Seattle now inspects garbage for food content.
Seattle government now going through citizens? trash for public shaming, revenue « Hot Air
Seattle government now going through citizens? trash for public shaming, revenue « Hot Air
Garbage inspection, coming to your neighborhood?
- Thread starter LDB
- Start date
There could be some significant due process issues if it's not all handled properly. But Seattle has already done a great job in reducing recyclables like cans, paper and plastic in landfills. The mindset just needs to be extended to biodegradables, as well.
They did that in San Francisco where the garbage collections is separated into 3 different containers. Instead of just the big green containers that you find in most communities, San Francisco has green for composting, blue for recyclables, and black (usually half the size of the other normal ones) for trash. A different truck picks up the blue and black contents, with the blue contents going to a sorting facility where paper, plastic and metal is separated and then sent to recyclers. The 13-gallon tall kitchen garbage bags have shrunk to 5-gallon or smaller, while the composting bags are now the large ones. Their recycle rate is about 78 percent, and their goal is 100 percent by 2020.
America in general, and many of us old farts in particular, are still mostly entrenched in that post-war throw-away culture. But it's changing. Obviously you need the infrastructure and facilities to divert and repurpose all the materials discarded daily by modern society, from electronic gadgets to old mattresses to soiled paper napkins, but once that's in place it becomes pretty easy to alter the mindset and lifestyle.
In my little town there's really not a whole lot of effort being made to educate and change mindsets, because there's really no infrastructure set up to automatically collect separated recyclables, as with different colored bins and separate pickups. Here at the house, and in many homes in town, we at least make the effort, where we have one large bin (like one of those large storage bins) for paper, one tall kitchen trash can for metals, and one tall can for plastics. Once a month or so we (and by we, I mean almost always my roommate
) take all that stuff to the recycling center in town. It's usually 4 or 5 bags each of cans and plastic, and an overflowing tub of paper (pizza and cereal boxes, soft drink cartons, etc.).
We rent the house. My stepdad originally rented it and I had one bedroom, he had the other, and up in the finished attic is Brent. Brent is basically a professional student in his mid 30s, although now he is a full time professor at the university. My stepdad moved to Florida (The Villages) so I pay the rent and Brent pays the utilities, Internet and keeps the grass mowed and the other stuff around the house. It works out well because I'm normally not here much. I say all that to let you know that before my stepdad moved to Florida and before we started recycling, even when I wasn't at home the weekly garbage pickup was for an overflowing garbage can. Now, even with me here these last couple of months, even with the holidays, it's rare when the garbage can is even half full when we drag it to the curb on trash day. It works out to 2-3 full cans of garbage per month that's no longer going to the landfill. And at least a third of what does go could be composted (although I don't waste a lot of food, it's mostly things like banana peels, orange rinds and compostable paper).
So mandating that you separate your garbage really isn't that big a deal, as it's an easy habit to get into, and it's better to recycle than it is to just throw it away.
They did that in San Francisco where the garbage collections is separated into 3 different containers. Instead of just the big green containers that you find in most communities, San Francisco has green for composting, blue for recyclables, and black (usually half the size of the other normal ones) for trash. A different truck picks up the blue and black contents, with the blue contents going to a sorting facility where paper, plastic and metal is separated and then sent to recyclers. The 13-gallon tall kitchen garbage bags have shrunk to 5-gallon or smaller, while the composting bags are now the large ones. Their recycle rate is about 78 percent, and their goal is 100 percent by 2020.
America in general, and many of us old farts in particular, are still mostly entrenched in that post-war throw-away culture. But it's changing. Obviously you need the infrastructure and facilities to divert and repurpose all the materials discarded daily by modern society, from electronic gadgets to old mattresses to soiled paper napkins, but once that's in place it becomes pretty easy to alter the mindset and lifestyle.
