Good afternoon.

Im David Allaway and have been asked to share some comments on what materials management is, and why it matters.

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality

October 12, 2011

Im going to start out by offering some working definitions of materials management. Well do a quick compare and contrast between materials management and traditional solid waste management. Well explore why materials matter. Then well go back in time and revisit Oregons involvement in solid waste management, and how that has changed over time, and that will help to explain why DEQ is exploring this broader view of materials management.

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality

October 12, 2011

So what is materials management? Heres a working definition were using, that was produced by the EPA.

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality

October 12, 2011

This graphic visually represents this life cycle of materials, from resource extraction through to disposal or recovery. Circled in red in the realm of discards management, or solid waste management. This is where DEQs solid waste program, historically, has done most of its work. But two points: First, the decisions made here, at end-of-life, have the potential of affecting the rest of the life cycle. When materials are recovered, it changes resource extraction, processing, and manufacture. And second, this broad definition of materials management fully includes solid waste management, or discards management. So when we use the term materials management, it includes our traditional responsibilities involving end-of-life.

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality

October 12, 2011

Again, discards management is very much a part of materials management. Materials management offers a broader view. The two approaches pursue different goals: discards management primarily is interested in, well, managing discards, sometimes through the lens of sustainability. Materials management pursues the broader goal of sustainability, as a three-legged stool of environment, economy, and society. They also have different boundaries concerning the life cycle and environment. Discards management focuses on actions downstream of the consumer to reduce emissions from waste facilities and also to conserve resources through recovery. Materials management addresses all stages of the life cycle and all pollutants and resources. And they engage different sets of partners. Discards management primarily involves waste generators and the waste industry, and sometimes users of recovered materials. Materials management involves those partners along with everyone else involved in the life cycle of materials.

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality

October 12, 2011

To paraphrase the singer Madonna, we live in a material world. In the past 50 years, humans have consumed more resources than in all of previous history. In 2000, the US consumed 57% more materials than we did just 25 years earlier. Globally, the rate of increase is even higher. Our economy doesnt magically end at the state line. It is very much tied to global markets for these materials, and competition for those materials is increasing. In 1900, 41% of the materials used in the U.S. were renewable. By 1995, only 6% were. The vast majority of materials we use are nonrenewable, including metals, minerals, and fossil-fuel derived products. That dependence means that our economy is fundamentally not sustainable. And with the dependence comes risks not only to our economy, but also, our national security. Thats why the Pentagon has become very interested in e-waste, because of concerns about China controlling the global supply of rare earth metals. The rapid rise in material use has led to serious environmental effects as well, including habitat destruction, biodiversity loss, the collapse of fisheries, the spread of deserts, global warming, and the spread of toxics in the environment. A few specific examples of materials and the environment.
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality October 12, 2011

As you were breathing on your way into our building this morning, you were exposed to a soup of toxic chemicals. Here are the 18 air toxics that our Department focused on as part of a recent inventory of sources of air toxics in the Portland area. A few of these toxics, shown in blue, get into the air as a result of direct offgassing from products. This is what most people think of when they think about toxics and materials. These are toxics that are actually in the materials themselves.

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality

October 12, 2011

Disposal, in red, contributes relatively little to these toxics in the Portland airshed, in part because there is very little actual disposal activity (disposal sites) in the Portland area.

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality

October 12, 2011

But the manufacture and transport of products contributes quite a bit more to these air toxics. Thats whats shown in green. Actually, this is a low estimate.

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality

October 12, 2011

And heres a high estimate. The actual contribution is somewhere between these two. So you can see that the life cycle of materials contributes significantly to toxics in the environment, and that most of these emissions are upstream of the consumer. Toxics in products contribute some to toxics in the air, but far more of the air toxics come from the production and transportation of materials, even seemingly mundane, non-toxic materials such as steel and paper, many of which are not themselves inherently toxic.

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality

October 12, 2011

10

Changing gears, this is the EPAs systems-based greenhouse gas inventory for the United States for 2006. You can see that the lighting, heating, and cooling of buildings contributed 25% to our domestic greenhouse gas emissions in 2006. The transportation of people contributed about the same amount. But the provision of goods and food contributed more about 42%. These include emissions associated with resource extraction, manufacturing, freight, and disposal.

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality

October 12, 2011

11

Yet another way to think of environmental impacts is using a method called the Ecological Footprint. This begins with an estimate of the total land and water potentially available for satisfying human demands for materials and energy, and managing a few of the wastes, primarily greenhouse gases, associated with that demand. If this land and water were evenly apportioned across all human residents of the globe, wed each have about 1.8 hectares to live from. But globally, human demands for materials and other resources requires that the earth provide us with an average of 2.7 hectares per person. In other words, we need 1-1/2 earths to maintain 2007-levels of resource demand in perpetuity. We dont have 1-1/2 earths, so what were doing is eating our proverbial seed corn. Were liquidating natural capital, draining our bank account so to speak, and as a result we have ecosystem collapse and global warming. Now in the US, our footprint is even higher, about 8.0 global hectares per person. So if everyone in the world lived like us, wed require about 4-1/2 earths. Clearly, this cant be sustained.

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality

October 12, 2011

12

For those of you who know our program here at DEQ, the Solid Waste Program, you might be wondering: yes, but, why expand the perspective from solid waste management to materials management? Isnt waste management still important?

