HomeMy WebLinkAboutSupplemental Materials - Futures Committee - 07/11/2016 -Oregon’s 2050 Materials Management Vision and Framework
for Action
Oregon’s Transition from “Solid Waste
Management” to “Sustainable Materials
Management”
July 18, 2016
David Allaway, Oregon Dept. of Environmental Quality
Oregon’s 2050 Materials Management Vision and Framework
for Action
Overview
•What is “materials management”?
•Why not “waste management”?
•Oregon’s 2050 Vision and Framework for Action
–Process
–Outcomes
Oregon’s 2050 Materials Management Vision and Framework
for Action
An update to Oregon’s State Integrated
Resource and Solid Waste Management
Plan (1995-2005)
Oregon’s 2050 Materials Management Vision and Framework
for Action
Traditional Sector-Based View of U.S.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions (2006)
Electric Power Industry
34%
Transportation
28%
Industry
19%
Agriculture
8%
Commercial
6%
Source: US EPA (2009)
Residential
5%
Oregon’s 2050 Materials Management Vision and Framework
for Action
Materials Matter: Systems-Based
Geographic Emissions Inventory (2006)
Building Lighting and HVAC
25%
Transportation of People
24%
Infrastructure
1%
Use of Appliances and Devices
8%
Provision of Goods
29%
Source: US EPA (2009)
Provision of Food
13%
Materials
42%
Oregon’s 2050 Materials Management Vision and Framework
for Action
For Materials, “Upstream” Emissions
Dominate
Building Lighting and HVAC
25%
Transportation of People
24%
Infrastructure
1%
Use of Appliances and Devices
8%
Provision of Materials
42%Landfills & Wastewater
2.2%Freight
7.1%
Extraction and Manufacturing
32.2%
Oregon’s 2050 Materials Management Vision and Framework
for Action
Sustainable Materials Management: A
Working Definition (US EPA)
“. . . an approach to serving human needs by
using/reusing resources most productively and
sustainably throughout their life cycles,
generally minimizing the amounts of materials
involved and all the associated environmental
impacts.”
Oregon’s 2050 Materials Management Vision and Framework
for Action
Materials Management:
A “Life Cycle” View
Oregon’s 2050 Materials Management Vision and Framework
for Action
From “Discards Management” to
“Materials Management:
•A full view of impacts across the life cycle
•A full view of actions across the life cycle
Oregon’s 2050 Materials Management Vision and Framework
for Action
From “Discards Management” to
“Materials Management:
Oregon’s 2050 Materials Management Vision and Framework
for Action
From “Discards Management” to
“Materials Management:
Oregon’s 2050 Materials Management Vision and Framework
for Action
Long-Haul Is Not a Limiting Environmental
Factor for Recycling
“Break-Even Point” is where energy used to transport the recyclables equals energy saved
when the recyclables displace virgin feedstocks.
Material Production Savings “Break-Even Point” (miles)
(MMBTU ton collected)Truck Rail Freighter
Aluminum 177 121,000 475,000 538,000
LDPE 61 41,000 162,000 184,000
PET 59 40,000 157,000 178,000
Steel 19 13,000 52,000 59,000
Newspaper 16 11,000 43,000 49,000
Corrugated 12 9,000 33,000 38,000
Office Paper 10 7,000 27,000 31,000
Boxboard 6.5 4,400 17,400 19,800
Glass (to bottles)1.9 1,300 5,100 5,800
Oregon’s 2050 Materials Management Vision and Framework
for Action
From “Discards Management” to
“Materials Management:
•A full view of impacts across the life cycle
•A full view of actions across the life cycle
–Why? Because most impacts are “upstream”
Oregon’s 2050 Materials Management Vision and Framework
for Action
-
20.00
40.00
60.00
80.00
100.00
120.00
37% recycling rate
62% recycling rate
Example of Actions Across the Life Cycle:
PET Water Bottles
“Baseline” = PET, half-liter, 13.3 grams, 0% post-consumer recycled content (PCR), on-site molding,
purified municipal water (reverse osmosis, ozone and uv), 50 miles to retail, 5 miles home-to-retail,
co-purchase w/24 other products, no chilling.
No
r
m
a
l
i
z
e
d
i
m
p
a
c
t
(b
a
s
e
l
i
n
e
w
/
3
7
%
r
e
c
y
c
l
i
n
g
=
1
0
0
)
Oregon’s 2050 Materials Management Vision and Framework
for Action
-
20.00
40.00
60.00
80.00
100.00
120.00
37% recycling rate
62% recycling rate
62% recycling rate,
lightweighted
Example of Actions Across the Life Cycle:
PET Water Bottles
“Baseline” = PET, half-liter, 13.3 grams, 0% post-consumer recycled content (PCR), on-site molding,
purified municipal water (reverse osmosis, ozone and uv), 50 miles to retail, 5 miles home-to-retail,
co-purchase w/24 other products, no chilling.
No
r
m
a
l
i
z
e
d
i
m
p
a
c
t
(b
a
s
e
l
i
n
e
w
/
3
7
%
r
e
c
y
c
l
i
n
g
=
1
0
0
)
Oregon’s 2050 Materials Management Vision and Framework
for Action
-
20.00
40.00
60.00
80.00
100.00
120.00
37% recycling rate
62% recycling rate
62% recycling rate,
lightweighted
tap water (worst case)
Example of Actions Across the Life Cycle:
PET Water Bottles
“Baseline” = PET, half-liter, 13.3 grams, 0% post-consumer recycled content (PCR), on-site molding,
purified municipal water (reverse osmosis, ozone and uv), 50 miles to retail, 5 miles home-to-retail,
co-purchase w/24 other products, no chilling.
No
r
m
a
l
i
z
e
d
i
m
p
a
c
t
(b
a
s
e
l
i
n
e
w
/
3
7
%
r
e
c
y
c
l
i
n
g
=
1
0
0
)
Oregon’s 2050 Materials Management Vision and Framework
for Action
-
20.00
40.00
60.00
80.00
100.00
120.00
37% recycling rate
62% recycling rate
62% recycling rate,
lightweighted
tap water (worst case)
tap water (best case)
Example of Actions Across the Life Cycle:
PET Water Bottles
“Baseline” = PET, half-liter, 13.3 grams, 0% post-consumer recycled content (PCR), on-site molding,
purified municipal water (reverse osmosis, ozone and uv), 50 miles to retail, 5 miles home-to-retail,
co-purchase w/24 other products, no chilling.
No
r
m
a
l
i
z
e
d
i
m
p
a
c
t
(b
a
s
e
l
i
n
e
w
/
3
7
%
r
e
c
y
c
l
i
n
g
=
1
0
0
)
Oregon’s 2050 Materials Management Vision and Framework
for Action
“Discards management” and “materials
management” compared
Discards Management Materials
Management
Goal Managing discards Sustainability
Lifecycle Primarily downstream All stages
Environmental
scope
Emissions from waste
facilities; resource
conservation from
recovery
All pollutants,
resources
Partners Waste generators, waste
industry, users of
recovered material
Everyone involved in
the life cycle of
materials
Oregon’s 2050 Materials Management Vision and Framework
for Action
The 2050 Vision Process
Oregon’s 2050 Materials Management Vision and Framework
for Action
Oregon’s 2050 Materials Management Vision and Framework
for Action
Oregon’s 2050 Vision2050 Vision
for Materials Management in Oregon
Oregonians in 2050 produce and use materials responsibly
conserving resources protecting the environment living well
Oregon’s 2050 Materials Management Vision and Framework
for Action
Looking back 37 years
22
Oregon’s 2050 Materials Management Vision and Framework
for Action
Framework for Action
•Not an implementation plan
•Currently prioritizing actions
•DEQ will reevaluate every six years
Oregon’s 2050 Materials Management Vision and Framework
for Action
Oregon’s 2050 Materials Management Vision and Framework
for Action
Outcomes of the 2050 Vision
•Stakeholder/partner support
–Enabling legislation
–Restored/sustained program funding
–New statutory direction
–Updated goals
•New focus on increasing recovery of specific materials
(food, plastic, carpet)
•“Outcome based” waste recovery rates
•Stronger focus on prevention + waste generation
(prevention) goals
•New work upstream (sustainable production and
consumption)
•New measures (consumption-based GHG emissions
inventory, etc.)
Oregon’s 2050 Materials Management Vision and Framework
for Action
Thank you!
David Allaway
Oregon Dept. of Environmental Quality
allaway.david@deq.state.or.us
i
Materials Management
in Oregon
2050 Vision and Framework for Action
Adopted by theEnvironmental Quality CommissionDecember 6, 2012
12-LQ-036
ii
Table of Contents
2050 Vision....................................................................................................... 1
Executive Summary ........................................................................................ 2
Creating a Materials Management Vision.................................................... 5
What is Materials Management? ................................................................................... 5
Why use a Materials Management Approach? ............................................................ 6
From Managing Discards to Managing Materials ......................................................... 7
The Business Case for Materials Management ........................................................... 8
The Vision Process ...................................................................................................... 10
Welcome to 2050 .......................................................................................... 12
Upstream, Design, and Production in 2050 ............................................................... 14
Upstream, Design, and Production Today .................................................................. 15
Consumption and Use in 2050 ................................................................................... 17
Consumption and Use Today ...................................................................................... 18
End-of-Life Management in 2050 ................................................................................ 20
End-of-Life Management Today ................................................................................... 21
Framework for Action ................................................................................... 23
Implementing the Framework for Action ..................................................................... 24
Foundations .................................................................................................................. 26
Policies and Regulations ............................................................................................. 29
Collaboration and Partnerships .................................................................................... 32
Education and Information ........................................................................................... 35
Endnotes & Appendices ............................................................................... 36
Acknowledgments
DEQ gratefully acknowledges the valuable contributions and insights of the
Materials Management Workgroup. Members are listed in Appendix D.
Many individuals within DEQ contributed to the development of this
project, including major efforts from Abby Boudouris (project manager),
David Allaway, Bob Barrows, Cheryl Grabham, Loretta Pickerell and Peter
Spendelow. Leslie Kochan, Bruce Lumper, and the Solid Waste Program
Management Team also contributed.
Cascadia Consulting Group (Jessica Branom-Zwick, Marc Daudon, and
Christy Shelton) and Sustainability Partners (Drs. Brian and Mary
Nattrass) facilitated meetings of the Materials Management Workgroup and
contributed to the development of this Vision and Framework for Action.
More information on the 2050 Vision and Framework for Action appears
on the project website: www.deq.state.or.us/lq/sw/materialsmgmtplan.htm
2050 Vision
for Materials Management
in Oregon
Oregonians in 2050 produce and use materials responsibly
conserving resources •protecting the environment •living well
1
Recognizing that Earth’s resources
are finite, Oregonians live within the
limits of our sustainable share of
the world’s natural resources. We
make and use materials and products in
a manner that maintains and restores a
healthy environment and fertile soils.
Materials and products minimize the use
and release of toxins, the release of
greenhouse gases and pollutants, the
use of energy and water, and the
extraction of nonrenewable materials.
We take into account the full
impacts of materials throughout their
life cycle. We minimize harmful
disturbance of land and natural
ecosystems, using resources in a
responsible way only as necessary to
meet human needs and maintain healthy,
vibrant and prosperous
communities. When materials and
products are no longer useable or
wanted, they are recovered for their next
highest and best use.
We use renewable resources at
levels that can be sustained in
perpetuity while maintaining the
resiliency of natural systems.
Wherever they are made, the materials
and products we purchase in Oregon
similarly are made in a manner that
supports human health, well-being and
healthy, resilient environments and
communities.
All Oregonians have access to the
knowledge, capabilities, resources
and services required to use
materials responsibly. This Vision
provides for a prosperous and clean
economy that allows all people to live
fulfilling lives, now and in the future.
2050 VISION
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
CREATING A MATERIALS
MANAGEMENT VISION
WELCOME TO 2050
FRAMEWORK FOR
ACTION
ENDNOTES &
APPENDICES
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Oregonians in 2050 produce and use materials responsibly
conserving resources •protecting the environment •living well
2
Executive Summary
Global demand for materials and products is increasing rapidly,
bringing significant impacts to Oregon residents, businesses,
communities and the environment. Oregon law cites the need to
conserve resources and energy and acknowledges limits in the
environment’s ability to absorb the impacts of increasing consumption.
Oregon is recognized as a leader in conserving resources through
recycling and proper management of wastes. Yet this focus on
managing discards has limited potential to address the full impacts of
materials and the challenges they present for Oregonians and the
environment. To guide state policy and programs and to achieve the
best environmental results at the lowest cost to society, DEQ
convened a workgroup to help develop this 2050 Vision and
Framework for Action.
What is Materials Management?
The materials management approach includes waste prevention and
discard management, while seeking to reduce environmental impacts
by managing materials through all stages of their life. It identifies
impacts and actions to address those impacts across the full cycle of
materials and products as they move through the economyfrom raw
material extraction to
product design and
manufacture, transport,
consumption, use, reuse,
recycling and disposal.
A more holistic materials
management approach
will help DEQ shape
state policies in a
changing world with new
jobs, new opportunities
and new challenges.
