Well, it tickled me. A poster on an eco-forum asked the following about 'carbcon ratings':
I notice that the terms ‘carbon positive’ and ‘carbon negative’ are being used to mean the same thing (i.e. net absorption/reduction of CO2). Those using the term ‘carbon negative’ seem to be clear that ‘carbon positive’ is what fossil fuels are...
If we want to create a company that goes better than ‘carbon neutral’, how should we describe it? And does anyone know whether the understanding of these terms varies by geography? (e.g. US vs Europe vs Asia)
I was moved to reply:
How about 'carbon cautious'?
It ticks all the right boxes (a major plus already, at least in the UK/EU), being rather meaningless, pretty vague and in fact can be whatever anyone wishes to take from it.
Certainly an entire new industry and set of government departments could easily be created around it on this basis, especially in complement to all the rest doing roughly the same thing. In fact, one could probably score a nifty grant for it all. Especially to translate it all into Mandarin or Urdu come the next Kyoto/Bali round.
That aside, it may actually be a tad more accurate. At least it could be argued to not make any definitive claims (which in any case are often hard to weigh, at least on a consumer level. I have often cocked an eyebrow at some claims of 'positivity', as most new activities are almost inevitably worse in terms of enviROI (which is what I apply) unless directly creating some purely mitigating result) whilst conveying a truly warm and fuzzy sense of at least wanting to do the right thing.
However, as your question has ably demonstrated, a positive can as easily be a negative. So I look forward to how those better informed will explain it to us all. But then it would seem equally inevitable that it will all rather depend on which measure they have been tasked to endorse.
Showing posts with label ECO-INNOVATION NETWORK. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ECO-INNOVATION NETWORK. Show all posts
Thursday, December 20, 2007
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
To win battles, use those who know how to fight... with the right weapons
Prodded, I suspect, by a post from a new 'green agency' selling their wares (I certainly had a look, but could find no portfolio of work, which was a worry - lots on the boxes they had ticked, though), the moderator on eco-innovation network asked for some thoughts on green marketing:
Having been through the 2nd green consumer wave in the late 80's and
90s - when i did my 1st greener marketing book - i am keen not to see
the re-emergence of the Friends of the Earth 'Green Con of the Year'
award in the 3rd 'green' consumer wave we are now in (certainly in the
uk)
My observation is there are many marketing services companies, ad
agencies, etc - suddenly claiming to be 'green' - my concern is that
advise may not be up to standard e.g. the green comms part of
the 'mix' is much more information-based and is not copywriting based -
failure to pick-up complexities and nuances can be disasterous
What needs to be done in terms of developing a 'code of conduct'? - is
there need? and what should be done?
Struck a chord:
As with the many carbon offsetters, traders, footprinters, soakers and all others popping up to feed off the need/desire to be ‘greener’, between the various disciplines in the marketing, advertising, promotions and media firmament there now seem to be almost as many official bodies as there are practitioners. Along with a burgeoning collection of monitoring schemes and labelers (of questionable use, having just read recently five e-performance ‘surveys’ in a week that managed shuffle Tesco and M&S from top to bottom), such that a pack of Smarties will soon need to have a CDR attached just to accommodate the various competing info charts and bars.
And most seem to have a code of practice, all about as much use as they are compulsory.
Overseeing industry there are various well-staffed quangos with, it seems, few if any teeth to effect more than a nasty wrist slap usually once the horse has well and truly bolted, run the 3.15 at Chepstow, been put out to stud and is now the principal ingredient in your tube of Thixofix.
I also assume above these guys are government, who make laws and enforce them, but that any such effective entity exists beyond hype, spin, self-interest and covering up the next Panorama exposé is really the stuff of legend.
Sadly, I rather fear the FoE will have plenty of material already for its next edition. In fact I believe Greenpeace and others have also jumped on the name and shame bandwagon too. So soon we can will be having competing hit lists to contend with: ‘When Greens Go Bad’, or, ‘Now that’s what I call a dodgy offset #66!’ (I have to confess I have been toying with my own, but for now have contented myself with a growing collection of ads that have ‘...but won’t cost the Earth’ in the headline.)
At least thanks to the efficiency of PR dissemination these days, whatever the ASA publishes each week will, if suitably entertaining or compromising, hit the major media within hours. I do believe ‘green-minded’ (or at least aspiring) brands from Innocent Drinks to Lexus to - most recently - Shell, have all found out this to their cost. Sadly sticking a flower in an exhaust pipe isn’t quite making the cut for the authorities, if not some consumers, if not backed up with some substantive justifications. Trouble is the job is usually done by the time they get pulled.
As a creative practitioner over a few decades I still keep my hand in, though I do now focus more on the karmic correction of trying to use the dark arts of persuasion to steer folk to a greener direction. I do so in the hope of offsetting the consequences of my being a tad too good at getting them to buy stuff they didn't really need and/or go places they didn't really need to travel to.
But frankly it has amazed me not that there are so many jumping on this bandwagon to 'sell' expertise in this arena, but that there are still so few. How long before Ego, Driven and Entitled (and yes, my agency boasted my name in its partner string) can boast a 'Head of Green Marketing' (please don't tell me they do already!) which will doubtless be a big box-ticker to some quango numpty looking for a 'green' agency, and with all sorts of ethical requirements to clear with the Minister and triple-bottom-line committee before s/he gets taken out to the bars of SoHo.
In a capitalist/consumerist society, ‘marketing’ in all its forms will in most cases struggle to be truly green. With a few exceptions of real mitigation/reduction, the aim is usually to compete and dominate by selling more ‘stuff’. And, to be fair, I'd go further and try to separate the agency side from the marketing a bit more, though accepting that most agencies have a philosophy of know the clients' business as well as they do themselves. It’s just a sensible practice to stay ahead of the curve (and competition) by being just so darn useful and proactive the client really wouldn't dare risk succumbing to another's entreaties... or fee reductions.
At the end of the day ad guys may well be trusted advisors, but are also mercenaries, if highly professional ones. And business is business. The brief is all, and the signature on the contact report more so. Given a task one comes up with a campaign, from creative ideas to media plans, that delivers the best ROI for the budget. It’s all about getting the most persuasive message in front of the highest number of relevant audience members, for the least money.
My agency had a simple philosophy that the client got presented with: Quick. Cheap. Good.... Pick any two (and one must always be Good).
It was up to the client to choose those that would take that fight out into the marketplace, and win it on their behalf through hard work and skill. All we asked was that they knew what they were doing. And because they choose us that meant they usually did.
We had specializations, and that allowed us to excel with various niches. It's not mandatory, but to create a message an audience will empathize with it certainly helps to have those on board who know the subject backwards (not something I see in many major media environment reporters/editors these days, who serve up some rampant dross to feed the MWCC cynics, like electric cars ‘that don’t pollute’) to find the USPs and opportunities... but also what will tickle the fancy of the person on the receiving end.
But one cannot hope to have quite the same level of insight into, or product knowledge of the person whose every waking moment is (or should be) devoted to their industry and developing their brand/product service (mind you, long-termism in these careers is not prevalent, and hence rarely reflected in strategy, resulting in quick wins that can often be damaging after the commissioner is long gone).
So I do cock an eye at who is failing whom, and the motivations of those who seem prepared to risk the bad PR of an ASA carpeting and Daily Mail inside spread, all for a few grams of carbon more or less in their claims.
The facts are indeed the facts. But unless it has moved on a bit, they still need to be legal, decent, honest and truthful (sadly ‘relevant and ‘beneficial’ are not always included in complement, often along with ethical or moral). I don't see the need for a code of conduct much beyond that. And even if there was how it would be any more enforceable than it is already under current legislation. Just ask Mr. O'Leary. We don’t need more bodies feeding off the system, just more effective ones.
At the end of the day it's down to all those within the process to ask themselves why they are doing what they do. And if they cannot come up with an honest answer, if they are still proud to stand behind their actions then that’s between them and their future generations.
I fully agree with you that it is a major worry just how much venal rubbish is being issued currently in the name of green, with more being shoveled in constantly. I had felt the only saving grace was that all of it was so creatively dire (I am hard-pressed to think of a single green marketing effort that has appealed, much less persuaded me) that at least no one was paying a blind bit of notice. But that is not the case. Thanks to less than innocently-motivated tabloids and others, some egregious examples of greenwashing are going out, being outed and getting noticed, but for all the wrong reasons. And about the only consequence I can see is that it makes the efforts of those with good, genuine products/services and messages, and those working to help promote them properly (ie: with persuasion and argument and end-benefit, not fear, guilt, nanny-nag, etc. Or all too prevalent green-tinted distractions of little actual enviROI+ value) that more difficult.
But until pros who have more in mind than profits, targets or ratings come together from all sides of the mix to make sure that the best enviROI is delivered to the consumer at the same time as ROI in the marketing process, we will see what we are seeing daily now: chancers buying bamboo couches and claiming to be a green agency because they recycle their coffee cups, and marketing commissioners with budgets in the millions and sustainability forms more designed to meet CSR objectives, getting seduced by this aspect of the process at the expense of the thing they are actually meant to be achieving: a clear objective with a good brief to develop a well-targeted execution.
I think only the market will decide what will prevail. Which, with luck, it still can. You can only sell so many cars that don’t prove to do the mileage or emit the claimed green benefits (even if the exhaust pipe is on a power station) before something catches up with you. And overtakes.
