2009-02-24_PWETC_AgendaPacket - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

5. Calculating the greenhouse gas impact of waste reduction efforts in Minnesota Carbon Equivalents The final step in quantifying Minnesota's climate impact of waste is to convert the tons of waste diversion into a measurement that shows its impact on global warming. The most common. way to do this is to state the impact in carbon equivalents. Since waste reduction results iil the reduction of several types of greenhouse gases, the conversion. to a standard carbon equivalent (CO, E) measurement allows for a total quantification of the impact. It also provides a standard language for people to compare these actions to other's such as transportation and energy conservation efforts. A carbon equivalent (CO, E) is simply the amount of CO, that would have the same global warning potential as the waste reduction impacts, when measured over a specified timescale. The international reporting standard for CO, emissions is in metric tons, so you will often see carbon dioxide amounts reported as MTCO, E, which. stands for metric tons of carbon equivalent. Conversion Models While there are many models emerging to calculate greenhouse gas reductions, the most recognized and standard model is the E.1'A's WARM model. Produced by the EPA, the Waste Reduction Model {WARM) was designed to help solid waste planners and organizations track and voluntarily report greenhouse gas emissions reductions from several different waste management practices. The WARM model was last updated in. August of 2008 and recognizes 34 material types (U.S. EPA, 2008). Credibility of WARM WA. RM has been in development for over 10 years and relies on infomlation from leading scientists and technical experts. The methodology and data has been peer reviewed at several stages; including a lengthy review process that included public comments and responses (U.S. EPA, 2008). The field of life-cycle analysis has expanded dramatically since WARM was originally developed and interest in life cycle studies and supply chain impacts is at an all-tinge high. l;or that reason, EPA is in the process of updating many of the emission Factors and assumptions embedded in WARM. As new updates and improvements become available, EPA will post new versions of the model and explanations of revisions. To learn more about the data sources and methodology employed in WARM, consult the latest edition of EPA's research report: Solid Waste Mataagernent and Greerrhouse Gases: A Lfe-Cycle Assessrneftt of Ernissiorts and Sink, online at http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/urycd/ waste/SWMGHGreport.html. Although WARM is the most widely peer-reviewed and accepted model, it is considered to have several flaws. Because of these flaws, the results from WARM are corisewative, meaning the environmental benefit of recycling and composting are in Fact understated. That said, the good news is that we know now that we can achieve reductions in greenhouse gas emissions that are equivalent to closing many more than 21`% of all. U.S. coal-fired power plants in the U.S. by recycling and composting. Page 12