Figure 1.
Life Cycle of
Materials and
Products
2050 VISION
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
CREATING A MATERIALS
MANAGEMENT VISION
WELCOME TO 2050
FRAMEWORK FOR
ACTION
ENDNOTES &
APPENDICES
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Oregonians in 2050 produce and use materials responsibly
conserving resources •protecting the environment •living well
3
Creating a Vision for Materials Management
In 2011, DEQ convened a workgroup to help develop this long-term
Vision and Framework for Action. DEQ applied the process of
“backcasting”—starting with a future vision and then looking back to
identify steps needed to achieve it. The resulting 2050 Vision and
Framework for Action also serves as an update to Oregon’s State
Integrated Resource and Solid Waste Management Plan (1995-2005),
which guides statewide policy.
The 2050 Vision describes a desired future where Oregonians live
within the limits of their sustainable share of the world’s natural
resources:
Materials and products—both made in Oregon and used in Oregon—
support human health, well-being and healthy, resilient environments
and communities. Sustainable use of materials allows all people to
enjoy a prosperous, clean economy and fulfilling lives, now and in the
future.
This document envisions an Oregon in 2050 where:
Producers make products sustainably. Every option is a
sustainable option.
People live well and consume sustainably.
Materials have the most useful life possible before and after
discard.
Oregonians in 2050 produce and use materials responsibly
conserving resources • protecting the environment • living well
Oregonians in 2050
will produce and
consume much
differently than
today. We will
produce less waste
and recover more
materials in a smarter
way.
Together, we will
manage materials
wisely, while
strengthening
economies at the local,
regional, national and
global levels.
2050 VISION
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
CREATING A MATERIALS
MANAGEMENT VISION
WELCOME TO 2050
FRAMEWORK FOR
ACTION
ENDNOTES &
APPENDICES
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Oregonians in 2050 produce and use materials responsibly
conserving resources •protecting the environment •living well
4
Framework for Action
Taking action early in the life cyclein design and productionoffers
the best opportunities to realize the 2050 Vision. While producers shift
to more sustainable actions, consumers also have important roles to
play in the types of products they demand and how they use them.
Effective management of materials at the end of their lives redirects
resources back into productive use.
To help achieve the 2050 Vision in Oregon, DEQ must take several
different types of actions. The Framework for Action includes pathways
to lead Oregon to desired outcomes, including the following:
Foundations. This work will create the solid foundation
necessary to achieve the 2050 Vision. Foundational work
includes setting goals and measuring outcomes, supporting and
performing research, and securing stable funding.
Policies and regulations. DEQ will evaluate and develop policies
and regulations that put Oregon on the path toward achieving
the 2050 Vision.
Collaboration and partnerships. Coordination throughout the life
cycle of materials and products will support innovative solutions.
DEQ will collaborate with other state agencies, businesses, local
governments and nongovernmental organizations.
Education and information. DEQ will share information it
develops with partners for distribution to appropriate audiences.
This 2050 Vision and Framework for Action document is available
online at www.deq.state.or.us/lq/sw/materialsmgmtplan.htm.
2050 VISION
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
CREATING A MATERIALS
MANAGEMENT VISION
WELCOME TO 2050
FRAMEWORK FOR
ACTION
ENDNOTES &
APPENDICES
Oregonians in 2050 produce and use materials responsibly
conserving resources •protecting the environment •living well
CREATING A MATERIALS
MANAGEMENT VISION
5
Creating a Materials
Management Vision
What is Materials Management?
The materials management approach seeks to reduce environmental
impacts by managing materials throughout all stages of their life cycle.
Materials management includes waste prevention and discard
management. More broadly, it identifies impacts and actions to
address those impacts across the full life cycle of materials and
products as they move through the economy—starting with design and
continuing through raw material extraction, manufacture, transport,
consumption, use, reuse, recycling and disposal.
Figure 2. Life Cycle of Materials and Products
2050 VISION
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
CREATING A MATERIALS
MANAGEMENT VISION
WELCOME TO 2050
FRAMEWORK FOR
ACTION
ENDNOTES &
APPENDICES
CREATING A MATERIALS
MANAGEMENT VISION
Oregonians in 2050 produce and use materials responsibly
conserving resources •protecting the environment •living well
6
Why use a Materials Management approach?
Managing materials holistically is important because life-supporting
resources are declining globally, while consumption of these resources
is increasing.
Materials matter. Global demand for materials—from rare earth
metals to agricultural products—is increasing rapidly, with significant
economic impacts to Oregon businesses and households.1 At the
same time, the types of materials are also changing, with most
materials coming from nonrenewable—and ultimately, unsustainable—
sources.2
Demand for these materials has led to significant environmental
impacts, including toxic chemicals in the air and water; damage to
ecosystems; unsustainable use of energy, water and other natural
resources; and global warming. Making, transporting, selling and
disposing of the materials consumed in Oregon contributes between 35
and 48 percent of Oregon’s consumption-related greenhouse gas
emissions—on par with the state’s emissions from the direct
consumption of electricity and fuels combined.3 For an excellent
overview of the growth in materials use—and associated impacts—see
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s 2009 report, Sustainable
Materials Management: The Road Ahead.
Figure 3. Use of Materials in the United States, 1900-2002.
Modified from Center for Sustainable Systems, University of Michigan (2011),
based on Matos and Wagner, 1998, and Wagner, 2002.4
‘‘It is becoming
increasingly clear
that how we use
materials is a large
factor in energy
use, climate
change, and the
economy, and an
important issue in
its own right.’’
U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency,
Sustainable Materials
Management: The Road
Ahead (2009)
2050 VISION
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
CREATING A MATERIALS
MANAGEMENT VISION
WELCOME TO 2050
FRAMEWORK FOR
ACTION
ENDNOTES &
APPENDICES
CREATING A MATERIALS
MANAGEMENT VISION
Oregonians in 2050 produce and use materials responsibly
conserving resources •protecting the environment •living well
7
Great progress has been made in discard management in the past 20
years, yet Oregon can do even better.5 It is now clear that the vast
majority of environmental impacts result from decisions made in
design, production and consumption—not end-of-life management.6
Accordingly, producers and consumers have important roles to play.
From Managing Discards to Managing
Materials
DEQ’s historic focus on materials management at end-of-life is largely
a consequence of problems identified—and legislation passed—20 to
30 years ago. At that time, many landfills were poorly located,
operated and regulated, and new federal standards made the closure
of many landfills imminent. These factors added to a perception of a
“garbage crisis”—that we were running out of places to dispose of our
waste. The 1970s energy crisis and growing environmental concerns
also led to public support for resource conservation through recycling.
Oregon today looks much different in some ways. We now have an
abundance of disposal capacity, in landfills that are better operated
and less polluting than their predecessors. Recycling programs are
firmly established, conserving resources, reducing pollution and
providing green jobs.7 Some producers are sharing responsibility for
managing their products at end-of-life and for reducing the presence of
toxic chemicals in products that enter consumers’ homes and
eventually become solid waste. Recycling is now second nature for
many Oregonians, and interest in “reduce” and “reuse” is growing.
The limits of this solid waste management framework are becoming
more apparent, even as our overall consumption of resources
continues to grow and our environmental “footprint” becomes more
globally dispersed.8 We have learned much in the past 25 years. We
now understand that smart decisions—ones that are good for the
environment, economy and society—require thinking about impacts
across the full life cycle of materials. Focusing on only management of
discards limits options to protect the environment and can lead to
decisions that are penny-wise but pound-foolish.9,10 In contrast,
materials management offers a framework to address the integrated
nature of materials, guide state policy and programs, and achieve the
best results at the lowest cost to society.
Existing policy also points in the direction of materials management.
Oregon Revised Statute 459 calls out the need to conserve resources
Materials
management:
Identifies impacts
throughout the
life cycle
Focuses on high-
impact actions
across the life
cycle
2050 VISION
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
CREATING A MATERIALS
MANAGEMENT VISION
WELCOME TO 2050
FRAMEWORK FOR
ACTION
ENDNOTES &
APPENDICES
CREATING A MATERIALS
MANAGEMENT VISION
Oregonians in 2050 produce and use materials responsibly
conserving resources •protecting the environment •living well
8
and energy, and also acknowledges limits in the environment’s ability
to absorb the impacts of increasing consumption.11 These issues
transcend the narrow framework of solid waste management. Even the
so-called “waste management hierarchy” emphasizes practices that
have little to do with the management of discards. “Reduce” and
“reuse” primarily involve the consumption and use of materials, not the
management of wastes. And while recycling is commonly thought of
as a method for managing discards, the economic and environmental
value of recycling lies primarily in the provision of lower-cost
feedstocks that industry can use to make new products and the
reduced need for extracting and processing virgin materials.12
Although progress has been made, all stages of the life cycle of
materials are currently unsustainable. While improvements are needed
in end-of-life management, starting as far upstream as possible—in
resource extraction, design and production—offers the best
opportunities to realize the vision of a sustainable society, economy
and environment. As producers shift to more sustainable actions,
consumers also have important roles to play—in the types of products
they demand, how they use them, and how items are managed once
they are discarded. Effective management at product end-of-life
redirects resources back into productive use while helping to reduce
the negative impacts of disposal.
The world is changing, and Oregon will be different in 2050. Materials
management offers a holistic approach that will help DEQ shape state
policies—and help Oregon thrive—in a world with new jobs, new
opportunities and new challenges for government, businesses and the
public.
The Business Case for Materials Management
Rising commodity prices, increasing global population, pollution and the
depletion of natural resources all pose significant threats to businesses
and the historic model of economic growth. But with these challenges
come new opportunities.
For example, representatives of adidas, Coca-Cola, General Motors,
Nokia, Philips, Procter & Gamble, Sony, Weyerhaeuser and other
businessesworking through the World Business Council for
Sustainable Developmentrecently concluded that “current global
consumption patterns are unsustainable.” These businesses recognize
the importance of industry being more efficient and less polluting, and
2050 VISION
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
CREATING A MATERIALS
MANAGEMENT VISION
WELCOME TO 2050
FRAMEWORK FOR
ACTION
ENDNOTES &
APPENDICES
CREATING A MATERIALS
MANAGEMENT VISION
Oregonians in 2050 produce and use materials responsibly
conserving resources •protecting the environment •living well
9
they go further, noting that “efficiency gains and technological advances
alone will not be sufficient to bring global consumption to a sustainable
level.” They observe that “changes will also be required to consumer
lifestyles, including the ways in which consumers choose and use
products and services.” They call for businesses to play a leadership
role in fostering more sustainable levels of consumption, through
practices such as innovation, communications, and working in
partnerships with consumers, governments and stakeholders. These
businesses call for governments to provide the right policies and
regulations, fiscal structures and incentives, infrastructure and services,
guidance for businesses and consumers, monitoring and enforcement.13
DEQ’s 2050 Vision calls for the responsible production and use of
materials. In a world bumping up against limited resources and other
constraints on growth, businesses that produce responsiblyand help
consumers live responsiblywill enjoy the greatest viability and reap
the highest rewards. The path forward is not fully mapped, but the
2050 Vision is clear. DEQ is committed to working with
businessesboth producing in Oregon and selling into Oregonto
achieve a prosperous and clean economy that allows all people to live
fulfilling lives, now and in the future.
2050 VISION
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
CREATING A MATERIALS
MANAGEMENT VISION
WELCOME TO 2050
FRAMEWORK FOR
ACTION
ENDNOTES &
APPENDICES
CREATING A MATERIALS
MANAGEMENT VISION
Oregonians in 2050 produce and use materials responsibly
conserving resources •protecting the environment •living well
10
The Vision Process
To address the changing world of materials management, DEQ
convened the 2050 Vision for Materials Management Workgroup in
2011. The broader approach focusing on the full life cycle of materials
requires a breadth of knowledge and a variety of experience, skills
and perspectives. DEQ invited a diverse group of stakeholders
representing businesses, nongovernmental organizations, local
governments, state agencies and individuals to participate in the
visioning process. Workgroup members met for five facilitated day-long
workshops between fall 2011 and spring 2012 to identify ways to
make our design, production, use and management of products and
materials more sustainable. Workgroup members were engaged and
provided input on draft documents throughout the process. Appendix D
lists workgroup members.
With the workgroup’s input, DEQ developed this long-term vision for
sustainable materials management in Oregon. This 2050 Vision and
Framework for Action – together with biennial reports to the Oregon
Legislature - also serves as an update to Oregon’s State Integrated
Resource and Solid Waste Management Plan (1995-2005), which
guides statewide policy.
Developing a Vision
To develop the 2050 Vision, DEQ applied The Natural Step approach,
which involves a science-based definition of sustainability and a
strategic planning framework to help make choices that advance
sustainability. A key element of the Natural Step framework involves
“backcasting”—starting with a future vision and then looking back to
identify the steps needed to achieve it. This framework provides the
tools to look at the big picture, understand the rules of the game,
define success, and move toward it together.
