Optimizing emissions targets for residential recycling programs: Why more isn’t necessarily better with respect to diversionhttp://wmr.sagepub.com/content/34/11/1148.short

By: Dr. Calvin Lakhanhttp://wastewiki.info.yorku.ca/lakhanc@yorku.ca

Overview• Study highlights the economic and environmental

challenges of recycling in Ontario• Cost model developed to calculate the economic impact

of attempting to reduce carbon emissions via recycling• Study ranks materials by “best bang for your buck”:

Which materials would you want to target if you wanted to reduce emissions at the lowest possible cost?

Methods

• Cost model developed using data from the Environment Canada Greenhouse gases calculator and Stewardship Ontario Pay in Model for Blue Box materials

• Cost model can calculate the cost of reaching a specific emissions target

• Cost model premised on the “next least tonne” approach – how do you abate carbon at the lowest possible cost?

Results• Following graph shows the cost of abating one tonne of carbon, ranked by

material type:

Results Cont’• You can increase both recycling and carbon abatement at a lower operating

cost by targeting specific materials for recovery

Conclusions • Cost model found that targeting specific materials for

recovery could result in a scenario where the province could improve diversion and offsets while reducing material management costs

• Under our modeled scenario, as total GHG avoided increases, system cost per tonne initially declines.

• After avoiding 2.05 million tonnes of GHF, system cost/tonne GHG avoided increases. Thus, 2.05 million tonnes of avoided GHGs represents an “optimized” point