Sending surplus food to charity is not the way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions

,

Written by Elaine Power, Queen’s University, Ontario

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

With the recent news that Canada is warming twice as fast as the rest of the world, Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC) is calling for urgent action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Reducing food loss and waste is one important action we can take. When food waste is sent to landfill, it decomposes to methane, which is 25 times more powerful than carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas. In addition, food waste represents a tremendous loss of the energy, land, water and labour used to produce the food.

And we waste a lot of food. An incredible 58 per cent of all food produced in Canada is either lost or wasted. This is an enormous amount of food, worth almost $50 billion, according to a report by the Toronto-based food charity, Second Harvest.

The first proposed strategy, laid out by ECCC in a draft document circulated in early spring 2019 to academics and others with interests and expertise in addressing food loss and waste, is the most obvious: to reduce the amount of food that is wasted, most of which originates in food processing, production and manufacturing.

The second proposed strategy is to enhance the donation of surplus food to feed hungry people. This strategy appears to be a simple “no-brainer,” as demonstrated by the more than 233,000 Canadians who signed a Change.org petition to end food waste. The comments on the petition website show that many Canadians believe it to be morally wrong to waste edible food, especially when some Canadians are hungry.

However, while giving food that would otherwise go to landfill to hungry people may be a convenient part of a solution to reduce greenhouse gases, it will do little to ensure the well-being of the four million Canadians who are food insecure.

Reducing food waste by feeding hungry Canadians is a simplistic solution that is deeply problematic and morally distressing. It provides the comforting illusion of a solution to hunger while the underlying problem — poverty — is not addressed.

Food insecurity

Food insecurity — the inadequate or uncertain access to food because of financial constraints — is a symptom and result of poverty. It is a public health crisis, with profound consequences for individual health and for health-care costs. It cannot be solved by food charity.

Only one in five hungry Canadians use food banks. And even when they do, they remain food insecure. When food banks and soup kitchens distribute edible food that would otherwise go to landfill, it means that some hungry Canadians are less hungry than they would otherwise be. But food charity is not a solution to the problem of food insecurity.

Nobel Prize winner Archbishop Desmond Tutu has recounted the profound poverty affecting black South Africans when he was a boy. He explained that the free school meals provided to white — but not Black — school children were often thrown in the garbage in favour of homemade packed lunches.

Watching another Black boy rummaging in the garbage to find the food that white children had rejected was indelibly marked in his memory of childhood. “It was perfectly edible food. But I knew it was wrong,” he said. For Archbishop Tutu, the idea that some people have to eat the cast-off food that others do not want is a powerful symbol of profound, systemic injustice.

I expect he would be shocked that the government of one of the richest countries in the world, with an international reputation as a just society, would consider endorsing such a proposal.

The right to an adequate standard of living

While Canada has committed to the Sustainable Development Goal of halving per capita food waste globally by 2030 and cutting greenhouse gas emissions by 232 million tonnes by 2030, we must remember that we have other international obligations too.

In 2012, the UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, Olivier De Schutter, expressed concern about the growing gap between Canada’s international human rights commitments and their domestic implementation. He recommended that Canada ensure income security for all citizens at a level sufficient to “enjoy the human right to an adequate standard of living,” which includes the right to food.

There is no reason why we cannot achieve our goals of reducing food waste and greenhouse gas emissions while also assuring all Canadians the income they need for an adequate standard of living, including the ability to buy their own food. Reducing poverty through effective public policy, such as the poverty reduction strategy introduced by the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador and the ill-fated Ontario Basic Income Pilot project, reduces food insecurity.

In a country as wealthy as ours, it is immoral, unjust and unconscionable that the Government of Canada would endorse a plan that effectively relegates four million Canadians to second-class citizenry by recommending that they eat the garbage that no one else wants.


Elaine Power, Associate Professor in Health Studies, Queen’s University, Ontario

The Conversation

Fun with Waste: Trashion Fashion

, ,

Created in 2011, Trashionfashion is a not-for-profit organization that is on a mission to contribute to a global reduction of waste through creative solutions. The organization hopes to foster a generation of conscious consumers, creators and communities who will change the way the world sees waste. The organization achieves this through productions, education, and community engagements.

