Sustainable Planet: May 2008 Archives
Ms. Migiro pointed out that the world is faced with an “unprecedented” rise of food prices, plunging many developing countries into a crisis that threatens to thwart efforts to achieve the global anti-poverty targets known as the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs).
Highlighting some of the effects of the crisis, Ms. Migiro noted that families that do not have enough to eat are being forced to make terrible choices, such as deciding between food or medicine, or choosing whether to send their children to school or to the fields where they might earn money to help the family.
“And it’s women who are hit the hardest,” she said. “The development emergency engulfing whole communities is taking its heaviest toll on women.”
The crisis offers an opportunity to re-invest in agriculture in Africa.
“Helping African farmers can have a decisive impact on women’s lives,”
Ms. Migiro said, noting that for the most part it is women – who make
up 80 per cent of Africa’s farmers – that are out there under the hot
sun, tending the fields and harvesting crops.
“But the same women hit hardest by the food crisis are ready to hit
back,” she added, stressing that with the right support, they can move
their communities from subsistence farming to commercial farming and
even industry. This is crucial not only for the continent but for the
world, which is just not producing as much food as it consumes.
“We need to do much more… to empower women. Women can drive the Green Revolution in Africa. They hold the key to breaking out of the food crisis; to educating the young; to peace, progress and prosperity,” the Deputy Secretary-General stated.
SOURCE: UN.org
The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) recently (Feb 2008) issued a "2007 Solid Waste Policy Report"
(DOWNLOAD HERE: www.pca.state.mn.us/publications/reports/lrw-sw-1sy08.pdf )
Some points:
- Incineration is unhealthy and makes global warming worse;
- Incineration is not a source of "green" or "renewable" energy;
- incineration is very expensive and diverts investment from better options such as "zero waste;"
Impact on recycling and organics recovery: The MPCA looked into concerns about WTE plants interfering with Minnesota's recycling and organics potential. The stated concern was that such plants usually require some form of "put or pay" commitments that guarantee a given daily tonnage of garbage to the WTE plants, before investors will commit capital; and that the locked-in tonnages will discourage materials that are burnable from going to recycling or composting. While the concern is reasonable and must be addressed, it is not inevitable that WTE hinders the recycling effort. Rather, residential recycling rates have typically been higher in communities with contractual commitments to WTE facilities than those without WTE. It is worthy of note that the highest waste-diversion achiever in the European Union is the Netherlands, which recycles and composts 65 percent of its waste but also sends 30 percent of its waste to combustion.
One reason for this counter-intuitive state of affairs may be that committing to WTE plants has persuaded those communities to pay attention to their waste rather than relying on distant landfills that are "out of sight, and out of mind." For example, those that operate WTE plants look for ways to keep metal and glass out of combustion chambers, because metals, such as aluminum that melts to slag steal heat from the furnace, interfere with furnace equipment and then add to the tonnage of ash that must be managed at considerable expense. One proven way to divert that metal and glass is source-separated recycling, which keeps the materials out of mixed municipal solid waste, maintaining its value as a marketable commodity.
The MPCA has benchmarked with the world's best achievers in solid waste management and does not find an inherent conflict between WTE and recycling, even at the highest rates of recycling achieved by states and nations.
Minnesota has included WTE in its waste-management mix since the
1980s and its recycling performance
is well above average for the United States and is on par with
Germany.
The Netherlands is the Pace Setter in Solid Waste Solutions
The pace-setter is the
Netherlands, which landfills only 5 percent of its waste, compared to
Minnesota, which landfills 36
percent.
If the Netherlands is taken as one example of how a region with both rural and urban populations allocated efforts within its waste management hierarchy, Minnesota still has good opportunities to move waste up from landfilling. (The Netherlands adopted its hierarchy in 1979, called Lansink's Ladder.)
Lansink's Ladder has these rungs, in order of decreasing preference:
- Prevention
- Design for prevention and design for beneficial use
- Product recycling (reuse)
- Material recycling
- Recovery for use as fuel
- Disposal by incineration
Green remediation is the practice of considering all environmental effects of remedy implementation and incorporating options to maximize the net environmental benefit of cleanup actions.
