• Reddit
• Digg
• Facebook
• MySpace
• del.icio.us
• StumbleUpon
• Technorati
• Furl
• Newsvine
• Google Bookmarks

Copy and Paste This Permanent Link:http://www.mswmanagement.com/elements-2010/management-future-planning.aspx

You may also be interested in...

What will society look like in 40 years? How will our future affect solid waste planning and management decisions? How will solid waste planning and management affect our future?

Unfortunately, there are no easy answers to those questions. However, as a society we need to look beyond our traditional 20-year planning horizon to anticipate and effectively plan for future events. This article discusses some of the potential issues in the future of solid waste management.

The recent movie WALL-E tells the story of an earth so polluted that people were forced to leave the planet in luxury starliners and wait until it was clean enough for their return. The cleanup job was assigned to a small robot named WALL-E, and what was supposed to take five years ended up taking 400 years.

While I do not expect that our society will fall into such a dire state in the next 40 years, the management of solid waste will play an important role in the quality of life for our future society.

Looking Back
Before looking ahead 40 years, it is helpful to first look back. How has solid waste management changed over the past 40 years? What were the forces driving change?

H. Lanier Hickman Jr. wrote a book titled, American Alchemy: the History of Solid Waste Management in the United States.  In it, Hickman provides a thorough review of the developments in solid waste management from 1940 to 2000, detailing the history of regulation, collection and processing technology, and the development of integrated solid waste management. I recommend this book to anyone desiring to learn how we have evolved in our management of solid waste in the United States.

Forty years ago, society was changing at a rapid rate. The environmental movement was about to take off. Traditional management of solid waste disposal at the local “dump” would soon be replaced by technological improvements in landfill design, waste-to-energy facilities, and recycling. The types of waste would also undergo change, especially as plastics, computers, and other electronics became commonplace.

While there are many factors that have shaped solid waste management over time, three categories emerge as some of the biggest driving forces: regulation, grassroots efforts, and economics.

Regulation
The first federal law regulating solid waste management in the United States, the Solid Waste Disposal Act (SWDA) of 1965, was a broad approach that included a series of research projects, investigations, experiments, training, demonstrations, surveys, and studies. In the statute’s findings, Congress indicated two reasons for the necessity of the SWDA: first, advancements in technology resulted in the creation of vastly more amounts and types of wastes than in the past; and second, rapid growth in the nation’s metropolitan areas had caused significant financial, management, and technical problems associated with waste disposal (“Solid Waste Disposal Act, 1965.” Major Acts of Congress. Brian K. Landsberg, ed. Macmillan-Thomson Gale, 2004. eNotes.com. 2006).

Passed by Congress in 1963, the Clean Air Act was the first federal legislation regarding air pollution control. The Clean Air Act caused most small solid waste incinerators to shut down in the early to mid-1970s because the cost of pollution control upgrades would have exceeded the original cost of the incinerators.

The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976, which amended the SWDA, was the first substantial effort by Congress to establish a regulatory structure for the management of solid and hazardous wastes. Subtitle C of the RCRA addresses “cradle-to-grave” requirements for hazardous waste from the point of generation to disposal. Subtitle D of the RCRA contains less restrictive requirements for nonhazardous solid waste. The RCRA was one of the first laws to emphasize recycling.

Through RCRA Subtitle D, Congress intended for the permitting and monitoring of municipal and nonhazardous waste landfills to be a state responsibility. The impact of RCRA Subtitle D has been to reduce the quantity but increase the size and degree of the protection of landfills across the United States.

Regulations continue to develop as the environmental community grapples with the extent and nature of solid waste. Computers and pharmaceutical wastes are just some of the wastes that are now showing up in larger quantities in the wastestream and presenting disposal challenges.

Grassroots Efforts
Many grassroots organizations have promoted change in the way solid wastes are managed in the United States.

The grassroots recycling effort was spurred on by the Mobro 4000. On March 22, 1987 a tugboat named Break of Dawn sailed out of New York Harbor pulling Mobro 4000, a barge filled with 3,100 tons of municipal solid waste. The barge ventured to North Carolina, Alabama, Louisiana, Texas, Mexico, and Belize in search of a disposal site for the solid waste. However, it failed to find such a location and returned to New York, where the waste was finally incinerated at a facility in Brooklyn. A great deal of media attention was paid to the Mobro 4000’s journey and the issue of solid waste management practices.

The Mobro 4000 had a profound impact on solid waste and recycling. Within three years, most states passed laws requiring some kind of municipal recycling. In the same time period, United States cities with curbside recycling programs grew from 600 to almost 10,000 (http://wasteage.com/mag/waste_garbage_barge_recycling/).