Designer – Kingsley Chukwuocha⠀
Model – Melissa Amanda Walker⠀
Photographer – Justin O’Brien⠀

Ami Merli, adancer and yoga instructor, founded the organization in 2011. Through Trashion Fashion, Amy has created a network of zero waste designers, sustainable fashion companies, and businesses that are using alternative materials for products.

The organization’s Facebook page provides photos and videos of past trashion fashion shows.

Separating fact from fiction – are we really only recycling 9% of plastics?

,

Written by Calvin Lakhan, Ph.D, Faculty of Environmental Studies at York University

It seems like everywhere I turn, I see the headline “Canada only recycles 9% of its plastics” – this figure, taken from a report prepared by Deloitte for Environment and Climate Change Canada, has now become the focal point of both those within the industry and the general public alike.

For a country that prides itself on being environmentally conscious and engaged, can we really be doing that badly?

I want to start this post off by saying that I will readily admit to not knowing what % of plastics are recycled in Canada (or anywhere else for that matter). However, I would venture to say that nobody knows, and we should be cautious about taking any estimate at face value without fully understanding the methodology and limitations used to arrive at that figure.

How do we calculate a recycling rate?

For those of you well versed in the subject, feel free to skip ahead. However, it is important to understand how exactly recycling rates are calculated. At a high level, a recycling rate is total tonnes of waste recycled divided by total tonnes of waste generated. This seems simple enough, but this grade school arithmetic actually involves a tremendous amount of modeling, assumptions, and to be perfectly blunt, guess work.

Solid waste diversion and disposal, Canada, 2002 to 2016
(Source: Government of Canada)

Total Tonnes Recycled (The Numerator)

First, let’s consider the numerator in the equation – total tonnes of plastics recycled. For certain jurisdictions, (i.e. Ontario, British Columbia, Quebec etc.), total tonnes of residential plastics recycled is tracked by municipalities (using total tonnes of material marketed), who then subsequently report those figures to a provincial body. These figures are then summed and aggregated, to arrive at a figure for total tonnes of residential plastics recycled.

Generally speaking, tracking recycled tonnes for residential recycling programs is fairly straightforward, as these are actual measurements being reported by collectors. This sounds simple – until we are asked to determine total tonnes recycled by the IC&I (industrial, commercial and institutional) sector. The vast majority of all waste generated in Canada comes from the IC&I sector – by comparison, it is estimated that the residential waste stream makes up less than 20% of the overall waste stream.

As noted in a previous post, data surrounding plastics generation/recovery in the IC&I sector remains extremely poor, with little consensus regarding who is generating plastics waste, how much is being generated, and how much is being diverted.

The IC&I sectors consist of a range of establishments, including: malls, office buildings, construction and demolition sites, restaurants, hotels, hospitals, educational institutions, manufacturing plants, and multi-residential buildings.

Previous attempts to model IC&I recycling rates have ranged widely, with plastic diversion rates ranging from as little as 10% to as much as 80% depending on the sector and what actually constitutes diversion activity. The reason for this widely ranging disparity is that there is no formal legislative requirement for the majority of the IC&I sector to report the quantities or types of waste being generated, diverted or disposed to provincial authorities.

In Ontario for example, only large IC&I establishments are regulated under existing legislation (which requires establishments to have a formal waste diversion plan and conduct waste audits). However, it is estimated than 80% of waste generated from the IC&I sector comes from small and medium sized establishments, and thus, fall outside the purview of existing regulation. This issue is exacerbated in other provinces which have no formal legislation that monitors the IC&I sector, and relies on voluntary reporting to keep track of waste generation data.

In short, the majority of the plastic waste being generated across Canada is not being tracked – which makes the figures reported by Deloitte all the more curious.

As an intellectual exercise, think about your average food court for a moment and how much packaging waste is being generated (both recyclable and unrecyclable). Are shoppers putting all their papers in the recycling bin? Oops, somebody with a half full drink tossed it in and ruined the material. How many plastic forks, knives and straws are being handed out? Did the person taking out the trash really just put all the recyclables and garbage in the same bag? Variations of this chaotic scene plays out every day, all over the country, and somehow, I am supposed to believe that this is being tracked by the owners of establishments?

