Category: use of environment

San Francisco: laying down the (composting) law

Article nabbed from here in the San Francisco Chronicle.

The new law in San Francisco mandating division of waste into recyclables, trash, and compost has a lot of people in a huff.  One the one hand, if followed by citizens, the law could divert up to 90% of all waste from landfills and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.  (The city has a goal of NO WASTE by 2020).  On the other hand, Americans (even in SF) don’t like being told what to do.  I personally think it’s a great idea, but read about it to decide for yourself!

——————————————————————————————————————————————————————————

Throwing orange peels, coffee grounds and grease-stained pizza boxes in the trash will be against the law in San Francisco, and could even lead to a fine.




The Board of Supervisors voted 9-2 Tuesday to approve Mayor Gavin Newsom’s proposal for the most comprehensive mandatory composting and recycling law in the country. It’s an aggressive push to cut greenhouse gas emissions and have the city sending nothing to landfills or incinerators by 2020.

“San Francisco has the best recycling and composting programs in the nation,” Newsom said, praising the board’s vote on a plan that some residents had decried as heavy-handed and impractical. “We can build on our success.”

The ordinance is expected to take effect this fall.

The legislation calls for every residence and business in the city to have three separate color-coded bins for waste: blue for recycling, green for compost and black for trash.

Failing to properly sort your refuse could result in a fine after several warnings, but Newsom and other officials say fines will only be levied in the most egregious cases.

Fines for almost all residential customers and many small businesses – anyone who generates less than a cubic yard of refuse a week – are initially capped at $100. Businesses that don’t have proper bins face escalating fines up to $500.

There is a moratorium on fines until at least July 2011 for tenants and owners of multifamily buildings or multitenant commercial properties to get people used to composting. Buildings where recycling carts won’t fit can get a waiver.

“In any scenario there will be repeated notices and phone calls before we even start talking about fines,” said Jared Blumenfeld, head of the city’s Department of the Environment. “We don’t want to fine people.”

The proposal, hailed as an effective way to cut about two-thirds of the 618,000 tons of waste the city sent to landfill in 2007, drew resistance from some apartment building owners when details emerged about a year ago. And some residents were upset over the possibility of inspectors checking their garbage.

The ordinance calls for garbage collectors to leave tags on containers when they spot incorrectly sorted material, but those collectors are only going to view what’s on top of the container and have no intention of going through them, said Robert Reed, a spokesman for San Francisco collectors Sunset Scavenger Co. and Golden Gate Disposal & Recycling Co., subsidiaries of Recology, formerly Norcal Waste Systems.

“Our role is to pick up the garbage and to make recycling as easy and convenient as possible for our customers,” Reed said. “Our collection drivers will not become enforcers.”

City officials would levy any fines, and the legislation doesn’t provide funding for new trash inspectors.

“It doesn’t create trash police,” Blumenfeld said.

Support mixed

Newsom’s proposal created odd political bedfellows at the Board of Supervisors.

It was co-sponsored by frequent Newsom critics, Supervisors Chris Daly and Ross Mirkarimi, while two of the mayor’s most reliable allies, Supervisors Carmen Chu and Sean Elsbernd, were the only opponents. “This is a little too much big brother, even for me,” Elsbernd said. “We’ve got a huge problem in my district and a lot of other parts of the city with people who go in and out of garbage cans at night scavenging. Who’s going to be responsible for that? Are we creating a whole brand-new problem?”

Elsbernd also questioned assurances that fines would not be aggressively pursued against residents, saying similar promises were broken on legislation against leaving trash cans visible.

The San Francisco Apartment Association, a trade group for rental property owners, took a neutral stance on the plan after language was dropped that would have held landlords responsible for tenants’ sorting.

Cities from Pittsburgh to San Diego have mandatory recycling. None, however, requires all food waste to be composted. Seattle passed a law in 2003 requiring people to have a compost bin but, unlike San Francisco, it did not mandate that all food waste go in there.

Reducing trash

Newsom floated the mandatory recycling idea in April 2008 as he faced the city’s self-imposed goals of having a 75 percent recycling rate in 2010, with zero waste by 2020.

The rationale behind the move is clear. Material like food scraps and plant clippings that go into landfills take up costly space and decompose to form methane, a greenhouse gas 20 times more potent than carbon dioxide.

A June 2008 report by the Institute for Local Self-Reliance, a group focused on environmentally sound community development, said a zero waste approach is one of the fastest, cheapest and most effective ways to protect the climate. Cutting waste sent to landfills and incinerators would be like closing 21 percent of U.S. coal-fired power plants, the report said.

About 36 percent of what San Francisco sends to landfill is compostable, and another 31 percent is recyclable, a comprehensive study found.

By the city’s count, it currently diverts 72 percent of its waste, best in the nation. If recyclables and compostables going into landfills were diverted, the city’s recycling rate would jump to 90 percent, Blumenfeld said.

Only 22 percent of the city’s 10,000 large apartment buildings have composting bins, but the number has tripled in the last year, Reed said.

“Once people start to compost,” he said, “they find it easy to do.”

One hang-up, of course, is the perceived yuck factor.

“It’s a false phobia that things are going to smell,” Reed said. “It’s the same garbage you already had, it’s just handling it differently, in a more environmentally responsible way.”