But, to be sure, what would be a real help is a single, trusted measure of what is accurate, ruthlessly enforced by a body with teeth, such the consumer can believe what they see or hear is at least accurate enough to make an informed decision upon.
However, even if all could agree on what makes for a fair ‘green’ claim, between carbon footprints, food miles, organic impacts, etc, etc, so that any such thing does become meaningful to a bewildered consumer base (and not just the jargonistic target-setters at their Bali conferences), on current evidence I don’t see most believing that the International, EU or national governments of the day are doing it for the right reasons, and not just to get out of a landfill hole, a missed target fine or to pump some subsidy dosh into an offshore engineering company with a really good lobbying consultant.
PR Watch - Falsies Awards
Having been through the 2nd green consumer wave in the late 80's and
90s - when i did my 1st greener marketing book - i am keen not to see
the re-emergence of the Friends of the Earth 'Green Con of the Year'
award in the 3rd 'green' consumer wave we are now in (certainly in the
uk)
My observation is there are many marketing services companies, ad
agencies, etc - suddenly claiming to be 'green' - my concern is that
advise may not be up to standard e.g. the green comms part of
the 'mix' is much more information-based and is not copywriting based -
failure to pick-up complexities and nuances can be disasterous
What needs to be done in terms of developing a 'code of conduct'? - is
there need? and what should be done?
Struck a chord:
As with the many carbon offsetters, traders, footprinters, soakers and all others popping up to feed off the need/desire to be ‘greener’, between the various disciplines in the marketing, advertising, promotions and media firmament there now seem to be almost as many official bodies as there are practitioners. Along with a burgeoning collection of monitoring schemes and labelers (of questionable use, having just read recently five e-performance ‘surveys’ in a week that managed shuffle Tesco and M&S from top to bottom), such that a pack of Smarties will soon need to have a CDR attached just to accommodate the various competing info charts and bars.
And most seem to have a code of practice, all about as much use as they are compulsory.
Overseeing industry there are various well-staffed quangos with, it seems, few if any teeth to effect more than a nasty wrist slap usually once the horse has well and truly bolted, run the 3.15 at Chepstow, been put out to stud and is now the principal ingredient in your tube of Thixofix.
I also assume above these guys are government, who make laws and enforce them, but that any such effective entity exists beyond hype, spin, self-interest and covering up the next Panorama exposé is really the stuff of legend.
Sadly, I rather fear the FoE will have plenty of material already for its next edition. In fact I believe Greenpeace and others have also jumped on the name and shame bandwagon too. So soon we can will be having competing hit lists to contend with: ‘When Greens Go Bad’, or, ‘Now that’s what I call a dodgy offset #66!’ (I have to confess I have been toying with my own, but for now have contented myself with a growing collection of ads that have ‘...but won’t cost the Earth’ in the headline.)
At least thanks to the efficiency of PR dissemination these days, whatever the ASA publishes each week will, if suitably entertaining or compromising, hit the major media within hours. I do believe ‘green-minded’ (or at least aspiring) brands from Innocent Drinks to Lexus to - most recently - Shell, have all found out this to their cost. Sadly sticking a flower in an exhaust pipe isn’t quite making the cut for the authorities, if not some consumers, if not backed up with some substantive justifications. Trouble is the job is usually done by the time they get pulled.
As a creative practitioner over a few decades I still keep my hand in, though I do now focus more on the karmic correction of trying to use the dark arts of persuasion to steer folk to a greener direction. I do so in the hope of offsetting the consequences of my being a tad too good at getting them to buy stuff they didn't really need and/or go places they didn't really need to travel to.
But frankly it has amazed me not that there are so many jumping on this bandwagon to 'sell' expertise in this arena, but that there are still so few. How long before Ego, Driven and Entitled (and yes, my agency boasted my name in its partner string) can boast a 'Head of Green Marketing' (please don't tell me they do already!) which will doubtless be a big box-ticker to some quango numpty looking for a 'green' agency, and with all sorts of ethical requirements to clear with the Minister and triple-bottom-line committee before s/he gets taken out to the bars of SoHo.
In a capitalist/consumerist society, ‘marketing’ in all its forms will in most cases struggle to be truly green. With a few exceptions of real mitigation/reduction, the aim is usually to compete and dominate by selling more ‘stuff’. And, to be fair, I'd go further and try to separate the agency side from the marketing a bit more, though accepting that most agencies have a philosophy of know the clients' business as well as they do themselves. It’s just a sensible practice to stay ahead of the curve (and competition) by being just so darn useful and proactive the client really wouldn't dare risk succumbing to another's entreaties... or fee reductions.
At the end of the day ad guys may well be trusted advisors, but are also mercenaries, if highly professional ones. And business is business. The brief is all, and the signature on the contact report more so. Given a task one comes up with a campaign, from creative ideas to media plans, that delivers the best ROI for the budget. It’s all about getting the most persuasive message in front of the highest number of relevant audience members, for the least money.
My agency had a simple philosophy that the client got presented with: Quick. Cheap. Good.... Pick any two (and one must always be Good).
It was up to the client to choose those that would take that fight out into the marketplace, and win it on their behalf through hard work and skill. All we asked was that they knew what they were doing. And because they choose us that meant they usually did.
We had specializations, and that allowed us to excel with various niches. It's not mandatory, but to create a message an audience will empathize with it certainly helps to have those on board who know the subject backwards (not something I see in many major media environment reporters/editors these days, who serve up some rampant dross to feed the MWCC cynics, like electric cars ‘that don’t pollute’) to find the USPs and opportunities... but also what will tickle the fancy of the person on the receiving end.
But one cannot hope to have quite the same level of insight into, or product knowledge of the person whose every waking moment is (or should be) devoted to their industry and developing their brand/product service (mind you, long-termism in these careers is not prevalent, and hence rarely reflected in strategy, resulting in quick wins that can often be damaging after the commissioner is long gone).
So I do cock an eye at who is failing whom, and the motivations of those who seem prepared to risk the bad PR of an ASA carpeting and Daily Mail inside spread, all for a few grams of carbon more or less in their claims.
The facts are indeed the facts. But unless it has moved on a bit, they still need to be legal, decent, honest and truthful (sadly ‘relevant and ‘beneficial’ are not always included in complement, often along with ethical or moral). I don't see the need for a code of conduct much beyond that. And even if there was how it would be any more enforceable than it is already under current legislation. Just ask Mr. O'Leary. We don’t need more bodies feeding off the system, just more effective ones.
At the end of the day it's down to all those within the process to ask themselves why they are doing what they do. And if they cannot come up with an honest answer, if they are still proud to stand behind their actions then that’s between them and their future generations.
I fully agree with you that it is a major worry just how much venal rubbish is being issued currently in the name of green, with more being shoveled in constantly. I had felt the only saving grace was that all of it was so creatively dire (I am hard-pressed to think of a single green marketing effort that has appealed, much less persuaded me) that at least no one was paying a blind bit of notice. But that is not the case. Thanks to less than innocently-motivated tabloids and others, some egregious examples of greenwashing are going out, being outed and getting noticed, but for all the wrong reasons. And about the only consequence I can see is that it makes the efforts of those with good, genuine products/services and messages, and those working to help promote them properly (ie: with persuasion and argument and end-benefit, not fear, guilt, nanny-nag, etc. Or all too prevalent green-tinted distractions of little actual enviROI+ value) that more difficult.
But until pros who have more in mind than profits, targets or ratings come together from all sides of the mix to make sure that the best enviROI is delivered to the consumer at the same time as ROI in the marketing process, we will see what we are seeing daily now: chancers buying bamboo couches and claiming to be a green agency because they recycle their coffee cups, and marketing commissioners with budgets in the millions and sustainability forms more designed to meet CSR objectives, getting seduced by this aspect of the process at the expense of the thing they are actually meant to be achieving: a clear objective with a good brief to develop a well-targeted execution.
I think only the market will decide what will prevail. Which, with luck, it still can. You can only sell so many cars that don’t prove to do the mileage or emit the claimed green benefits (even if the exhaust pipe is on a power station) before something catches up with you. And overtakes.
But, to be sure, what would be a real help is a single, trusted measure of what is accurate, ruthlessly enforced by a body with teeth, such the consumer can believe what they see or hear is at least accurate enough to make an informed decision upon.
However, even if all could agree on what makes for a fair ‘green’ claim, between carbon footprints, food miles, organic impacts, etc, etc, so that any such thing does become meaningful to a bewildered consumer base (and not just the jargonistic target-setters at their Bali conferences), on current evidence I don’t see most believing that the International, EU or national governments of the day are doing it for the right reasons, and not just to get out of a landfill hole, a missed target fine or to pump some subsidy dosh into an offshore engineering company with a really good lobbying consultant.
PR Watch - Falsies Awards
Monday, October 15, 2007
Sink me!
"They seek it here, they seek it there, they seek it everywhere. Is it in sink or is it it composter, that darned elusive, latest waste bit of bluster."
It started so innocently. One of the many forums/feeds I subscribe to mentioned in sink disposal.
In my quest for the best enviROI answers I decided to weigh in. As I speak it is ongoing. I must say, whilst still civilised, I am finding some of the retorts now a tad testy and pointed. My urge, naturally, is to kick back. When will these ardent 'greenies' ever learn about human nature:
Initial Post: A request for help please! I am working with a new team and we are looking for a range of exciting environment ideas to showcase at a major new exhibition.