One of the reasons why legislation for the IC&I sector has been so challenging in Ontario (and nationally) is due to the poor quality of the data. Whatever estimates do exist, have largely been based on a relatively small sample of waste audits, and modeled using a combination of waste generated per employee estimates (by sector and by NAICS code). If this sounds confusing, it is – at no point have we ever been able to credibly quantify the total tonnes of material recycled for both the residential and IC&I sectors. At best, we are making educated guesses, and at worse, we are producing inaccurate estimates based on a flawed methodology.

In short, the majority of the plastic waste being recycled across Canada is not being tracked – however, this does not necessarily mean that this material is ending up in landfills.

On site recovery, reuse and recycling

Despite the fact that there is very little formal data for plastics waste that is being tracked, many IC&I generators (particularly in the industrial and manufacturing sector), rely on on-site waste management programs to reuse and recycle plastic waste. True to the spirit of a circular economy, many producers use plastic waste outputs from one part of their production process, as inputs for the next. Anecdotally, many producers claim diversion rates close to 100%, as any material of value is reused, recycled or reprocessed internally. It is estimated that more than 50% of all IC&I material being generated is managed using on-site options. While this makes sense intuitively, it is difficult to gather any firm data regarding the quantities or scale of on-site material management for plastics. As noted previously, existing legislation does not require this information to be reported, and as such, any data that is available is left to the discretion of private companies and associations to share publicly.

Previous attempts to gather this data (most recently by the Ontario MOECC in the IC&I Review conducted in 2014) was met with resistance from the IC&I sector, who claimed administrative burden and commercial sensitivity in collecting and sharing this data.

Total Tonnes Generated (the Denominator)

I could probably stop here having made the point that we are working with insufficient data – however, I am also writing this article so that people can fully appreciate what goes into calculating a recycling rate, as very few ever stop to ask how we come up with our numbers.

With that being, I now turn my attention to the denominator in the equation – total plastic waste generated. Unlike total tonnes recycled, which is something that can be measured and recorded using a weigh scale at a material recycling facility, total plastic waste generated is an entirely modeled number. For the residential recycling sector (Blue Box), producers of packaging are asked to report their unit sales into a given market, and generation rates for households are modeled using a series of assumptions based on population density, locality, urban/rural split etc. I have worked in this space for the better part of a decade, and I still could not tell you what exactly goes into the waste generation model used for printed paper and packaging.

Turning our attention back to the IC&I sector, there is no formal requirement for any establishment to report how much of a particular plastic waste they have generated into a market every year. Unlike printed paper and packaging, we cannot assume that unit sales is a proxy for waste generation, as many plastics are durable goods. To use a very simple example, a company may sell 1000 tonnes of plastic lumber into a market every year, but that doesn’t mean all 1000 tonnes will reach end of life during that period.

To accurately model the quantities of plastics needing to be managed at end of life, we would need to know its life expectancy, composition, primary and secondary use etc. To make a very long story short, you would almost need to do a mass balance of all plastics before we could credibly estimate overall generation. Simply put – we do not have that information, and even if it could accurately monitored and tracked, there is no legislative requirement for plastic producers to share that information.

Is “Ball Parking” good enough?

The exact findings from the Deloitte report said:

3.2 million metric tonnes ended up as garbage, 86 per cent went to landfill, 4 per cent to incinerators and 1 per cent — 29,000 metric tonnes — ended up as litter which can contaminate lakes and oceans. Most of the wasted plastic comes from offices, institutions or industries.

To be quite frank, I do not think the above numbers are accurate – however, does that really matter? I suppose that depends on what we are trying to achieve. If the purpose is to highlight that a significant percentage of our plastics is ending up in a landfill, necessitating immediate corrective action, then I am all for it. Communicating the size and scale of the problem is of greater importance than precision.

However, if our intent is to develop policy and legislation, particularly with respect to asking producers to pay for end of life costs associated with managing plastics at end of life, then we have to press pause.

Solid waste diversion rate by source, Canada, 2002 to 2016
(Source: Environment Canada)

Developing a data acquisition strategy

Identifying stakeholders who may have access and be willing to share sector specific data with respect to plastics generation/recycling/diversion will be critical in fully understanding the size and scope of the issue. It is only possible to achieve “Zero plastic waste” if we can understand how much is being generated, and what is presently happening to it.

Potential sources for this data include individual producers, industry associations and waste service providers. The latter has not traditionally been used as a source for data on tracking/measuring plastics waste, but waste service providers must often maintain detailed manifests regarding what they are collecting, and where they are processing it.

