Environmental Daily Advisor

Recycling = US Jobs

More than 56,000 recycling and reuse establishments in the United States employ approximately 1.1 million people, and generate an annual payroll of $37 billion, and gross $236 billion in annual revenues. The number of workers in the recycling industry is comparable to the automobile and truck manufacturing industry and is significantly larger than mining and waste management and disposal industries. In addition, wages for workers in the recycling industry are notably higher than the national average for all industries.

Recycling Saves You Money

Recycling is not only green, but makes good financial sense for businesses and consumers. Take the example of recycling soda cans–creating aluminum cans from recycled aluminum is far less energy-intensive, and less costly, than mining the raw materials and manufacturing new cans from scratch.

Because recycling is clearly good for human health, the nation’s economy, and the environment, many people wonder why the federal government does not simply mandate recycling. The primary reason is that recycling is a local issue—the success and viability of recycling depends on a community’s resources and structure. A community must consider the costs of a recycling program, as well as the availability of markets for its recovered materials. In some areas, not enough resources exist to make recycling an economically feasible option. State governments can assess local conditions and set appropriate recycling mandates. For information about recycling in your state, contact your EPA regional office, or your state agency.

Other Benefits

According to EPA, here are the benefits of recycling:

• Jobs. Recycling protects and expands U.S. manufacturing jobs and increases U.S. competitiveness in the global marketplace.
• Saves landfill space. Reduces the need for landfilling and incineration.
• Saves energy and prevents pollution caused by the extraction and processing of virgin materials and the manufacture of products using virgin materials.
• Decreases emissions of greenhouse gases that contribute to global climate change.
• It’s kind to trees. Conserves natural resources such as timber, water, and minerals.
• Your grandchildren. Helps sustain the environment for future generations.

Share Your Comments

The world is dealing with a severe water crisis. Population growth and economic development continue to push water resources beyond natural limits, and demand will only continue to grow – projected to triple in the next 20 years. Yet, the earth’s water supply remains limited.

The positive news is that advancements in technology are helping address the global water issue, providing more access to clean water, and enabling industries and municipalities to recycle resources. We’ve seen individual companies, associations and municipalities step up, take the crisis into their own hands and enforce high standards for water safety. But we can no longer be independent water users.

Rather, we must continue to change today’s approach to water management through collective action from organizations, governments and individuals, in order to ensure a more prosperous and water-filled future. To shepherd in this new era of stewardship, industry and government must work closely together.

Click here to read the complete article at Environmental Leader

What’s the difference?

How do DfE and the eco-design goal of ISO 14006:2011 compare? Someone asked me that and I realized some research was in order.  Both DfE and ISO 14006:2011 are a systematic way to design less volatile, greener and more sustainable products.  Both are linked to accounting for greener chemicals in products.  So in what ways are they the same and where do they differ?

To get to the bottom of it — and to make sure my own perspective had legs — I contacted a colleague the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in the Design for Environment (DfE) program.  I also ran thoughts by someone at a chemical inspection and regulation consultancy.  I’ve summarized our discussions below.

Read the difference between ISO 14006:2011 versus DfE at Environmental Leader

There is a heated debate going on between people who are supposed to be on the same side of the aisle. Yet, when you hear their passionate arguments and the way they describe the damage the other is causing the US, you start wondering if they actually share anything in common. No, I’m not talking about Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich. I’m talking about Jigar Shah and Gordon Brinser.

While Brinser and Shah might not be as well-known as the Republican candidates, the debate they’re having on the future of the solar industry might be more valuable to those concerned about the future of the US economy. Basically, the debate between the two is over a petition made to the US International Trade Commission/Department of Commerce (ITC/DOC) against Chinese solar panel import. The main question at the heart of this debate is: Does the US need to focus on manufacturing at all costs, or should it look for another way to create a healthy and sustainable economy?