Local and national organizations alike have had impacts on recycling. Local groups operating in communities across the country raised local understanding about recycling and waste reduction opportunities. On a national level, groups that have raised our national consciousness about recycling include the National Recycling Coalition (NRC), the GrassRoots Recycling Network (GRRN), and the Solid Waste Association of North America (SWANA).

The NRC is a national nonprofit advocacy group that promotes all aspects of waste reduction, reuse, and recycling in North America. Founded in 1978, the NRC’s objective is to eliminate waste and promote sustainable economies through advancing sound management practices for raw materials in North America.

As one of the NRC’s initiatives to promote recycling, the group created America Recycles Day in 1997. America Recycles Day is held on November 15 each year and is the only nationally recognized day dedicated to encouraging Americans to recycle and purchase recycled products.

The GRRN developed around the central theme of “zero waste” in the mid-1990s. According to GRRN: “Zero waste is a design principle for the 21st century that seeks to redesign the way resources and materials flow through society. Zero waste requires eliminating subsidies for raw material extraction and waste disposal, and holding producers responsible for their products and packaging ‘from cradle to cradle.’ The goal is to promote clean production, prevent pollution, and create communities in which all products are designed to be cycled safely back into the economy or environment” (www.grrn.org/zerowaste/zerowaste_faq.html).

While not truly a grassroots organization, SWANA, which was started by a few concerned solid waste professionals under the organizational name Government Refuse Collection and Disposal Association, has been the leading professional association in the solid waste management field. SWANA’s mission is “to advance the practice of environmentally and economically sound management of municipal solid waste.” Between training, certifications, advocacy, and conferences, SWANA has played a significant role in the advancing integrated solid waste management in North America. As the division director of SWANA’s Planning and Management Division, I would be remiss in not mentioning the contributions of SWANA in shaping solid waste management practices.

Economics
In comparison to some of our daily expenses, such as cable television, the cost of solid waste management is relatively low. However, there is a cost to managing solid waste. The collection, processing, recovery, and disposal of solid waste often involve complex and expensive systems and equipment. Economics has and will continue to have an impact on the management of solid waste.

Unfortunately, sometimes the best approaches to solid waste management are not the most cost effective or feasible. Source reduction often requires changes in human behavior. The theory of homo economicus implies that people will behave in a manner that is in their economic interests. Unless people are economically encouraged to reduce their waste generation, through techniques such as volume or weight based pricing systems, waste generation will not be measurably reduced.

There is also a cost to recycling and not everyone believes recycling is the most appropriate solid waste management method. On June 30, 1996, John Tierney published an article in The New York Times titled, “Recycling is Garbage.” In his article, Tierney challenges the underlying assumptions that we are running out of landfill space, natural resources are being depleted and argues that recycling is too costly and uses too many resources for the good that it allegedly achieves. Recycling, however, remains politically popular, and Tierney’s article had the distinction of breaking The New York Times’s hate mail record (www.reason.com/news/show/33320.html).

In late 2008, the United States experienced one of the worst downturns in recycling market pricing in history. It is unclear what impact the current market pricing will have on current and future recycling programs, but it is sure to provide another challenge to the success of recycling.

  Looking Forward
What will future societies look like, and how will they manage solid waste? An initiative named America 2050 has been developed by the National Committee for America 2050—a coalition of regional planners, scholars, and policymakers—to address the infrastructure, economic development, and environmental challenges faced by the United States. America 2050 anticipates that in the next 40 years an additional 130 million people will populate the United States.

America 2050 projects that the following trends will continue:

• Rapid population growth and demographic change
• Global climate change
• The rise in foreign trade
• Sprawling and inefficient land-use patterns
• Infrastructure systems that are reaching capacity
• The emergence of megaregions

Megaregions
A major focus of America 2050 is the emergence of megaregions. Megaregions are large networks of cities and metropolitan areas where most of the population growth will take place. The megaregions have similar transportation systems, environmental features, linked economies and social networks.

What does the emergence of megaregions mean for solid waste planning and management? What will the influences be on solid waste management in the next 40 years?

The consideration of energy, water, climate change, and transportation will prevail in the development of solid waste programs and facilities. Additionally, the forces that have shaped solid waste management in the past—regulation, grassroots efforts, and economics—will continue to shape solid waste policies and practices in the future.

Figure 1. Emerging Megaregions

My first prediction is that per capita solid waste generation rates will remain constant in the future. We have seen constant per capita solid waste generation rates for the past 20 years, and this trend is likely to continue. Regulations and economics are the biggest factors affecting waste generation. Legislators could implement regulatory or economic policies to encourage or mandate waste reduction, but such actions are politically unpopular and, therefore, unlikely. Economic recessions also result in lower per capita solid waste generation, as we saw in 2008. Despite such temporary fluctuations, however, there will be significant quantities of solid waste generated within the megaregions shown in Figure 1, all of them requiring management.