The scientifically rigorous Natural Step framework is prominent in
strategic decision-making by organizations such as the U.S. Army,
Nike, H.J. Heinz Company and Amazon.com. DEQ adopted the
Natural Step approach in 2008 and identified it as a robust process
for developing the 2050 Vision for materials management in Oregon.
DEQ worked with Cascadia Consulting Group and Sustainability
Partners to facilitate workshops and integrate the Natural Step
framework into this visioning and action-planning process.
2050 VISION
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
CREATING A MATERIALS
MANAGEMENT VISION
WELCOME TO 2050
FRAMEWORK FOR
ACTION
ENDNOTES &
APPENDICES
CREATING A MATERIALS
MANAGEMENT VISION
Oregonians in 2050 produce and use materials responsibly
conserving resources •protecting the environment •living well
11
Considering Sustainability Principles
DEQ’s 2050 Vision and Framework for Action provides a platform to
bring materials management in Oregon into closer alignment with
sustainability principles. The 2050 Vision sits within the larger context
of future economic, social and environmental systems. These three
systems affect DEQ’s work, and DEQ’s policies and programs also
influence these systems to some degree. During the workgroup
process, DEQ identified systems and capabilities broadly needed to
achieve the 2050 Vision. Appendix C summarizes that work.
In 2001, the Oregon Legislature adopted the Oregon Sustainability Act
(ORS 184.423), which established the state’s overall sustainability
policy. Among other efforts, the legislation created the Oregon
Sustainability Board and set legislative goals for sustainability.
DEQ has an agency-wide sustainability vision: We live in a way that
balances our actions with nature’s ability to maintain a healthy
environment. The materials management 2050 Vision supports DEQ’s
agency vision, through a specific focus on materials.
The 2050 Vision for
sustainable
materials manage-
ment sits within the
larger context of
economic, social
and environmental
systems.
2050 VISION
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
CREATING A MATERIALS
MANAGEMENT VISION
WELCOME TO 2050
FRAMEWORK FOR
ACTION
ENDNOTES &
APPENDICES
WELCOME TO 2050
Oregonians in 2050 produce and use materials responsibly
conserving resources •protecting the environment •living well
12
Welcome to 2050
In the 2050 Vision, Oregonians live within the limits of their
sustainable share of the world’s natural resources. Materials and
products support human health, well-being and healthy, resilient
environments and communities—whether those goods are made in
Oregon, used in Oregon, or both. Sustainable use of resources allows
all people to enjoy a prosperous, clean economy and fulfilling lives,
now and in the future.
The materials life cycle begins early in the process before the
consumer (Upstream, Design and Production), with designers and
manufacturers making products and using materials in a sustainable
way. In 2050, every product is made to be a sustainable option.
Materials are fully sustainable, because people use them in a
sustainable manner and sustainable consumption is easy. The
Consumption and Use element addresses decisions related to the
materials and products people acquire, how they obtain them, and
how they use them.
Both producers and consumers continue to discard unwanted
materials, so the End-of-Life Management element aims to direct
these materials to their next highest and best use.
Desired Outcomes for 2050
Producers make products sustainably. Every option is a
sustainable option.
People live well and consume sustainably.
Materials have the most useful life possible before and
after discard.
2050 VISION
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
CREATING A MATERIALS
MANAGEMENT VISION
WELCOME TO 2050
FRAMEWORK FOR
ACTION
ENDNOTES &
APPENDICES
WELCOME TO 2050
Oregonians in 2050 produce and use materials responsibly
conserving resources •protecting the environment •living well
13
This process is iterative throughout the life cycle of materials—from
upstream, through use, through recovery and end-of-life management,
and back into production. Each element builds on success in the
previous elements.
Achieving this vision means that Oregonians in 2050 will produce and
consume much differently than today, and we will recover more
materials in a smarter way. Together, we will manage materials wisely,
while strengthening economies at the local, regional, national and
global levels. We will have tackled our materials challenge together,
and everyone will be part of the solution.
The next sections of this chapter provide more information on desired
outcomes for materials management and where we are today. The
following chapter, Framework for Action, outlines pathways forward
from our current reality to the desired outcomes for 2050.
Oregon in 2050
We are wiser. Knowledge and innovation brought us
here.
We are connected. Coordination and communication
make the system work.
We invest resources wisely.
We share responsibility. Everyone has a part.
We are accountable. We set goals, measure success
and learn from experience.
2050 VISION
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
CREATING A MATERIALS
MANAGEMENT VISION
WELCOME TO 2050
FRAMEWORK FOR
ACTION
ENDNOTES &
APPENDICES
WELCOME TO 2050
Oregonians in 2050 produce and use materials responsibly
conserving resources •protecting the environment •living well
14
Upstream, Design and Production in 2050
Producers make products sustainably—from design and
production through packaging, intended use and end-of-use
management. Design minimizes environmental impacts across the
product’s life cycle and materials are selected based on their highest
and best use. Cradle-to-cradle or closed-loop design, which addresses
full life cycle impacts, is common practice. Products are designed to
be durable, repairable, disassembled, or recycled, and single-use
products are obsolete or used only as absolutely necessary. In 2050,
green building is the norm.
Materials are not used at a rate faster than can be
renewed or recovered, and dematerialization has reduced the
impacts of products and services. Risks of chemicals are fully
assessed before they are used. Products and production do not use
toxic chemicals or, when necessary, toxics are minimized and then
recaptured for their highest and best use. Packaging is limited to what
is necessary, and environmental impacts of packaging are minimized.
During use and after discard, materials leach little or no toxins and
emit few greenhouse gases.
Research and innovation fuel unprecedented technological
advances and economic vitality in Oregon. Our state is a
leader and a national center for green businesses and jobs. Oregon
makes and exports sustainable products, goods and services—creating
sustainable jobs here at home. Businesses use unwanted materials
from other businesses as inputs for new products. Our educational
system supports and drives this success: Oregon universities are vital
in supporting the green economy through pioneering research and
technology transfer. Our universities are recognized leaders in green
chemistry and technology, and the private sector values the critical
role of research institutions in supporting innovation.
Coordination throughout the life cycle of products leads to
innovative solutions. Producers, retailers and government work
together to support sustainable product choices. Innovation exchange
and cross-sector cooperation between producers and suppliers expand
opportunities for sharing resources and ideas.
Producers make
products
sustainably.
Every option is a
sustainable
option.
2050 VISION
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
CREATING A MATERIALS
MANAGEMENT VISION
WELCOME TO 2050
FRAMEWORK FOR
ACTION
ENDNOTES &
APPENDICES
WELCOME TO 2050
Oregonians in 2050 produce and use materials responsibly
conserving resources •protecting the environment •living well
15
Complete and transparent information on product contents
and life cycle impacts is readily available. Producers know the
impacts of their products and processes both upstream and
downstream in the supply chain. Information on impacts of products
and processes is accurate, transparent, and readily shared throughout
the supply chain. Information disclosure and accounting standards
make it easy to compare impacts across products.
Responsibility is shared for full life cycle impacts. Those
involved with a product across its life cycle share responsibility for all
impacts. Prices reflect environmental and social costs, and incentives
and regulations support sustainable producers and products. Oregon
businesses and our global competitors share a level playing field.
Upstream, Design and Production Today
About 40 percent of domestic greenhouse gas emissions result from
producing and transporting materials and products.
Reuse and repair of products is often difficult and
discouraged. Planned obsolescence is part of the design for some
products. Lack of infrastructure or financial incentives for repairing and
recycling products discourages design for repair and recycling. Toxics
and mixed materials in products and packaging can impede recycling
and harm public health.
Products sold in Oregon are produced globally. Production
standards, regulations and environmental impacts vary nationally and
globally. Supply chains are complex and may cross numerous borders.
Prices do not reflect all environmental impacts, and full
information is not available on environmental impacts.
Extraction of raw materials is often subsidized, and the public bears
the “external” costs of environmental impacts.
Sustainability is not clearly understood or uniformly defined.
Environmental impacts are not commonly understood, especially by
small and medium-sized businesses. Many “green” claims involve
some form of “greenwashing.”14
‘‘Backcasting’’
starts with a
future vision and
looks back to the
present to
identify steps to
achieve the
vision.
2050 VISION
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
CREATING A MATERIALS
MANAGEMENT VISION
WELCOME TO 2050
FRAMEWORK FOR
ACTION
ENDNOTES &
APPENDICES
WELCOME TO 2050
Oregonians in 2050 produce and use materials responsibly
conserving resources •protecting the environment •living well
16
Complete information is not available on environmental
impacts. Producers are not required to investigate and disclose
impact data—such as toxic chemical use—to government, the supply
chain or the public. While data are available for permitted and
reported emissions, information on impacts of product use is lacking.
Relevant knowledge resides in the private sector, academia and in
Europe.
Government lacks some tools to identify, prioritize and take
action to reduce the health and environmental effects of
toxic chemicals, and product stewardship is limited. Many
environmental policies were written 20 to 30 years ago. Regulations
mainly address production processes rather than products. Investment
in green chemistry research, development and education is limited.
Some market leaders are innovating to reduce impacts
during production. Design and innovation tools are becoming more
common. Product design involves tradeoffs in life cycle impacts such
as toxicity, greenhouse gas emissions and water use. Green building
has growing support in the commercial and public sectors.
2050 VISION
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
CREATING A MATERIALS
MANAGEMENT VISION
WELCOME TO 2050
FRAMEWORK FOR
ACTION
ENDNOTES &
APPENDICES
WELCOME TO 2050
Oregonians in 2050 produce and use materials responsibly
conserving resources •protecting the environment •living well
17
Consumption and Use in 2050
All Oregonians live well in communities where materials are
used sustainably. Oregonians of all backgrounds and experiences
enjoy high-quality lives, including rich social and community relations,
without requiring high levels of acquisition of material goods.
Oregonians see themselves first as community members, rather than
mainly as consumers. Social norms, infrastructure and communities—
neighborhoods, regions, families, friends and social groups—make low-
impact consumption easy and rewarding. Collaboration, sharing, repair
and reuse are all normal, and sustainable consumption is a social
norm that is easy to live by.
Oregonians actively seek to live “within the limits of our
sustainable share of the world’s natural resources” and
engage other community members, including producers, to do the
same. Oregonians are meeting their needs, and quality of life is high,
with a minimal environmental footprint. All choices are good choices;
highly unsustainable products are no longer sold. Public agencies lead
by example and build capacity through model practices for sustainable
procurement and use of materials.
Sustainable product and material choices are desired and
readily available. Sustainable products, materials and services—
including renting, sharing, collaboration, reuse and repair—are easily
accessible and affordable. Products sold in Oregon are sustainable
choices, regardless of where they are made. Environmentally superior
products perform as well as or better than their higher-impact
alternatives. Public, private and nongovernmental systems support
access to sustainable choices. Full life cycle costs are internalized into
prices, so lower cost is yet another benefit of greener products.
Complete product and environmental information is accurate
and readily available. Accurate information on the environmental
impacts of products is available to consumers in a meaningful way.
Oregonians share a common understanding of sustainable
consumption, including the “limits of our sustainable share of the
world’s natural resources” and whether we are living within them—both
individually and collectively.
People live well
and consume
sustainably.
2050 VISION
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
CREATING A MATERIALS
MANAGEMENT VISION
WELCOME TO 2050
FRAMEWORK FOR
ACTION
ENDNOTES &
APPENDICES
WELCOME TO 2050
Oregonians in 2050 produce and use materials responsibly
conserving resources •protecting the environment •living well
18
Consumption and Use Today
Many factors influence consumption today. People make
consumption choices to fill physical, emotional and recreational needs
and to signal their social status. Reduced durability, reduced product
quality and planned obsolescence drive increases in consumption.
Cultural norms involving reuse, repurposing, repair, renting, sharing
and buying are also influential. Subsidies encourage some
consumption, and product prices do not reflect their full costs,
including environmental impacts.
Increases in work hours tend to result in increased consumption, while
work decreases lead to lower consumption. The United States has a
long-term trend of increasing house sizes with fewer people per home.
Regulation of advertising, including marketing to children, is limited.
Research suggests that Oregon’s population in general may be less
materialistic and more egalitarian than the United States as a whole.
A sustainable level of consumption and how to achieve it
are typically not well-understood by policymakers, business
leaders or the general public. Demand for sustainable product choices
is moderate, but options are not always equitably available or
affordable. Above a threshold, more consumption (of “wants”) does not
lead to commensurate increases in well-being for households with
higher incomes, on average.
Information on environmental impacts is rarely accessible,
easy-to-use or trusted. Consumers are confused about product
impacts, and greenwashing – misleading claims about a product’s
environmental benefits -- makes it more difficult to discern accurate
product information.
Some impacts of consumption, such as greenhouse gas
emissions, are fairly well-understood, while others are not.
Oregonians’ consumption-related greenhouse gas emissions in 2005
were three times larger (21.5 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent,
CO2e, per person) than the unsustainable global average of 7.1 metric
tons of CO2e per person. Other environmental impacts of Oregon’s
consumption, such as toxics, are not well-quantified.
