Clear The Air News Blog Rotating Header Image

October 13th, 2015:

China detains 11 after trash incinerator protest sparks riot

http://news.yahoo.com/china-detains-11-trash-incinerator-protest-sparks-riot-105505704.html

BEIJING (Reuters) – Hundreds of protesters rioted in southern China after weekend demonstrations against a project to build a trash incinerator turned violent, with city government officials saying they had to detain 11 people to restore order.

Decades of breakneck economic growth have led to severe environmental damage in many parts of China, where choking smog often angers increasingly educated and affluent city-dwellers.

Protesters said the demonstrations, which began on Saturday in Yangchun, a city with a population of about a million located in the manufacturing powerhouse of Guangdong, drew hundreds of people agitated over the risk of pollution from the project.

“How will we survive breathing in noxious smoke?” an employee of a small Internet firm told Reuters by telephone on Tuesday.

“Yesterday night, the police have already beaten a lot of people, and arrested more,” added the woman, who gave only her surname, Mo, for fear of reprisals from the authorities.

Photographs posted online, some on the website of the official Xinhua news agency, showed protesters pinning a police officer to the ground, and flames engulfing an overturned car. Three vehicles were damaged, the government said.

In an online statement on Sunday, the city government said 11 lawbreakers had been detained, but no one was injured. Police could not be reached for comment.

Tension persisted on Tuesday, with protesters saying hundreds of people were still gathered near the gates of a cement plant that is cooperating with the trash incinerator project.

Every year, China experiences tens of thousands of “mass incidents”, the usual euphemism for protests, triggered by grievances over corruption, pollution and illegal land grabs.

The events are unnerving to the ruling Communist Party, which is obsessed with the need to maintain stability.

A rash of health scares and accidents has also fueled public scepticism about the safety of industries ranging from food to energy.

(Reporting by Megha Rajagopalan; Editing by Clarence Fernandez)

7 Reasons Why Recycling Is Not a Waste: A Response to ‘The Reign of Recycling’

http://www.sustainablebrands.com/news_and_views/waste_not/tom_szaky/7_reasons_why_recycling_not_waste_response_reign_recycling?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=brandsweekly&utm_campaign=oct15&mkt_tok=3RkMMJWWfF9wsRoluq7NZKXonjHpfsX56ugtUaa1lMI%2F0ER3fOvrPUfGjI4FRMJiI%2BSLDwEYGJlv6SgFTrTBMbVxyLgOXxk%3D

Recycling in the United States is an economically unsustainable trend — or at least that’s what New York Times writer John Tierney recently argued in his opinion piece, “The Reign of Recycling,” published in the October 4th Sunday Review. Tierney’s arguments focus almost entirely on the inefficiency and economic viability of recycling, suggesting that CPG companies and major brands, municipalities, and even consumers should stop worrying about recycling, and that linear disposal methods are successful enough for the sake of cost-effectiveness and profitability. I believe that this is a dangerous conclusion to make in the 21st century, a time where the need for long-term sustainability strategies and circular waste solutions are more apparent than ever.

We know full well the function economics play in recycling. If the value of a potentially recyclable commodity is higher than collection, logistic and processing costs, there is an economic incentive to recycle. But what about obviously less recyclable materials, such as multilayered films or plastic sachet packaging — materials that are, universally, considered non-recyclable? To go along with Tierney’s argument, landfilling and incineration are the only economically viable alternatives.

This focus on short-term economic viability is problematic, as it disregards the critical need for a more circular system of manufacturing and consumption. We don’t push for better education or health care based on whether they are economically justifiable institutions — we do it because there is a social imperative. Telling corporations and the public that recycling — save for a very select few materials — is essentially a waste undermines the need for more comprehensive strategies supporting sustainable development: reusing materials when we can, recycling those materials when we can’t, and decreasing the consumption of unsustainable materials bound for landfill.

There are a variety of environmental subjects that Tierney does not approach: the trillions of pieces of plastic floating on top and piling up on the bottom of our oceans; the difficulty of accurately identifying the health risks posed by waste incineration; the destructive linear model of consumption and production that resigns raw materials to single-use lives (burying waste and other materials in a landfill or burning in an incinerator). These (among many, many others) are all relevant topics that must be considered to accurately determine the environmental effects of our currently wasteful society.

Tierney also brings up the price comparison between recycled plastics and the plunging price of virgin plastic, thanks in no small part to the recent dip in oil prices. He fails to mention, however, the incredible volatility of global crude oil prices. In fact, a rebound is already predicted to occur over the course of the next five years. Recycled plastics can be a great way for manufacturers to avoid these volatile costs, do something environmentally beneficial, and strengthen supply chain security.