It is also the recommendation of this article that extensive research be conducted into on site waste management activity. As noted above, many manufacturing and industrial stakeholders claim to operate on site plastic recovery and diversion programs. However, access to this data (how much is being managed, how is it being managed (technologies, end use applications etc.) has historically been very difficult.

Designating who will be responsible for collecting and maintaining this information is also a critical early step in developing a successful circular economy. Many stakeholders have expressed concerns surrounding the sensitivity of sharing this data (for competitive/proprietary reasons), while provincial governments have cited lack of resources and administrative oversite to collect and maintain data repositories. This problem is compounded when attempting to gather data across multiple jurisdictions.

The report prepared by Deloitte was a critical first step in helping understand the plastic waste issue, but I would caution readers from jumping to conclusions when reading a sensationalized headline like: “Canada does a bad job at recycling plastics” – a more accurate statement would be “Canada doesn’t know what is happening to plastics at end of life”

About the Author

Calvin LAKHAN, Ph.D, is currently co-investigator of the “Waste Wiki” project at York University (with Dr. Mark Winfield), a research project devoted to advancing understanding of waste management research and policy in Canada. He holds a Ph.D from the University of Waterloo/Wilfrid Laurier University joint Geography program, and degrees in economics (BA) and environmental economics (MEs) from York University. His research interests and expertise center around evaluating the efficacy of municipal recycling initiatives and identifying determinants of consumer recycling behavior. Calvin has worked as both a policy planner for the MOECC and as a consultant on projects for Stewardship Ontario, Multi Material Stewardship Manitoba, and Ontario Electronic Stewardship. Calvin currently sits on the editorial board for Advances in Recycling and Waste Management, and as a reviewer for Waste Management, Resources Conservation and Recycling and Journal of Environmental Management.

New global rules curb unrestricted plastic waste exports

, , ,

Governments at the 14th Conference of the Parties (COP14) of the Basel Convention recently acted to restrict plastic waste exports by requiring countries to obtain prior informed consent before exporting contaminated or mixed plastic waste. A deluge of plastic waste exports from developed countries has polluted developing countries in Southeast Asia after China closed the door to waste imports in 2018.

Fourteenth Meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Basel Convention

“With this amendment, many developing countries will, for the first time, have information about plastic wastes entering their country and be empowered to refuse plastic waste dumping,” said Dr. Sara Brosché, IPEN Science Advisor. “For far too long developed countries like the US and Canada have been exporting their mixed toxic plastic wastes to developing Asian countries claiming it would be recycled in the receiving country. Instead, much of this contaminated mixed waste cannot be recycled and is instead dumped or burned, or finds its way into the ocean.”

The unanimously adopted actions on plastic wastes include:

  • Removing or reducing the use of hazardous chemicals in plastics production and at any subsequent stage of their life cycle.
  • Setting of specific collection targets and obligations for plastics producers to cover the costs of waste management and clean-up.
  • Preventing and minimizing the generation of plastic waste, including through increasing the durability, reusability and recyclability of plastic products.
  • Significant reduction of single-use plastic products.

A group of cured resins and fluorinated polymers was not included in the requirement of prior informed consent, which means they can be freely traded without notification.

The theme of the meetings was “Clean Planet, Healthy People: Sound Management of Chemicals and Waste”. The meetings, attended by about 1,400 participants, from 180 countries, adopted 73 decisions.

$40 million Waste-to-Energy Research Facility Launched

,

Nanyang Technological University, Singapore (NTU Singapore) and the National Environment Agency (NEA) recently launched a new Waste-to-Energy Research Facility that turns municipal solid waste from the NTU campus into electricity and resources.

Located in Tuas South, the facility is a $40 million project supported by the National Research Foundation, NEA, the Economic Development Board (EDB) and NTU, for its construction and operation over its projected lifetime.

Slagging Gasification

The first-of-its-kind facility in Singapore is managed by NTU and houses a unique slagging gasification plant, which is able to heat up to 1,600 degrees Celsius, unlike conventional mass burn incinerators which operate at around 850 degrees Celsius.

The high temperature of the plant turns waste into syngas (mostly carbon monoxide and hydrogen) that can be used to produce electricity, slag (a glass-like material that can potentially be used as construction material), and metal alloy granulates that can be recycled.