2050 VISION
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
CREATING A MATERIALS
MANAGEMENT VISION
WELCOME TO 2050
FRAMEWORK FOR
ACTION
ENDNOTES &
APPENDICES
WELCOME TO 2050
Oregonians in 2050 produce and use materials responsibly
conserving resources •protecting the environment •living well
19
Many Oregonians believe that overconsumption undermines
the well-being of families and children, and threatens the
environment and both personal and national financial
security. A majority of Oregonians (72 to 82 percent) agree that “our
country would be better off if we all consumed less.” More than 60
percent of Oregonians agree that “consuming less” would make people
more self-reliant, provide more time to spend with family and friends,
be better for the environment, and be “painful in the short term but
better for us long term.”15 Some consumers, particularly households
with lower incomes and education, indicate that they want information
on how to consume more sustainably but lack access to such
information. In the private sector, larger businesses are increasingly
discussing “sustainable consumption.”
2050 VISION
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
CREATING A MATERIALS
MANAGEMENT VISION
WELCOME TO 2050
FRAMEWORK FOR
ACTION
ENDNOTES &
APPENDICES
WELCOME TO 2050
Oregonians in 2050 produce and use materials responsibly
conserving resources •protecting the environment •living well
20
End-of-Life Management in 2050
Materials have a useful life after discard. The large majority of
products, materials, food scraps and yard trimmings are captured for
reuse, recycling or reprocessing. High-quality recovered materials are
available to be made into useful products. Few materials are disposed
of in landfills or incinerated.
Stable infrastructure and markets support highest and best
use of discarded materials. Well-developed markets for recovered
materials contribute to Oregon’s economic success. Systems for
recovering materials and managing discards, including for the few toxic
products remaining in commerce, are available and cost-effective.
These systems are convenient for consumers and businesses
throughout the state. Effective sorting systems add value to recovered
materials, and new technologies use materials and energy that had
previously been discarded. High-quality feedstocks help keep regional
mills viable and competitive. A strong, networked industry for reuse
and repair exists. Many reuse, repurpose and recovery jobs add to a
prosperous economy, and these businesses are stable.
Oregonians are engaged in making better materials choices
for end-of-life management of materials. Residents understand
that materials have value after discard. Oregon’s social norm is to
conserve, reuse, repair and recover.
Health and environmental risks from disposed wastes are
minimized. Legacy waste and landfills, including stockpiled wastes,
are managed safely.
Public policies support sustainable materials management
at product end-of-life. All prices including recovery and disposal
prices reflect full costs and support directing recovered material to its
highest and best use. Producers share responsibility with governments
and the public for managing materials after discard. Government sets
and enforces standards and evaluates results of key recovery and
discard management programs. Local governments have a role in
designing programs to best serve their populations.
Materials have
the most useful
life possible
after discard.
2050 VISION
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
CREATING A MATERIALS
MANAGEMENT VISION
WELCOME TO 2050
FRAMEWORK FOR
ACTION
ENDNOTES &
APPENDICES
WELCOME TO 2050
Oregonians in 2050 produce and use materials responsibly
conserving resources •protecting the environment •living well
21
End-of-Life Management Today
The economic recession beginning in 2008 resulted in
decreased waste, recycling and consumption. The mixture of
discarded content is changing over time, such as recent drops in
newsprint and magazines.
Of discarded materials, 48 percent are recovered for other
uses. Recovery rates vary broadly across materials. Paper, metal and
glass all have recycling rates above 65 percent. About 15 percent of
plastics are recycled, and food, carpet and textiles have recovery rates
below 10 percent.
Infrastructure and markets for discard management and
recovery of materials vary by material and location. Local
governments have established infrastructure to collect discards and
recyclables. Recycling is often available at home but not readily
available outside the home. Curbside recycling is mainly available in
urban areas and cities with more than 4,000 residents. Multifamily and
commercial recycling collection is optional in certain cities. Options are
limited for food scraps collection, composting and distribution of
leftover edible food. Long-term landfill capacity is ample statewide.
Export markets play a significant role, particularly for
plastics, metals and mixed paper. Paper has strong but
threatened local markets. Metals, glass and compost have moderate
local markets, while plastics and carpet have limited local markets.
Recycling services in urban areas have better access to markets than
rural areas. Concerns about contamination of recyclables and finished
compost are growing.
Disposal and recovery prices do not reflect indirect and
opportunity costs. Funding for DEQ and some local government
programs comes from disposal fees, which change with quantities
disposed.
Discard management systems continue to develop. Solid
waste collection operates under an established franchise system in
most of the state. Some reuse businesses and nonprofit organizations
exist.
2050 VISION
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
CREATING A MATERIALS
MANAGEMENT VISION
WELCOME TO 2050
FRAMEWORK FOR
ACTION
ENDNOTES &
APPENDICES
WELCOME TO 2050
Oregonians in 2050 produce and use materials responsibly
conserving resources •protecting the environment •living well
22
Oregonians have a strong recycling ethic, but confusion
exists over waste prevention, recycling, biodegradability and
composting. State and local governments and collectors help inform
and engage residents. Oregonians have growing interests in energy
recovery technology.
Existing policies and regulations set priorities, provide
residents with recycling opportunities, and set a precedent for product
stewardship of difficult-to-manage or harmful materials. A statutory
solid waste hierarchy sets clear priorities. Local governments are
required to provide residents the opportunity to recycle. Landfill bans
are in place for selected materials. Oregon’s bottle bill, electronics,
and paint laws set a precedent for product stewardship. Mandatory
business recycling in the Portland metro area is required but poorly
enforced. Recycling is not mandatory outside the metro area, except
that certain materials are banned from landfills. Generally, the
regulatory structure is focused on managing wastes at end-of-life. DEQ
measures tons recovered and disposed, and state waste generation
and recovery goals are based on waste tonnages. State law sets
recovery percentage goals that wastesheds (counties) were required to
meet as of 2009 and also set a statewide recovery goal for 2009.
State law also sets a statewide goal that the annual tons of solid
waste generated in Oregon shall not increase beginning in 2009.
2050 VISION
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
CREATING A MATERIALS
MANAGEMENT VISION
WELCOME TO 2050
FRAMEWORK FOR
ACTION
ENDNOTES &
APPENDICES
Oregonians in 2050 produce and use materials responsibly
conserving resources •protecting the environment •living well
FRAMEWORK FOR
ACTION
23
Framework for Action
Taking action upstream—in design and production—offers the best
opportunities to realize the 2050 Vision. While producers shift to more
sustainable actions, consumers also have important roles to play in
the types of products they demand, how they use them, and how
items are managed once they are no longer wanted. Effective
management at end-of-life then redirects resources back into
productive use, while helping to reduce the negative impacts of
disposal.
To help achieve the 2050 Vision in Oregon, DEQ must take several
different types of actions. The Framework for Action includes pathways
to lead Oregon to the desired outcomes for 2050. These pathways
include:
Within the pathways, this document lists potential actions for DEQ and
others to pursue and leaves room to develop new actions over time.
The framework is intended to serve as a flexible platform for action to
guide progress toward the 2050 Vision; it is not designed as an
implementation plan for specific actions. The framework is structured to
allow adaptability in implementation and detailed action planning as it
steers overall efforts in the direction of the vision and desired
outcomes for 2050.
Materials
management:
Identifies
impacts
throughout the
life cycle
Focuses on high-
impact actions
across the life
2050 VISION
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
CREATING A MATERIALS
MANAGEMENT VISION
WELCOME TO 2050
FRAMEWORK FOR
ACTION
ENDNOTES &
APPENDICES
FRAMEWORK FOR
ACTION
Oregonians in 2050 produce and use materials responsibly
conserving resources •protecting the environment •living well
24
Implementing the Framework for Action
The Framework for Action lists about 50 actions without prioritization.
DEQ will begin prioritizing actions by the end of 2012. It will consider
factors such as the staging and relative timing of actions that build
sequentially on each other, internal resource availability, opportunities
to partner with other organizations and efforts, and other factors such
as initiatives by key stakeholders that might facilitate certain actions.
DEQ will begin work on the highest priorities within the next five years
as resources allow. Implementation of other actions will follow. The
framework includes both foundational work needed to achieve the
2050 Vision as well as work specific to different stages of material life
cycle.
The framework will serve as a flexible platform to guide progress
toward the 2050 Vision; it is not designed as an implementation plan.
For specific items in the framework, DEQ will scope projects, work
with stakeholders as appropriate, and develop project plans. The
actions are focused on areas of DEQ’s potential influence and control.
Implementation will include continuing opportunities for stakeholder
involvement, and actions may be conducted by both DEQ and others.
Figure 4. Spheres of Control, Influence and Concern
DEQ will reevaluate the entire Framework for Action every six years to
foster continuous improvement and adaptive management, to ensure it
effectively guides actions found in the 2050 Vision. DEQ will update
2050 VISION
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
CREATING A MATERIALS
MANAGEMENT VISION
WELCOME TO 2050
FRAMEWORK FOR
ACTION
ENDNOTES &
APPENDICES
FRAMEWORK FOR
ACTION
Oregonians in 2050 produce and use materials responsibly
conserving resources •protecting the environment •living well
25
actions and may identify new actions over time, following the guiding
principles listed below.
DEQ’s Guiding Principles
for Materials Management
When prioritizing, planning and implementing actions, DEQ
will consider the following guiding principles:
Develop and implement policies and programs based on
robust research.
Lead when appropriate.
Coordinate and collaborate with partners.
Ensure that actions complement one another.
Build on what’s already working, such as using existing
infrastructure when possible.
Focus on high-impact materials and processes.
Be flexible and adaptable.
Continuously use the Framework for Action and update
as necessary.
Consider environmental and other impacts of policy
options, including:
• Social equity
• Quality of life
• Economic viability
• Potential unintended consequences
2050 VISION
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
CREATING A MATERIALS
MANAGEMENT VISION
WELCOME TO 2050
FRAMEWORK FOR
ACTION
ENDNOTES &
APPENDICES
FRAMEWORK FOR
ACTION
Oregonians in 2050 produce and use materials responsibly
conserving resources •protecting the environment •living well
26
Foundations (F)
This pathway builds the solid foundation necessary to achieve the 2050
Vision. Foundational work includes setting goals and measuring
outcomes for the broader effort as well as specific projects, supporting
and performing research to inform work in all four pathways, building
the work into DEQ operations, and securing stable funding.
Foundational work, especially research, can act as a catalyst for new
processes and initiatives, and supports the shift from managing discards
to managing materials. As with other pathways, DEQ will perform much
of this work in concert with its partners.
F1. Establish goals and measure outcomes
a. Establish new goals for sustainable materials management
and update existing goals.
b. Establish and track appropriate sustainability measures in
coordination with the Oregon Sustainability Board and other
relevant entities.
F2. Identify and secure sustainable funding for materials
management programs
a. Identify and evaluate potential funding models and convene
stakeholders to collaborate and develop funding strategy.
b. Secure funding for DEQ and other programs, such as state
entities charged with fulfilling the materials-related sustainability
goals under the Oregon Sustainability Act.
Icons indicate which
life cycle stage action
addresses.
Full life cycle
Upstream, Design
& Production
Consumption and
Use
End-of-Life
Management
2050 VISION
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
CREATING A MATERIALS
MANAGEMENT VISION
WELCOME TO 2050
FRAMEWORK FOR
ACTION
ENDNOTES &
APPENDICES
FRAMEWORK FOR
ACTION
Oregonians in 2050 produce and use materials responsibly
conserving resources •protecting the environment •living well
27
F3. Support and perform foundational research
a. Identify high-impact materials and processes, and disseminate
information on easy-to-use life cycle metrics for high-impact
product categories as well as lower-impact alternatives.
b. Perform research to identify highest and best use at end-of-
life for discards with high environmental impacts (e.g., food,
metals, paper, plastics, carpet and wood), and conduct analysis
to determine barriers, program and policy options, and steps
needed to increase and improve recovery. Research collection
methods and better ways to separate and preserve the value of
collected material.
c. Conduct a study of regional standards and opportunities for
carbon and environmental footprinting.
d. Research and evaluate definitions and criteria for addressing
sustainable consumption for Oregon.
e. Study relationships between materials management and social
value of reuse, borrowing and renting; employment and
community impacts of materials management; and
understanding the values, preferences and motivations that
support and promote community-scale sustainable consumption.
f. Research material subsidies to identify opportunities to reduce
environmental impacts.
g. Identify and evaluate barriers to designing infrastructure and
products for repair, reuse and lifespan extension in Oregon.
Identify and evaluate options to determine when product reuse
is appropriate based on environmental impacts.
h. Perform research on product and disposal prices to determine
environmental and other potential costs not reflected in prices;
develop tools, methods and standards for determining full
costs; study feasibility of incorporating environmental costs into
prices (e.g., carbon tax) as a tool to encourage product design
changes or discourage products with higher impacts.
i. Conduct periodic updates to consumption-based greenhouse
gas emissions inventory and evaluate inclusion of additional
(non-climate) environmental impacts.
Icons indicate which
life cycle stage action
addresses.
