by Michelle Millet
After reading many of the comments that were posted on my recent article Green Waste Containerization: Food Scrape Collection I realized that I could have done a better job framing my argument in favor of moving to a containerization program.
I argued that one of the reasons the City of Davis should move from a loss-in-the-street yard waste collection program to a containerization program is that it would allow for food scraps and other compostable materials to be added to yard waste, thus diverting this waste from the landfill to a composting facility.
The fact of the matter is, whether we move to containerize yard waste or not, for the city to meet it’s, and the State of California’s waste management goals, it needs to implement policies that promote significant waste diversion rates.
Because food scraps compose approximately 1/4 of Davis’ residential waste stream, a food scrap collection program that diverted this waste from the landfill to a composting facility would do just that.
(As a side note, as well as food scraps, a green waste curbside pick-up program also allows for the addition of food soiled items like: coffee filters, greasy pizza boxes, paper cups and plates, paper bags, napkins, tissues and towels, paper take-out boxes and containers, tissues, waxy paper milk and juice cartons. As well as other items like: cotton balls and cotton swabs, hair, fur, and feathers, compostable plastic cutlery, waxed cardboard and paper, and small pieces of lumber or sawdust from clean wood. Making potential diversion rates even higher then 25%.)
The argument I should have made was this. The city needs to implement a food scrap collection program in order to meet it’s waste management goals. The most effective way to do this, is to combine it with a yard waste collection system which requires a move from the loose-in-the street-collection method to a containerized program.
Put a different way, if we keep the yard waste program the way it is, the city would need to implement a separate food scrap collection program. While the bin size for this program could be smaller then one that is also used for yard waste, this bin would have to be collected separately from trash, recycling, and loose-in-the-street yard waste creating the need for a 4th waste pick-up.
Clearly the most efficient way to collect yard waste and food scraps is to combine them, which requires containerization.
That being said I think interesting points were made in the comment section of my piece by Don Shor and Mark West, who make the argument that both yard waste and food scrap collection are unnecessary, containerized or not. Instead they claim that green waste can be handled on site.
Don wrote:
“In smaller, denser neighborhoods, you can simply mow the clippings back in, you can just distribute the leaves around your shrubs and on your vegetable garden and in your orchard. There is zero reason for leaves or clippings to be taken off site.”
Mark West wrote:
“Leaves and grass clippings don’t belong in the street under any circumstances in my opinion as they are easily managed on site.”
He goes on to say:
“Collecting food waste is really the only justification for collection bins, but even that isn’t necessary as food waste is easily handled with a box of red worms. My red worm box easily handles all of the food waste from our family of 6, and since it is a flow through design, all that is involved is adding food, shredded paper and an occasional pitcher of water to the top, and then watching the castings fall out the bottom. The only work is occasionally picking up the castings off the ground and spreading them around the garden. The cost of my worm box, including the worms, is less than the cost of a new collection bin, takes up less space, and won’t require any equipment on the street to service it.”
Handling green waste on site is, from an environmental impact prospective, most definitely the “greenest option” but unfortunately I don’t think it is the most practical, and I don’t think this method can be relied on to meet the city’s waste diversion goals.
While educational outreach regarding landscaping options may prove effective, because these methods require less work for people then containerizing their waste, I don’t think the same can be said for back yard composting or worm boxes.
While Mark’s comments have taught me that maintaining a worm box isn’t as complicated as I thought, the actual work involved in setting one up is a large enough hurdle that I fear many people just aren’t going to do it. If they are like me it will end up on an already long to do list, and even though people have the best intentions of getting to it, realistically few actually will.
I am a strong believer that one person’s actions while seemingly insignificant, can effect change. But I also believe that if the aggressive waste reduction goals set by our city, and state, are going to be met, then broad policies regarding how we manage our waste need to be put into place. In order to maximize their success these policies need to make waste diversion as simple and easy for people as possible.