In my little town there's really not a whole lot of effort being made to educate and change mindsets, because there's really no infrastructure set up to automatically collect separated recyclables, as with different colored bins and separate pickups. Here at the house, and in many homes in town, we at least make the effort, where we have one large bin (like one of those large storage bins) for paper, one tall kitchen trash can for metals, and one tall can for plastics. Once a month or so we (and by we, I mean almost always my roommate
) take all that stuff to the recycling center in town. It's usually 4 or 5 bags each of cans and plastic, and an overflowing tub of paper (pizza and cereal boxes, soft drink cartons, etc.). We rent the house. My stepdad originally rented it and I had one bedroom, he had the other, and up in the finished attic is Brent. Brent is basically a professional student in his mid 30s, although now he is a full time professor at the university. My stepdad moved to Florida (The Villages) so I pay the rent and Brent pays the utilities, Internet and keeps the grass mowed and the other stuff around the house. It works out well because I'm normally not here much. I say all that to let you know that before my stepdad moved to Florida and before we started recycling, even when I wasn't at home the weekly garbage pickup was for an overflowing garbage can. Now, even with me here these last couple of months, even with the holidays, it's rare when the garbage can is even half full when we drag it to the curb on trash day. It works out to 2-3 full cans of garbage per month that's no longer going to the landfill. And at least a third of what does go could be composted (although I don't waste a lot of food, it's mostly things like banana peels, orange rinds and compostable paper).
So mandating that you separate your garbage really isn't that big a deal, as it's an easy habit to get into, and it's better to recycle than it is to just throw it away.
Very little in KY, as well. Louisville has separate garbage and recycling bins for pickup, though and have a pretty good recycling program in place. The recycling center opened up in town and it's been mostly grass roots word of mouth that have people recycling much of anything. They have a recycling program at the university, but even that was student-driven, and it was in response to the recycling center opening up. The recycling center is part of the city sanitation department, though, so maybe we'll eventually have curb side recycling. We do currently have a kind ofcubside pickup service for recyclables, but it's just 2 Guys who come and pick it up and take it to the recycle centers (twice a month for $15 a month, or weekly for $25 a month).
I remember, about 20 years ago, when nobody around here thought of recycling anything, I visited my brother in North Carolina. We were on the beach, and I tossed an empty Coke can into a trash can. Better than littering, right? You'd have thought I'd drop-kicked a baby into the surf the way that about 10 different people reacted. If my sister-in-law hadn't quickly come to the rescue with an eye-rolling and rich-with-pity, "He's not from here, poor thing," I might have been killed right then and there.
How much of an increase in diesel fumes? Increase in traffic? Increase in fuel costs? Increase in removal costs?
We live in a rural area and contract our own refuse removal. It costs so much per month. If two or three trucks were needed, that cost would go up dramatically. All of the down sides of increased vehicle use would go up as well.
Does the benefit out weigh the cost? Is there enough benefit to offset the obvious detrimental environmental impacts?
We live in a rural area and contract our own refuse removal. It costs so much per month. If two or three trucks were needed, that cost would go up dramatically. All of the down sides of increased vehicle use would go up as well.
Does the benefit out weigh the cost? Is there enough benefit to offset the obvious detrimental environmental impacts?
Last edited:
Because of DPF the increase in diesel fumes isn't much. Plus, more than half of all newly purchased trash vehicles are compressed natural gas or electric hybrids. That will only increase with time. Private waste management companies are more likely to have alternative fuel vehicles than city services because of having to redo budgets for the higher up front costs of such vehicles, and in many locations because of a lack of fuel stations (which costs about $2 million).
The increase in traffic, 2 extra vehicles coming down the street over the course of 1 day a week, really isn't that dramatic of an increase.
The overall fuel costs are about the same, because each garbage, recycle and compost truck makes 3 times as many stops to fill up the truck before it makes its trip to wherever it's going.
Removal cost increases are rather minimal in most places. In San Francisco, they went from $35 per month for a weekly pickup for a single 96 gallon trash bin to $25.64 for a 32 gallon bin ($16.03 for a 20 gallon bin), plus $2.04 each for the 32 gallon compost and recyclable bins. They also added a base charge per dwelling of $5.11. So, if you use the larger 32 gallon trash bin, plus the other two bins, it's $34.83, which is 17 cents cheaper than it was before.
The reason it doesn't usually cost much more for most people (rural, out in the county may be a different story) is because the recyclables are revenue generating. If you load up your truck with garbage and take it to the city dump (or landfill, whatever), you're gonna pay them to take the garbage. But if you load it up with cardboard and take it to a cardboard recycler, they'll pay you for it. Same with metal cans at a scrap metal recycler, and plastic recyclables.
But in some cases, maybe most cases, the cost of pickup does go up. Many people are surprised when they discover they or their community might pay more for a curbside recycling program than for regular trash pickup. They ask why in some cases, that they must pay more to give their recyclables to someone who will sell them? This leads many people to believe, at least initially, that recycling is not economical.