· Theme: kitchen – just as a case study – what could be done in this room of a house? Ideas for what people can do in their own homes, and possibly work kitchens.
Ans 1: My friend has recently had an ‘Insinkerator’ installed (a waste disposal shoot fitted into a secondary, smaller sink next to the main sink). The idea is you put all your green waste in there; it gets shredded and washed down the drain by the water flow in the sink. It makes its way into the sewerage system and is eventually filtered and processed like the rest of the waste water in your house.
Reply 2: Obviously there are issues (water use, electricity use, increasing load on sewers), but it does seem to be a viable alternative to the brown box scheme we currently have in London for our green waste – you fill a brown box that is collected once a week by a lorry: a diesel lorry which drives around the neighbourhood, calling at every house…surely this is not the answer? The brown bins also smell terrible (which makes most of the public immediately switch off and vow never to have one in their home), and were recently labeled as ‘slop buckets’ by some newspapers. This hardly encourages take-up.
Reply 3: On balance, and as part of a suite of technologies in the home, the Insinkerator concept seems to me to offer a useful option for those wishing to recycle their green waste but who do not have the space or inclination to utilise a more hands on approach to composting their green waste, and who do not wish to use the Council’s collection scheme.
There are issues surrounding water and power use and the load on our sewers, and if anyone knows any more about these please let me know. People also need to know what can and cannot be put in there. But it seems a useful option to me, and should form a key part of the discussion about sustainable waste.
Me: My local council, Herefordshire, had an exhibition on this recently, and I'm a convert.
It seems a no-brainer, as this is a great way to get kitchen waste from the sink direct to a place where the energy is bio-extracted and the solid waste remaining reused.
I am currently assessing the half-dozen options on macerator offered, along with the grant funding in support.
My only wonder is that having done this it has vanished from the comms radar. To me it warrants a major national effort.
But then I have some doubts on the priorities applied in matters of enviROI by those who often look at targets and what will tick a Euro-box more than what's best for our kids' futures.
Reply 4: The use of an insinkerator has (like many environmental choices) trade-offs to weigh. The City of New York has been debating the use of these devices for decades and has, not surprisingly, generated a vast literature from proponents and opponents about the relative merits of managing food waste through the solid waste system versus the sewer system. A little bit of googling on insinkerator and New York City should lead you to many of the relevant studies. Note that in many parts of the US, the devices are called "garbage disposals" (pronounced dispose - Alls), so any searching should use both terms. All you are doing with one of these units is to pass the problem along the sewer to the Water Authority.
Reply 5: They have to treat and deal with it as sewage sludge and then find a disposal option for it. This may be anaerobic digestion or it may be putting onto non-food crop land. You’ll end up paying for it in higher water rates anyway. Much better to deal with it as close to source as possible, home composter, wornery , bokashi bin or kerbside collection.
Me: Forgive me, this was/is not my understanding.
As sold to me (at least, so far) they WANT this, and don't see it as a problem, but rather an opportunity.
As far as I can gather they have in place the means to deal with it - with luck on a enviROI+ basis.
It might be naive of me to hope such energy from 'free' waste may even reduce my rates, though.
And though my appreciation of the subtleties of composting, bio-degradability, etc is not that great (and I'd welcome more informed feedback), if the problem we face right now is C02 going into the atmosphere I would tend (with my limited science B/G) to prefer that the gasses of decomposition get captured and used rather than waft away
Reply 6: My reasoning was more of self sufficiency and not passing it on to someone else with all the embedded carbon in the transportation, processing etc. Another option is to community compost locally. I’m not sure that the water companies in the South and East will want extra solids in their sewerage system. With the push for reduction in water demand particularly in new homes build to Code for Sustainable Homes 4 and above, there may not be enough water flushed down the sewers to push it along and it will lead to blockages.
It seems to depend more on where you live and hence the council area.
Me: I am in South Hereford and Severn Trent seem to be OK with the solids.
Try this for more info. Reply 7: All kerbside collection schemes for anaerobic digestion and the methane produced is burnt to make electricity. That’s what I suggested, not putting it down the sink for the water company to deal with who might use AD or just bury the solids on non-food crop land.
Me: I don't know about all kerbside schemes, but ours takes just glass, metal and paper.
I wasn't even aware there were even such collections of matter for anaerobic digestion, which just shows the rather unhelpful diversity of options we seem to have countrywide.
I was told by my council that putting it down my sink would result in appropriate energy conversion and the solids would be used appropriately. I have to trust them that it's a bit more than 'might' on that... for now.
I do compost and bring major garden waste to the bring site by walking it there in a hand-towed trolley (it's flat en route, good exercise and then brambles don't kill the car fabric - plus I can take a nice big (volume) load, as oddly you need to pay for a trailer licence and hence most make multiple trips... in their cars).
But as I have no other option than a black bin liner and hence landfill for the rest of the organic matter, the sink system still seems good for where we are.
It would appear to be yet another case for some form of UK-wide, easy-to-assess, chart of the options and their relative enviROIs.
Reply 8: The reason for the diversity of collections is many fold, however it is mainly a mixture of the nature of the area, the aspirations of the Council through pressure from their residents and whether the private sector is willing to invest in processing facilities for different materials and take these from Local Authority collections. Why would a rural Local Authority want to collect green waste when most people practise home composting? Why would a Local Authority collect plastics, tetra paks, batteries when there are no processing facilities for hundreds of miles? Why would a Local Authority collect food waste when there are no AD or In Vessel Composting Facilities for hundreds of miles? Your Council would say put food waste down the sink as it divests them of the problem of collecting it. Councils are measured against a number of indicators and total waste arisings is one of them. The more they can divert away from what they collect whether it be to landfill or for composting, AD, etc. then the better their performance indicator looks. Also it improves the recycling percentage by decreasing the denominator in the calculation. The other main reason for diverting organic matter, particularly food waste away from collection and landfill is that it helps Local Authorities avoid the potential fines of £150 per tonne set by the EU if Local Authorities do not meet their ever increasing targets for diverting bio-degradable waste from landfill.
Reply 9 - I am confused. Where are the brambles and copious amounts of yard waste coming from? If you have enough outdoor space to produce so many trimmings, why can't you set up a composter or worm bin for your kitchen waste? It's dead easy, saves and recycles resources, and even gratifying when you remove the finished compost and feed it to your garden. As for assurances from Councils, well...it's been said already. There are unfortunately too many box-tickers and not enough creative thinkers in the average Council, and sending the problem waste downstream allows for better looking stats closer to the source.
Me - Golly you, and some others, don't sound the least bit confused. And that is to be envied.
I spent most of my time in a state of confusion on almost anything environmental.
Ever since I started up my little website, with its focus on practical at-home things to DO that can help the planet though reuse and repair, etc, I have also found myself very interested in all the other things out there that the general public can do to help. And as average family man and homemaker, in sharing my efforts many others have taken an interest in my various quests to find out more to do what one can for the best. Many have also been kind enough to contribute.
By doing a tad more reading and gaining exposure to the issues, I perhaps have become better informed than some, but of course a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing. Which is why I am careful always to caution on the limits of what I find or get told. All too often there are agendas, targets, boxes to be ticked and lucrative careers being forged that make what was on the surface so simple in fact a rather daunting hall of smoke and mirrors to get to my dream goal of a clear enviROI+. And it is so critical. As has been noted, the public does need to appreciate that collecting a Tetra-Pack may not make much eco-sense in Brighton if it has to be shipped to Fife for disposal, but then this should not be where it all stops. We have to then look at why there are not processing facilities and logistical systems for all potentially recyclable waste countrywide. And if there are local difference how these can be included to best national effect.
So be it man-made climate change to man-worsened climate change to climate change to global warming at government and/or major media level, to discussions as to whether Al Gore 'won' an Oscar or more the producer of a documentary featuring him did, or whether he won a Nobel prize or shared it with an entire scientific body (whose chairman once lambasted him) appropriately for Peace, I have often found myself stumbling through many issues (at least today the BBC did make a great point on insulation... so long as you have a cavity wall. I will however wait on the real figures of the solar they were plugging), with often strident exhortations from more committed and less questioning advocates on all sides.
So it seems, I have arrived at a similar point when it comes to insinkeration (neat term!)
To this point, it all made pretty good sense, because my council said it did and my local water board said it did. Indeed, at a county meeting (which involved the excellent Wiggly Wigglers lady ) this was all debated, and the result seemed quite clear.
Now, of course, I must look further, and deeper, to try and arrive a a 'better', or at least more informed view.
I was wondering if you guys who seem not so keen have any figures or sources pro/con to accompany your definitive advocacy against this system of disposal? And I will happily upload them on my site.
And on a a more personal note, yes, I am fortunate enough to have a garden. Though at this point I'd offer that not all do, especially in more urbanised areas, so again we have to look at the totality of the demographics when it comes to assessing the best enviROIs of systems. Often less ideal may be better than nothing, and according to usage more effective than 'the best'.
There's also the 'human' factor. I was actually keen on a green cone. But with kids playing out there and a stream nearby (a healthy source of water rats) my wife was not. Some battles are not worth fighting. Hence the sink-borne system seemed, to now, to be a good solution.
The net result is I am now not committing to either until I know more.
And finally, as a poor gardener with little interest in the practice, the only thing I grow is grass. Hence I am on my third composter. What would be neat would be to have a mechanism whereby I could give (or better yet sell) what I make to those who can and would use it.
Actually, I must add that to the list of things the JunkkYard postcode recognition system can facilitate.