Moving to a green waste containerization program offers us the chance to solve many of the problems created by the current loose- in-the-street collection method, while allowing the addition and potential diversion of a significant amount of our solid waste from our landfill, in one step.
Again I hope council and community member take all of these factors into consideration when deciding on this issue.
The AB 32 GHG goals for 2020 are going to be met even if we do nothing according to the article you posted with your last article. Also the article shows only 13% of waste in landfills are food scraps and the GHG emissions are statewide and include landfills that don’t have methane recapture.
So how do you get this 25% number for Davis? If we are already composting the green waste picked up in the streets or simply start doing so if we are not already it seems your numbers go way down from the general numbers cited in your article. From my reading of the article you linked you seem to be overstating the benefits as well as the problem.
One final question don’t compost piles generate methane anyway so how much are we actually saving?
Toad, I was wondering about the 25% percentage myself. No way does my garbage ever consist of 25% food scraps. I was thinking maybe closer to 10%, so the 13% in the article sounds more like it to me. Also, things allowed like paper cups and plates, paper take-out boxes and containers, compostable plastic cutlery, etc. will add the the probability of non-compostable items getting placed either intentionally or accidentally into the green containers fouling the integrity of the green compostable waste.
We compost all or our food scraps so I know exactly how much we produce and it is nowhere near 25% of our waste stream. I also seriously doubt this number.
25% came from the Integrated Waste Management Plan. Again I’m not sure but I don’t think this number includes the other compostable materials I mentioned so potential diversion rates could be higher.
‘Also, things allowed like paper cups and plates, paper take-out boxes and containers, compostable plastic cutlery, etc. will add the the probability of non-compostable items getting placed either intentionally or accidentally into the green containers fouling the integrity of the green compostable waste.’
The city currently has pilot composting program underway are some, restaurants, schools , and they are even at the Farmers Market on Wednesday Evenings. The UC Davis campus also has a composting program, at places like the Coffee House. My guess is that some non-compostables do end up in the compostable bin, and that the composting facility has a way of dealing with it.
The farmers market has workers there directing people as to which can to place items into. Maybe we could deploy someone into every home to facilitate the sorting of trash to reach our goals. Still we could save more GHG by getting rid of coal and cows and all those chickens on the Tour de Cluck. Oh no not the Tour de Cluck! Is nothing sacred.
Certainly in Davis the sanctity of one’s home is no longer sacred because we have got to stop 100% of the methane. I wonder after they come to you door for your fireplace will they start checking our trash? Eventually it will be our sewer lines. I can hear them now “Sorry Mr. Toad you have too much methane production in your home.” By the way Mrs. Toad has been telling me that for years.
What is the waste facility going to do, pour all the trash, leaves, branches and everything else on conveyor belts and have people pick through it? I think not.
I have wondered this myself. I don’t know how they handle it, but they clearly have a system in place to do so, as major cities like SF and Seattle, have a composting collection systems in place.
(I was a SF giants game recently and witnessed lots uncompostable object being thrown into the composting bin. )
I’ll see if I can find out what systems composting facilities have in place to handle this.
People do a lot worse then sort through trash on a conveyer belt: http://www.wastelandmovie.com
According to the Integrated Waste Management Plan, “In order to reach the City’s year 2020 waste reduction target, it is necessary to begin collection food scraps for composting”.
According to the article you posted the other day we are already on course and approaching the 2020 goal. So which is it?
“One final question don’t compost piles generate methane anyway so how much are we actually saving?”
From the research I did if composting is done correctly little or no methane is produced.
Another option that the city is looking into is sending it’s food scopes to UCD new anaerobic digester. Here is a quote and link to the article about it.
http://www.theaggie.org/2013/11/21/uc-davis-biodigester-to-power-campus-in-january/
“Where, In January 2014, leftover pasta and other unfinished food from the dining commons will be put to use as the newly established UC Davis Renewable Energy Anaerobic Digester (UC Davis READ) converts organic waste into campus electricity.”