One reason recycling appears to be uneconomical is that some people already pay a higher cost for trash disposal than they realize, because some local governments pay fees to hauling companies, transfer stations, or landfills out of local tax revenue. That lowers the direct cost to residents, making the regular trash pickup appear to be less expensive than it really is. But when recycling programs begin, residents usually directly pay the full cost of recycling. That distorts the cost comparisons between the recycling program and disposing of trash at landfills.
But where it really starts looking the most economical is when you look at the costs of future disposal that it being avoided. Landfills have limited space, and thus can receive a limited amount of trash. When it is full, it must be replaced by another landfill that is generally more expensive to operate and maintain. New landfills are more expensive it's siting in a new location, the costs of buying or allocating the additional land, constructing the landfill, operational expenses, and long-term maintenance costs after the landfill is closed, not to mention the ever-increasing costs of complying with new and improved environmental regulations. Plus, the new landfill is probably gonna be be further away than the old landfill, increasing transportation costs and fuel costs. When you can reduce the amount of crap that goes into a landfill, you can keep that landfill open 3 or 4 time longer and eliminate those additional costs, and thus keep your monthly trash bill lower in the long run.
The average mix of recyclables collected by a homeowner are estimated to be worth about $125 per ton when the recycled materials are sold to manufacturers, so there is a possibility for recycling programs to make a net profit, but only if transportation, sorting, and processing costs are kept lower than this value per ton. Larger cities fare better in terms of net profit and energy savings when people recycle more (so that there's more recyclable material per truck trip), or like where I live when residents sort recyclables themselves (for free) rather than requiring the city to sort them.
Here in Murray it costs us $15 a month for the single 96 gallon trash bin. If we wanted curb side recycle pickup it (from that private company) it would cost another $15 a month, but we don't have nearly enough to justify weekly or even every other week recycle pickup, and the recycling center isn't even half a mile away (which consists of large dumpsters on city property). The picture below shows the cardboard dumpsters. The light blue one on the right is one of the aluminum and metal can dumpsters, and there are others not pictured for glass and plastic.
In some places, especially in the cities, they still do weekly pickups, but they use the smaller bins, one for garbage, recyclables and compost. In other places, smaller towns and rural areas, instead of weekly pickups some still use the larger 96 gallon cans, but do pickups every other week or every 3 weeks. I saw Brent (the attic troll) last night and asked him about it, and he said without question that when I'm not here and he's just here by himself, they could pick up the garbage once a month and still not have a full can, all because of the stuff we recycle.
It is worth it? Cost-wise it certainly seems to be. When you can reduce landfill garbage by 70 percent or more, that's saving money, not to mention it's better for the environment.
The increase in traffic, 2 extra vehicles coming down the street over the course of 1 day a week, really isn't that dramatic of an increase.
The overall fuel costs are about the same, because each garbage, recycle and compost truck makes 3 times as many stops to fill up the truck before it makes its trip to wherever it's going.
Removal cost increases are rather minimal in most places. In San Francisco, they went from $35 per month for a weekly pickup for a single 96 gallon trash bin to $25.64 for a 32 gallon bin ($16.03 for a 20 gallon bin), plus $2.04 each for the 32 gallon compost and recyclable bins. They also added a base charge per dwelling of $5.11. So, if you use the larger 32 gallon trash bin, plus the other two bins, it's $34.83, which is 17 cents cheaper than it was before.
The reason it doesn't usually cost much more for most people (rural, out in the county may be a different story) is because the recyclables are revenue generating. If you load up your truck with garbage and take it to the city dump (or landfill, whatever), you're gonna pay them to take the garbage. But if you load it up with cardboard and take it to a cardboard recycler, they'll pay you for it. Same with metal cans at a scrap metal recycler, and plastic recyclables.
But in some cases, maybe most cases, the cost of pickup does go up. Many people are surprised when they discover they or their community might pay more for a curbside recycling program than for regular trash pickup. They ask why in some cases, that they must pay more to give their recyclables to someone who will sell them? This leads many people to believe, at least initially, that recycling is not economical.
One reason recycling appears to be uneconomical is that some people already pay a higher cost for trash disposal than they realize, because some local governments pay fees to hauling companies, transfer stations, or landfills out of local tax revenue. That lowers the direct cost to residents, making the regular trash pickup appear to be less expensive than it really is. But when recycling programs begin, residents usually directly pay the full cost of recycling. That distorts the cost comparisons between the recycling program and disposing of trash at landfills.