Led by NTU’s Nanyang Environment and Water Research Institute (NEWRI), the research facility will facilitate test-bedding of innovative technologies for converting waste into energy and useful materials through unique plug-and-play features. These technologies, if proven successful and implemented, can enable more energy and materials to be recovered from waste, thereby prolonging the lifespan of Semakau Landfill.

In Singapore’s context, slagging gasification technology has potential to complement the current mass burn technology as it can treat diverse mixed waste streams that cannot be handled by these mass burn incinerators today.

This slagging gasification plant also demonstrates another first with the use of ‘clean’ biomass charcoal as auxiliary fuel – a unique combination not yet proven in the market.

Possible research projects at the new WtE Research Facility

Over the next few years, NTU scientists and engineers from NEWRI will collaborate with industry and academic partners to embark on various research projects aimed at developing and testing technologies in the waste-to-energy domain.

Unique to the research facility is the ability to test-bed new technologies in “plug-and- play” style, which includes the capability to process diverse feeds like municipal solid waste, incineration bottom ash and sludge; provisions for the evaluation of gas separation technologies to supply enriched-oxygen air; syngas upgrading and novel flue gas treatment techniques.

How the gasification plant works

Municipal waste from the NTU campus is transported to the facility, which can treat 11.5 tonnes of waste daily.

The waste is sorted, shredded and transported via a conveyor and a bucket lifted to the top of the furnace tower to be fed along with biomass charcoal that helps maintain the high temperature of the molten slagging layer at the base of the furnace.

The waste is dried and gasified as it moves down the furnace. About 85 per cent of the waste weight will turn into syngas, 12 per cent into slag and metal alloy, and the remaining 3 per cent into fly ash.

The syngas flows from the top of the furnace to the secondary combustion chamber, where it is burned to heat a boiler to generate steam.

The steam then drives a turbine-generator to generate electricity to offset the energy consumption to operate this research facility. In a commercial larger scale plant of this type, the amount of electricity output can be significant enough to self sustain the plant operations with the excess channelled into the electricity grid.

The exhaust flue gas from the boiler is then treated with slaked lime and activated carbon and passed through bag filter, before being discharged as cleaned gas through a stack into the atmosphere.

Moving forward, NTU expects to partner more companies to develop and trial new solutions at this open test-bed facility that aims to contribute to Singapore’s quest to be a more sustainable nation.

Waste Not, Want Not: Recycled vs. Recyclable

, , ,

Written by Calvin Lakhan, Ph.D, Faculty of Environmental Studies at York University

This past weekend, at a gathering with friends, the topic of recycling came up.

“Did you know that they can recycle cigarette butts now?”

Being known as the “garbage man” among my peers, eyes turned to me to confirm this seemingly revolutionary advancement in recycling.

I hesitated, knowing that my answer was about to make me a “Debbie Downer” and open a can of worms about what it really means to recycle something.

“No – cigarette butts cannot be recycled in conventional recycling systems” – I made sure to add the latter as a qualifier.

“But I heard about a program that takes back used cigarettes and turns it into new forms of plastic and compost!”

What my friend was referring to was the breakthrough program offered by Terracycle (read more about it here: https://www.terracycle.com/en-US/brigades/cigarette-waste-recycling).

And with a heavy heart, I launched into a lecture about the difference between something that can be recycled, versus something that is recyclable.

By the end, the disappointment in the room was palpable – I was the proverbial wet blanket that ruined the “feel good factor” of trying to do the right thing.

My feelings towards Terracycle and other similar organizations are heavily conflicted. On one hand, they are innovative, transformative and committed to finding new uses for problematic materials. The accolades they receive are well deserved, but I also think it creates a dangerous perception among the public about what items can (and should be) recycled.

Most materials can technically be recycled – be it cigarette butts, laminated coffee cups, chip bags etc. Given the resources, infrastructure, technology and time, we can find ways to re-purpose problematic materials.

It is in this space that organizations such as Terracycle thrive – they have forged literally dozens of partnerships with companies across the globe to successfully “recycle the unrecyclable”.

Win, win situation, right? Wrong.

While it may seem novel to turn ocean plastic into shoes, or chip bags into handbags, the hard truth is that this type of recycling cannot be readily replicated at scale. The processing technology involved is economically prohibitive, and really only available in jurisdictions in which the collection program is being offered.