Full life cycle
Upstream, Design
& Production
Consumption and
Use
End-of-Life
Management
2050 VISION
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
CREATING A MATERIALS
MANAGEMENT VISION
WELCOME TO 2050
FRAMEWORK FOR
ACTION
ENDNOTES &
APPENDICES
FRAMEWORK FOR
ACTION
Oregonians in 2050 produce and use materials responsibly
conserving resources •protecting the environment •living well
28
j. Evaluate value of local production, and identify products for
which local production benefits the environment.
F4. Build 2050 Vision and Framework for Action into DEQ’s
operations
a. Organize DEQ’s programs to effectively implement this
Framework for Action. Evaluate current solid waste program
work, including permitting, and realign staff priorities to be
consistent with the 2050 Vision. Align resources with risks for
permitting, inspections and oversight.
b. Review and update 2050 Vision and Framework for Action
every 6 years.
c. Adopt a DEQ policy to include environmental costs in
internal department decisions.
d. Support implementation of DEQ’s Toxics Reduction
Strategy, which includes a list of priority toxic chemicals and
actions to reduce and assess toxics in Oregon.
Icons indicate which
life cycle stage action
addresses.
Full life cycle
Upstream, Design
& Production
Consumption and
Use
End-of-Life
Management
2050 VISION
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
CREATING A MATERIALS
MANAGEMENT VISION
WELCOME TO 2050
FRAMEWORK FOR
ACTION
ENDNOTES &
APPENDICES
FRAMEWORK FOR
ACTION
Oregonians in 2050 produce and use materials responsibly
conserving resources •protecting the environment •living well
29
Policies and Regulations (P)
DEQ will develop, evaluate, implement and measure effectiveness of
policies and regulations that move Oregon on the path toward
achieving the 2050 Vision.
P1. Evaluate and adopt incentives to help Oregonians
produce and consume more sustainably
a. Support policies that offer incentives for developing sustainable
manufacturing techniques and goods, including green
chemistry, in Oregon.
b. Evaluate potential changes to tax policy to shift consumption
and support natural capital.
P2. Reduce life cycle impacts through product stewardship
a. Identify opportunities and establish programs for producers and
retailers to support sustainable production and minimize life
cycle impacts of products, such as greenhouse gas reductions
and phase-out of persistent, bioaccumulative toxics.
b. Improve information dissemination across the life cycle of
products such as credible eco-labels to foster reduction of
environmental impacts of products; standardized environmental
footprint information for products; comprehensive hazard
information for chemicals; and end-of-life instructions for
certain categories of products.
c. Evaluate and select products for suitable environmental
standards (“choice editing”) and implement product standards
for high-impact products including phase-outs or bans.
d. Prioritize products and materials for product stewardship
programs based on DEQ’s product stewardship principles and
support legislation consistent with these principles.
e. Develop and enforce management standards for extended
producer responsibility (take-back) programs.
f. Coordinate with other states and provinces to harmonize
product stewardship efforts.
Product stewardship
refers to a broad
umbrella of actions to
minimize harmful
impacts across the
entire life of their
product.
Extended producer
responsibility (EPR) is
a specific application
of product
stewardship that
shifts responsibility
for end-of-life
management of
products and
materials to the
producer.
2050 VISION
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
CREATING A MATERIALS
MANAGEMENT VISION
WELCOME TO 2050
FRAMEWORK FOR
ACTION
ENDNOTES &
APPENDICES
FRAMEWORK FOR
ACTION
Oregonians in 2050 produce and use materials responsibly
conserving resources •protecting the environment •living well
30
P3. Achieve the highest and best use at product end-of-life
a. Develop a strategy to increase recovery of food, yard
waste and metals and to limit them from entering the
disposal stream of wastes destined for landfill or incineration,
where appropriate. Consider the use of incentives to increase
recovery. Consider mandates for food scrap collection in areas
with composting or anaerobic digester capacity at a reasonable
price. In consultation with local governments and other partners,
ban food scraps and metals from entering the disposal stream
(destined for landfill or incineration) by 2025, with exceptions as
appropriate.
b. In consultation with partners, evaluate potential bans at a
state and local level to prevent other recoverable materials from
entering the disposal stream destined for landfill or incineration.
c. Evaluate legislation, other authority, or other program
approaches to direct materials to their highest and best use
(e.g. limit feedstock sent to energy recovery and conversion
technology facilities to non-recyclable material, as appropriate;
send used petroleum products to their highest and best use;
improve collection and processing to maintain the high value of
the material collected).
d. Increase recycling collection opportunities in Oregon
through review and update of the Opportunity to Recycle Act
including considering additional incentives or mandates for
increased multi-family and commercial recycling service as well
as expanded education and promotion programs; reviewing the
definition of “recyclable material” to consider other costs not
reflected in recycling and disposal prices; and updating
recyclable materials lists through rule adoption. When adding
programs and/or recyclable materials, consider availability and
distance to markets as well as size and location of
communities.
e. Set ambitious yet achievable recovery goals for specific
materials and products, such as rigid plastic containers.
f. In consultation with local governments and other partners,
provide incentives for or mandate post-collection sorting for dry
waste loads in large-volume markets.
Icons indicate which
life cycle stage action
addresses.
Full life cycle
Upstream, Design
& Production
Consumption and
Use
End-of-Life
Management
2050 VISION
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
CREATING A MATERIALS
MANAGEMENT VISION
WELCOME TO 2050
FRAMEWORK FOR
ACTION
ENDNOTES &
APPENDICES
FRAMEWORK FOR
ACTION
Oregonians in 2050 produce and use materials responsibly
conserving resources •protecting the environment •living well
31
g. Support efforts to set revised ASTM standards for product
compostability and to clarify product labeling for compostability
and biodegradability.
P4. Safely manage materials that have been, and will be,
disposed.
a. Establish and maintain appropriate performance standards,
permitting and other requirements for environmentally
protective management of wastes at disposal facilities.
b. Ensure compliance with requirements for environmentally
protective management of materials through permitting and
other oversight.
Icons indicate which
life cycle stage action
addresses.
Full life cycle
Upstream, Design
& Production
Consumption and
Use
End-of-Life
Management
2050 VISION
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
CREATING A MATERIALS
MANAGEMENT VISION
WELCOME TO 2050
FRAMEWORK FOR
ACTION
ENDNOTES &
APPENDICES
FRAMEWORK FOR
ACTION
Oregonians in 2050 produce and use materials responsibly
conserving resources •protecting the environment •living well
32
Collaboration and Partnerships (C)
Achieving the 2050 vision will require collaboration – both with DEQ’s
traditional partners as well as new partners who are essential to
effectively managing the impacts of materials across the full life cycle.
DEQ will collaborate with other state agencies, the Oregon
Sustainability Board, businesses, nongovernmental organizations, local
governments, individuals, the research community, federal agencies
and other states to foster innovative solutions. DEQ will identify,
convene and participate in cooperative partnerships; share information
among partners; seek opportunities for collaboration on research; and
play a leadership role and endorse other efforts, where appropriate.
The Value of Collaboration and Partnerships --- A
Recent Example
DEQ’s recently-started residential green building
initiative offers one example of the value and
importance of collaboration and partnerships. DEQ got
involved in green building at a time when the field
was already busy and heavily populated. But DEQ
filled a significant gap: researching and
communicating information about the environmental
impacts of materials and various methods of reducing
environmental impacts through changes in material
selection and use.
Working with partners as diverse as the Oregon
Home Builders Association, numerous private builders,
Energy Trust of Oregon, Earth Advantage, City of
Portland, Cascadia Green Building Council and AARP,
DEQ has rapidly leveraged its own limited resources
to re-prioritize broader green building efforts and
achieve greater environmental benefits, leading to
changes in building codes, green building rating
systems, and local incentive structures. New
partnerships and collaboration have been critical
elements of achieving these changes.
2050 VISION
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
CREATING A MATERIALS
MANAGEMENT VISION
WELCOME TO 2050
FRAMEWORK FOR
ACTION
ENDNOTES &
APPENDICES
FRAMEWORK FOR
ACTION
Oregonians in 2050 produce and use materials responsibly
conserving resources •protecting the environment •living well
33
C1. Foster business and industry collaboration and
innovation
a. Evaluate needs and opportunities for business-to-business
processes. Support improvements in supply-chain reporting and
information management including development of standardized
methodologies for data collection and evaluation of product
impacts, life cycle assessment standards, product category
rules, and rating systems for manufacturing.
b. Support Oregon Green Chemistry Innovation Initiative to build
awareness in the business community about the economic,
environmental, and public health benefits of green chemistry.
c. Engage with research organizations such as the Oregon
Nanomaterials and Microtechnologies Institute to ensure that
nanomaterials pose minimal harm to human health and the
environment.
d. Evaluate and engage in potential partnerships with industry to
adopt incentives, grants, tax changes and other state and local
policy alternatives to support repair and reuse, including
product repair and building material reuse.
e. Evaluate and engage in potential partnerships with industry to
adopt incentives, grants, tax changes and other state and local
policy alternatives to support collaborative and sustainable
consumption.
f. Investigate methods and technologies to better sort and
preserve value of recovered materials.
g. Support efforts to set standards for finished compost quality.
h. Support efforts to encourage the use of products made from
recovered materials, such as the use of food waste compost
by agricultural producers.
i. Support voluntary business accounting efforts to monetize
environmental impacts.
j. Support higher standards for new buildings (e.g., “net zero” plus
offset of materials) and improvements to materials-related
elements of green building certification systems.
Icons indicate which
life cycle stage action
addresses.
Full life cycle
Upstream, Design
& Production
Consumption and
Use
End-of-Life
Management
2050 VISION
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
CREATING A MATERIALS
MANAGEMENT VISION
WELCOME TO 2050
FRAMEWORK FOR
ACTION
ENDNOTES &
APPENDICES
FRAMEWORK FOR
ACTION
Oregonians in 2050 produce and use materials responsibly
conserving resources •protecting the environment •living well
34
C2. Work with government agencies to advance sustainable
materials management
a. Work with Oregon’s Department of Administrative Services,
the Oregon Sustainability Board and others to assess and build
upon existing sustainable procurement policies and materials
management programs, including indicators and reporting, for
state and local government and institutional purchasers.
b. Coordinate with Business Oregon, the Oregon Business
Development Department, to identify and support innovation in
manufacturing.
c. Support improvements to Oregon Reach Code and baseline
building codes, such as material selection, preferences,
restrictions, incentives for space-efficient homes, and removal of
barriers to adopt lower-impact practices.
d. Support expanding the State Energy Efficient Design
requirements for construction and renovation of state buildings
to include energy impacts of materials.
e. Coordinate work with other states and local governments,
economic development agencies and universities on research
of mutual interest.
f. Support policies of other state and local agencies that align
with the 2050 Vision.
C3. Support sustainable consumption “early adopters”
a. Evaluate and pursue opportunities to support space-efficient
housing.
b. Engage with other partners to research feasibility and
efficacy of reducing consumption by facilitating voluntary
adoption of shorter work weeks.
c. Evaluate existing food waste prevention programs (such as
“Love Food Hate Waste” and others) for application in Oregon.
Partner with others to implement efforts in Oregon including
efficient food redistribution systems.
d. Support opportunities for consumers to effectively opt out of
receiving unwanted mail, if desired.
Icons indicate which
life cycle stage action
addresses.
Full life cycle
Upstream, Design
& Production
Consumption and
Use
End-of-Life
Management
2050 VISION
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
CREATING A MATERIALS
MANAGEMENT VISION
WELCOME TO 2050
FRAMEWORK FOR
ACTION
ENDNOTES &
APPENDICES
FRAMEWORK FOR
ACTION
Oregonians in 2050 produce and use materials responsibly
conserving resources •protecting the environment •living well
35
Education and Information (E)
Much of DEQ’s work related to education and information will involve
others. For example, DEQ will share information it develops with
partners for distribution to appropriate audiences.
E1. Engage communities in sustainable materials
management
a. Develop information that can be used to help consumers
understand relative impacts of actions and choices, and
partner with others to disseminate the information.
b. Embed sustainable consumption concepts into existing public
education programs such as outreach under the Opportunity to
Recycle Act. Revise “Rethinking Recycling” curriculum and
supporting materials; expand the curriculum to include grades 6
to 12 and a broader materials management perspective.
c. Encourage and facilitate public and private demonstrations of
successful material management practices and strategies.
E2. Develop a communication plan focused on sustainable
end-of-life management
a. Develop consistent statewide messaging on the benefits of
reuse, repair, composting, recycling and disposal, taking into
account differences in programs throughout the state.
b. Work with partners such as grocery and retail stores and
libraries to deliver messages related to sustainable end-of-life
materials management.
Icons indicate which
life cycle stage action
addresses.
Full life cycle
Upstream, Design
& Production
Consumption and
Use
End-of-Life
Management
2050 VISION
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
CREATING A MATERIALS
MANAGEMENT VISION
WELCOME TO 2050
FRAMEWORK FOR
ACTION
ENDNOTES &
APPENDICES
Oregonians in 2050 produce and use materials responsibly
conserving resources •protecting the environment •living well
ENDNOTES &
APPENDICES
36
Endnotes & Appendices
Endnotes
1 For example, the International Monetary Fund reports that global commodity prices for primary metals (an index of copper, aluminum, iron ore, tin, nickel, zinc, lead, and uranium) rose 47% between 2006 and 2011. Prices for food and beverage commodities rose 64%; agricultural raw materials (an index of timber, cotton, wool, rubber, and hides) rose 41%; and energy rose 62% during the same time period.