Who got it right?  Read on at Triple Pundit

EPOnline – Jan 12, 2012

No less than one third of a car’s fuel consumption is spent in overcoming friction. This friction loss has a direct impact on both fuel consumption and emissions. However, new technology can reduce friction by anything from 10 percent to 80 percent in various components of a car, according to a joint study by VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland and Argonne National Laboratory (ANL) in the United States. Based on the study results, it should be possible to reduce car’s fuel consumption and emissions by 18 percent within the next five to 10 years and up to 61 percent within 15 to 25 years.

There are 612 million cars in the world today. The average car clocks up about 13,000 km per year, and burns 340 litres of fuel just to overcome friction, costing the driver EUR 510 per year.

Of the energy output of fuel in a car engine, 33 percent is spent in exhaust, 29 percent in cooling and 38 percent in mechanical energy, of which friction losses account for 33 percent and air resistance for 5 percent. By comparison, an electric car has only half the friction loss of that of a car with a conventional internal combustion engine.

Annual friction loss in an average car worldwide amounts to 11,860 MJ: of this, 35 percent is spent in overcoming rolling resistance in the wheels, 35 percent in the engine itself, 15 percent in the gearbox and 15 percent in braking. With current technology, only 21.5 percent of the energy output of the fuel is used to actually move the car; the rest is wasted.

Read the complete article at Environmental Protection Online

EPA recently released a new DVD called “Reduce Runoff: Slow it Down, Spread it out, Soak it in!” that includes four educational videos that provide an introduction to controlling runoff in urban areas.  The videos on this DVD can help fulfill the outreach requirements for EPA’s Stormwater MS4  program as well as helping with outreach for other purposes.  EPA is encouraging the airing of these programs on cable TV stations; we have full rights to the program. This DVD compilation includes:

• Reduce Runoff: Slow it Down, Spread it Out, Soak it In! – an introductory video on reducing stormwater runoff and its harmful effects on the environment (8:43 minutes);
• RiverSmart Homes: Getting Smart about Runoff in Washington, DC – a video regarding the District of Columbia’s RiverSmart Homes program which provides assistance to citizens to install various practices such as trees, rain barrels, and rain gardens (12:00 minutes);
• Building Green: A Success Story in Philadelphia – a look at an environmentally friendly housing complex in Philadelphia (11:00 minutes); and
• After the Storm – a popular video co-produced by EPA and The Weather Channel in 2004 to educate the public about watersheds and what they can do to clean up their watershed including implementing practices to address stormwater (21:39 minutes).

Copies of this DVD suitable for airing on cable TV stations may be ordered from the National Service Center for Environmental Publications (NSCEP) by emailing nscep@bps-lmit.com or calling 800-490-9198.

Please be sure to include the EPA document number, EPA 842-11-001, when ordering the “Reduce Runoff: Slow it Down, Spread it out, Soak it in!” DVD.  Also, these videos are posted in small screen format at http://water.epa.gov/polwaste/green/video.cfm.

Join us for a Webinar on January 26

Space is limited.
Reserve your Webinar seat now at:
https://www2.gotomeeting.com/register/445202954

Hawaii’s Hotels and resorts, as well as other businesses, may use a variety of hazardous products in their day-to-day operations, ranging from cleaning chemicals and pesticides to fluorescent light bulbs and batteries.  When these items are discarded, they need to be managed as hazardous waste because of toxic, ignitable, or even corrosive characteristics.  Unfortunately, when these waste streams are not properly addressed, they often get thrown in the trash or poured down the drain.  This webinar will provide a quick overview of common hazardous wastes, how to comply with the regulations, and prevention measures designed to reduce hazardous waste generation.  Topics will tie in with the requirements for the Hawaii Green Business Program.  While the focus will be on hotels, this information is valuable to any business looking to improve their environmental management.

About the Presenter:
Roland J. Fornoff is a hazardous waste/pollution prevention specialist with the Business Environmental Program (BEP) of the University of Nevada, Reno.  Roland has 10 years of professional experience in hazardous waste management, waste minimization, pollution prevention, and emergency response.  He holds a M.S. in Environmental Studies from the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, a B.A. in Environmental Studies from Washington College in Maryland, and a Graduate Certificate in Environmental Management from the University of Maryland.  Roland is responsible for assisting BEP clients with site audits, phone counseling, and training in Southern Nevada.