Green remediation reduces the demand placed on the environment during cleanup actions, otherwise known as the “footprint” of remediation, and avoids the potential for collateral environmental damage. The potential footprint encompasses impacts long known to affect environmental media:
- Air pollution caused by toxic or priority pollutants such as particulate matter and lead,
- Water cycle imbalance within local and regional hydrologic regimes,
- Soil erosion and nutrient depletion as well as subsurface geochemical changes,
- Ecological diversity and population reductions, and
- Emission of carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrous oxide (N2O), methane (CH4), and other greenhouse gases contributing to climate change.
EPA’s regulatory programs and initiatives actively support site remediation and revitalization that result in beneficial reuse such as commercial operations, industrial facilities, housing, greenspace, and renewable energy development. The Agency has begun examining opportunities to integrate sustainable practices into the decision-making processes and implementation strategies that carry forward to reuse strategies. In doing so, EPA recognizes that incorporation of sustainability principles can help increase the environmental, economic, and social benefits of cleanup.
The PRIMER: Green Remediation
This primer outlines the principles of green remediation and describes opportunities to reduce the footprint of cleanup activities throughout the life of a project.
Best management practices (BMPs) outlined in this document help decision-makers, communities, and other stakeholders (such as project managers, field staff, and engineering contractors) identify new strategies in terms of sustainability.
These strategies complement rather than replace the process used to select primary remedies that best meet site-specific cleanup goals. The primer identifies the range of alternatives available to improve sustainability of cleanup activities and to help decision-makers balance the alternatives within existing regulatory frameworks.
To date, EPA's sustainability initiatives have addressed a broader scope or focused on individual elements of green remediation such as clean energy (April 2008, 54 pages).
View or download this primer by th EPA at http://clu-in.org/techpubs.htm .
Meeting future water demand requires that we act immediately to
conserve 25% of our current water supply,
according to the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, the nation’s largest water provider.
Grappling with other water-related issues, many agencies have decided to delay conservation projects until the public perceives a critical shortage.
According to WeatherTRAK, who draws on years of experience in designing and implementing landscape conservation programs, some agencies face political barriers or consumer resistance to saving water. Past conservation programs have produced largely disappointing results, causing enthusiasm to dwindle.
SUCCESS STORY: 25% Savings
The widespread implementation of low-flow plumbing devices has saved significant amounts of water in the past decade. In Los Angeles, California, the powerful combination of a federal code requiring low-flow plumbing devices in new developments and rebates for installing these devices in homes and commercial sites has reduced water demand by twenty-five percent.
New Conservation Efforts Transitioning from the Indoors to the Outdoors
Water agencies must ensure that their water infrastructure can satisfy peak demand and emergency flow requirements. Peak usage is in the hottest weather period when demand for landscape water is greatest.
Analysis has shown that agency demand curve peaks have been pushed to artificially high levels because landscapes need significantly less water than is typically applied to them.
If landscape water use were efficient, the water infrastructure and supply would accommodate many more customers without costly upgrades. Moreover, customers would pay less for water. The result is a win-win for elected water officials: a more reliable water supply and satisfied customers.
SUCCESS STORY: 45% Savings
Examining current agency programs and past studies data, we see that it is likely that as much as 50% of current landscape water could be saved. For example, in Irvine, California, landscape water conservation programs have reduced commercial irrigation by 45%.
The advantages to landscape water conservation are far-reaching. Not only is the need for expensive infrastructure upgrades reduced, but there are also measurable environmental benefits. Efficient landscape water use yields significant dividends by reducing the tremendous costs incurred in pumping and transporting water.
It is estimated that it requires 10 TO 30% of California’s total energy supply to move water from its source to the regions in which it is consumed (California Urban Water Conservation Council, 2001).
Landscape water runoff contains pollutants from fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides that are now being measured in our lakes, streams, bays, and oceans. Metropolitan Water District of Orange County (MWDOC) conducted a peer-reviewed study that documented the relationship between landscape water waste and non-point source water pollution.
Consumer support can be quickly won through significant cost savings in individual water bills and overall water delivery system costs.
Landscape water efficiency is likely to be a water provider’s cheapest supply of new water.