“According to Wong, half of this waste will be coming from campus sources such as the dining commons, animal facilities, olive oil production and winery. The rest will come from local commercial food companies and restaurants.”
Great that will reduce the food waste going into the landfills by how much? If you just did the restaurants and the grocery stores you would save so much without bothering anybody.
Disagree strongly re: backyard composting and worm boxes. How do vegans feel about veggies grown in meat compost?
Biddlin ;>)/
Speaking as a former vegan…..just fine. Even vegans realize that nothing in life is 100% pure.
Former vegan?
Will you ever be a born again vegan?
I get an occasional customer looking for vegan fertilizers (ie, no animal by-products). They exist. But it’s definitely a niche market.
From Project Compost,a student-run, student-funded unit of the Associated Students of the University of California, Davis:
“Can I compost MEAT or DAIRY products?
These are organic materials and therefore can be composted, BUT they tend to smell and to attract more rodents and other critters. Decomposing meat may contain bacteria that’s pathogenic to humans, so it has to be composted at a very high temperature to kill off the pathogens. Depending on the conditions of your pile, it might not get hot enough for that. So we discourage the composting of meat and dairy in backyard piles. ”
http://projectcompost.ucdavis.edu/node/19
I guess the commercial system would be “hotter” and would kill the pathogens.
Some of my British friends identify themselves as “veganic.” They are adamant about growing in soils ” free of all animal products.”
Biddlin ;>)/
From the article you linked last time “Depending upon the assumptions (collection efficiency, waste type, oxidation potential, etc.) and models used, fugitive emissions of methane from MSW landfills represent about one percent of the statewide GHG inventory.”
Considering we already compost most of our green waste with the current program and our landfill already has methane recapture it seems this is a molehill you are turning into a mountain.
Once again, this is feel good solution of limited benefit. A municipal utility that doesn’t buy electricity generated by the burning of coal would likely reduce the GHG production of the city by much more than this and would do so without imposing anyone’s lifestyle choices on anybody else.
I wonder if any CC people do their own yard work?
I know some of them are avid gardeners.
We compost using a compact rotating bin device. Some food scraps end up down the disposal, but most go in the compost bin.
This food-scrap point I think is a diversion from the main problem with containerized green waste.
In a nutshell, the average Davis yard produces MUCH more leaves and clippings than can be used as compost/mulch etc. And much more than a green waste container would hold. And lastly, the green waste container is something that many residents do not have room to store in their yard.
Davis has the unique circumstance of being significantly covered in trees, while also being significantly dense. The lots are small. The homes are close together. We value our limited yard space. The trees provide view mitigation, etc.
Containerizing green waste is a terrible idea. We have been putting our green waste at the curb for decades. There is nothing new driving this idea to change other than the fact that Davis has people with nothing better to do than to manufacture causes.
You know Frankly, when you ditch all the partisan rhetoric you can be absolutely brilliant. I think one of my main concerns is cutting the pruned branches down to size to fit in the container from the old sickly tree in the front yard that 1) every tree guys refuses to prune and tells me to cut down and 2) Mrs. Toad forbids me from cutting down because my little pollywogs like to climb around on it.
Its sort of a variation on an age old dilemma, the immovable force and the unprunable tree. Whats a reptile to do?
“Whats a reptile to do?”
Reptile? I though you were an amphibian. Unless you’re a horned toad…
Oh yeah amphibian. I’m only reptilian in age. Either way I’m a vertebrate accept when being told to do things by Mrs. Toad.
“Some food scraps end up down the disposal.”
Apparently the people at the Waste Water Treatment Plant don’t like it when you do this. I’ve been told it’s better off in the trash.
When can we be expected to ban garbage disposals in Davis? Will that be next? Will it ever end?
Why would it ever end? Aren’t we always working to find better ways to do things, especially with a planet in crisis?