Wow. That didn't take long. Within hours of the above I got this:
Reply 9 -
Some cities, including New York, have outlawed kitchen-sink garbage disposals, at least in homes foor good reason.
The cost and innefiency of combining non haserdous waste with water to transport it & then having to seperate it again for disposla is nuts!
Sink garbage disposals are not the greenest way to dispose of food waste. According to Mark Jeantheau of the popular eco-website Grinning Planet, conscientious consumers interested in returning food-based nutrients back to the Earth should bypass the garbage disposal in favor of composting.
“The ground-up waste [in a garbage disposal] does not go back to nature’s water supply to be gobbled up by fish and other life forms,” he says. Sewage-treatment and septic systems remove “any food value the waste might have had.” Indeed, most modern-day sewer filtration systems utilize chemicals to rid the outflow of any life forms, beneficial or otherwise. Plus, grinding food in a garbage disposal uses a lot of freshwater, which is becoming a more and more precious commodity.
Those on their own septic systems also might want to minimize their use of the garbage disposal. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), regular use of garbage disposals leads to a “more rapid buildup of scum and sludge layers in the septic tank and increased risk of clogging in the soil adsorption field due to higher concentrations of suspended solids in the effluent.” Jeantheau adds that even if a given septic system is designed to handle heavier, food-based loads, it still might not be worth the risk: “There are few homeowner nightmares worse than having your septic system go belly up.”
While composting may sound like a messy proposition, it doesn’t have to be. For starters, those doing the dishes should make sure to dump any and all food waste items into a kitchen-based composting bin with a lid that seals tight. Many municipalities now make such bins available to interested residents. A mesh strainer in the hole in the sink can catch smaller food scraps and be dumped into the composting bin when the dishes are done.
When the kitchen-based compost bin fills up, it can be dumped into a larger composting bin outside. After four to six months, you should have some nice compost to add to your garden and jumpstart the health of your soil. Companies such as The Compost Bin and Clean Air Gardening offer online sales of a wide variety of quality compost bins of different shapes and sizes, and provide a wealth of comparative information for the interested consumer.
CONTACTS: Grinning Planet, www.grinningplanet.com; The Compost Bin, www.compost-bin.org; Clean Air Gardening, www.cleanairgardening.com.
If you have to use this crazy appliance you should add another bit of plumbing to your disposal you can recapture the solids right away, for local composting. See the Kitchen Komposter
http://www.joneca.com/Komposter_Joneca.htm
Again this bit of hardware is just worthless They complicate plumbing substantially, are expensive, use electricity, and do indeed lose nutrients while increasing the load on waste water treatment plants and systems. The disposal collector I mention above is basically a
juicer for your drain, and lots of good stuff is lost in the process.
Now It looks like I have an issue on my hands to get to the bottom of. I have posted this as I said I would. However, it does seem to me that it is falling out (in every sense of the word) between two sets of 'passionate' advocacy.
What I would value is the opinion, preferably backed by enviROI relevant facts, of a more objective person with no eco-axe to grind.
ADDENDUM - In the spirit of discovery, I asked for some opinion from a very nice chap I met at a composting event. To be sure, his company is in the advocacy camp, but he has been kind enough to offer a comprehensive reply which is rich in data. I post his reply here:
Thanks for your email. It isn't an unusual subject, or to see the views polarised.
Water industry. None of the UK water companies like FWDs (Food waste disposers). because they think that they are being handed the bulk disposal costs of biodegradable municipal waste by the local government groups. Local gov has to reduce biodegradable waste going to landfill on a tapering limit. The taper is severe i.s >60% reduction is needed in a relativeley short time. For every tonne over they get fined £150. An average tonne costs £60 to dispose of, so the fines are huge. Water companies want to use FWDs as a mechanism to increase charges in their 2014 pricing settlement with Offwat. They say that if FWDs are allowed to expand in use, then their systems will need to be changed in order to handle it, and hence an increase in money will be needed. If they are not going to be allowed to get more money, then they will want to see their use curtailed.
Water UK is the trade body, and has entered into a 3yr research programme with WRC to establish the implications of FWDs on the sewer system.
There is already a body of evidence that says even in very high concentrated use that there is a negligible impact on sewer systemns and treatment processes. There is a town in Sweden where 30% of the homes were fitted with domestic FWDs and the impacts on the sewage treatment system measured. - I don't know the town's name or have a copy of the report.
If you want to think about the green issues of CO2 footprint and other greenhouse gases then you need to think about what happens to the Carbon atoms. Composting has a super following becuase it looks like the ultimate in get something for nothing. You can turn a tonne of waste into 200kg of fabulous compost. The old school scientists worked out some time ago that energy cannot be made nor destroyed. It just changes form - hence perpetual motion machines are unlikely. Energy also = mass (e=mc2) so a pile of waste material is an energy store. If the mass reduces say from 1 tonne to 0.2 tonnes, then the energy associated with the .8 tonnes has to be accounted for.
0.8 tonnes started life as chemical energy (i.e. carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, Hydrogen, and others bound together looking like an old tomato or onion, or whatever.)
Some will become heat
None will become light
None becomes kinetic
Some of it becomes worms and bugs - there is a great technical term for this but I can't remember what it is
Some of it was water and is evaporated and stays as water
The rest probably stays as chemicals, but in different forms/compounds:
Depending on where you are in the compost bin, there are bugs and worms. Where there is oxygen present (air) the bugs will be aaerobic. They will respire, using oxygen and generating CO2 - at the same time converting carbon in the waste into bug.
Where there is no oxygen, then the bugs are anaerobic and will be busy converting the waste into bug but will generate CH4 (Methane). A clue - if the compost is warm (heat being generated) then there is anaerobic digestion happening.
Worms it seems produce NOX.
All of this chemical activity goes unnoticed by the casual observer, so the process is considered to be something like a miracle solution.
There is a multiplier though: every ounce of CH4 is 23 times more agreessive as a greenhouse gas than CO2, and NOX is a frightening 296 times more agressive - see article below.
It is worth saying at this stage that sewage treatment processes are like big scale composters. The sludge is the byproduct compost. There are aerobic sections and aaerobic sections in any process. The trick is to capture the anaerobic output (Methane) in anaerobic digesters, because then you can do something with it that is positive - i.e. turn it into CO2 by burning it to get energy out - thus the Methane fraction doesn't act as a 23 times multiplier to greenhouse gas, but as a 1 times multiplier with a positive energy creation. If that is harnessed, then the energy might be used to offset CO2 generation in conventional power generation.
FWDs are one piece of technology in reducing landfill (CH4 is emitted in vast quantities at landfill). They have a role to play along with other things like composting. There actually needs to be a "live and let live" approach - it is a pity that there are folks around who want to ban this or ban that.
There are other manufacturers than Insinkerator.
He also directed to a Telegraph piece: Wormeries 'may add to greenhouse gases' , which actually validates (if true) my concerns from the outset on how anything that churns out greenhouse gasses can surely not be helping the immediate cause of a reduction of same. This would seem to suggets there may be soem value in looking at capturing the gasses from such composters, though on a domestic scale this might not be practical.
I have to say as I oscillate about, this latest certainly makes sense to me and I tend to stick with my initial views. But I am sure there will be more to come. This seems almost as charged as climate change!
ADDENDUM 2 - I have now had a reply - a most helpful one (well, bar the 53 page bit!)- from the local council:
You could point people towards our Environmental Impact Study for all this info, environmental and financial etc. It was funded by the County Surveyors' Society. It's 53 pages long so we've also published a 3-page synopsis.
REPLY 10 - A polite, if still rather dogmatic response from one who seems to be very much in the 'compost' camp. I could also cock an eyebrow at the first and last of his company's interest area: a CONSULTANCY on LIVING TECHNOLOGIES, SUSTAINABLE DESIGN AND CARBON OFFSETTING. Me, I do it all for free. Also he has missed, or avoided, some of my points. I do compost the garden waste. It's the few meat and non-compostable scrapings I am looking at. And it's between a green cone and FWD on an enviROI basis (I'm guessing the cone will be cheaper than the unit, and not incur any subsequent operating costs) I am interested in. There is really not a difference in effort between them. He also seems to again ignore the human element on a pragmatic basis, especially when thinking on flat dwellers. Worth replying to? Not sure. I have enough fun with such mindsets on Guardian CiF.
Peter, I am sure many can relate to and appreciate your dimemma and voyage of discovery. Thanks for sharing the process so openly, I think it helps the rest of us.
As for those with or without access to gardens, I believe that part of what we need to change about our strategies and cultural mindset is the idea that a solution is only viable when it is universal. One of the big lessons about sustainability is the importance of nurturing diversity. In this instance, it's about the diversity of situations, personal specifics, options and ideas. The fact that some have space for a composter and others do not does not minimise the value of a home composting solution. If you subtracted all the homes with garden or balcony space from the total kitchen waste production, it would have a significant and positive impact. If you subtract even a few, it's still worth doing.
If you limit your composting to grass clippings, bits of paper and cardboard (for the carbon balance) and uncooked vegetable and fruit scraps, the rats will have less interest. A wire cage around the composter would deter them anyway. A worm bin would happily dispose of pretty much all the cooked scraps, meats and other 'smellies', and if caged, would keep out the rats anyway. Finished compost can be raked into the lawn as a top dressing, or offered to gardening neighbours.
Don't forget that the value of compost making is much more than simply disposing of waste.
