Lack of basic science and common sense…
I really wonder about some of the green movement. You can debate the science behind global warming, but some things they come out with are just plain ignorant.
Specifically I received a letter yesterday from some government body about energy efficiency. Fine, energy efficiency can be a good thing, reducing CO2 emissions and saving you money. The problem is the letter was not about energy efficiency. It was about composting and how we should do it, rather than throw food waste in the bin.
Why? Becasue rotting organic matter in a landfill releases methane, a potent greenhouse gas.
The conclusion that we should compost instead simply does not follow however, since composting releases the same gasses. It makes even less sense when you inject more reality into the situation – the methane from landfill is collected and used to generate electricity, turning methane into a less potent greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide, reducing the impact on global warming.
So, given the reason for us to compost is supposedly to tackle global warming, it looks like they’ve got it a little wrong. Composting has a greater effect on the greenhouse effect due to the emission of methane rather than CO2. Also the council’s scheme they are keen for us to use will release more CO2 due to the extra transport needed.
What is driving this then? I’d guess rules (handed down from the EU I believe) restricting the amount of landfill we can use. Why do we have these rules? I’m not sure, its not like we’re running out of places for landfill in this country. If we were then landfill would beome more expensive anyway, reducing its desirability, leading to other forms of disposal becoming more attractive (although the lack of market in waste collection does impeed that).
I also suspect that councils may make money selling the compostable material to compost manufacturers. They probably view this as a good thing, but costs are so distorted that such a judgement cannot be made (especially as they ignore the largest costs – the time people spend sorting their rubbish).
All in all, this is one of the biggest piles of nonsense I’ve seen in a while.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
December 9th, 2008 at 3:13 pm
No.
Councils encourage people to compost at home, massively reducing energy costs through the collection and disposal of this waste stream. It might produce methane but it can also then be used as a natural product for growing more produce. It is thus a carbon store.
Only if home composting is not possible do they need to have their waste collected and composted collectively.
Methane from landfills can be collected and used but in practice it is not so this remains a huge source of methane production.
The key is to get people to reduce the amount of waste they produce in the first place and whisking away their rubbish to bury in holes in the ground does not encourage them to do so. That’s why Councils are introducing fortnightly collections and composting – to ram it down the throats of the terminally thick (’its the council’s problem, isn’t it?!’) that rubbish is the problem of the people who produce it.
December 9th, 2008 at 4:53 pm
The key question here would seem to be whether your local dump does in fact collect methane or not.
December 9th, 2008 at 10:36 pm
Ummm, but the methane is still given off if you compost it, whilst this letter implied it would not be.
Yes, reduce waste will save some resources, home composting will reduce the fuel used to collect the waste (although it won’t save much if there’s only one collection for waste since the collection will still happen for non-compostable waste).
You have managed to miss the point of my post, which was this letter was factually incorrect and seeks to mislead.
If you are so keen to reduce waste then lets have a market in waste disposal, the only way to make people conscious of the costs of their waste is the price mechanism of the market.
December 10th, 2008 at 5:50 pm
That simply doesn’t work because the actual cost of waste collection and disposal is surprisingly cheap for the average household. This is where your liberal approach to all areas breaks down: sometimes government needs to influence certain areas of our society to make it work a little better – not purely efficiently in economic terms but for the benefit of the whole community – and waste reduction is a key area.
I don’t want my kids styanding on millions of tons of detritus from this day and age, I want to start to do something about it now.
December 10th, 2008 at 9:03 pm
I’m not convinced that the volume of landfill should be considered much of an issue. Millions of tons of detritus doesn’t take up very much space, compared to most of the things we use land for.
Yes, OK Tristan, the letter was almost certainly inaccurate, due to a lack of basic science, as you say. But not due to a lack of common sense. Common sense says that composting is good for the environment.
December 15th, 2008 at 2:53 pm
Ah, I’ve just remembered one other pertinent factoid. Compost heaps are not necessarily anaerobic. The better, and less smelly ones, are (largely) aerobic and so don’t emit (much) methane. Landfills, otoh, won’t have enough oxygen buried in them to be aerobic.
January 27th, 2009 at 10:02 am
What Joe said.
Landfill => anaerobic decomposition producing methane
Composting => aerobic decomposition producing CO2 (less greenhouse-y than methane)
You also get the benefits of having produced a fertiliser with no energy input.
January 28th, 2009 at 12:37 am
It takes energy to do aerobic composting. You have to fluff the piles or inject air into them since the oxygen is rapidly consumed. It is an exothermic reaction – it gets hot – so there is also a loss of water in excess of what is lost in fluffing. Water, then, must also be added. All of this must be done at the right time and under the right conditions. For example, too much water, such as from a hard rain, can drown the aerobic bacteria. The pile must be covered when it rains. It’s complicated and is usually done wrong.
An alternative not considered is to use an anaerobic digester – something like a beer kettle – and capture the off gases for use in a CHP system. Similarly, the materials could be gasified in low temperature pyrolysis to produce useful gases and char.
Some have speculated that one day we will be able to buy home scale pyrolysis systems at the local home improvement stores. They might be integrated with a barbecue grill that would use the gases of pyrolysis to cook your burgers, kabobs and brats. You can tinker up such a system now if you are a bit off a gear head. There are even kits available. Home brew. Again. Wave the flag.