The latter point is also why the environmental and economic impact of a decentralized logistics network is questionable – take back programs that ask consumers to ship things like coffee pods, chip bags, razors etc. hundreds of kilometers can be both inefficient and costly.

Going back to our cigarette butt example, there is no recycling facility in Canada (that I am aware of) that can economically recover the material… which is why it is so imperative that we distinguish between something that can be recycled, versus recyclability.

To me, the former is a technical question – does the technology exist to recycle a particular good? The latter however is a much more nuanced question that requires us to consider the economic, environmental and social impact of recycling activity.

As an example, 99.99% of people who work in waste will tell you that glass can be recycled, but I would bet that a significant portion of those people would question whether it should really be recycled (at least in a curbside collection system).

Why this matters is that the average consumer has difficulty differentiating between recycling and recyclability. Much like my well intentioned friends, once people hear that something can be recycled, they assume that to be a universal truth. When Keureg teamed up with Recycle BC to pilot a recycling program, people across the country thought that they could now put K-cups in their Blue Bin (which was never the case).

Perhaps a more insidious example of how this consumer confusion can result in catastrophe, is in the green washing of packaging. My social media feed is full of examples of CPG companies partnering with Terracycle (and others) to pilot new recycling programs. The dangers of this is that companies may be more concerned with the “optics” of recyclability, as opposed to developing products that can be sustainability managed at end of life. The key to a successful pilot is accountability and transparency – I don’t want a headline announcing a partnership, I want to know how much is being diverted, where it is being diverted and at what cost.

I want to impress upon the reader that this post is not about bashing Terracycle or any other company attempting to develop new ways to recycle problematic materials. Their work is critical in promoting consumer awareness, and has successfully married CPG companies and recyclers to work collaboratively.

However, we have to remember that recycling is only one of many tools we have to promote a circular system. Inordinately focusing our attention and resources on recycling may be at the expense of other, more sustainable options. Consumers have an intense appetite and interest in doing the right thing and keeping material out of landfills, but we have to be honest with both them and ourselves regarding the role recycling can play.

About the Author

Calvin LAKHAN, Ph.D, is currently co-investigator of the “Waste Wiki” project at York University (with Dr. Mark Winfield), a research project devoted to advancing understanding of waste management research and policy in Canada. He holds a Ph.D from the University of Waterloo/Wilfrid Laurier University joint Geography program, and degrees in economics (BA) and environmental economics (MEs) from York University. His research interests and expertise center around evaluating the efficacy of municipal recycling initiatives and identifying determinants of consumer recycling behavior. Calvin has worked as both a policy planner for the MOECC and as a consultant on projects for Stewardship Ontario, Multi Material Stewardship Manitoba, and Ontario Electronic Stewardship. Calvin currently sits on the editorial board for Advances in Recycling and Waste Management, and as a reviewer for Waste Management, Resources Conservation and Recycling and Journal of Environmental Management.

Waste to Energy Market Forecast 2019-2029

, ,

Visiongain, a business intelligence provider based in London, UK, recently published a report entitled Waste to Energy Market Forecast 2019-2029.   In the report, the global waste-to-energy (WtE) market is forecast to experience capital expenditure of $16.4 billion in 2019.

The interest in WtE is growing as an option for sustainable waste management practices. Population and waste growth will be major drivers for the development of WtE technology, especially in developing countries. During the last several years, increased waste generation and narrowed prospects for landfill have brought strong growth prospects for the WtE industry.

Not only is the world population growing, but it is also becoming increasingly more urban. This leads to greater levels of waste being generated globally, in more concentrated levels and in close proximity to large urban areas. These issues are focusing more attention on waste management frameworks, with increased interest in alternatives to landfill. As a result, municipalities worldwide are considering the functionality of WtE plants to help deal with mounting waste being generated.

Today, waste-to-energy projects based on combustion technologies are highly efficient power plants that utilize solid waste as their fuel as opposed to oil, coal or natural gas. Far better than burning up energy to search, recover, process and convey the fuel from some distant source, waste-to-energy technology finds worth in what others consider garbage.