Composting tips

– You don’t need a specially designed composting pail in your kitchen; a paper milk carton or a paper grocery bag work just fine.

– With a paper grocery bag, put some newspaper in the bottom to absorb moisture.

– Start with easy things – orange peels, coffee grounds, eggshells – to get the hang of it.

– If you’re using a paper bag, roll down the top to close it. Knot the end of compostable bags.

– The composting bin has an attached lid. Keep it closed.

Source: Golden Gate Disposal & Recycling Co.

  • Share/Bookmark

a case for food NOT lawns

From:  Environmental Building News Volume 14, Number 7 · July 2005

which can be found here.

Some kind of scary stuff- 50 million acres in North America are used up by grass??  I’ve heard that in the US 400 million acres accounts for crop land, with fruits and veggies accounting for only 4% of this, or 16 million acres.  That means that if we all grew vegetable gardens instead of grass (that sucks up our water supply and gas and needs toxic chemical fertilizers), we would increase veggie production by 300 percent.


What’s Wrong with the Conventional Lawn?

Lawns occupy roughly 50 million acres (20 million ha) in North America—an area twice the size of Pennsylvania. Annually in the U.S. we spend tens of billions of dollars caring for these lawns. In some areas we use over half of our municipal freshwater to irrigate these lawns, and we fortify them with millions of tons of fertilizer and thousands of tons of pesticides.

What’s wrong with this picture? From an environmental, health, and even economic standpoint, a lot is wrong with conventional turf. Maintenance of turf necessitates regular mowing during the growing season. The roughly 90 million lawnmowers, weed trimmers, leaf blowers, and other small-engine lawn and garden tools in the United States spew out approximately 5% of the nation’s air pollution, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)—and a good deal more in many metropolitan areas. A typical 3.5 horsepower gas mower emits about the same quantity of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in one hour as a late-model car driven 340 miles (550 km), according to the California Air Resources Board. On top of that, EPA estimates that users of such equipment spill 17 million gallons of fuel each year—which is more than the Exxon Valdez oil spill!

Watering lawns consumes 30% of municipal freshwater in the eastern U.S. and 60% in the West. A U.S. News & World Report article reported that a 1,000 square-foot (93 m2) lawn requires, on average, 10,000 gallons (37,850 liters) per summer. With droughts continuing in the West and expected to increase in severity as a result of global climate change, this is a growing concern.

To maintain lush lawns, we use a lot of fertilizer—some 70 million tons (64 million tonnes) per year in the U.S. We use more fertilizer on our lawns in the U.S. than India uses on its food crops. Nitrogen fertilizers are produced by converting molecular nitrogen (N2) in the air into ammonia through the Haber-Bosch process, which is extremely energy-intensive, requiring approximately 18,000 Btus per pound (41 GJ/tonne) of primary energy input, which comes primarily from natural gas. Worldwide, ammonia production accounts for approximately 1% of global primary energy use.

Insecticides, herbicides, fungicides, and other pesticides are a growing concern with lawns. U.S. homeowners use 67 million pounds (30 million kg) of pesticides on lawns each year, according to EPA. Our suburban lawns and gardens receive heavier pesticide applications than our agricultural land: between 3.2 and 9.8 pounds per acre (3.6–11 kg/ha) vs. an average of 2.7 pounds per acre (3.0 kg/ha) for agricultural lands.

The nonprofit organization Beyond Pesticides (previously the National Coalition Against the Misuse of Pesticides) reports that of 30 commonly used lawn pesticides, 13 are probable or known carcinogens, 14 are linked with birth defects, 18 have reproductive effects, 20 may cause liver or kidney damage, 18 are considered neurotoxins, and 11 are known or suspected endocrine disrupters. A 1987 paper in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute reported that the incidence of childhood leukemia is 6 1/2 times greater among families using lawn pesticides than among those who do not, and a 2004 paper in the Journal of the American Veterinary Medicine Association found that certain dogs are four to seven times more likely to contract bladder cancer if they live in households that use lawn herbicides than if they live in households that do not—a finding considered especially significant, according to the researchers, because 70% of human bladder cancers develop from unknown causes.

Along with the resource and environmental burdens of producing fertilizers and pesticides, a significant portion of these chemicals applied to lawns ends up in stormwater runoff and in groundwater. According to EPA, 40–60% of the nitrogen applied to lawns ends up in surface water or groundwater. Stormwater runoff from turf is one of North America’s biggest sources of water pollution.

Noise pollution is another concern. Lawnmowers, weed whackers, hedge trimmers, and leaf blowers cause significant noise pollution, a very real but often overlooked health hazard.

Due to the need for all this maintenance, lawns are a huge expense. Homeowners spend roughly $27 billion per year on lawn care, according to the National Wildlife Federation (NWF)—ten times more than we spend on school textbooks. At the business level, the lawn care industry did approximately $61 billion in business in 1997 and has been experiencing roughly 20% annual growth in recent years. On a per-acre basis, maintenance costs for mowing, irrigation, and application of fertilizer and pesticides average $1,120 per year, according to the organization Wild Ones Natural Landscapers. For more on lawns and turf grass, see EBN Vol. 13, No. 4.

  • Share/Bookmark

Panorama theme by Themocracy