2 In 1900, 41% of the materials used in the U.S. were renewable (agricultural, fishery, and forestry products); by 1995, only 6% of materials used were from renewable sources. The majority of materials consumed in the U.S. now are nonrenewable, including metals, minerals, and fossil-fuel derived products. Lorie A. Wagner, “Materials in the EconomyMaterial Flows, Scarcity, and the Environment,” U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1221 (February 2002), http://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/2002/c1221/c1221-508.pdf.
3 Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, Supplemental Technical Report: Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Emissions Intensities for Consumption of Materials, Services, Fuels and Electricity (2011), http://www.deq.state.or.us/lq/consumptionbasedghg.htm.
4 Figure 2 was modified from Center for Sustainable Systems, University of Michigan, “U.S. Material Use Factsheet,” Publication Number CSS05-18 (2011), http://css.snre.umich.edu/css_doc/CSS05-18.pdf. The University of Michigan graphic was based on a figure from G.R. Matos and L.A. Wagner, “Consumption of Materials in the United States 1900–1995,” Annual Review of Energy and the Environment (1998), version 23, pages 107-122. Also based on Lorie A. Wagner, “Materials in the EconomyMaterial Flows, Scarcity, and the Environment,” U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1221 (February 2002).
5 Oregon’s calculated recovery rate for solid waste (excluding statutory “2 percent credits”) has grown from 27% in 1992 to 48% in 2011. At the same time, solid waste landfills and incinerators have implemented more rigorous pollution controls.
6 For example, among domestic sources of greenhouse gas emissions in 2006, roughly 2.2% of emissions came from landfills and wastewater treatment, while “upstream” sources were roughly 20 times higher: 32.2% of domestic emissions are associated with resource extraction and production processes, and 7.1% are associated with the movement of freight. These figures do not account for the transnational emissions associated with foreign supply chains satisfying domestic consumption; doing so would further increase the “upstream” emissions (relative to disposal-related emissions). Similarly, a rough analysis of sources of air toxics in the Portland Air Toxics Inventory found that the vast majority of sources of air toxics are associated with production or consumption activities, rather than management of wastes at end-of-life.
7 Waste recovery activities in Oregon in 2011 saved approximately 31 trillion British thermal units (Btus) of energythe equivalent of 253 million gallons of gasoline, or 3.2% of total energy used by all sectors of the economy in Oregon. Similarly, waste recovery activities reduced greenhouse gas emissions by approximately 2.8 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent, roughly the same as tailpipe emissions from 580,000 “average” passenger cars over a year. Oregon Department of Environmental
2050 VISION
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
CREATING A MATERIALS
MANAGEMENT VISION
WELCOME TO 2050
FRAMEWORK FOR
ACTION
ENDNOTES &
APPENDICES
ENDNOTES &
APPENDICES
Oregonians in 2050 produce and use materials responsibly
conserving resources •protecting the environment •living well
37
Quality, 2011 Oregon Material Recovery and Waste Generation Rates Report (2012). While DEQ has not quantified other environmental benefits, a meta-analysis of life cycle analyses conducted in the United Kingdom concluded that recycling activities typically also reduce a variety of other pollutants, such as those contributing to toxicity, acidification, and smog formation, relative to landfilling or incineration. WRAP, Environmental Benefits of Recycling2010 Update (2010). Specific to jobs, a recent study found that landfilling supports roughly 1 job per 10,000 tons of waste landfilled annually, while composting and recycling support, on average, 5 and 20 jobs per 10,000 tons, respectively, with as many as 100 jobs per 10,000 tons of plastics recycled, and even higher job potential for reuse and remanufacturing. Tellus Institute and Sound Resource Management, More Jobs, Less Pollution: Growing the Recycling Economy in the U.S. (2011).
8 For an example of the increasingly global nature of our environmental footprint, one recent study showed that reductions in territorial greenhouse gas emissions in developed countries between 1990 and 2008 were more than offset by an increase in emissions in other countries associated with producing goods for consumption in the developed countries. Peters et al., “Growth in Emission Transfers via International Trade from 1990 to 2008,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (May 24, 2011).
9 Nationally, achieving nearly 95% recovery (recycling and composting) of municipal solid waste and 70% recovery of construction and demolition materials would reduce the greenhouse gas emissions associated with the life cycle of materials (excluding use of energy-using products) by roughly one-seventha significant accomplishment, but still leaving most of the emissions associated with materials untouched. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Opportunities to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions through Materials and Land Management Practices (2009). Similarly, estimations of the reduction in greenhouse gas emissions associated with different program and policy alternatives conducted by DEQ for the Oregon Global Warming Commission found that the potential reductions associated with “upstream” actions were many times larger than the reduction potential from actions addressing management of wastes. Oregon Global Warming Commission, Interim Roadmap to 2020 (October 2010).
Looking just at one product category, DEQ’s life cycle analysis of drinking water delivery systems compares the benefits of increasing recycling of single-use bottles with other actions that producers and consumers might engage in. For example, increasing the recovery rate for conventional PET water bottles from 37% to 62% recovery (roughly equivalent to the change in recovery rate when water bottles were added to Oregon’s bottle bill) decreases life cycle impacts of these bottles by 5% for global warming potential, 7% for energy use, 5% for respiratory effects potential, and 1% for ecotoxicity potential. (This is based on an allocation method that assigns only half of the benefits of recycling to the generator of recycled waste and the other half to the user of recycled material; an alternative approach that allocates all of the benefits to the waste generator would produce benefits roughly twice those listed above.) In contrast, increasing the recycling rate to 62% while simultaneously lightweighting the plastic bottle (an “upstream” or producer-related action not directly related to end-of-life management) leads to much larger reductions: 21% for global warming potential, 23% for energy use, 22% for respiratory effects potential, and 20% for ecotoxicity potential. Going further, decisions by the consumer to eschew bottled water and drink water from the tap instead could reduce these impacts by 26% to 99%. Franklin Associates, prepared for Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, Life Cycle Assessment of Drinking Water Delivery Systems: Bottle Water, Tap Water, and Home/Office Delivery Water (2009).
10 Several of the best examples of suboptimal decisions resulting from focusing on end-of-life considerations rather than the full life cycle involve the very common practice of using end-of-life objectives (e.g., recycling, composting) to inform purchasing decisions (e.g., recyclable, compostable). As recycling and composting are generally viewed as good for the environment, a natural inclination is for people to assume that recyclable and compostable products must similarly be good for the environment. Two examples
2050 VISION
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
CREATING A MATERIALS
MANAGEMENT VISION
WELCOME TO 2050
FRAMEWORK FOR
ACTION
ENDNOTES &
APPENDICES
ENDNOTES &
APPENDICES
Oregonians in 2050 produce and use materials responsibly
conserving resources •protecting the environment •living well
38
from projects in Oregon illustrate the hazards of this approach. First, a life cycle analysis of green building practices shows that, when choosing among competing wall framing practices, design for “waste prevention” and design for “recycling” can both lead to suboptimal outcomes. Over the life cycle of the home, several wall designs with lower overall environmental impacts tend to use more material (and thus generate more solid waste) and more types of materials that are currently difficult to recover. Quantis, Earth Advantage Institute, and Oregon Home Builders Association, prepared for Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, A Life Cycle Approach to Prioritizing Methods of Preventing Waste from the Residential Construction Sector in the State of OregonPhase 2 Report (2010).
Similarly, when considering options for shipping non-breakable goods in a catalog or electronic commerce order fulfillment environment, DEQ’s e-commerce packaging life cycle analysis clearly shows that criteria such as “recyclable” and “recycled content” do not consistently correlate well with reductions in environmental impacts. In contrast, several packaging options that are both difficult to recycle and contain limited recycled content (such as plastic shipping bags) have environmental burdens that are considerably lower than options that are easy to recycle and contain higher levels of recycled content (such as corrugated boxes with paper void fills). Franklin Associates, prepared for Oregon Department of Environmental Quality and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Life Cycle Inventory of Packaging Options for Shipment of Mail-Order Goods (2004).
11 Specifically, in Oregon Revised Statutes 459.015(1), the Legislative Assembly makes several findings and declarations, including that “(e) There are limits to Oregon’s natural resources and the capacity of the state’s environment to absorb the impacts of increasing consumption of resources…” and “(f) It is in the best interest of the people of Oregon to conserve resources and energy by developing an economy that encourages waste prevention and recycling.”
12 While recycling bridges the worlds of materials production and end-of-life management, the production element has been historically underemphasized. Further, some of the current challenges involving recycling (such as contamination of recyclables and loss of end-markets) may in part be a consequence of managing recycling as a solid waste activity as opposed to a materials management activity. Thus, the shift from solid waste management to materials management provides opportunities to improve outcomes from discard management programs, while also providing more effective opportunities to realize the broader policy objectives of conserving resources and reducing pollution.
13 World Business Council for Sustainable Development, Sustainable Consumption Facts and Trends from a Business Perspective (2008).
14 TerraChoice, a subsidiary of Underwriters Laboratories, has published a series of reports on “greenwashing.” Its most recent involved a review of 5,296 consumer products sold in the U.S. and Canada. These products made more than 12,600 “green” claims. Only 4.4% of products making green claims avoided all of TerraChoice’s “seven sins of greenwashing.” Put differently, the vast majority of products making environmental claims are engaging in some form of greenwashing, as defined by TerraChoice. The most common “sins” include the “sin of no proof” (making claims that are not substantiated), vague claims, hidden trade-offs (implying greenness by calling out environmental attributes that may be positive but largely irrelevant, while not mentioning other negative environmental impacts), and the use of false or bogus certifications. TerraChoice, The Sins of Greenwashing (2010).
15 Opinion data drawn from several 400+ participant random digit dial public opinion surveys conducted in 2008 and 2009 by PolicyInteractive.
2050 VISION
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
CREATING A MATERIALS
MANAGEMENT VISION
WELCOME TO 2050
FRAMEWORK FOR
ACTION
ENDNOTES &
APPENDICES
ENDNOTES &
APPENDICES
Oregonians in 2050 produce and use materials responsibly
conserving resources •protecting the environment •living well
39
Appendix A
Glossary
Backcasting: A technique used in The Natural Step and elsewhere
that starts from an envisioned future outcome and works backwards to
determine steps that can lead from current conditions to that future
outcome.
Choice editing: Instances where less sustainable products or
services are removed and replaced with more sustainable items.
Governments may introduce outright bans or introduce timelines for the
elimination of a product or service. Businesses may phase out
production of less sustainable items or remove items from sale,
whether voluntarily or in response to government initiatives.
Consumption: The using of a resource, product, or material. In the
2050 Vision, “consumption” typically refers to the stage in the life
cycle of a product where it is acquired and used, following production
but prior to end-of-life management. However, “consumption” in the
context of the consumption-based greenhouse gas emissions
inventory has a slightly different meaning, referring to the purchase of
goods and services by households and governments, as well as
business purchases that are classified as capital or inventory formation
(economic final demand).
Consumption-based greenhouse gas emissions inventory: An
estimation of the quantity of gases contributing to climate change that
are associated with consumption (economic final demand). A
consumption-based inventory is sometimes contrasted with a territorial
inventory. A territorial inventory estimates the emissions that physically
originate within a community (e.g., Oregon). In contrast, many of
Oregon’s consumption-based emissions occur in other states and
countries, in the course of producing goods and services for
consumption in Oregon.
2050 VISION
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
CREATING A MATERIALS
MANAGEMENT VISION
WELCOME TO 2050
FRAMEWORK FOR
ACTION
ENDNOTES &
APPENDICES
ENDNOTES &
APPENDICES
Oregonians in 2050 produce and use materials responsibly
conserving resources •protecting the environment •living well
40
Conversion technology: The use of primarily chemical or thermal
processes to convert solid waste to fuels or other useful products.
Examples include pyrolysis, gasification, transesterification (biodiesel
production), hydrolysis, and distillation. Anaerobic digestion and
fermentation (for ethanol production), which are both biological
processes, are often considered to be forms of conversion technology.
Cost: Everything given up to acquire or provide a material or service,
or achieve a goal. Cost can include direct transfers of money (as
reflected in market prices of acquiring or providing a material or
service) as well as other components not typically reflected in the
market price, such as time, opportunity, health, and environmental
quality.
Discard management: The collection, transport, processing or
disposal, managing, and monitoring of waste materials at end-of-life.
Downstream: Those actions and impacts that occur after that point
in the life cycle, at any point on a product’s life cycle. For example,
as viewed by a consumer, downstream actions are those associated
with disposal or recycling of the product.
Eco-label: A symbol or other label information that reports one or
more environmental impacts or attributes of the labeled product. Eco-
labels are often used to communicate or imply that the labeled product
has lower environmental impacts than previous versions/models and/or
competing products.