Recycled material in general can be a great way to build supply chain security overall. My company, for example, works with dozens of manufacturers to facilitate the collection and recycling of their pre- and post-consumer product and packaging waste. In a variety of these partnerships, after aggregating the collected waste we send it back to the manufacturer, where the recycled material is reintegrated into existing supply chains. It reduces waste and costs, and gives the company a competitive edge in the market.

As the need for sustainability strategies rises, even government institutions are increasingly demanding more recycled content in products, more recyclable packaging, and more substantial overall sustainability practices. Packaging taxes and extended producer responsibility (EPR) legislation is already active in many parts of the world, making manufacturers responsible for the collection and recycling (or reuse) of their pre- and post-consumer packaging waste.

The European Der Grüne Punkt (The Green Dot) network is possibly the most notable EPR system in the world, essentially taxing product manufacturers based on their waste-diversion strategies. The Green Dot’s licensing fees act as an incentive to increase sustainability practices, encouraging product manufacturers to collect and recycle their pre- and post-consumer waste (lowering their respective fees as a result). These strategies can help create a better ecological balance between production and consumption.

We can’t forget about consumers in this conversation either, as they are increasingly prone to making purchasing decisions based on product — and packaging — sustainability. Conscious consumers are reading labels and packaging for recyclability and sustainability claims, buying from socially responsible CPG companies, and are even inclined to pay premiums for eco-friendly or socially responsible products. Does this mean that consumers are falling into a “green marketing” trap, or — gasp! — that they actually care about the planet? Consumers will reward those manufacturers that make environmental stewardship, recyclability, and sustainability a part of their business models.

We have to take a step back and evaluate the economic and environmental costs to potential alternatives to recycling. Calling on short-term efficiencies and a lack of profitability will do nothing but undermine future efforts to strengthen our recycling infrastructure and to sustainably develop for future generations. Being complacent with our disposable society is not how we will accomplish this.

I couldn’t help but note the irony of the Times running an opinion piece decrying recycling because of a lack of obvious profitably on the very same day that yet another US State — South Carolina — was experiencing historic flooding and being called to a State of Emergency. The tragic events in South Carolina are leading to loss of life and billions of dollars of damage to public and private property. Unfortunately, Mr. Tierney and his editors at the New York Times failed to include these costs in their myopic calculations.

Thousands dying in region from ozone pollution caused by warming, Chinese University study finds

ENVIRONMENT

Ernest Kao ernest.kao@scmp.com

Deadly ozone levels rising as emissions of fossil fuels increase, Chinese University study warns

Regional warming in East Asia over the past 30 years has led to a rapid rise in surface ozone pollution that may have led to thousands of premature deaths a year, a Chinese University study found.

The researchers warn the situation is likely to get worse as fossil fuel emissions increase.

Ozone is formed by volatile organic compounds (VOCs) reacting with nitrogen oxides (NOx) from sources such as vehicles. The pollutant can cause breathing problems and serious lung disease.

The study found that summertime temperatures in mainland China and surrounding regions had risen by up to 3 degrees Celsius over the past three decades, intensifying ozone in the lower atmosphere by 2 to 10 parts per billion by volume (ppbv).

This increase was associated with an estimated 5,600 extra premature respiratory deaths per year in East Asia – which includes mainland China and Hong Kong – between 1980 and 2010.

But Professor Amos Tai Pui-kuen of the university’s earth system science programme said increases in human-induced emissions from fossil fuel burning had raised ozone levels to 25ppbv over this period, which may have caused an extra 65,000 ozone-related premature deaths per year.

“Our results show that warming in China, indeed, might have exacerbated air pollution further over the past few decades and had a direct impact on human health,” said Tai. “If we include the health impact of more frequent heat extremes, such as heatstroke, the real costs of climate change might have been even higher.”

The 18-month study analysed historical weather and satellite observations of land cover in computer modelling that simulated atmospheric chemistry and pollutant formation.

Tai said warmer temperatures and carbon dioxide increased the growth of vegetation. Trees and plants emit VOCs naturally and these react with NOx emissions from vehicles and power plants, creating yet more ozone.

“South China and Hong Kong will likely experience more serious ozone pollution due to the ‘double impact’ of climate change and enhanced vegetation growth in the future if background nitrogen oxides from industrial [sources] and vehicles remain high.”

Tai urged regional governments to reduce NOx emissions, especially from vehicles, and to take into account future warming and land use changes in the greater Pearl River Delta region.

Clean Air Network campaign manager Patrick Fung Kin-wai said the findings were in line with his own group’s research, which last year found that ozone pollution in Hong Kong had hit a historic high. VOC emissions in the delta region have long been a problem and even with the Chinese economy slowing, there were no signs of it coming down yet, he said.

According to the Environmental Protection Department, ozone concentrations measured at the city’s air quality monitoring stations have increased by 25 per cent over the past five years.

Hong Kong and other cities in the Pearl River Delta have pledged to reduce VOC emissions by 15 to 25 per cent by 2020 from 2010 levels.