Most people probably don’t think the planet is in crisis.
That’s not a good thing.
It’s actually part of the problem….
I think that many people are willing to embrace effective measures that help solve real environmental problems. In this instance, many people probably feel that sorting their food scraps from their garbage is not a meaningful act, that it’s rather a inconvenient thing to do with little benefit, and that the problem at hand (methane in landfills) is probably not largely related to this particular input.
Obviously some people here don’t believe methane is a problem at all, and some don’t believe we even need to be concerned about climate change. But they aren’t your audience. You won’t persuade climate change deniers to sort their garbage. But you could probably make headway in reducing the leaves and clippings going to the landfill. On a percentage basis, those probably make more difference. And the behavior changes aren’t that onerous. I’d urge the NRC to focus on effective solutions to real problems.
The problem with food scraps is that they break down very quickly in the landfill and start emitting methane before a recapturing system can be put in place. Leaves and clippings break down slower so they aren’t as big of a problem in this regard.
But they’re a much smaller percentage of the problem. Again: be practical as you propose solutions.
You don’t think we should worry about diverting food scraps from the landfill, or do you think we should find a more practical way of doing it?
If you want to deal with Global warming this is not the way to do it. There are some really big things you could do but this is not one of them and in fact creating hassles for people is probably counterproductive. First we could stop burning coal. That would cut US GHG production in half simply by changing our fuel mix to less carbon dense fossil fuels. Second, get rid of feed lots, that would dramatically reduce methane production. Third you could make sure any methane released during drilling is burned off. Fourth, you could increase the use of photovoltaics and electric vehicles or hybrid vehicles where appropriate.
Reducing food scraps from landfills is so far down the list only in a place like Davis would such a concept not be regarded as a joke.
Yes, banning feed lot raised beef from Davis would reduce GHG production much more than this. Although it would substantially raise the price of meat it would also make more grain available for other uses like feeding starving people in parts of the world that are actually in crisis or producing fuel for vehicles that don’t then need to run on fossil fuels.
Ask the 5000 people applying for the 100 available jobs how they feel about the theories of “planet in crisis”.
Saving the planet could be a huge job creator. It could be a win win!
Depends on what you are saving the planet from. Certainly hiring a trash sorter for every home would be a win for employment but not a win for those trying to make ends meet. Of course like I said we could do more if we made feedlot meat end instead.
And that’s the problem. Immediate needs over long term stability. And of course in the long term, we’ll be dead anyway.
While that’s true, as Frankly is always quick to point out, “What about our children!”.
Planet in crises? LOL, if you say so? Maybe if you say it enough someone might start believing you. Oh wait, Michelle does, there’s another one.
The problem Don Shor is that we’re the frog in the pot of water. The temperature is going up but by the time we will notice, we’ll already be cooked.
I am aware of the global temperature increases, and the projected impacts. I am also aware that the pace of those impacts is subject to debate, and that the next IPCC report is likely to show revised projections. There are ranges of probability, and degrees of confidence, about many of the things you read in the media, and many of those degrees of confidence are lower than you might expect. We discussed this on your last thread about global warming, and I posted a link that reviews some of the discussion by climate scientists going into the IPCC update. Here is one chart circulated by a researcher at LEEDS: http://davismerchants.org/vanguard/climatecatastrophe_2013.jpg That doesn’t indicate a crisis as I use the term, and it isn’t a frog coming to a boil. It’s a situation that requires long-term policies such as gradual replacement of hydrocarbon fuels.
My conclusions are drawn independently of David’s.
That being said, in general I try to avoid word like “crisis” because they can be interpreted as alarmist. I do think the way we are living is unsustainable though, but I have faith that through improved technologies like these, there is hope.