End-of-life: The point at which a product or material is no longer
useful to the person possessing it and is either discarded or
abandoned.
Energy recovery: The use of solid waste to produce a fuel, or the
direct combustion of solid waste as a fuel for heat recovery or to
produce electricity.
Environmental footprint: A measure of the environmental impacts
associated with the life cycle of a good or service, including resource
extraction, production, transport, sale, use, and end-of-life management.
For example, the “Ecological Footprint” is one specific methodology of
evaluating environmental impacts in terms of the amount of land
required to produce goods and services that an individual or
organization consumes. The methodology was originally developed by
Mathis Wackernagel and William Rees.
2050 VISION
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
CREATING A MATERIALS
MANAGEMENT VISION
WELCOME TO 2050
FRAMEWORK FOR
ACTION
ENDNOTES &
APPENDICES
ENDNOTES &
APPENDICES
Oregonians in 2050 produce and use materials responsibly
conserving resources •protecting the environment •living well
41
Extended producer responsibility (EPR): A mandatory type of
product stewardship that includes, at a minimum, the requirement that
the producer’s responsibility for its product extends to post-consumer
management of that product and its packaging.
Green building: Constructing and maintaining structures in a way
that optimizes resource use and minimizes environmental and human
health impacts throughout the life cycle, through design, material
selection, operation, and adaptable reuse or deconstruction
considerations.
Green chemistry: The invention, design, and application of chemical
products and processes to reduce or to eliminate the use and
generation of hazardous substances.
Greenwashing: The practice of making an unsubstantiated or
misleading claim about the environmental benefits of a product, service
or technology
Large volume market: A geographic area with sufficient population
or commercial or other activity to allow the viable establishment of a
collection program or processing activity.
Life cycle assessment (or analysis), LCA: A standardized
process used to estimate the impact that a product or process has
over the whole of its lifespan, including extraction of raw materials,
production, transport, use, and disposal.
Materials management: An approach to reduce environmental
impacts by managing materials through all stages of their life.
Materials management identifies impacts and actions across the full
cycle of materials and products as they move through the economy—
from raw material extraction to product design and manufacture,
transport, consumption, use, reuse, recycling, and disposal.
Natural capital: The stock of natural ecosystems that yields a flow
of valuable goods or services into the future. It is an extension of the
economic definition of capital, which traditionally refers to only the
stock of human-made goods and machinery.
The Natural Step: A process derived from the work of Dr. Karl-
Henrik Robèrt that businesses and organizations use to advance
sustainability goals based on four “system conditions.” The four
conditions are that the natural environment is not subject to
2050 VISION
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
CREATING A MATERIALS
MANAGEMENT VISION
WELCOME TO 2050
FRAMEWORK FOR
ACTION
ENDNOTES &
APPENDICES
ENDNOTES &
APPENDICES
Oregonians in 2050 produce and use materials responsibly
conserving resources •protecting the environment •living well
42
systematically increasing concentrations of substances extracted from
the earth’s crust, concentrations of substances produced by society, or
degradation by physical means; and people are not subject to
conditions that systematically undermine their capacity to meet their
needs.
Product stewardship: The act of minimizing health, safety,
environmental, and social impacts and maximizing economic benefits
of a product and its packaging throughout all life cycle stages. The
producer has the greatest ability to minimize adverse impacts, but
other stakeholders, such as suppliers, retailers, and consumers, also
play a role. Stewardship can be either voluntary or required by law.
Social equity: The just, fair and equitable distribution of resources across
populations.
Sustainability: Using, developing, and protecting resources in a
manner that enables people to meet current needs and provides that
future generations can also meet future needs, from the joint
perspective of environmental, economic, and community objectives.
Upstream: Those actions and impacts that occur before that point in
the life cycle, at any point on a product’s life cycle. For example, as
viewed by a consumer, upstream impacts are those associated with
extraction of raw materials, production, distribution, and sale of the
product.
Waste management: A subset of materials management specifically
addressing the management of discards; often used to include,
recycling, material recovery, composting, energy recovery, and
landfilling.
Waste management hierarchy: Priority in methods of managing
solid waste, established by Oregon law as follows: reduce the amount
of solid waste generated; reuse material for the purpose for which it
was originally intended; recycle material that cannot be reused;
compost material that cannot be reused or recycled; recover energy
from solid waste that cannot be reused, recycled, or composted, so
long as the energy recovery facility preserves the quality of air, water,
and land resources; and dispose of solid waste that cannot be reused,
recycled, composted, or from which energy cannot be recovered by
landfilling or other method approved by the Department of
Environmental Quality.
2050 VISION
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
CREATING A MATERIALS
MANAGEMENT VISION
WELCOME TO 2050
FRAMEWORK FOR
ACTION
ENDNOTES &
APPENDICES
ENDNOTES &
APPENDICES
Oregonians in 2050 produce and use materials responsibly
conserving resources •protecting the environment •living well
43
Waste prevention: To reduce the amount of solid waste generated
or resources used, without increasing toxicity, in the design,
manufacture, purchase, or use of products or packaging. “Pure” waste
prevention does not include recycling or composting.
2050 VISION
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
CREATING A MATERIALS
MANAGEMENT VISION
WELCOME TO 2050
FRAMEWORK FOR
ACTION
ENDNOTES &
APPENDICES
Oregonians in 2050 produce and use materials responsibly
conserving resources •protecting the environment •living well
ENDNOTES &
APPENDICES
44
Appendix B
Background Documents
DEQ collected and developed background documents for this project
to inform Workgroup members, capture institutional knowledge, and
explore relevant topics more deeply. Background documents are
available at www.deq.state.or.us/lq/sw/materialsmgmtplanbkgrddocs.htm
Upstream, Production, and Consumption
Waste Prevention
This paper examines the topic of waste prevention, the “reduce,
reuse” part of the solid waste management hierarchy. It provides a
summary of research findings on prevention, an overview of DEQ’s
Waste Prevention Strategy, and a short discussion of key challenges
moving forward.
Residential Green Building
Residential green building is one element of DEQ’s work in waste
prevention. This report summarizes the results of DEQ’s life cycle
assessment of residential waste prevention building practices,
outcomes of that research, next steps for DEQ, and emerging issues.
Sustainable Consumption and Waste Prevention
This paper provides background on sustainable consumption and
explores its relationship with waste prevention. It concludes that DEQ’s
traditional waste prevention work may be more effective if reframed
clearly in the context of sustainable consumption.
Literature Review: Key Challenges in Sustainable
Consumption
This paper summarizes a literature review addressing the challenges
specific to sustainable consumption.
2050 VISION
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
CREATING A MATERIALS
MANAGEMENT VISION
WELCOME TO 2050
FRAMEWORK FOR
ACTION
ENDNOTES &
APPENDICES
ENDNOTES &
APPENDICES
Oregonians in 2050 produce and use materials responsibly
conserving resources •protecting the environment •living well
45
Literature Review: Alternatives for Advancing Sustainable
Production and Consumption through Government Programs
and Policies
This document summarizes the results of a broad but limited literature
review specific to program and policy alternatives that support
sustainable production and consumption.
Recommendations for Product Stewardship in Oregon
This report recommends that Oregon pursue product stewardship as
one strategy to reduce the environmental and public health impacts of
products. It also recommends eight key elements for product
stewardship programs and policy in Oregon.
End-of-Life Management and Recovery
Oregon’s Solid Waste Hierarchy—Intent and Uses
This document describes the policy intent behind Oregon’s solid waste
hierarchy (reduce, reuse, recycle, compost, energy recovery, and
disposal) and DEQ’s application of the guidance.
Trends in Oregon Waste Generation, 1993-2010
This document describes wastes tracked by DEQ, overall disposal and
recovery trends for Oregon, and trends in generation, disposal, and
recovery for individual material groups.
Best Management Practices for Discarded Food Scraps
This paper describes a food waste hierarchy that identifies activities
and practices intended to minimize the amount of food waste
generated and beneficially use food discards.
What are “Conversion Technologies”?
This paper describes processes and technologies used to convert the
energy stored in carbon-containing organic wastes to chemicals and
products which can be used to create energy or make new products.
The paper also briefly identifies potential benefits and concerns
relevant to conversion technologies.
Potential for Additional Material Recovery
This paper examines current recovery rates for materials in Oregon
and evaluates several potential environmental impacts if recovery could
be increased.
2050 VISION
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
CREATING A MATERIALS
MANAGEMENT VISION
WELCOME TO 2050
FRAMEWORK FOR
ACTION
ENDNOTES &
APPENDICES
ENDNOTES &
APPENDICES
Oregonians in 2050 produce and use materials responsibly
conserving resources •protecting the environment •living well
46
General
What Are “Sustainable Materials” and “Sustainable Materials
Management”?
This paper briefly introduces six different responses to these questions
and summarizes some of the advantages and limitations of each
approach.
DEQ Report to the Legislature: Solid Waste Management
Program Information Update for 2009-2010
Biennial report regarding implementation of Oregon’s Integrated
Resource and Solid Waste Management Plan.
Materials Management and Greenhouse Gases
A summary of how materials contribute to greenhouse gas emissions
and opportunities to reduce emissions through materials management.
Alternative Criteria for Measuring Environmental Impacts of
Materials Management
An examination of some of the more important criteria and how
changes in materials management might affect those criteria.
DEQ Toxics Reduction Strategy
DEQ’s draft Toxics Reduction Strategy includes a Focus List of priority
toxic chemicals and 25 actions to reduce and assess toxics in Oregon.
Rare Earth Elements
Rare earth elements - used for manufacture of wind turbines and
electric vehicle technologies, among other products - will continue to
be of considerable interest for the foreseeable future.
Background Documents from Outside DEQ
Sustainable Materials Management: The Road Ahead
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2009.
The Natural Step Story: Seeding a Quiet Revolution
Karl-Henrik Robèrt, 2008.
More Jobs, Less Pollution: Growing the Recycling Economy
in the U.S.
Tellus Institute and Sound Resource Management, 2011.
2050 VISION
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
CREATING A MATERIALS
MANAGEMENT VISION
WELCOME TO 2050
FRAMEWORK FOR
ACTION
ENDNOTES &
APPENDICES
Oregonians in 2050 produce and use materials responsibly
conserving resources •protecting the environment •living well
ENDNOTES &
APPENDICES
47
Appendix C
Systems and Capabilities
This appendix describes systems and capabilities broadly needed to
achieve the 2050 Vision. To attain the future described in this 2050
Vision, DEQ and others will need various systems and capabilities in
place. Some of these capacities already exist, while others are not yet
developed. DEQ and others will build the following systems and
capabilities to support the 2050 Vision.
Information
Ability to distill and credibly use information about
environmental, societal and economic impacts.
Knowledge and disclosure of environmental impacts for the
full product life cycle.
Ability to determine highest and best use of materials.
Robust research and innovation initiatives toward sustainable
materials management.
Systems for sharing information and knowledge.
Ongoing stakeholder involvement.
Economic Systems
Sustainable funding.
A level playing field between Oregon businesses and global
competitors.
Financial signals that point consumers and manufacturers in
the right direction.
Full-cost accounting and cost internalization.
2050 VISION
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
CREATING A MATERIALS
MANAGEMENT VISION
WELCOME TO 2050
FRAMEWORK FOR
ACTION
ENDNOTES &
APPENDICES
ENDNOTES &
APPENDICES
Oregonians in 2050 produce and use materials responsibly
conserving resources •protecting the environment •living well
48
Social Systems
Effective communication among government, producers,
designers, distributors, retailers, consumers, recovery and
discard management providers.
Political and public support for achieving the 2050 Vision .
Social norms around sustainable production, consumption,
and end-of-life management and recovery.
Infrastructure for reuse, repair and sharing.
Equitable access to sustainable choices.
Leadership in Government
Outcome-based management.
Organizational structure and sufficient resources dedicated to
materials management.
2050 VISION
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
CREATING A MATERIALS
MANAGEMENT VISION
WELCOME TO 2050
FRAMEWORK FOR
ACTION
ENDNOTES &
APPENDICES
Oregonians in 2050 produce and use materials responsibly
conserving resources •protecting the environment •living well
ENDNOTES &
APPENDICES
49
Appendix D
Workgroup Members
2050 Vision for Materials Management Workgroup Members
Mark Brady* Business Oregon
Eden Brukman International Living Future Institute
Meghan Butler Recology
Chris Chapman Washington State Department of Ecology
Steve Clem* Skanska USA Building
Julie Daniel BRING Recycling
Shannon Davis U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Mike Dewey Legislative Advocates
Anisha Ladha* Intel Corporation
Kristan Mitchell Oregon Refuse and Recycling Association
Jeff Murray* Recycling professional
Babe O’Sullivan City of Eugene
Garry Penning* Rogue Disposal and Recycling
Megan Ponder* City of Portland
Colin Price Oregon Environmental Council
Jennifer Purcell Tillamook County
Wayne Rifer* Green Electronics Council
Meg Rowe Oregon Sustainability Board
Jeanne Roy Center for Earth Leadership
Heather Schmidt New Seasons Market
Andy Sloop Metro
Chris Thomas Association of Oregon Recyclers (Waste Connections)
Wendy Wiles Oregon Department of Environmental Quality
Adam Winston* Waste Management
*Not pictured
50
Materials Management in Oregon
2050 Vision and Framework for Action
www.deq.state.or.us/lq/sw/materialsmgmtplan.htm
July 5, 2016
Sustainable Materials Management in the City of Fort Collins:
A Future Vision for Making Waste a Thing of the Past
Goals and Priorities
This internal guidance document offers a framework for transforming how the
City of Fort Collins addresses the “waste” generated in the city. Sustainable
Materials Management will help Fort Collins accomplish the changes
necessary to meet its long-term goals for addressing climate change, zero
waste, quality of life, increased employment and economic security, as well as
contributing to the health and well-being of its citizens and environment.