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality

October 12, 2011

13

Well, it is. But to answer that question, a little background is in order. The solid waste laws and programs in Oregon, are very much a product of the 1980s. At that time, landfills were major sources of pollution, and we were running out places to put our garbage. Society responded by passing laws that put new environmental controls on landfills, and also established resource conservation as a primary goal. This goal was reflected in the solid waste management hierarchy of reduce first, then reuse, then recycle etc. The hierarchy is called the solid waste management hierarchy but only the lower tiers are really about solid waste management. For example, the environmental and economic value of recycling is primarily in providing industry with materials that displace virgin feedstocks in production. Its value is as a manufacturing strategy, although recycling is more commonly viewed as a way to manage discards. So it is a hybrid of sorts. Moving to the top of the hierarchy, reduce and reuse, what DEQ calls waste prevention really has almost nothing to do with solid waste management. In essence, waste prevention is about changing what we buy and how we use stuff. And that fundamental difference is one reason the solid waste management community has not been very effective at waste prevention, while business and industry has been. The programs that were created in the 1980s and 1990s have served as well. Landfills pollute less, and we now have no shortage of places to put our states garbage. Were recycling and composting a lot more, and conserving resources and reducing pollution as a result. But there are limitations to this framework. Ill mention three.

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality

October 12, 2011

14

The first limitation of the discards management framework is that it institutionalizes focus on the less impactful part of the life cycle. For most materials, the environmental impacts upstream of the user are commonly 10 or 100 times higher than the impacts of waste. For example, upstream processes contribute about 20 times more domestic greenhouse gases than waste management does. Solid waste, in most cases, just isnt very impactful, except to the extent that it represents a lost opportunity to recover potentially valuable materials. Yet our society at times borders on obsession with the trivial. For example, Ive heard innumerable discussions about the merits or challenges of compostable dishware. These discussions almost always focus on what happens at the compost site or the landfill. Almost never does anyone ask about the upstream impacts. But thats where the majority of impacts likely occur. And the focus on solid waste obscures that.

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality

October 12, 2011

15

The framework of discards management can also lead us to make decisions that are penny wise but pound foolish. Let me offer an example. Last year we completed a major life cycle analysis of 30 different practices in residential construction, remodeling and demolition. Several of the practices involved changes to how walls are framed.

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality

October 12, 2011

16

Here we have the reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, over the 70-year life cycle of a typical residential home in Oregon, associated with three different framing practices. These are all expressed relative to a baseline of zero, which represents a standard home. So compared to that standard home, intermediate framing placing studs every 24 rather than every 16, offers a 3% reduction in lifecycle GHG emissions. So does advanced floor framing, and other advanced framing practices. And thats about all DEQ can offer from the narrow perspective of waste prevention.

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality

October 12, 2011

17

But if we take those blinders off, we find much more attractive options. Insulated concrete forms, SIPs, strawbale, even double walls all offer significantly greater reduction in emissions. But they all increase waste generation and in at least two cases, increase the use of materials that are difficult to recycle. Now, as an environmental agency, we should be able to talk about these options. And we do. But they run contrary to our programs goals, and thats pretty uncomfortable. Weve taken the extra effort to look holistically, because were already moving towards materials management. But if we werent, the narrow focus of solid waste would have led us to making recommendations that are really not optimal.

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality

October 12, 2011

18

Finally, while there are still important opportunities to protect the environment by changing how we manage discards, the potential benefit of these changes is limited. Heres an example.

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality

October 12, 2011

19

Youve seen this graph before. I apologize that Im using yet another example about greenhouse gases, but I like examples supported by analysis, and greenhouse gases are among the better documented environmental impacts. On the left we have the domestic emissions of greenhouse gases in 2006. Even with a 32% recovery (recycling and composting) rate, materials contributed 42% to our domestic emissions. Most of these emissions are upstream, in production. So what if we could practically eliminate the impacts of waste? If we could achieve something akin to zero waste, with 95% of municipal solid waste recycled or composted, and 70% of construction and demolition debris recycled, wed reduce emissions by about 6%. Thats really big, but it would still leave most of the emissions associated with materials untouched. We could reduce some of these other emissions through waste prevention (using less), but thats going to have limits too. Sometimes well consume less, but is there room to talk about consuming differently, to pursue environmental outcomes that are more impactful than just reducing waste in landfills? And how about producing differently? Weve not really explored what that might mean, but this 2050 Vision process provides an opportunity to have that discussion.

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality

October 12, 2011

20

So, this system that were operating, the framework of solid waste management, was largely designed in the 1980s. But its not the 1980s any more. The world has changed, and the framework of solid waste management is starting to fray around the edges. At times, it de-emphasizes what is important, it may lead to bad decisions, and it narrows societys options for responding to pressing economic and environmental challenges. Our stakeholders, and businesses in particular, understand that were in a different world. Will DEQ, and Oregon, change along with them?

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality

October 12, 2011

21

I want to mention that this shift, from solid waste to broader materials management, is also happening in other states, and at the EPA. This report here explores how EPA and states might move in the direction of sustainable materials management. DEQ was not substantively involved in this report, and yet we came to some similar conclusions. In this report, EPA recommends that materials be managed on the basis of full life-cycle impacts, not just end-of-life criteria; that EPA and state agencies build capacity and integrate materials management into existing programs; and that we engage in a broad public dialog on life-cycle materials management. This visioning process that were starting with you today represents an important part of that dialog.

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality

October 12, 2011

22

Thats the end of my slides. Id be happy to take any questions. Thank you.

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality

October 12, 2011

23