Anaerobic food digesters (http://www.theaggie.org/2012/05/02/new-anaerobic-digester-technology-improves-the-atmosphere/)
Direct Potable reuse of Water: http://www.waterworld.com/articles/print/volume-29/issue-9/editorial-features/battling-water-scarcity.html
Well anyone who says or thinks the planet is in crises in my opinion might be considered by many to be a zealot or fanatic.
I think a zealot is someone who advocates out of mainstream solutions to a crisis, I don’t a zealot is necessarily one who believes that a crisis exists.
Actually the zealots were the jews of Masada who slit their own throats rather than be captured and sold into slavery by the Romans.
Merriam Webster
zeal·ot
noun \ˈze-lət\
: a person who has very strong feelings about something (such as religion or politics) and who wants other people to have those feelings : a zealous person
If the shoe fits……
That being said, in general I try to avoid word like “crisis” because they can be interpreted as alarmist. I do think the way we are living is unsustainable though, but I have faith that through improved technologies like these, there is hope.
Anaerobic food digesters and
Direct Potable reuse of Water:
(post with links is waiting moderation)
The planet has been in crisis since I was a Freshman in college and there were 4 billion people on it now there are 7 billion and we are still in crisis. Recycling our food scraps isn’t going to change things. Recycling water might help. Reducing our use of coal might help. Biotechnology might help. Wireless technology for poor people would help. Photovoltaics would help. Curing Malaria would help. Wiping out polio would help. Better rail transport would help. There are lots of things we can do to improve things this is not one of them.
When Woodland went to green waste containers they got so much pushback that they re-instituted the street pickup under the compromise system they have now: leaf and debris pickup on certain weeks, more often during leaf drop season.
Davis neighborhoods are so variable as to density and tree canopy that this can’t be a one-size-fits-all approach. A lot of people would make use of the yard waste containers. Many wouldn’t, and at certain times of year (unless we can get more people composting leaves and lawn clippings in place) they would be insufficient in nearly every neighborhood.
So any program has to be flexible and take into account the preferences of the citizens, the issue of bike safety, and our goal of reducing the compostable material that ends up at the landfill.
Don, this would be the sensible approach and a nice compromise. The question is are the people who are pushing for green containers open to a compromise or is it going to be it doesn’t matter what you think we’re going to it our way.
Here are the 5 options council will be presented with:
Option 1: Carts only, no loose street pick-up
Option 2: Carts plus seasonal street pick-up
Option 3: Carts plus on-call pick-up
Option 4: Carts plus one free drop-off per year
Option 5: Carts plus free seasonal drop-off at DWR
Here is a link to the staff report: http://city-council.cityofdavis.org/Media/Default/Documents/PDF/CityCouncil/CouncilMeetings/Agendas/20140114/09-Collection-of-Organic-Materials.pdf
I wonder if they should add a Christmas Tree Pickup option;-)
In El Macero we don’t have tree pickups. After we take our trees down we store them in a box in the garage. We firmly believe in recycling in El Macero.
Excellent. I’d vote for Option 2 with an amendment to add on-call pickup during the off season.
Option #2 with christmas tree pickup added.
I vote for that.
Monty, I’ll take Door #3.
” There is nothing new driving this idea to change other than the fact that Davis has people with nothing better to do than to manufacture causes.”
Not in Davis ? Thanks, Frankly .
Roflmao.
Funny, the picture at the top has a plastic bag that would screw up the compost.
Also leaving leaves and lawn clippings can be a fire hazard especially if its hot and dry. I guess that would be half the year in Davis.
“Funny, the picture at the top has a plastic bag that would screw up the compost.”
Depends on if it’s a compostable bag or not.
Yes, we already have banned plastic bags at stores now let’s ban plastic bags that are not recyclable from the home too.
The scraps in the picture at the top of this article look disgusting and probably smell horrible. We all know how horrible this smells whenever we walk by any restaurant waste collection area in town, particularly in the summer. Regardless of what the bureaucrats decide, my food waste will continue to go into plastic bags before going into a relatively clean trash can. I’m not keeping a smelly bio-hazard can by the side of my house for the racoons and other urban wildlife to feast from. On a related topic, I can no longer afford the water to rinse containers before putting them in the recycle bin so it sits unused.