But where it really starts looking the most economical is when you look at the costs of future disposal that it being avoided. Landfills have limited space, and thus can receive a limited amount of trash. When it is full, it must be replaced by another landfill that is generally more expensive to operate and maintain. New landfills are more expensive it's siting in a new location, the costs of buying or allocating the additional land, constructing the landfill, operational expenses, and long-term maintenance costs after the landfill is closed, not to mention the ever-increasing costs of complying with new and improved environmental regulations. Plus, the new landfill is probably gonna be be further away than the old landfill, increasing transportation costs and fuel costs. When you can reduce the amount of crap that goes into a landfill, you can keep that landfill open 3 or 4 time longer and eliminate those additional costs, and thus keep your monthly trash bill lower in the long run.
The average mix of recyclables collected by a homeowner are estimated to be worth about $125 per ton when the recycled materials are sold to manufacturers, so there is a possibility for recycling programs to make a net profit, but only if transportation, sorting, and processing costs are kept lower than this value per ton. Larger cities fare better in terms of net profit and energy savings when people recycle more (so that there's more recyclable material per truck trip), or like where I live when residents sort recyclables themselves (for free) rather than requiring the city to sort them.
Here in Murray it costs us $15 a month for the single 96 gallon trash bin. If we wanted curb side recycle pickup it (from that private company) it would cost another $15 a month, but we don't have nearly enough to justify weekly or even every other week recycle pickup, and the recycling center isn't even half a mile away (which consists of large dumpsters on city property). The picture below shows the cardboard dumpsters. The light blue one on the right is one of the aluminum and metal can dumpsters, and there are others not pictured for glass and plastic.
In some places, especially in the cities, they still do weekly pickups, but they use the smaller bins, one for garbage, recyclables and compost. In other places, smaller towns and rural areas, instead of weekly pickups some still use the larger 96 gallon cans, but do pickups every other week or every 3 weeks. I saw Brent (the attic troll) last night and asked him about it, and he said without question that when I'm not here and he's just here by himself, they could pick up the garbage once a month and still not have a full can, all because of the stuff we recycle.
It is worth it? Cost-wise it certainly seems to be. When you can reduce landfill garbage by 70 percent or more, that's saving money, not to mention it's better for the environment.
Slo-Ride
Veteran Expediter
I question the footprint of recycling like layout does. Think this might have been talked about before? Would it not be better to attack our problem at the retail and manufacturing level? I certainly don't need the 4 bolts or screws I buy packaged in a plastic container big enough to holds my wallet. I don't need my candy wrapped in pieces of wrap when it all ready comes in a bag.. Etc etc.. I'm all for a better environment but now someone else is making money on my trash after I all ready bought it..
It's not an either/or thing where it would be "better" to attack the problem at the retail and manufacturing level, because no matter how much they reduce the packaging, you're still gonna have packaging. And it makes more sense to recycle that packaging than it does to simply put it in a landfill. The packaging needs to be reduced, and it has been by a significant amount over the last 20 years. Other than the extremely annoying plastic clamshell packaging that still exists, more and more products are sold in "frustration-free" packaging, almost all of which can be recycled (or composted, like the wrapped candy wrappers). The plastic container for the bolts and screws? Recyclable.
Slo-Ride
Veteran Expediter
Seems to me just the footprint of manufacturing and transporting some of the clamshell packages you talk about, could greatly be reduced by going back to a renewable source like paper and trees, I know you remember that. Eliminate as much plastic and nearly eliminate the need to recycle a lot of it.
I don't know, our trucks out here are all diesel. We have no "dumpsters" to go to. We have one reliable option, hire a private trash pick up company.
Each stop, that would be 3 per house, versus 1, on a two lane highway with a 55MPH speed limit is that many more chances of an accident. Having to purchase more trucks, or run existing trucks more, will cost more in money and environmental impact.
I am not sure it there is any real offset, at least around here. I understand that landfill space is limited and that landfills have problems. They are also a viable source of renewable fuel, like methane. The Ford plant, in Flat Rock, generates most of it's electricity off of a landfill that I worked in during the summer between my junior and senior years in high school That land fill is on Sibley Road, in Riverview, MI.