Title:Hazardous Waste: the usual suspects and how to manage them

Date:Thursday, January 26, 2012
Time:11:00 AM – 12:00 PM PST

After registering you will receive a confirmation email containing information about joining the Webinar.

For the first time, comprehensive greenhouse gas (GHG) data reported directly from large facilities and suppliers across the country are now easily accessible to the public through EPA’s GHG Reporting Program. The 2010 GHG data released today include public information from facilities in nine industry groups that directly emit large quantities of GHGs, as well as suppliers of certain fossil fuels.

“Thanks to strong collaboration and feedback from industry, states, and other organizations, today we have a transparent, powerful data resource available to the public,” said Gina McCarthy, assistant administrator for EPA’s Office of Air and Radiation. “The GHG Reporting Program data provides a critical tool for businesses and other innovators to find cost- and fuel-saving efficiencies that reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and foster technologies to protect public health and the environment.”

EPA’s interactive GHG Map Tool allows users to view and sort GHG data for calendar year 2010 from more than 6,700 facilities in a variety of ways—including by state, county, facility, industrial sector, and the type of GHG emitted. This information can be used by communities to identify nearby sources of GHGs, help businesses compare and track emissions, and provide information to state and local governments.

GHG data for direct emitters show that in 2010:

•Power plants were the largest stationary sources of direct emissions, with 2,324 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (mmtCO2e), followed by petroleum refineries with emissions of 183 mmtCO2e.

•CO2 accounted for the largest share of direct GHG emissions, with 95 percent, followed by methane with 4 percent, and nitrous oxide and fluorinated gases accounting for the remaining 1 percent.

•100 facilities each reported emissions over 7 mmtCO2e, including 96 power plants, two iron and steel mills, and two refineries.

Mandated by the FY2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act, EPA launched the GHG Reporting Program in October 2009, requiring the reporting of GHG data from large emission sources across a range of industry sectors, as well as suppliers of products that would emit GHGs if released or combusted. Most reporting entities submitted data for calendar year 2010. An additional 12 source categories will begin reporting their 2011 GHG data this year.

Access EPA’s GHG Reporting Program Data and Data Publication Tool: http://epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/ghgdata/

The Environmental Protection Agency is holding a series of workshops to solicit the individual views of stakeholders on the use of integrated municipal stormwater and wastewater plans to meet the water quality objectives of the CWA. The workshops are intended to assist EPA in developing an integrated planning approach framework that could be used to help municipalities prioritize their infrastructure investments in order to maximize water quality benefits and consider various innovative approaches, such as green infrastructure, that may be more sustainable. The workshops will include a facilitated discussion with representatives of organizations that represent elected local officials, publicly owned treatment works (POTW), municipal stormwater managers, state NPDES permitting and enforcement authorities, and environmental advocacy groups. EPA invites other interested members of the public to observe the workshops and to offer verbal comments at designated times during the workshops.Show citation box

In addition to submitting information at the listening sessions, the public may also provide input to the Agency through email, fax or mail.

Please visit Federal Register to learn more

As mining is resurging in North America, debates across the continent over mines are simplified: “Do we prioritize jobs or the environment?  Companies or communities?”  These are worthy debates. Yet should the issue of mining really be reduced to “pro-con” statements?

Michigan Technological University experts from a wide range of disciplines say no.

“The worst type of communication has to do with the simplification of the mining issues.  I think the biggest problem is creation of polar opposites so that one has to choose between employment or environmental and health protection” says Carol MacLennan, an environmental anthropologist at Michigan Tech who has studied mining communities for almost a decade. “Characterizing it that was is very destructive because you’re never forced to confront the complexity of the issue.”

Ted Bornhorst, director of Michigan Tech’s A.E. Seaman Mineral Museum and a mining geologist for more than 30 years, emphasizes that no one in modern society can deny their use of mining products. “Probably the biggest frustration in the mining controversy,” Bornhorst says, “is the complete, absolute disconnect that most people have between mining and their lives.”  Consequently, Bornhorst believes there is a fundamental need to include more geology in pre-college education.

Read the complete article at Environmental Protection