ADDENDUM 21/Nov: Press release (as is, at tad editted for space, but I really need to fight through the 'shock' copy a tad when I get a 'mo):
GREEN CONE TO LOBBY GOVERNMENT OVER NEW GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSION FINDINGS -centralised treatment of food waste produces between 10 and 40 times more CO2 emissions than garden food waste digesters-
According to garden Food Waste Digester (FWD) company Green Cone, transporting and treating food waste at a centralised treatment facility produces between 10 and 40 times more CO2 emissions compared to disposing of waste in a householder’s garden using a digester.
The shock statistics follow a recent paper by environmental consultant Dr Alan Knipe (previously group managing director of Nuclear Technology at international energy and environmental company AEA Technology), which has been peer reviewed by SLR Consulting.
Furthermore, the significant environmental findings are in addition to annual cost savings identified in earlier studies illustrating that by introducing FWDs, local authorities could expect to save between £3-4 million per 250,000 households.
In his latest study, Dr Knipe compared greenhouse gas emissions from the life cycles of specified centralised and household management strategies in terms of CO2 equivalents (CO2E). Whilst anthropogenic (manmade) greenhouse gas emissions associated with the manufacturing and end-of-life disposal of both treatment plants and FWDs were shown to be relatively small, emissions arising from the day-to-day operation of the treatment plant, and transportation of waste to the plants, were proven to be alarmingly high.
Dependent on household dispersion and waste management strategy employed, total emissions from the day-to-day operations of a centralised approach typically generated between 50 to 214kg of CO2 per tonne of food waste each year. This figures reduces by 14kg of CO2E per tonne if the resulting composting were to genuinely replace existing emission-intensive inorganic fertilisers, soil improves or peat.
By comparison, household treatment generates around 5kg CO2E per tonne of food waste annually and produces zero day-to-day greenhouse gas emissions.
The study’s findings based on the uncontaminated segregation of food waste and all significant components of the life cycles of both the centralised and household management strategies for food waste, were included in the calculations. A copy of the paper: “The Comparison of Greenhouse Gas Emissions from the Centralised and Household Treatments of Food Waste” can be found here
Link - Sink Your Waste
Let's Recycle - Ruddock backs anaerobic digestion for food waste - that settles it; it must be a con!
RWM - "Food waste disposal systems are like fly-tipping" says water company
MRW - Environment Minister says AD is the best process to tackle food waste
It started so innocently. One of the many forums/feeds I subscribe to mentioned in sink disposal.
In my quest for the best enviROI answers I decided to weigh in. As I speak it is ongoing. I must say, whilst still civilised, I am finding some of the retorts now a tad testy and pointed. My urge, naturally, is to kick back. When will these ardent 'greenies' ever learn about human nature:
Initial Post: A request for help please! I am working with a new team and we are looking for a range of exciting environment ideas to showcase at a major new exhibition.
· Theme: kitchen – just as a case study – what could be done in this room of a house? Ideas for what people can do in their own homes, and possibly work kitchens.
Ans 1: My friend has recently had an ‘Insinkerator’ installed (a waste disposal shoot fitted into a secondary, smaller sink next to the main sink). The idea is you put all your green waste in there; it gets shredded and washed down the drain by the water flow in the sink. It makes its way into the sewerage system and is eventually filtered and processed like the rest of the waste water in your house.
Reply 2: Obviously there are issues (water use, electricity use, increasing load on sewers), but it does seem to be a viable alternative to the brown box scheme we currently have in London for our green waste – you fill a brown box that is collected once a week by a lorry: a diesel lorry which drives around the neighbourhood, calling at every house…surely this is not the answer? The brown bins also smell terrible (which makes most of the public immediately switch off and vow never to have one in their home), and were recently labeled as ‘slop buckets’ by some newspapers. This hardly encourages take-up.
Reply 3: On balance, and as part of a suite of technologies in the home, the Insinkerator concept seems to me to offer a useful option for those wishing to recycle their green waste but who do not have the space or inclination to utilise a more hands on approach to composting their green waste, and who do not wish to use the Council’s collection scheme.
There are issues surrounding water and power use and the load on our sewers, and if anyone knows any more about these please let me know. People also need to know what can and cannot be put in there. But it seems a useful option to me, and should form a key part of the discussion about sustainable waste.
Me: My local council, Herefordshire, had an exhibition on this recently, and I'm a convert.
It seems a no-brainer, as this is a great way to get kitchen waste from the sink direct to a place where the energy is bio-extracted and the solid waste remaining reused.
I am currently assessing the half-dozen options on macerator offered, along with the grant funding in support.
My only wonder is that having done this it has vanished from the comms radar. To me it warrants a major national effort.
But then I have some doubts on the priorities applied in matters of enviROI by those who often look at targets and what will tick a Euro-box more than what's best for our kids' futures.
Reply 4: The use of an insinkerator has (like many environmental choices) trade-offs to weigh. The City of New York has been debating the use of these devices for decades and has, not surprisingly, generated a vast literature from proponents and opponents about the relative merits of managing food waste through the solid waste system versus the sewer system. A little bit of googling on insinkerator and New York City should lead you to many of the relevant studies. Note that in many parts of the US, the devices are called "garbage disposals" (pronounced dispose - Alls), so any searching should use both terms. All you are doing with one of these units is to pass the problem along the sewer to the Water Authority.
Reply 5: They have to treat and deal with it as sewage sludge and then find a disposal option for it. This may be anaerobic digestion or it may be putting onto non-food crop land. You’ll end up paying for it in higher water rates anyway. Much better to deal with it as close to source as possible, home composter, wornery , bokashi bin or kerbside collection.
Me: Forgive me, this was/is not my understanding.
As sold to me (at least, so far) they WANT this, and don't see it as a problem, but rather an opportunity.
As far as I can gather they have in place the means to deal with it - with luck on a enviROI+ basis.
It might be naive of me to hope such energy from 'free' waste may even reduce my rates, though.
And though my appreciation of the subtleties of composting, bio-degradability, etc is not that great (and I'd welcome more informed feedback), if the problem we face right now is C02 going into the atmosphere I would tend (with my limited science B/G) to prefer that the gasses of decomposition get captured and used rather than waft away
Reply 6: My reasoning was more of self sufficiency and not passing it on to someone else with all the embedded carbon in the transportation, processing etc. Another option is to community compost locally. I’m not sure that the water companies in the South and East will want extra solids in their sewerage system. With the push for reduction in water demand particularly in new homes build to Code for Sustainable Homes 4 and above, there may not be enough water flushed down the sewers to push it along and it will lead to blockages.
It seems to depend more on where you live and hence the council area.
Me: I am in South Hereford and Severn Trent seem to be OK with the solids.
Try this for more info. Reply 7: All kerbside collection schemes for anaerobic digestion and the methane produced is burnt to make electricity. That’s what I suggested, not putting it down the sink for the water company to deal with who might use AD or just bury the solids on non-food crop land.
Me: I don't know about all kerbside schemes, but ours takes just glass, metal and paper.
I wasn't even aware there were even such collections of matter for anaerobic digestion, which just shows the rather unhelpful diversity of options we seem to have countrywide.
I was told by my council that putting it down my sink would result in appropriate energy conversion and the solids would be used appropriately. I have to trust them that it's a bit more than 'might' on that... for now.
I do compost and bring major garden waste to the bring site by walking it there in a hand-towed trolley (it's flat en route, good exercise and then brambles don't kill the car fabric - plus I can take a nice big (volume) load, as oddly you need to pay for a trailer licence and hence most make multiple trips... in their cars).
But as I have no other option than a black bin liner and hence landfill for the rest of the organic matter, the sink system still seems good for where we are.
It would appear to be yet another case for some form of UK-wide, easy-to-assess, chart of the options and their relative enviROIs.
Reply 8: The reason for the diversity of collections is many fold, however it is mainly a mixture of the nature of the area, the aspirations of the Council through pressure from their residents and whether the private sector is willing to invest in processing facilities for different materials and take these from Local Authority collections. Why would a rural Local Authority want to collect green waste when most people practise home composting? Why would a Local Authority collect plastics, tetra paks, batteries when there are no processing facilities for hundreds of miles? Why would a Local Authority collect food waste when there are no AD or In Vessel Composting Facilities for hundreds of miles? Your Council would say put food waste down the sink as it divests them of the problem of collecting it. Councils are measured against a number of indicators and total waste arisings is one of them. The more they can divert away from what they collect whether it be to landfill or for composting, AD, etc. then the better their performance indicator looks. Also it improves the recycling percentage by decreasing the denominator in the calculation. The other main reason for diverting organic matter, particularly food waste away from collection and landfill is that it helps Local Authorities avoid the potential fines of £150 per tonne set by the EU if Local Authorities do not meet their ever increasing targets for diverting bio-degradable waste from landfill.
Reply 9 - I am confused. Where are the brambles and copious amounts of yard waste coming from? If you have enough outdoor space to produce so many trimmings, why can't you set up a composter or worm bin for your kitchen waste? It's dead easy, saves and recycles resources, and even gratifying when you remove the finished compost and feed it to your garden. As for assurances from Councils, well...it's been said already. There are unfortunately too many box-tickers and not enough creative thinkers in the average Council, and sending the problem waste downstream allows for better looking stats closer to the source.
Me - Golly you, and some others, don't sound the least bit confused. And that is to be envied.
I spent most of my time in a state of confusion on almost anything environmental.