There are many worked out mines in this country, could we not use them for trash? The methane would be easier to collect if it were more concentrated in an enclosed area.
Just musing. We cannot continue like we are. We also cannot continue to drive up the cost of everything we do. Prices are reaching a "tipping point" and will soon outstrip the ability of many working people to cover them.
I don't see the solutions being pushed now really solving much. They just seem to be a combination of kicking the can down the road and feel good nonsense.
Each stop, that would be 3 per house, versus 1, on a two lane highway with a 55MPH speed limit is that many more chances of an accident. Having to purchase more trucks, or run existing trucks more, will cost more in money and environmental impact.
I am not sure it there is any real offset, at least around here. I understand that landfill space is limited and that landfills have problems. They are also a viable source of renewable fuel, like methane. The Ford plant, in Flat Rock, generates most of it's electricity off of a landfill that I worked in during the summer between my junior and senior years in high school That land fill is on Sibley Road, in Riverview, MI.
There are many worked out mines in this country, could we not use them for trash? The methane would be easier to collect if it were more concentrated in an enclosed area.
Just musing. We cannot continue like we are. We also cannot continue to drive up the cost of everything we do. Prices are reaching a "tipping point" and will soon outstrip the ability of many working people to cover them.
I don't see the solutions being pushed now really solving much. They just seem to be a combination of kicking the can down the road and feel good nonsense.
I'm not one you need to convince that we need to eliminate consumable plastics. I'm all for going back to milk and ketchup in glass bottles. Plastic, unless it's the specific compostable plastic, doesn't ever degrade in a landfill, because plastic only degrades with photodegradation, as in UV rays. I am not at all a fan of plastic for consumables.
As far as the footprint of manufacturing and transporting those clamshell packages, sadly, it's considerably less than the footprint of trees to finished product. With paper in particular, and recycling in general, the main benefit of the recycling is a double decrease of the environment loading, known as a reduction in environmental impact. On the front end, the natural resources are conserved at the side of the manufacturing process inputs (less trees need to be cut in the first place, which has a positive impact on CO2 storage and oxygen generation), from the manufacturing output side there are fewer harmful compounds leaking to the environment. The paper production from the recycled fibers consumes less energy than from raw wood, conserves the natural resources (trees) and decreases the environmental pollution.
Americans luv, luv, luv their super soft and stay puft marshmallow toilet paper. But that super soft and fluffy toilet paper can only be made with virgin trees from old growth forest. Young trees, the fiber is too stiff to be soft and puffy fluffy. Toilet paper made from recycled paper can't be fluffy enough and ends up more like those brown paper towels in the restroom at the Flying J. Which is exactly what those paper towels are, made from recycled paper. And, it's much closer to the toilet paper found in Europe, incidentally, where 90 percent of their toilet paper comes from recycled paper. Here it's less than 10 percent.
One of the articles Turtle used as a reference mentioned how composting organic waste reduced methane gas. Specifically that San Francisco had "... the first urban food waste program in the country that has not only helped reduce the city's greenhouse gas emissions nearly 12% below 1990 levels..." Whatever that means? Of course there is no mention of what the 1990 levels of greenhouse gas were or for any other year. With the high price of land within the city of San Francisco, I doubt if there have been any active landfill sites there in the past 30 years or more.
There was also this little nugget: "...huge methane emissions do to decomposition of landfill waste..." It amazes me that organic waste dumped in a landfill produces huge methane emission while the same organic waste trucked to a composite produces little or no methane emissions. It must be magic or green weenie license (poetic license) when it comes to science and facts.
Don't get me wrong. Composting will certainly reduce the amount of waste that goes into landfills. I'm all for composting and recycling. I've been doing it since grade school with newspaper recycling drives. The city I live in has been recycling for at least 25 years. When we first moved here we were given recycling bins. We separated material as to paper; glass, clear or colored, and metal. This was picked up weekly. The past ten years we went to a co-mingled container that is picked every other week. We also, at an optional, extra cost, have a yard waste container that is picked up weekly from about April to November. Some yard waste, like dog crap and small amounts of leaves and grass clippings I will spread on my wild flower gardens and toss under the blue spruce trees.