With reference to this report, waste-to-energy (WtE) facilities are considered as plants using municipal solid waste (MSW) as a primary fuel source for energy production. This includes direct combustion and advanced thermal, but not biological processes. The report covers the CAPEX spending of new and upgraded WtE plants globally. The report also forecasts MSW-processing capacity for global, regional and national markets from 2019-2029.

The report will answer questions such as:
• What are the prospects for the overall waste-to-energy industry?
• Where are the major investments occurring?
• Who are the key players in the waste-to-energy industry?
• What are the market dynamics underpinning the sector?
• How consolidated is the sector amongst the large industry players?

The report provides detailed profiles and analysis of 13 leading companies operating within the waste-to-energy market including Covanta, Suez Environment, Veolia Environmental, Wheelabrator, and others.

Covanta WTE Facility, Region of Durham, Ontario

The study reveals where companies are investing in waste-to-energy and how much waste-processing capacity from WtE is expected. Analysis of three regional markets, national markets plus analysis of many more countries is included in the report. There is a section that forecasts the Canadian Waste-to-Energy market.

The independent 270-page report includes 237 tables and figures examining the waste-to-energy market space. It also includes municipal waste processing capacity forecasts from 2019 to 2029.

Global Food Waste to Energy Market Growth (Status and Outlook) 2019-2024

,

LP INFORMATION (LPI), a market research company, recently published a report entitled Global Food Waste to Energy Market Growth (Status and Outlook) 2019-2024.

The report presents a comprehensive overview, market shares and growth opportunities of Food Waste to Energy market by product type, application, key companies and key regions.

With some 70 percent of food waste around the world still going into landfills, there is a lot of potential feedstock to keep this environmentally friendly carbon neutral fuel source coming. Food waste is indeed an untapped resource with great potential for generating energy.

Graphic by Russ Thebaud/UC Davis

The report presents the global revenue market share of key companies in Food Waste to Energy business. Companies mentioned in the report include Jonassen Industrial Projects Limited (JIPL), Quantum Biopower, Biogen, Clarke Energy, VAN DYK Recycling Solutions, H2Flow Equipment Inc., JBI Water & Wastewater, GWE Biogas, and Impact Bioenergy.

The report is a study and analysis of the global Food Waste to Energy market size by key regions/countries, product type and application, history data from 2014 to 2018, and forecast to 2024.

The report focuses on the key global Food Waste to Energy players. It describes the value, market share, market competition landscape, SWOT analysis and development plans in next few years.

LP INFORMATION (LPI) is a professional market report publisher based in America, providing market research reports with competitive prices to help decision makers make informed decisions and take strategic actions to achieve excellent outcomes.

Fun with Waste: Tire Sculptures

Artist Nkwocha Ernest is an artist that specializes in sculptures from used tires. He lives in Lagos Nigeria and is a graduate from Auchi Polytechnic.

His artwork, which is driven by a desire to clean up Lagos, is gaining popularity in Nigeria. He started by creating small parts with the tire material and wanted to show Nigeria that he could create something out of nothing, and he was posting on his personal facebook page what he was doing. 

Fun with Waste: Trash Sport

Combining fitness with waste collection is growing in popularity around the globe. In Japan, a sport called supo-gomi taikai involves teams competing to see who can collect as much litter as possible. The inventor of the sport, Kenichi Mamitsuka, would often pick up litter and, in order to make the activity more fun, tried to collect as much trash as possible without extending his exercise time.  He thought making it a sport would make it more enjoyable and set up an organization for the sport.

A typical game could involve any number of participants that meet at a public place. Teams of three to five persons are made and everyone starts at the same location. At the signal, participants race around a pre-set area and pick up trash as quickly as possible in the allotted time. Points are awarded on not just the weight of trash but other qualities. For example cigarette butts have a high point value.

Around 70 participants ranging in age from 6 to 78 were divided into teams of between three and five persons. Everyone started at the same point in a public park, and when signaled to begin they started collecting trash within a 1-kilometer radius of that point. When a player found a piece of trash they called out their discovery, which was not limited by size. In fact, smaller items are often valued more because points are rewarded not just for the weight of the garbage collected, but the type as well, the idea being that certain items, such as cigarette butts, have a higher priority. So just because a team ends up with the most volume of trash at the end of the allotted time, it doesn’t mean they will win.


Kenichi Mamitsuka’s sports organization has, to date, overseen 639 events nationwide and abroad comprising about 76,000 participants.