Ever since I started up my little website, with its focus on practical at-home things to DO that can help the planet though reuse and repair, etc, I have also found myself very interested in all the other things out there that the general public can do to help. And as average family man and homemaker, in sharing my efforts many others have taken an interest in my various quests to find out more to do what one can for the best. Many have also been kind enough to contribute.
By doing a tad more reading and gaining exposure to the issues, I perhaps have become better informed than some, but of course a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing. Which is why I am careful always to caution on the limits of what I find or get told. All too often there are agendas, targets, boxes to be ticked and lucrative careers being forged that make what was on the surface so simple in fact a rather daunting hall of smoke and mirrors to get to my dream goal of a clear enviROI+. And it is so critical. As has been noted, the public does need to appreciate that collecting a Tetra-Pack may not make much eco-sense in Brighton if it has to be shipped to Fife for disposal, but then this should not be where it all stops. We have to then look at why there are not processing facilities and logistical systems for all potentially recyclable waste countrywide. And if there are local difference how these can be included to best national effect.
So be it man-made climate change to man-worsened climate change to climate change to global warming at government and/or major media level, to discussions as to whether Al Gore 'won' an Oscar or more the producer of a documentary featuring him did, or whether he won a Nobel prize or shared it with an entire scientific body (whose chairman once lambasted him) appropriately for Peace, I have often found myself stumbling through many issues (at least today the BBC did make a great point on insulation... so long as you have a cavity wall. I will however wait on the real figures of the solar they were plugging), with often strident exhortations from more committed and less questioning advocates on all sides.
So it seems, I have arrived at a similar point when it comes to insinkeration (neat term!)
To this point, it all made pretty good sense, because my council said it did and my local water board said it did. Indeed, at a county meeting (which involved the excellent Wiggly Wigglers lady ) this was all debated, and the result seemed quite clear.
Now, of course, I must look further, and deeper, to try and arrive a a 'better', or at least more informed view.
I was wondering if you guys who seem not so keen have any figures or sources pro/con to accompany your definitive advocacy against this system of disposal? And I will happily upload them on my site.
And on a a more personal note, yes, I am fortunate enough to have a garden. Though at this point I'd offer that not all do, especially in more urbanised areas, so again we have to look at the totality of the demographics when it comes to assessing the best enviROIs of systems. Often less ideal may be better than nothing, and according to usage more effective than 'the best'.
There's also the 'human' factor. I was actually keen on a green cone. But with kids playing out there and a stream nearby (a healthy source of water rats) my wife was not. Some battles are not worth fighting. Hence the sink-borne system seemed, to now, to be a good solution.
The net result is I am now not committing to either until I know more.
And finally, as a poor gardener with little interest in the practice, the only thing I grow is grass. Hence I am on my third composter. What would be neat would be to have a mechanism whereby I could give (or better yet sell) what I make to those who can and would use it.
Actually, I must add that to the list of things the JunkkYard postcode recognition system can facilitate.
Wow. That didn't take long. Within hours of the above I got this:
Reply 9 -
Some cities, including New York, have outlawed kitchen-sink garbage disposals, at least in homes foor good reason.
The cost and innefiency of combining non haserdous waste with water to transport it & then having to seperate it again for disposla is nuts!
Sink garbage disposals are not the greenest way to dispose of food waste. According to Mark Jeantheau of the popular eco-website Grinning Planet, conscientious consumers interested in returning food-based nutrients back to the Earth should bypass the garbage disposal in favor of composting.
“The ground-up waste [in a garbage disposal] does not go back to nature’s water supply to be gobbled up by fish and other life forms,” he says. Sewage-treatment and septic systems remove “any food value the waste might have had.” Indeed, most modern-day sewer filtration systems utilize chemicals to rid the outflow of any life forms, beneficial or otherwise. Plus, grinding food in a garbage disposal uses a lot of freshwater, which is becoming a more and more precious commodity.
Those on their own septic systems also might want to minimize their use of the garbage disposal. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), regular use of garbage disposals leads to a “more rapid buildup of scum and sludge layers in the septic tank and increased risk of clogging in the soil adsorption field due to higher concentrations of suspended solids in the effluent.” Jeantheau adds that even if a given septic system is designed to handle heavier, food-based loads, it still might not be worth the risk: “There are few homeowner nightmares worse than having your septic system go belly up.”
While composting may sound like a messy proposition, it doesn’t have to be. For starters, those doing the dishes should make sure to dump any and all food waste items into a kitchen-based composting bin with a lid that seals tight. Many municipalities now make such bins available to interested residents. A mesh strainer in the hole in the sink can catch smaller food scraps and be dumped into the composting bin when the dishes are done.
When the kitchen-based compost bin fills up, it can be dumped into a larger composting bin outside. After four to six months, you should have some nice compost to add to your garden and jumpstart the health of your soil. Companies such as The Compost Bin and Clean Air Gardening offer online sales of a wide variety of quality compost bins of different shapes and sizes, and provide a wealth of comparative information for the interested consumer.
CONTACTS: Grinning Planet, www.grinningplanet.com; The Compost Bin, www.compost-bin.org; Clean Air Gardening, www.cleanairgardening.com.
If you have to use this crazy appliance you should add another bit of plumbing to your disposal you can recapture the solids right away, for local composting. See the Kitchen Komposter
http://www.joneca.com/Komposter_Joneca.htm
Again this bit of hardware is just worthless They complicate plumbing substantially, are expensive, use electricity, and do indeed lose nutrients while increasing the load on waste water treatment plants and systems. The disposal collector I mention above is basically a
juicer for your drain, and lots of good stuff is lost in the process.
Now It looks like I have an issue on my hands to get to the bottom of. I have posted this as I said I would. However, it does seem to me that it is falling out (in every sense of the word) between two sets of 'passionate' advocacy.
What I would value is the opinion, preferably backed by enviROI relevant facts, of a more objective person with no eco-axe to grind.
ADDENDUM - In the spirit of discovery, I asked for some opinion from a very nice chap I met at a composting event. To be sure, his company is in the advocacy camp, but he has been kind enough to offer a comprehensive reply which is rich in data. I post his reply here:
Thanks for your email. It isn't an unusual subject, or to see the views polarised.
Water industry. None of the UK water companies like FWDs (Food waste disposers). because they think that they are being handed the bulk disposal costs of biodegradable municipal waste by the local government groups. Local gov has to reduce biodegradable waste going to landfill on a tapering limit. The taper is severe i.s >60% reduction is needed in a relativeley short time. For every tonne over they get fined £150. An average tonne costs £60 to dispose of, so the fines are huge. Water companies want to use FWDs as a mechanism to increase charges in their 2014 pricing settlement with Offwat. They say that if FWDs are allowed to expand in use, then their systems will need to be changed in order to handle it, and hence an increase in money will be needed. If they are not going to be allowed to get more money, then they will want to see their use curtailed.
Water UK is the trade body, and has entered into a 3yr research programme with WRC to establish the implications of FWDs on the sewer system.
There is already a body of evidence that says even in very high concentrated use that there is a negligible impact on sewer systemns and treatment processes. There is a town in Sweden where 30% of the homes were fitted with domestic FWDs and the impacts on the sewage treatment system measured. - I don't know the town's name or have a copy of the report.
If you want to think about the green issues of CO2 footprint and other greenhouse gases then you need to think about what happens to the Carbon atoms. Composting has a super following becuase it looks like the ultimate in get something for nothing. You can turn a tonne of waste into 200kg of fabulous compost. The old school scientists worked out some time ago that energy cannot be made nor destroyed. It just changes form - hence perpetual motion machines are unlikely. Energy also = mass (e=mc2) so a pile of waste material is an energy store. If the mass reduces say from 1 tonne to 0.2 tonnes, then the energy associated with the .8 tonnes has to be accounted for.
0.8 tonnes started life as chemical energy (i.e. carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, Hydrogen, and others bound together looking like an old tomato or onion, or whatever.)
Some will become heat
None will become light
None becomes kinetic
Some of it becomes worms and bugs - there is a great technical term for this but I can't remember what it is
Some of it was water and is evaporated and stays as water
The rest probably stays as chemicals, but in different forms/compounds:
Depending on where you are in the compost bin, there are bugs and worms. Where there is oxygen present (air) the bugs will be aaerobic. They will respire, using oxygen and generating CO2 - at the same time converting carbon in the waste into bug.
Where there is no oxygen, then the bugs are anaerobic and will be busy converting the waste into bug but will generate CH4 (Methane). A clue - if the compost is warm (heat being generated) then there is anaerobic digestion happening.
Worms it seems produce NOX.
All of this chemical activity goes unnoticed by the casual observer, so the process is considered to be something like a miracle solution.
There is a multiplier though: every ounce of CH4 is 23 times more agreessive as a greenhouse gas than CO2, and NOX is a frightening 296 times more agressive - see article below.
It is worth saying at this stage that sewage treatment processes are like big scale composters. The sludge is the byproduct compost. There are aerobic sections and aaerobic sections in any process. The trick is to capture the anaerobic output (Methane) in anaerobic digesters, because then you can do something with it that is positive - i.e. turn it into CO2 by burning it to get energy out - thus the Methane fraction doesn't act as a 23 times multiplier to greenhouse gas, but as a 1 times multiplier with a positive energy creation. If that is harnessed, then the energy might be used to offset CO2 generation in conventional power generation.