The problem I have with the green weenies is their failure to comprehend the long term consequences of most of their actions. Electric cars/hybrids will save the planet with no thought to how the batteries are charged or the mining involved to obtain the materials for the batteries. Ethanol, the alternative clean fuel that will save the planet. Again, no thoughts as to what it takes to grow corn and how ethanol is less efficient than gasoline. And, of course composting. The only way to get rid of organic waste without producing methane. Magic! What would the green weenies do without magic?
There was also this little nugget: "...huge methane emissions do to decomposition of landfill waste..." It amazes me that organic waste dumped in a landfill produces huge methane emission while the same organic waste trucked to a composite produces little or no methane emissions. It must be magic or green weenie license (poetic license) when it comes to science and facts.
Don't get me wrong. Composting will certainly reduce the amount of waste that goes into landfills. I'm all for composting and recycling. I've been doing it since grade school with newspaper recycling drives. The city I live in has been recycling for at least 25 years. When we first moved here we were given recycling bins. We separated material as to paper; glass, clear or colored, and metal. This was picked up weekly. The past ten years we went to a co-mingled container that is picked every other week. We also, at an optional, extra cost, have a yard waste container that is picked up weekly from about April to November. Some yard waste, like dog crap and small amounts of leaves and grass clippings I will spread on my wild flower gardens and toss under the blue spruce trees.
The problem I have with the green weenies is their failure to comprehend the long term consequences of most of their actions. Electric cars/hybrids will save the planet with no thought to how the batteries are charged or the mining involved to obtain the materials for the batteries. Ethanol, the alternative clean fuel that will save the planet. Again, no thoughts as to what it takes to grow corn and how ethanol is less efficient than gasoline. And, of course composting. The only way to get rid of organic waste without producing methane. Magic! What would the green weenies do without magic?
The reason it amazes you is, for lack of a less accurate euphemistic term, a certain level of scientific illiteracy in chemistry and microbiology. Scientific illiteracy is the bread and butter of magic.
When organic matter decomposes in a landfill it does so in four stages. Stage One is the aerobic stage, where aerobic bacteria (bacteria that live only in the presence of oxygen) consume oxygen while breaking down the long molecular chains of complex carbohydrates, proteins, and lipids that comprise organic waste. The primary byproducts of this process are carbon dioxide and nitrogen.
Stage Two is when the oxygen is depleted and the anaerobic bacteria (bacteria that lives in oxygen-free environments) converts the compounds created by aerobic bacteria into acetic, lactic, and formic acids and alcohols such as methanol and ethanol. As the acids mix with the moisture present in the land-fill, they cause certain nutrients to dissolve, making nitrogen and phosphorus available to the increasingly diverse species of bacteria in the landfill. The gaseous byproducts of these processes are carbon dioxide and hydrogen. If the landfill is disturbed or if oxygen is somehow introduced into the landfill, microbial processes will return to Stage One.
Stage Three decomposition starts when certain kinds of anaerobic bacteria consume the organic acids produced in Stage Two and form acetate, which is an organic acid which the methane producing bacteria consume to produce methane. This process causes the landfill to become a more neutral environment in which methane-producing bacteria begin to establish themselves. Methane-and acid-producing bacteria have a symbiotic relationship, each feeding off what the other produces.
Stage Four happens where things level out to where a constant amount of 60% methane and about 40% carbon dioxide is produced, usually for a period of 20 to 50 years.
With composting, the decomposition stage never reaches Stage Three. Before it gets to Stage Three, the compost is disturbed (turned over and agitated) which introduces oxygen into the mix, as well as by the introduction in many cases of living organisms like earthworms which naturally turn over the compost and introduce oxygen into the mix. If the compost pile is twice the size of a Pizza Hut or smaller, it doesn't even need to be turned over because it's small enough that oxygen will permeate the pile on its own. Thus, compost never reaches the methane gas producing stage of Stage Four. Large piles are closely monitored for methane with probe sensors to ensure they are aerated as soon as signs of methane production occur.
Stage One decomposition produces carbon dioxide, but the amount is less than a tenth of the methane produced in Stage Three and Four of a landfill, and methane is 72% more powerful than carbon dioxide in doing its greenhouse gas thing, so the carbon dioxide produced in composting is a small fraction of the greenhouse gasses produce by a landfill.
Thank you Bill Nye.The reason it amazes you is, for lack of a less accurate euphemistic term, a certain level of scientific illiteracy in chemistry and microbiology. Scientific illiteracy is the bread and butter of magic.