Dear Realist. I think about how much the water to rinse my recyclables is costing but when i turned off the sprinklers my water bill dropped dramatically. I wonder if you are describing a realistic trade off. I think the energy saved by recycling more than off sets the energy used to pump water to clean the containers. Recycling containers save a great deal of energy yet uses a small amount of water for cleaning, especially the aluminum and glass.
Dear Toad. I turned off the sprinklers Oct. 31st because all water used thereafter until March (I believe) will raise my sewer bill and the winter rain will take care of irrigation needs ;). Of course now summer water use raises your future water bill contributing to the browning of Davis. I know we are all supposed to retrofit our yards but surveying the various Davis neighborhoods I don’t see that happening very often. I do, however, see a lot of dead lawns.
To address your point of a trade off from a realist average citizen standpoint. Recycling non-CA redemption containers saves someone else money. Not using water saves me money. I do take my CA redemption containers, unrinsed, to the recycling facility to trade for money. Those have caps so they are not messy. I suspect the thieves who steal from the recycling containers weekly don’t rinse the containers either.
Yes, recycling, especially of plastic, is not an ideal solution, to our waste management problems, and should be considered a last resort. Moving away from disposable single-use products and containers all together is a much better solution.
“We all know how horrible this smells whenever we walk by any restaurant waste collection area in town, particularly in the summer. Regardless of what the bureaucrats decide, my food waste will continue to go into plastic bags before going into a relatively clean trash can.”
Yes this is a drawback of food scrap collection. One way to address this is to line food scrap collection bins with compostable bags. Not an ideal solution, but it would be an option.
It seems there is an undertone of the notion that opposing this idea is somehow part of a broader argument about whether global warming is a problem. In my case nothing is farther than the truth. i just think we need to have an honest debate and bring forward practical solutions. I see this failing the latter. Imposing a new regime because it will increase food scrap capture is impractical for so many reasons I will be surprised if the Davis City Council doesn’t jump into the idea with both feet. If it comes down to food scraps or scrapping the Tour De Cluck the chickens will win every time.
In our family we have always separated our food scraps into a plastic bucket with a lid on top. It is no big deal. It’s like sorting stuff into paper and plastic. We compost (food scraps, grass clippings, leaves, etc.), but recently we have slowed down on our yard work/gardening/landscaping so that our compost needs are less than the compost we are producing.
Speaking for myself I would appreciate having the city street services pick up food scraps separately. It can be turned into a product to re-offer the community. That would seem to be a certain kind of helpful product to have available, developing a new potential market. Honestly, I don’t give it a whole lot of thought as to whether this is responding to a planet in crisis or not, just that it’s probably more efficient to our society than putting it all in the landfill.
Don wrote:
> In smaller, denser neighborhoods, you can simply mow the clippings back in,
> you can just distribute the leaves around your shrubs and on your vegetable
> garden and in your orchard. There is zero reason for leaves or clippings to be
> taken off site.”
Most people in “smaller, denser neighborhoods” don’t have vegetable gardens (and I can’t think of anyone in a “smaller, denser neighborhood” that has an orchard)…
When I lived in a tiny “smaller, denser neighborhood” I would hand pick the leaves out of the flower beds and fill a (soon to be illegal) Nugget bag and just toss it in the trash.
I know I could just “distribute the leaves around the shrubs” but it is not as clean of a look (kind of like a clean shaven guy looks different than the stars of Duck Dynasty).
Our old home had a 10′
I agree with Michelle Millet that throwing the food waste in the bin without a plastic bag is not a very favorable option. Rotting food in landfills releases methane. According to EcoWatch, the release of methane from landfills accounts for 34 percent of all methane emissions in the U.S.