FWDs are one piece of technology in reducing landfill (CH4 is emitted in vast quantities at landfill). They have a role to play along with other things like composting. There actually needs to be a "live and let live" approach - it is a pity that there are folks around who want to ban this or ban that.
There are other manufacturers than Insinkerator.
He also directed to a Telegraph piece: Wormeries 'may add to greenhouse gases' , which actually validates (if true) my concerns from the outset on how anything that churns out greenhouse gasses can surely not be helping the immediate cause of a reduction of same. This would seem to suggets there may be soem value in looking at capturing the gasses from such composters, though on a domestic scale this might not be practical.
I have to say as I oscillate about, this latest certainly makes sense to me and I tend to stick with my initial views. But I am sure there will be more to come. This seems almost as charged as climate change!
ADDENDUM 2 - I have now had a reply - a most helpful one (well, bar the 53 page bit!)- from the local council:
You could point people towards our Environmental Impact Study for all this info, environmental and financial etc. It was funded by the County Surveyors' Society. It's 53 pages long so we've also published a 3-page synopsis.
REPLY 10 - A polite, if still rather dogmatic response from one who seems to be very much in the 'compost' camp. I could also cock an eyebrow at the first and last of his company's interest area: a CONSULTANCY on LIVING TECHNOLOGIES, SUSTAINABLE DESIGN AND CARBON OFFSETTING. Me, I do it all for free. Also he has missed, or avoided, some of my points. I do compost the garden waste. It's the few meat and non-compostable scrapings I am looking at. And it's between a green cone and FWD on an enviROI basis (I'm guessing the cone will be cheaper than the unit, and not incur any subsequent operating costs) I am interested in. There is really not a difference in effort between them. He also seems to again ignore the human element on a pragmatic basis, especially when thinking on flat dwellers. Worth replying to? Not sure. I have enough fun with such mindsets on Guardian CiF.
Peter, I am sure many can relate to and appreciate your dimemma and voyage of discovery. Thanks for sharing the process so openly, I think it helps the rest of us.
As for those with or without access to gardens, I believe that part of what we need to change about our strategies and cultural mindset is the idea that a solution is only viable when it is universal. One of the big lessons about sustainability is the importance of nurturing diversity. In this instance, it's about the diversity of situations, personal specifics, options and ideas. The fact that some have space for a composter and others do not does not minimise the value of a home composting solution. If you subtracted all the homes with garden or balcony space from the total kitchen waste production, it would have a significant and positive impact. If you subtract even a few, it's still worth doing.
If you limit your composting to grass clippings, bits of paper and cardboard (for the carbon balance) and uncooked vegetable and fruit scraps, the rats will have less interest. A wire cage around the composter would deter them anyway. A worm bin would happily dispose of pretty much all the cooked scraps, meats and other 'smellies', and if caged, would keep out the rats anyway. Finished compost can be raked into the lawn as a top dressing, or offered to gardening neighbours.
Don't forget that the value of compost making is much more than simply disposing of waste.
ADDENDUM 21/Nov: Press release (as is, at tad editted for space, but I really need to fight through the 'shock' copy a tad when I get a 'mo):
GREEN CONE TO LOBBY GOVERNMENT OVER NEW GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSION FINDINGS -centralised treatment of food waste produces between 10 and 40 times more CO2 emissions than garden food waste digesters-
According to garden Food Waste Digester (FWD) company Green Cone, transporting and treating food waste at a centralised treatment facility produces between 10 and 40 times more CO2 emissions compared to disposing of waste in a householder’s garden using a digester.
The shock statistics follow a recent paper by environmental consultant Dr Alan Knipe (previously group managing director of Nuclear Technology at international energy and environmental company AEA Technology), which has been peer reviewed by SLR Consulting.
Furthermore, the significant environmental findings are in addition to annual cost savings identified in earlier studies illustrating that by introducing FWDs, local authorities could expect to save between £3-4 million per 250,000 households.
In his latest study, Dr Knipe compared greenhouse gas emissions from the life cycles of specified centralised and household management strategies in terms of CO2 equivalents (CO2E). Whilst anthropogenic (manmade) greenhouse gas emissions associated with the manufacturing and end-of-life disposal of both treatment plants and FWDs were shown to be relatively small, emissions arising from the day-to-day operation of the treatment plant, and transportation of waste to the plants, were proven to be alarmingly high.
Dependent on household dispersion and waste management strategy employed, total emissions from the day-to-day operations of a centralised approach typically generated between 50 to 214kg of CO2 per tonne of food waste each year. This figures reduces by 14kg of CO2E per tonne if the resulting composting were to genuinely replace existing emission-intensive inorganic fertilisers, soil improves or peat.
By comparison, household treatment generates around 5kg CO2E per tonne of food waste annually and produces zero day-to-day greenhouse gas emissions.
The study’s findings based on the uncontaminated segregation of food waste and all significant components of the life cycles of both the centralised and household management strategies for food waste, were included in the calculations. A copy of the paper: “The Comparison of Greenhouse Gas Emissions from the Centralised and Household Treatments of Food Waste” can be found here
Link - Sink Your Waste
Let's Recycle - Ruddock backs anaerobic digestion for food waste - that settles it; it must be a con!
RWM - "Food waste disposal systems are like fly-tipping" says water company
MRW - Environment Minister says AD is the best process to tackle food waste
Thursday, August 30, 2007
Trading post
Eco-innovation again. This time on carbon trades/offsets.
I played a part, but one post realy nails it well, I feel.
I hope it's OK to share it here:
Changing people's habits is a very complicated task. We can all speak
for ourselves in this point.
Certainly, saving money or making money is one of the most effective
arguments to get people moving towards a goal. Sometimes, even more
effective than necessity, logic, or intelligence.
In that sense, putting individuals into the Carbon Market is a very
interesting and creative concept. But what's the gain in these
cell-phone products besides the yearly
30-dollars-discount-in-your-cell-phone-bill?
Nothing against making profit. Sustainable, green businesses are the solution!
But let's see how this business really works: Each individual gets
US$30 a year, some peace of mind, and an argument to talk about the
environment. The cell phone companies will have a new product, a few
millions, and a green marketing campaign. And the carbon market system
will just be less, and less effective. So what's up for the
environment?
And what is this premise that people would be "on the road in a car
putting loads of CO2"? If I walk 2 blocks for groceries I'll be
entitled for carbon credits??? Is it so much more natural to choose
the car than the bike?
What we're seeing in these products is that it's easier to make profit
with global warming than to actually deal with it.
And that's precisely the problem with the carbon market itself. Is it
a palliative, or is it just a new, interesting business opportunity?
Obviousely, alone, it is not a solution. And certainly, it needs more
regulation before carbon ends up as another highly over-rated
commodity in some emerging country's stock market bubble.
I played a part, but one post realy nails it well, I feel.
I hope it's OK to share it here:
Changing people's habits is a very complicated task. We can all speak
for ourselves in this point.
Certainly, saving money or making money is one of the most effective
arguments to get people moving towards a goal. Sometimes, even more
effective than necessity, logic, or intelligence.
In that sense, putting individuals into the Carbon Market is a very
interesting and creative concept. But what's the gain in these
cell-phone products besides the yearly
30-dollars-discount-in-your-cell-phone-bill?
Nothing against making profit. Sustainable, green businesses are the solution!
But let's see how this business really works: Each individual gets
US$30 a year, some peace of mind, and an argument to talk about the
environment. The cell phone companies will have a new product, a few
millions, and a green marketing campaign. And the carbon market system
will just be less, and less effective. So what's up for the
environment?
And what is this premise that people would be "on the road in a car
putting loads of CO2"? If I walk 2 blocks for groceries I'll be
entitled for carbon credits??? Is it so much more natural to choose
the car than the bike?
What we're seeing in these products is that it's easier to make profit
with global warming than to actually deal with it.
And that's precisely the problem with the carbon market itself. Is it
a palliative, or is it just a new, interesting business opportunity?
Obviousely, alone, it is not a solution. And certainly, it needs more
regulation before carbon ends up as another highly over-rated
commodity in some emerging country's stock market bubble.
