment from
Washington, DC Department of Public Works.

Even if a city can reach a "zero waste-to-landfill" goal, there will always be
some waste left. Depending on whom you talk to, waste-to-energy facilities are
either a part of that problem or a solution to it.

Despite ongoing growth in Asia and Europe, the U.S. has not seen the
construction of a new greenfield waste-to-energy (WTE) thermal combustion
facility in years. The ongoing trend toward high diversion rate goals among
companies and cities is seen as a potential opportunity for the existing market
to grow. Yet when it comes to seven major cities with more than half a million
residents and high diversion or "zero waste" goals New York, Washington,
Seattle, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Dallas and Austin, TX only
one plans to utilize WTE in a significant way.

The case for energy recovery

In New York, where local landfill space is non-existent and export costs are
increasing, the use of WTE is going up. According to the Department of
Sanitation (DSNY), 24.9% of the citys residential refuse is currently sent to
combustion facilities. That number is expected to increase once a new marine
transfer station opens and the city moves toward its goal of diverting 90% of
waste from landfills by 2030.

"There are still elements of the waste stream that either cannot be recycled or
cannot be reused. And so really the only opportunity you have is to create
power with them," DSNY Commissioner Kathryn Garcia told Waste Dive at a
recent event on the topic. "So we do think it's a component. The challenge is
always the cost differential between landfilling and waste-to-energy facilities."

"There are just some things that are really difficult to recycle. Our view is you should at
least recover the BTU content."

Covanta processes DSNY's waste at multiple facilities in the Northeast and will
continue to do so for years under existing contracts. During a recent
interview CEO Stephen Jones recognized that competing with low landfill costs
can be difficult when it comes to municipal contracts, but said that it would be
tough for cities to truly achieve "zero waste" without using WTE.

"There are just some things that are really difficult to recycle. Our view is you
should at least recover the BTU content," said Jones. "You should get the BTU
content and recover the energy from that waste that can't be recycled."

This idea follows the Environmental Protection Agencys solid waste

management hierarchy which lists energy recovery over disposal. A 2014
report from Columbia Universitys Earth Engineering Center noted that at the
time Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota and New Hampshire were
the closest to "attaining sustainable waste management" partially due to their
use of WTE.

Wheelabrator Technologies cited this report in a response to questions about

the role of WTE in cities and also noted the benefits of metal recovery in these
facilities.
"Energy-from-waste (EfW) works in conjunction with, and has been proven to
encourage greater levels of alternative materials management be it source
reduction and reuse, recycling, composting or energy recovery through
alternative technologies," wrote Michelle Nadeau, senior manager of
communications and public policy, in an emailed statement. "EfW should not be
seen as a standalone component of a sustainable waste management
infrastructure, nor does EfW lose its importance or value when alternative
technologies are added into the infrastructure."

Nadeau highlighted areas in Florida and New York where Wheelabrators WTE
facilities have complemented local programs with high diversion rates and
noted that more communities seem to be looking for "integrated waste
management solutions."

Zero waste with zero WTE?

When it comes to the six other major U.S. cities that are working toward high
diversion goals, WTE will play a smaller role.

Washington's Department of Public Works (DPW) currently manages 43% of its

waste which does not include the entire city's waste through WTE. The
city set an 80% diversion goal in its Sustainable Solid Waste Management
Amendment Act of 2014 which excludes WTE and landfills as options.
However, this is expected to change.

"DPW fully expects both the percentage and tonnage of material sent for
waste-to-energy to drop significantly in order to achieve this goal," saidNancee
Lyons, DPW public affairs specialist, via email.

After Washington, the next closest "zero waste" city to use WTE is Los
Angeles. According to the Los Angeles Bureau of Sanitation, about 3% of the
waste it currently manages goes through WTE. That number is expected to
increase as the city works to hit 95% diversion by 2035 , though the city is more
focused on reduction and recycling first.

San Francisco, which is often held up as the paragon of "zero waste" cities,
processes less than 1% of its waste through WTE. This material is residual
from one of the two composting facilities used by the city and that number is
expected to decrease as operational efficiencies improve.