My second prediction is that solid waste will be an international commodity that will trade, in part, on price. A global trade will develop in the processing and disposal of unsorted solid waste, much like there currently exists for recyclables. As technologies improve for the processing of waste as energy or raw materials, there will be a greater public acceptance and ability for one country (or megaregion) to dispose of its wastes in another country (or megaregion).

Legitimate concerns will be raised over the environmental justice of such actions. However, as energy and raw material demands continue to increase globally, materials will move from where they are less valued to where they are more valued. It is an interesting thought that solid waste will be valued enough to be traded on a commodity exchange (think MSW futures alongside pork belly futures).

My third prediction is that solid waste systems will be developed that address some of the pressing issues within the megaregions: energy, water, climate change, and transportation. While some megaregions may choose to export their wastes, others will develop the facilities to recover the energy and resource value of the wastes.

Energy
Because megaregions will require significant sources of energy, solid waste systems of the future will seek to maximize the energy recovery. These systems will likely include such technologies as mass-burn waste-to-energy, refuse-derived fuel, and anaerobic digestion.

Landfills will continue to be part of the solid waste disposal systems, but the percentage of waste landfilled will decrease. All commercial landfills will maximize energy production capabilities through methane recovery and will likely collocate with other energy-producing systems, such as solar or wind power.

New technologies will become commercially viable. Technologies that maximize energy recovery, such as gasification and pyrolysis, will be given high priority. Waste stabilization technologies that do not recover the energy value of solid waste—such as aerobic composting or autoclaving—will likely have a smaller role in future solid waste management.

Economics will likely dictate the size of future energy-recovery systems. Smaller-scale waste-to-energy facilities will develop where energy demands and transportation costs are high. However, megaregions in general will likely see megasized facilities that take advantage of economies of scale.

Water
Water quality and supply will be critical to the functioning and environmental health of megaregions. Solid waste systems of the future will have a high emphasis on water conservation and quality. Solid waste complexes will feature LEED-certified green buildings, best management practices for stormwater, and onsite treatment and utilization of leachate.

Climate Change
Climate change is already a concern with larger metropolitan areas. Future megaregions will continue to be concerned about climate impacts and will plan to minimize their carbon footprints.

In late 2008 and early 2009, Daniel Kammen, a professor at the University of California at Berkeley, in association with the Science Channel, ran a series of television shows titled, Ecopolis. Through the series, Kammen investigated the challenges of future megacities, including food production, water, energy, waste management, and transportation.

In the episode about waste management, titled, “A World of Trash,” Kammen explores four possible technologies to apply to the waste disposal needs of the future: traditional waste-to-energy and building an island with the ash, plasma arc gasification, sewage heating systems, and the production of biochar fertilizer from source-separated organic waste. In Kammen’s technology evaluation, his primary evaluation criteria was the technology’s carbon-emission contribution.

The megaregions will likely evaluate solid waste systems on their carbon or climate change impacts. Systems will be selected based on emissions reductions, such as managing less waste in landfills, and offsetting such other energy sources as coal. As new solid waste management technologies become economically viable, options for minimizing climate change should improve.

Transportation
Collecting and transporting solid waste and recyclables efficiently and cost effectively will be a significant challenge within the megaregions. Such alternative fuels as biofuels from waste and such advanced engine technologies as fuel/electric hybrids will gain in prominence. Collection and transportation systems will be measured against a variety of metrics, including cost, energy consumption, and carbon footprint.

Alternative collection and transportation systems, such as pneumatic transportation of solid waste, will begin to gain in popularity. Pneumatic collection systems, which utilize a suction method to transport municipal solid waste, will be effective for office buildings or housing complexes in which a public utility conduit has been provided during development. Roosevelt Island in New York City and Disney World in Florida currently utilize this type of waste collection system.

Shaping the Future
The factors that will shape the future of solid waste management are likely to be the same as those that have shaped the past: regulation, grassroots efforts, and economics.

Solid waste management in the future will require new regulations, especially for international trade in waste and for new wastes, such as e-waste and chemical wastes or compounds.

In order to effect waste reduction, and in keeping with the theory of homo economicus, regulations will be necessary that promote waste reduction through economic incentives.

Grassroots efforts will continue to be necessary, especially when it comes to waste reduction, achieving zero waste, or addressing such issues as environmental justice in the siting of future facilities.

As the current economic situation within the United States demonstrates, economics will play a significant role in providing for the solid waste systems of the future. The best systems in the world are no good if we cannot afford them.

As we plan for the long-term future of solid waste management, let us aim for sustainable, energy-producing, climate-change-positive, water-balanced, and transportation-friendly systems. In the spirit of the Iroquois, we should consider the impact our future solid waste management decisions will have on the seventh generation to inherit our actions.

The author would like to acknowledge Dr. Annmarie Carlton for her time and input in the development of this article.