In 2011, the City of Fort Collins approved the EPA waste hierarchy in its City
Plan 1 and adopted a goal of reducing solid waste by 50%. In 2013 City Council
updated our waste reduction goal to achieve a community diversion rate of
75% by 2020, partly in response to the realization that we are misplacing
$6.5M worth of resources 2 from our economy by sending materials to the
landfill each year. Wasting resources of this magnitude highlights the
inefficiencies in our current system.
The waste hierarchy adopted in City Plan consists of:
• Reduce – through conscientious consumerism, sustainable purchasing,
product redesign (lower product toxicity, product durability, etc.), less
packaging
• Reuse – through repairing, donating, repurposing, sharing
• Recycle – through collection and remanufacture of ‘curbside’
recyclables, adding hard-to-recycle materials, expanding industrial recycling
• Composting – through opportunities for processing of yard waste,
food scraps, other organics by collection or drop-off
• Waste-based energy – through anaerobic digestion and other ultra-
low polluting conversion technology
• Landfilling – the hierarchy of landfilling as a disposal method:
o Facility utilizing methane capture and use (more desirable)
o Facility with methane capture and flaring
o Facility with no methane management system (less desirable)
1Principle ENV 14: The City will apply the US Environmental Protection Agency’s integrated “hierarchy” of waste management to help
protect all environmental resources including air, soil, and water using source reduction as the primary approach, followed in order by
reuse, recycling/composting energy recovery using emerging pollution-free technology, and landfill disposal (where methane gas capture
is employed) as a final resort.
2Road to Zero Waste Plan (2013): http://www.fcgov.com/zerowaste/
Sustainable Materials
Management (SMM) is a
systemic approach to
using and reusing
materials more
productively over their
entire lifecycles. It
represents a change in
how our society thinks
about the use of natural
resources and
environmental
protection. By examining
how materials are used
throughout their lifecycle,
an SMM approach seeks
to:
Use materials in the most
productive way with an
emphasis on using less.
~
Reduce toxic chemicals
and environmental
impacts throughout the
material lifecycle.
~
Assure we have sufficient
resources to meet today’s
needs and those of the
future.
-EPA definition
1
July 5, 2016
The traditional hierarchy of solid waste management has emphasized landfilling as a preferred method of
disposal with reduction and recycling being secondary priorities. In the new paradigm of managing materials
sustainably, that model is flipped upside down, with a strong emphasis placed on reducing waste at the source.
In the current waste hierarchy in Fort Collins, there are insufficient
resources directed to the tracking and reporting the reduction of
waste and pollutants, the durability of products, or their repair and
reuse. These will be important factors for the city to consider in
order to meet the aggressive goals set by Council (see sidebar).
Fort Collins is coming closer to meeting its diversion goals. However,
waste diversion metrics are less meaningful than they appear, as
they do not measure overall waste reduction. Most experts are now
using pounds per person per day (PPD) for setting more accurate
targets. Using this metric, Fort Collins is not demonstrating progress.
In 2013, the PPD was 4.85 but in 2014, it had risen to 4.88 PPD.
Reaching the goal of 3.5 PPD by 2020 is a significant challenge that
requires additional strategies for waste reduction and recycling.
Sustainable Materials Management
Sustainable Materials Management (SMM) is the newest and most
innovative method for a holistic approach to addressing the root
causes of solid waste and the link between consumption and climate
change. Greenhouse gas (GHG) inventories that include only the
emissions associated with waste disposal are not accurately
representing the full impacts of the goods and food we consume.
Goals:
Waste Reduction: The city was so
successful in achieving its 1999 goal of a
50% recycling rate that in 2013 the City
Council adopted a Road to Zero Waste
plan, setting important goals for the
community: 75% landfill diversion/ 3.5
pounds per person per day (PPD) by
2020; 90% diversion/2.8 PPD by 2025;
and approaching zero waste by 2030.
Climate Action Plan: On March 3, 2015
The Fort Collins City Council adopted
some of the most aggressive goals in the
nation to reduce community greenhouse
gas emissions – 20 percent below 2005
levels by 2020 and 80 percent below by
2030 – putting the community on a path
to be carbon neutral by 2050.
2
July 5, 2016
While sector-based accounting of GHGs currently attributes 3% of Fort Collins’ emissions to waste and recycling,
the SMM framework and its systems-based accounting demonstrates how the provision of materials – food and
goods – is responsible for more than 40% of overall GHG emissions.
The upstream impacts of extraction, initial processing, transportation and manufacturing account for the
majority of our GHG emissions, toxins in the environment, water and soil pollution, energy usage, and more. In
other words, SMM shifts from calculating just the end-of-life impacts to accounting for the beginning-, middle-
and end-of-life impacts. This feat is achieved, in large part, with the help of a tool called life cycle assessment
(LCA).
The Role of Life Cycle Assessment
The physical materials that flow through our community in the form of goods and food come in all shapes, sizes,
and volumes. What they all have is common is a measurable, if complex, “life cycle.” The framework of
Sustainable Materials Management looks to broaden the scope of influence over material resource flows in the
community to include all stages of the life cycle. Through a systems-based accounting process that includes
formerly externalized costs, material resource flows may be tracked, mapped, and measured to achieve greater
efficiency and significantly reduce waste. LCAs can highlight the dissonance between expectations and reality
because they account for the overall impact an item has on all aspects of the environment, not just whether or
not it can be recycled.
3
July 5, 2016
Examples
1) Oregon’s Department of Environmental Quality studied three types of ground coffee packaging: one is a
recyclable steel coffee can with a plastic lid, one is a plastic container and lid, and the other is a non-
recyclable pouch. Lifecycle assessment shows that for single use the overall impact of the pouch is far
lower in terms of energy used, GHG emissions emitted, and even waste created than the other two
types of packaging, despite the fact that it must be disposed of in a landfill at end of its useful life.
Coffee
Packaging
(11.5 oz
product)
Material
Package
Weight
Recyclable
by
Consumers
Energy
Used
(MJ/11.5
oz)
GHG
Emissions
(lbs CO2e/
11.5 oz
product)
MSW Waste
Generated
(lbs./ 100,000
oz. of
product)
Steel
can,
plastic lid
~4 oz. Yes 4.21 0.33 1,305
Plastic
container
and lid
~3 oz. Yes 5.18 0.17 847
Flexible
pouch
~0.4 oz. No 1.14 0.04 176
2) Another excellent example of this tool being employed (specifically for carbon footprint assessment) is
New Belgium Brewery’s LCA of a six-pack of Fat Tire Amber Ale. The report states:
System boundaries of the assessed life cycle encompass acquisition and transport of raw materials, brewing
operations, business travel, employee commuting, transport and storage during distribution and retail, use and
disposal of waste.
The carbon footprint of a 6-pack of Fat Tire® Amber Ale, or the total greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions during its life
cycle, is 3,188.8 grams of CO2 equivalents. Of this total, emissions from New Belgium Brewing Company’s own
operations and the disposal of waste produced there account for only 5.4%. Upstream emissions during production
and transportation of packaging materials and beer ingredients total 48.0% of total emissions. Downstream
emissions from distribution, retail, storage and disposal of waste account for the remaining 46.6% of the total
emissions.3
3The Carbon Footprint of Fat Tire® Amber Ale, The Climate CO2nservancy: http://www.newbelgium.com/files/the-carbon-footprint-of-
fat-tire-amber-ale-2008-public-dist-rfs.pdf
4
July 5, 2016
University Collaboration
Future life cycle assessments of materials can be conducted in partnership with Colorado State University
research teams. City staff is currently working with the College of Engineering on a community-wide LCA by for
food flows and food waste. This research is informing the enhancement of combined heat and power co-
generation capacity from the anaerobic digesters at the Drake Water Reclamation Facility. Future studies could
inform sustainable procurement (e.g., construction materials, paper, equipment, etc.) to ensure the City uses
products with the least negative impact, or target high-value material flows and their impacts throughout the
community.
Additional Benefits of SMM
Other benefits resulting from the adoption of SMM are the growth of jobs, regionalism, local economic
development, reduced transportation, and improved health and well-being of employees no longer required to
use potentially toxic substances for cleaning, landscaping, etc.
Regionalism
By definition, SMM takes a more inclusive approach to finding solutions to and avoiding the creation of
problems. This holistic framework lends itself to regional collaboration. It fits well with the concepts being
brought forward by the Colorado Depart of Public Health’s study of regional wastesheds, and with the idea of
reducing the number of landfills, replacing them with transfer stations for waste and separated recyclables.
With the upcoming closure of the Larimer County landfill (around 2025) Fort Collins is currently in the process of
collaborating with other entities in the region to develop optimal solutions for its waste issues. By applying the
concepts of SMM, Fort Collins will showcase its leadership in municipal sustainability not only in Northern
Colorado, but nationally as well.
Jobs and Local Economic Development
Fort Collins has the opportunity to bring the Northern Colorado
region together in creating a supportive atmosphere for small,
entrepreneurial businesses to reuse, repair, recycle, or refurbish
items and develop innovative uses for local discards. The
Economic Health Office is currently developing business support
tools to specifically target small businesses with social and
environmental missions.
Eco-business parks – such as those being developed in Phoenix,
Arizona and Austin, Texas – are proving to be successful by
supporting small businesses that utilize locally generated discards
that can be:
• Repaired
• Reused
• Sorted and remanufactured into new items
• Composted / anaerobically digested
SpringBack Mattress Colorado, a
Denver-based company that
employs disenfranchised former
convicts, would like to be able to
set up a location in Northern
Colorado to expand their current
operation. This would bring a much
needed service (mattress recycling
and refurbishing) to the area as
well as offering employment to an
underserved and underemployed
population. This is just one
example of the many triple-
bottom-line opportunities for
entrepreneurs to build local
businesses, employ local residents,
and reduce miles traveled for
products.
5
July 5, 2016
Eco-business parks stimulate the local job market, reduce miles traveled between discard and market, produce
goods from recycled products and extend the life of other products through repair and reuse.
Sustainable Purchasing
Fort Collins can take a leading, proactive approach to reducing waste
and pollutants through sustainable procurement practices. As part
of an overall framework of Sustainable Materials Management,
carefully researching and choosing purchasing options not only
reduces discards, GHG emissions and pollutants, it also can become
a major part of the local jobs equation by ensuring products can be
repaired or remanufactured. Enhancing a strong, consistent
procurement policy will put Fort Collins in a leading municipal role in
Colorado.
Conclusion and Recommendations
SMM and LCAs can lead to the development of strong, consistent
policies for the City, demonstrating the success of this approach for
the business community and other organizations and municipalities.
This approach allows for knowledgeable decision-making to reduce
cross-media pollution, emissions, toxicity and waste, and to increase jobs and enhance economic development,
while assisting the City to reach its goals of approaching Zero Waste by 2030 and being carbon neutral by 2050.
Next steps for implementation of Sustainable Materials Management
• Engage in an education campaign that encourages source reduction, pollution prevention and
sustainable purchasing practices and uses PPD (pounds per person per day) generated as the metric for
measuring success (uses adopted hierarchy).
• Work with CSU to develop LCAs for commonly purchased materials / services and create policies to
support using the optimal product or service to reduce GHG, waste and toxicity in the environment
(helps to meet both Climate Action Plan and Road to Zero Waste goals).
• Perform a community-wide LCA for food and food waste flows to determine proper capacity for the
anaerobic digester enhancement at the Drake Waste Reclamation Facility (GHG and waste reduction
method while co-generating local renewable energy).
• Explore regional development of a Materials Recovery Economic Cluster and an Eco-Business Park to
foster innovation, job creation, economic development, and efficiencies within the production and
consumption system (supports economic development and Road to Zero Waste goals while reducing
GHGs).
• Target materials that can easily be diverted from the landfill and pursue policies to encourage the
growth of new businesses based on those materials (economic development and Road to Zero Waste).
• Continue to engage with regional and state partners on generating new ideas, technological advances
and innovative solutions that embrace reduction, reuse, recycling and composting (regionalism and
partnership).
• Become a leader for Sustainable Materials Management in Colorado.
The University of Colorado –
Boulder, has instigated a
cutting-edge on-line
purchasing program. It is
controlled by a small group
using LCAs, best practices, and
sustainable standards to
determine what products may
be purchased by any
department or individual
within the university. It has
greatly contributed to the
reduction of waste and their
carbon footprint.
6