"Incineration is not the highest and best use of discarded resources, recovering
only a small fraction of the embedded energy and less than if it was
recycled," said Jack Macy, commercial zero waste senior coordinator for SF
Environment, via email. "Highest and best use is a principle of our zero waste
policy."

Austin Resource Recovery, Seattle Public Utilities and Dallas Sanitation

Services all reported no use of WTE whatsoever and no immediate plans to
pursue it. Austin noted that its definition of "zero waste" doesnt include WTE.
Dallas didn't rule out the possibility, but cited the low costs of local landfills and
potential emissions concerns. Seattle was also open, though said that energy
from hydroelectricity remains more cost-competitive in the Northwest.

Changing definitions along the way

These results are far from scientific. They involve many factors such as the
cost of local tipping fees and energy, collection jurisdictions, local regulations
and more. According to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), about 13%
of municipal solid waste in the U.S. was processed via combustion in 2013 and
the market remains an integral option in many regions.

Yet the fact that only one of the major U.S. cities with a "zero waste" goal is
planning to get there by using WTE is notable.

Avoiding WTE options does line up with definitions set by the Zero Waste
International Alliance (ZWIA) which is seen as the arbiter of the terms true
meaning. In its 2015 policy updates the organization took issue with the term
"zero waste-to-landfill" and repeatedly noted that combustion is not seen as a
preferred disposal method.

"There are just some things that are really difficult to recycle. Our view is you should at
least recover the BTU content."

"The idea was that you dont burn discards on your pursuit of zero waste," said
Eric Lombardi, one of ZWIAs founders and the current director of Eco-Cycle
International. "Theres no culture shift required with burying and burning our
trash."

Lombardi said that truly achieving zero waste is difficult and any city which can
reach a 90% diversion rate through recycling without WTE will have done very
well. His issues with combustion included high operating costs, the
classification of biogenic carbon and the effects of nanoparticles, among
others.
While this opinion is also shared by many of the major U.S. cities moving
toward "zero waste," the National Waste & Recycling Association's (NWRA)
policy director didn't think that was indicative of a larger trend.

"Waste-to-energy is a very legitimate way of managing waste. Is it contrary to

zero waste?" asked Chaz Miller. "Not really, because theres going to be waste
for a very long time. We will need disposal facilities for a very long time."

As for why more of the major U.S. cities with zero waste goals are on the
West Coast, both Lombardi and Miller chalked it up to easier access to Asian
recycling markets more than anything else. Looking at municipalities on the
East Coast or other parts of the country, Miller said it may be harder to pass
new goals in the future without serious political momentum and questioned
their efficacy.

"Goals are all very nice but you still have to ask yourself what work was done
when they were set. Were they just set on pick a number out of the air or were
they set on some analysis and the idea of where you could get?" he said.

In 2020, San Francisco will become one of the first cities to arrive at its target
year and, at the moment, it looks like an uphill climb for the city to hit its goal by
then. Other cities have a little more time, yet they will face similar challenges.
Whether theyll choose to use WTE along the way, or whether it will "count" if
they do, are still very open questions.

Follow Cole Rosengren on Twitter

What does New York do with all its trash? One city's waste in numbers

The Big Apple generates more than 14 million tonnes of rubbish a year, and
spends around $2.3bn disposing of it sometimes 7,000 miles away in China. Max
Galka counts the costs of a city literally built on trash

Press play to see where New Yorks waste goes from its local district all
the way, in some cases, to India or China. Click on a marker to see the
amount of waste it generated/received in 2015. Graphic by Max Galka

As the largest city in the worlds most wasteful country, New York
generates more than 14 million tonnes of trash each year; reputedly
(though possibly inaccurately) more than any other city in the world.
Not only that, New York is also Americas densest city: its narrow, traffic
jam med streets make collecting all that garbage a logistical Gordian knot.
And New York is located smack in the centre of the Northeast
megalopolis, a giant urban expanse where available land for disposing of
garbage is in short supply.

To deal with these challenges, the city relies on a complex waste-

management ecosystem encompassing two city agencies, three modes
of transport (trucks, trains and barges), 1,668 city collection trucks, an
additional 248 private waste hauling companies, and a diverse network of
temporary and permanent facilities extending halfway around the world.