When organic matter decomposes in a landfill it does so in four stages. Stage One is the aerobic stage, where aerobic bacteria (bacteria that live only in the presence of oxygen) consume oxygen while breaking down the long molecular chains of complex carbohydrates, proteins, and lipids that comprise organic waste. The primary byproducts of this process are carbon dioxide and nitrogen.
Stage Two is when the oxygen is depleted and the anaerobic bacteria (bacteria that lives in oxygen-free environments) converts the compounds created by aerobic bacteria into acetic, lactic, and formic acids and alcohols such as methanol and ethanol. As the acids mix with the moisture present in the land-fill, they cause certain nutrients to dissolve, making nitrogen and phosphorus available to the increasingly diverse species of bacteria in the landfill. The gaseous byproducts of these processes are carbon dioxide and hydrogen. If the landfill is disturbed or if oxygen is somehow introduced into the landfill, microbial processes will return to Stage One.
Stage Three decomposition starts when certain kinds of anaerobic bacteria consume the organic acids produced in Stage Two and form acetate, which is an organic acid which the methane producing bacteria consume to produce methane. This process causes the landfill to become a more neutral environment in which methane-producing bacteria begin to establish themselves. Methane-and acid-producing bacteria have a symbiotic relationship, each feeding off what the other produces.
Stage Four happens where things level out to where a constant amount of 60% methane and about 40% carbon dioxide is produced, usually for a period of 20 to 50 years.
With composting, the decomposition stage never reaches Stage Three. Before it gets to Stage Three, the compost is disturbed (turned over and agitated) which introduces oxygen into the mix, as well as by the introduction in many cases of living organisms like earthworms which naturally turn over the compost and introduce oxygen into the mix. If the compost pile is twice the size of a Pizza Hut or smaller, it doesn't even need to be turned over because it's small enough that oxygen will permeate the pile on its own. Thus, compost never reaches the methane gas producing stage of Stage Four. Large piles are closely monitored for methane with probe sensors to ensure they are aerated as soon as signs of methane production occur.
Stage One decomposition produces carbon dioxide, but the amount is less than a tenth of the methane produced in Stage Three and Four of a landfill, and methane is 72% more powerful than carbon dioxide in doing its greenhouse gas thing, so the carbon dioxide produced in composting is a small fraction of the greenhouse gasses produce by a landfill.
Thank you Bill Nye.
I was thinking more like: Thank you Dr. Science. "He knows more than you do." He has "a Master's Degree... in science!"
You're welcome, of course, but this is a good illustration of science illiteracy in America. Organic matter decomposition is some pretty basic microbiology and chemistry, and dare I say most Americans don't understand it and/or are not even aware of it. But that's not surprising considering 1 in 4 American adults think the sun revolves around the Earth, and of the 75% who know the Earth revolves around the sun, 47% of those don't know how long it takes to make one revolution around the sun. 50% cannot tell you which is bigger, an atom or an electron, and an even higher percentage cannot give you an accurate definition of molecule, cell or DNA.Thank you Bill Nye.
The state of science literacy in America has been in steep decline for a half-century. After World War II, the United States celebrated scientists for developing crucial wartime technologies from radar to the hydrogen bomb. In 1957, the Soviet launch of Sputnik sparked tremendous growth in scientific funding for research and development. Back then, scientists were the heroes.
Then things changed. The space race faded to memory, and nonmilitary science funding dipped. Science lost its prominence in policy, and today it's treated as a special-interest group rather than central to the policymaking process.
The emergence of the religious right beginning in the late 1970s created unnecessary battles pitting religion against science, as if we must choose a side. More recently, budgetary constraints and the transforming media environment led to major cuts in science reporting. These days, most "science stories" that make the news are focused on diet and fitness instead of the latest research that will affect our lives and communities. So in order to remain scientifically literate you need to make the effort to go out and find the science and learn about it.
One problem with that is, today the Internet allows you to shop for whatever scientific "opinion" you want as easily as you can shop for feel-good goodies on Amazon. The result is a really lot of dangerous misinformation and pseudoscience online fueling the rise of such things as the anti-vaccination movement and climate change denial, not to mention the resistance to recycling and composting. Science becomes politicized pseudoscience, or junk science, to further an agenda's results-oriented goals rather than that of of explanations of the natural world.
You don't need a masers in English literature to be literate in English, any more than you need a masers in science to be literate in science. All it takes is scientific curiosity free of political agenda to become literate in science.