Symbolic, Shambolic
A poster on the Eco-innovation blog asked what some IKEA box symbols meant. I may not have been much help:
They're a sure sign that with waste and almost all to do with saving the planet, the process is too often usually more important than the result, symbolized by things going round and round in circles. It doesn't matter if the consumer doesn't have a clue what these things mean or what they can do to help mitigate their inevitable participation in the waste generation process, so long as the manufacturer and/or retailer meet some standards, rules or regs and at least look like they are trying to make things better. Actually it’s the same for most government/LA/quango efforts too, where bazzillions are blown telling us to recycle but few coordinated systems are provided to allow the public to do so sensibly or indeed share what can (or jar or bottle...) go where. All inspired mainly by bonus-driven targets of questionable enviROI, and way too often enforced by threats. I often stop to help folk standing in front of a skip with ‘PEP & HDPE (1-??) only’ written on the side to tell 'em the first is usually a fizzy pop bottle and the second is, or maybe isn't, the other stuff. Probably with a surveillance squad in the house opposite in case Fifi, aged 6, puts the wrong box in the slot. Jargon is all. And just what we need to save the planet is another set of complex initiatives. I’m half expecting a CDR attached to my next pack of Smarties to explain the various carbon footprint and air mile labeling schemes on top of the various supermarket opted-in charts, roundels and traffic lights on health. With a CDR on that to explain the best options for dealing with it too. Which I will not have time to get my head around as I cruise the aisles, and hence ignore. But at least it makes for a good CSR story to run an ad campaign on and wave at the legislators. I'd suggest the time may be ripe for actually getting the disposal systems in order from the moment anything comes out the ground to the point we try and avoid it going back in, with well-spaced process plants, sensible logistical systems, segregation points clearly placed and even more clearly marked and really, really clearly explained and.... a proper incentive programme in place to encourage people to believe it all goes to the right place and makes a big difference. Or, if it doesn't, or can't, be honest enough to explain that too, so folk don't drive their XC90s to the carpark to then find it's off to a Chinese landfill and get disillusioned. Treat the environment and its proactive initiatives as branded items or services to ‘sell’ like any other product, and not some complicated dirty chore with secret stuff only those ‘in the know’ can be allowed to deal with, and there may be a better level of engagement. And if a recycling option isn't ready yet, try reuse (Plug: http://www.Junkk.com is ready to share or take your suggestions on what to do with just about anything destined for the bin, which may enjoy another life). I've dallied with this arena a while, and didn't really even know what the first two meant other than 'something to do with recycling’. Or care too much anyway if no one can be bothered to help me understand easily. I just figure if it's a primary packaging material it should be and can be recyclable by now (and, while interesting and nifty, doubt I have ever bought anything or not because its pack is made from recycled materials, though it seems worthy to do and hence advise), so stick cardboard, glass, metal and probably even the odd wrong plastic in whatever doorstep box or supermarket container that comes my way. I think the 3rd symbol means you can turn the thing into a BBQ pit, and the last a Step Reebok stand, but I may be wrong:)
Wednesday, August 29, 2007
LA stories
I subscribe to a (by invitation to comment I think, but hopefully free to access) website called the 'eco-innovation network, which shares interesting e-snippets and of course subsequent forum feedback.
It just occurred to me that what I write I should share here.
One of the latest struck a chord, whereby a post about grants for alt- energy projects elicited an interesting response from an obviously cluey local Authority officer and prompted me to ask a few questions of my own. It is ongoing and will be interesting to see how it plays out.
Below is what I wrote by way of some questions, which I really hope to get answers to because if there is no such collation of resource there blooming well should be. To much in this country is about fractured empires, and not enough about coherent national policy. Especially when it comes to saving our kids' futures. These guys have a wealth of experience and it should be shared if it is not, and shared better than now if it is.
I was wondering:
a) Is there a single, trustworthy, accurate, easy-to-comprehend analysis anywhere of the relative merits of various alt. energy systems the UK consumer can consider (allowing that there will of course be variations based on local conditions (wind speed/duration, sun exposure, etc))?
b) Is there any listing comparison of the experiences and considerations behind, plus support for (in the form of grants as you have listed) initiatives by local authorities countrywide.
As a simple consumer making decisions based on the enviROI (cost to planet) as much as the ROI (to self) of all such options, I find what you have written of great interest and find it odd that I cannot find (at least easily) such invaluable collected wisdom on what works and may not be so great, with associated cost/benefit analyses.
I'd very much like to see this collated and indeed would consider offering to try and do so on behalf of consumers via my site (your council, as have others, is already always welcome to its own free page to share such information, and anything else of an enviro+ nature already, but this issue could benefit from being tabulated for easy access and comprehension). It's possible the information may exist, but either in fragmented form or in specialist areas. Or simply not in a public-friendly form. Or... I have missed it!
If not, it would seem a very worthy thing to do to try and pull it all together.
Frankly I see such initiatives, and the support behind them by authorities such as yours, as much more valuable to my kids' futures than the bazillions being blown on a few high-profile communications exercises floating about of late.
By my understanding, on a personal/domestic basis the reduction of waste and reduced dependence on energy from fossil fuels will offer the best and most immediate chances for carbon reduction, and I can't quite figure why more is not being done to coordinate and support this nationally.
ADDENDUM - he has kindly replied, if slightly in the way I'd expect from an LA officer:
Every District/Borough/Unitary Council in England has a statutory duty to promote, educate, inform and advise on energy conservation and many have taken this a step further to include renewable, sustainable energy, carbon reduction and climate change.
There are national agencies such as the Energy Saving Trust (EST) and the Carbon Trust that will offer the same advice to householders and businesses respectively.
The EST fund a nationwide chain of 52 energy efficiency advice centres that are designed to advise householders. These are situated in most Counties if not Regions.
If you are fortunate enough to live in the East of England there is a regional agency, Renewables East, set up to promote renewable energy in this region.
I belong to an organisation called the Association of Environmentally Conscious Builders, AECB, have a look at their website it will help plus they have a discussion board.
The British Wind Energy Association, BWEA, the National Energy Foundation, NEF, are both good sources.
If you do searches on any of these organisations you will find their websites, most have further links to others.
As have I in return:
That answers my questions, but also, I'd say, still suggests some opportunities if any agree with my notion that such localised expertise and data could be usefully pooled and shared nationally in a consumer-friendly, and persuasive manner.
All would benefit from knowing what works and would be best to improve one's domestic enviROI (with possible/probable healthy actual ROI, too), from the consumer to the LA to the planet, if we know what can be done, how easy it is to do it ... and what cost savings can be made.
I think this deserves a lot more effort than some others that are getting way too much attention, as reducing energy usage and insulating against waste has to be one of the more sensible areas to tackle first to see some big wins.
I'm sorry, but as a householder with a greater than average interest in, and engagement with such issues, those entities you point me at just don't seem to be reaching me. I wonder if they are others. But I will look at the sites you suggest, ta.
Edie - Councils leading the way with green technology - bearing in mind Dave's comment, that may be 'a' view, certainly.
It just occurred to me that what I write I should share here.
One of the latest struck a chord, whereby a post about grants for alt- energy projects elicited an interesting response from an obviously cluey local Authority officer and prompted me to ask a few questions of my own. It is ongoing and will be interesting to see how it plays out.
Below is what I wrote by way of some questions, which I really hope to get answers to because if there is no such collation of resource there blooming well should be. To much in this country is about fractured empires, and not enough about coherent national policy. Especially when it comes to saving our kids' futures. These guys have a wealth of experience and it should be shared if it is not, and shared better than now if it is.
I was wondering:
a) Is there a single, trustworthy, accurate, easy-to-comprehend analysis anywhere of the relative merits of various alt. energy systems the UK consumer can consider (allowing that there will of course be variations based on local conditions (wind speed/duration, sun exposure, etc))?
b) Is there any listing comparison of the experiences and considerations behind, plus support for (in the form of grants as you have listed) initiatives by local authorities countrywide.
As a simple consumer making decisions based on the enviROI (cost to planet) as much as the ROI (to self) of all such options, I find what you have written of great interest and find it odd that I cannot find (at least easily) such invaluable collected wisdom on what works and may not be so great, with associated cost/benefit analyses.
I'd very much like to see this collated and indeed would consider offering to try and do so on behalf of consumers via my site (your council, as have others, is already always welcome to its own free page to share such information, and anything else of an enviro+ nature already, but this issue could benefit from being tabulated for easy access and comprehension). It's possible the information may exist, but either in fragmented form or in specialist areas. Or simply not in a public-friendly form. Or... I have missed it!
If not, it would seem a very worthy thing to do to try and pull it all together.
Frankly I see such initiatives, and the support behind them by authorities such as yours, as much more valuable to my kids' futures than the bazillions being blown on a few high-profile communications exercises floating about of late.
By my understanding, on a personal/domestic basis the reduction of waste and reduced dependence on energy from fossil fuels will offer the best and most immediate chances for carbon reduction, and I can't quite figure why more is not being done to coordinate and support this nationally.
ADDENDUM - he has kindly replied, if slightly in the way I'd expect from an LA officer:
Every District/Borough/Unitary Council in England has a statutory duty to promote, educate, inform and advise on energy conservation and many have taken this a step further to include renewable, sustainable energy, carbon reduction and climate change.
There are national agencies such as the Energy Saving Trust (EST) and the Carbon Trust that will offer the same advice to householders and businesses respectively.
The EST fund a nationwide chain of 52 energy efficiency advice centres that are designed to advise householders. These are situated in most Counties if not Regions.
If you are fortunate enough to live in the East of England there is a regional agency, Renewables East, set up to promote renewable energy in this region.
I belong to an organisation called the Association of Environmentally Conscious Builders, AECB, have a look at their website it will help plus they have a discussion board.
The British Wind Energy Association, BWEA, the National Energy Foundation, NEF, are both good sources.
If you do searches on any of these organisations you will find their websites, most have further links to others.
As have I in return:
That answers my questions, but also, I'd say, still suggests some opportunities if any agree with my notion that such localised expertise and data could be usefully pooled and shared nationally in a consumer-friendly, and persuasive manner.
All would benefit from knowing what works and would be best to improve one's domestic enviROI (with possible/probable healthy actual ROI, too), from the consumer to the LA to the planet, if we know what can be done, how easy it is to do it ... and what cost savings can be made.
I think this deserves a lot more effort than some others that are getting way too much attention, as reducing energy usage and insulating against waste has to be one of the more sensible areas to tackle first to see some big wins.
I'm sorry, but as a householder with a greater than average interest in, and engagement with such issues, those entities you point me at just don't seem to be reaching me. I wonder if they are others. But I will look at the sites you suggest, ta.
Edie - Councils leading the way with green technology - bearing in mind Dave's comment, that may be 'a' view, certainly.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)