A brief history of New Yorks waste management

Waste management problems are nothing new for New York. As
described in a 1657 ordinance, when New York was still called New
Amsterdam, many burghers and inhabitants throw their rubbish, filth,
ashes, dead animals and suchlike things into the public streets to the
great inconvenience of the community. A snapshot from two centuries
later depicts a city overrun with horse manure, posing a health hazard for
residents.

Through most of its history until the mid-1900s, New Yorks primary
method for disposing of its waste was simply to dump it into the ocean. At
one point, as much as 80% of New Yorks garbage ended up out at sea.
However, in what was surely its most enduring waste management
initiative, New York City used some of its garbage (mostly ash, rubble and
other debris) to create artificial land, thereby increasing its own size.
Much of the citys land today, including some of its priciest
neighbourhoods, are literally built on garbage.

A 1660 map of lower Manhattan overlaid on a current map shows how

much of the land is manmade, built on top of the Citys own garbage.

A map of 1660s Manhattan overlaid on modern New York shows how

much of the citys land is manmade largely by ruble and other debris
dumped in the water. Photograph: New York Public Libraries/Open Street
Map/Max Galka
Two waste systems one public, one private
Today, New York City generates 14 million tonnes of trash each year.
The amount is so large that the city manages it through two separate
systems, one public and one private. The public system handles waste
from residences and government buildings as well as some non-profits.
This public waste, which accounts for about a quarter of the citys total,
is collected by New Yorks Department of Sanitation (DSNY), the largest
waste management agency in the world with a yearly budget of $1.5bn
(1.25bn), greater than the annual budget of some countries.

The other three-quarters of New Yorks garbage is generated by

commercial businesses, most of it rubble and debris from construction
projects. Collection of this private waste does not come out of the citys
budget. Instead, business must pay one of the Citys 248 licensed waste
haulers to take it away. Overseeing private trade waste is New Yorks
Business Integrity Commission, an agency created to rid the carting
industry of organised crime. Consistent with the Tony Soprano stereotype,
New Yorks garbage hauling industry has long had ties to organised
crime. Today, this corruptive influence has largely been eliminated, and
the BICs primary function is regulatory oversight and setting price
controls.

In 2012, New Yorks public and private waste management systems spent
a combined $2.3bn on garbage collection and disposal.

The long journey of New York garbage

Before the trash goes out to the curb for pickup, New York law requires it
be separated into three categories: paper, metal/glass/plastic, or mixed
solid waste (non-recyclable garbage). Each type of waste is typically
collected separately and follows a different path to its ultimate destination,
often with several intermediate stops along the way.

Each day, New Yorks public garbage trucks collect nearly 7,000 tonnes of
residential mixed solid waste. After finishing their routes, most of these
trucks will deposit the garbage in one of New Yorks waste transfer
stations located throughout the city. From there, the garbage will
eventually be loaded on to a barge or train and carried as far as 600 miles
to its final stop. For most of New Yorks mixed solid waste (about 80% of it
by tonnage), this last stop will be a landfill. The remaining 20% will end up
at a waste-to-energy plant, where it will be incinerated and converted into
energy.

Paper and metal/glass/plastic waste is brought to one of the Citys

recyclables handling and recovery facilities, specialised plants which
separate and sort the recyclable materials. From this point, the journey of
New Yorks recyclable waste splits apart into many possible directions.
Some of it will be sold to local raw material processors (paper mills,
smelters etc), some will be exported overseas, most often 6,000 or 7,000
miles to China or India, some will be sold through intermediary waste
brokers, and some specific items will be separated and sold directly to
their end-users (for example, crates to a Coca-Cola bottling plant, or beer
kegs to Anheuser-Busch).

New Yorks solid waste management facilities are required to

submit annual reports documenting the source and destination of all
incoming and outgoing waste material. Using this data, it was
possible to construct a reasonably comprehensive picture of the
journey taken by New Yorks garbage in the graphic above.
Sources: DSNY Monthly Tonnage Data, DSNYs Refuse and
Recycling Disposal Networks, Solid waste management facilities
annual reports, Sims Metal Management, New York Citys
Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan
Follow Guardian Cities on Twitter and Facebook and join the discussion