Weather Based Irrigation Controllers can Save 35% of Landscape Water Use
Based on results of a California pilot program that were extrapolated across a larger customer base, one water district found that the installation of weather-based irrigation controllers would save 35% of water currently applied to landscapes in the service area.
The water district determined that installing the controllers would cost 29% less than securing more water through infrastructure expansion and water purchases.
Indoor water savings have been realized in most communities. But the American Water Works Association (AWWA) reports that 58% of non-agricultural water is applied to residential and commercial landscapes, whereas toilets use just 11%.
Low-flow toilets save water automatically with every flush, but they were a tough sell to many consumers. By contrast, convincing consumers to adopt effective outdoor conservation appliances has been easier because people enjoy spending time in their gardens.
for enjoyment, environmental benefit, or enhanced property value
(National Gardening Association survey, 2003).
Water district staff reports that water use is actually higher today in new homes than in older homes with comparable lot and structure sizes. This is despite:
1) increased agency conservation programs,
2) mandated installation of low-flow plumbing devices into all homes built since 1992, and
3) use of low water need plants suggested by state legislation (AB 325).
Efficient indoor water use is considered a widespread practice in the area, which points to increased landscape water use, despite conservation measures.
Traditional methods for reducing landscape water demand have proven to be difficult to enforce and monitor, expensive for long-term use, politically unpopular, and, in some cases, actually counter-productive. In light of study results about typical landscape watering behavior, these lackluster results are not surprising.
Study after study has shown that nearly everyone, from novices to experts, over-waters.
Why? Scheduling irrigation requires complex scientific equations that must be calculated daily as local weather changes. The fact is that accurately setting and adjusting irrigation schedules is difficult and time-consuming. Add to that, many homeowners mistakenly believe that the more water applied, the healthier the landscape. It’s time to stop deluding ourselves about the willingness and ability of homeowners and professionals to calculate efficient irrigation scheduling. Water providers are charting a new course for achieving their goals.
Introducing Weather-based Irrigation Management
In 1998, the first weather-based controller was tested for its ability to accurately schedule and adjust irrigation by MWD and the Irvine Ranch Water District (IRWD). Existing residential controllers were removed and replaced with WeatherTRAK-enabled controllers in forty homes. New levels of water usage were compared against historical water usage for the same households.
Following are the results of this study:
- Landscape water use in average water use households was reduced by sixteen percent to twenty-five percent.
- Plant health and appearance improved.
- Water bills were reduced.
- Customer satisfaction was measured at ninety-seven percent.
A broad range of studies with varied settings and objectives has proven the benefits of weather-based irrigation management. WeatherTRAK-enabled controllers, now available from The Toro Company, Irritrol Systems, and HydroPoint Data Systems, have been tested more than all other products combined.
One of many programs worthy of note is the California EPA-funded study of the use of WeatherTRAK-enabled controllers in micro-watershed areas. Study methodology tested the controllers in neighborhoods of three-to-four-hundred homes with street landscapes as well as homeowner association common areas and parks.
The goal was to measure the ability of weather-based irrigation controllers to reduce urban runoff and non-point source water pollution through precise calculation of water applications.
The study found that:
RUNOFF in neighborhoods with WeatherTRAK-enabled controllers was reduced by 71%, when compared to control neighborhoods.These impressive results led directly to the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation providing $1.5 million in rebate funds for Orange County-based water agencies to distribute to consumers who install approved smart controllers.
Mass loading of pollutants into the waterway was correspondingly reduced by 71%.
The ability to broadcast weather-based data (local evapotranspiration, or ET, values) and automate plant-specific irrigation scheduling provides additional benefits, including:
Peaking Management Service: daily, wireless transmission of ET data for maximum water use efficiency.
Rain/Winter Shut-off Service: automated irrigation suspension during rain and the winter season, particularly useful in colder climates.
Drought Management Service: broadcasting during emergency drought conditions, is a powerful tool for enforcing water conservation.
To read the full explanation of adopting and implementing a new water conservation program for your community, contact WeatherTRAK for their white paper by Tom Ash, entitled, "How to Implement a Cost-effective Landscape Water Efficiency Program".
WeatherTRAK
www.weathertrak.com