7 Reasons Why Recycling Is Not a Waste: A Response to ‘The Reign of Recycling’

http://www.sustainablebrands.com/news_and_views/waste_not/tom_szaky/7_reasons_why_recycling_not_waste_response_reign_recycling

Recycling in the United States is an economically unsustainable trend — or at least that’s what New York Times writer John Tierney recently argued in his opinion piece, “The Reign of Recycling,” published in the October 4th Sunday Review. Tierney’s arguments focus almost entirely on the inefficiency and economic viability of recycling, suggesting that CPG companies and major brands, municipalities, and even consumers should stop worrying about recycling, and that linear disposal methods are successful enough for the sake of cost-effectiveness and profitability. I believe that this is a dangerous conclusion to make in the 21st century, a time where the need for long-term sustainability strategies and circular waste solutions are more apparent than ever.

We know full well the function economics play in recycling. If the value of a potentially recyclable commodity is higher than collection, logistic and processing costs, there is an economic incentive to recycle. But what about obviously less recyclable materials, such as multilayered films or plastic sachet packaging — materials that are, universally, considered non-recyclable? To go along with Tierney’s argument, landfilling and incineration are the only economically viable alternatives.

This focus on short-term economic viability is problematic, as it disregards the critical need for a more circular system of manufacturing and consumption. We don’t push for better education or health care based on whether they are economically justifiable institutions — we do it because there is a social imperative. Telling corporations and the public that recycling — save for a very select few materials — is essentially a waste undermines the need for more comprehensive strategies supporting sustainable development: reusing materials when we can, recycling those materials when we can’t, and decreasing the consumption of unsustainable materials bound for landfill.

There are a variety of environmental subjects that Tierney does not approach: the trillions of pieces of plastic floating on top and piling up on the bottom of our oceans; the difficulty of accurately identifying the health risks posed by waste incineration; the destructive linear model of consumption and production that resigns raw materials to single-use lives (burying waste and other materials in a landfill or burning in an incinerator). These (among many, many others) are all relevant topics that must be considered to accurately determine the environmental effects of our currently wasteful society.

Tierney also brings up the price comparison between recycled plastics and the plunging price of virgin plastic, thanks in no small part to the recent dip in oil prices. He fails to mention, however, the incredible volatility of global crude oil prices. In fact, a rebound is already predicted to occur over the course of the next five years. Recycled plastics can be a great way for manufacturers to avoid these volatile costs, do something environmentally beneficial, and strengthen supply chain security.

Recycled material in general can be a great way to build supply chain security overall. My company, for example, works with dozens of manufacturers to facilitate the collection and recycling of their pre- and post-consumer product and packaging waste. In a variety of these partnerships, after aggregating the collected waste we send it back to the manufacturer, where the recycled material is reintegrated into existing supply chains. It reduces waste and costs, and gives the company a competitive edge in the market.

As the need for sustainability strategies rises, even government institutions are increasingly demanding more recycled content in products, more recyclable packaging, and more substantial overall sustainability practices. Packaging taxes and extended producer responsibility (EPR) legislation is already active in many parts of the world, making manufacturers responsible for the collection and recycling (or reuse) of their pre- and post-consumer packaging waste.

The European Der Grüne Punkt (The Green Dot) network is possibly the most notable EPR system in the world, essentially taxing product manufacturers based on their waste-diversion strategies. The Green Dot’s licensing fees act as an incentive to increase sustainability practices, encouraging product manufacturers to collect and recycle their pre- and post-consumer waste (lowering their respective fees as a result). These strategies can help create a better ecological balance between production and consumption.

We can’t forget about consumers in this conversation either, as they are increasingly prone to making purchasing decisions based on product — and packaging — sustainability. Conscious consumers are reading labels and packaging for recyclability and sustainability claims, buying from socially responsible CPG companies, and are even inclined to pay premiums for eco-friendly or socially responsible products. Does this mean that consumers are falling into a “green marketing” trap, or — gasp! — that they actually care about the planet? Consumers will reward those manufacturers that make environmental stewardship, recyclability, and sustainability a part of their business models.

We have to take a step back and evaluate the economic and environmental costs to potential alternatives to recycling. Calling on short-term efficiencies and a lack of profitability will do nothing but undermine future efforts to strengthen our recycling infrastructure and to sustainably develop for future generations. Being complacent with our disposable society is not how we will accomplish this.

I couldn’t help but note the irony of the Times running an opinion piece decrying recycling because of a lack of obvious profitably on the very same day that yet another US State — South Carolina — was experiencing historic flooding and being called to a State of Emergency. The tragic events in South Carolina are leading to loss of life and billions of dollars of damage to public and private property. Unfortunately, Mr. Tierney and his editors at the New York Times failed to include these costs in their myopic calculations.