Why Product Stewardship? THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT PERSPECTIVE Name, date of event Name of presenter

Why Product Stewardship?

THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT PERSPECTIVE

Name, date of eventName of presenter

Overview

• Introduction - Why Product Stewardship?

• History: How Waste Became a Local Government Responsibility

• How Waste Has Changed

• The Impacts of Products and Packaging

• The Product Stewardship Approach

• SWMCB Roles and Activities

• The Future of Product Stewardship

Introduction:Why Product Stewardship?

• Local government “charge” for environmental and public health protection – the arm of the State.

• Environmental impacts – GHG emissions, water, landfills, toxicity.

• Local government costs, such as recycling and HHW management .

HISTORY: HOW WASTE BECAME A LOCAL GOVERNMENT

RESPONSIBILITY

Rapid urbanization

occurred from 1840 – 1920.

History: How Waste Became a Local Government Responsibility

History: How Waste Became a Local Government Responsibility

History: How Waste Became a Local Government Responsibility

History: How Waste Became a Local Government Responsibility

HOW WASTE HAS CHANGED

How Waste Has Changed

* Grey area includes household ash

How Waste Has Changed

Disposable By Design

THE IMPACTS OF PRODUCTS AND PACKAGING

* Use of Appliances and Devices

7%

Provisionof Food

12%

Non-local PassengerTransport

9%

Building HVAC and Lighting

21%

Local PassengerTransport

13%

US Greenhouse Gas EmissionsConsumption View – Global

© 2009 Product Policy InstituteSource: PPI 2009 – Joshua Stolaroff

Products & Packaging44%

Use *

Provision of Goods37%

Infra-structure

1%

Plastic bottles thrown into the Mississippi in Minnesota…

Our Waterways - Plastics

… flow downriver to the Gulf of Mexico and into the ocean, circulate through ocean

currents…

Our Waterways - Plastics

…and eventually end up here.

Our Waterways - Plastics

Our Waterways – Plastics

Our Waterways - Pharmaceuticals

• Small concentrations of pharmaceuticals have been found in:– Drinking water supplies of at least 41

million Americans.– Water at landfills, also known as

leachate, which can eventually end up in rivers.

CO$T

• All Minnesota solid waste costs are at least $1 billion a year, which is impacted by:– Clean up costs for 112 closed landfills.– Costs to manage Household Hazardous Waste (HHW).

• Counties in the SWMCB six-county metro area paid a total of $8.6 million in 2008 to manage HHW.

– Mounting state budget deficits.

MSW Generation and Management

• Total 2008 MSW Generation: 5,926,951 tons.

• For 2007-2008 the amount of MSW generated in Minnesota decreased by 3.5%, while population increased by 0.5%.

So Why Doesn’t the Current System Work?

• Current government waste management programs unwittingly contribute to:– Manufacturer design of wasteful and

toxic products.– Consumer acceptance of disposable

products.• Convenient disposal perpetuates the

problem.

THE PRODUCT STEWARDSHIP APPROACH

Product Stewardship DefinedSWMCB

“Product stewardship means that all parties involved in designing, manufacturing, selling, and using a product share in the financial and physical responsibility for collecting and recycling products at the end of their useful lives.”

Today’s LinearWaste Management System

Manufacturers Retailers Consumers

© 2009 by the California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB)

Recycle & Garbage

Bins

Local Government

Funded

Landfill and Waste-to-Energy

Processes

Recycling

Tomorrow’s “Cradle to Cradle” System

Manufacturers

RetailersConsumers

Materials are recycledinto new products

Take Back Programsmail-back, collection sites,haulers, local governments

© 2009 by the California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB)

Current Minnesota Product Stewardship Efforts

• Focus on specific products to reduce government costs and remove them from the waste stream.– Includes e-waste, paint, CFLs, carpet,

beverage containers, telephone directories, mercury auto switches, and thermostats.

• Products mostly with hazardous character.• Significant investment of time.• Some success, some failure.

E-Waste

• SWMCB and MPCA partnerships with manufacturers, retailers and recyclers.

• Successful passage of legislation in 2007 after several years.

• SWMCB and MPCA evaluating legislation in 2010.

E-Waste: Carver CountyE-waste recycling costs:

– ’06 - $46,000 pre e-waste law.– ‘07 - $31,000 law in effect 7/1/07.– ‘08 – $broke even.– ‘09 - $forecast to break even again.

Due to:– $0.05/lb credit in ’08.– $0.05/lb credit 1st half ’09 & 80%.

credit agreement for 2nd half ’09.               – Balancing revenues with costs.

The winners: Resident’s access to permanent facility & special e-waste collections was free for two years.

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

2006

2007

2008

2009

E-W

AS

TE

free

beg

inni

ng 3

rdqu

arte

r

thru

8/1

8/09

CR

T b

an 7

/1/0

6

Paint

• SWMCB and MPCA involvement in national dialogue with industry partners.

• Minnesota was the site of an industry-led statewide paint management model.

• Minnesota Paint Stewardship bill passed legislature in 2008 & 2009, later vetoed.

Beverage Containers

• Currently recycling 35%.• Collection needs to more

than double to reach 80% goal by 2012 (unlikely).

• Many of the strategies require legislative action.

Container Deposit• 10 states have Container Deposit Laws.• Recycling rates vary:

– Lowest (Massachusetts) 72%.– Average 78%.– Highest (Michigan) 95%.

• Michigan has a 10 cent deposit, the rest have 5 cent deposits.

• Most laws only include 79% of all beverage containers.

SWMCB ROLES AND ACTIVITIES

SWMCB Policy Development

• August 2009 SWMCB meeting - discussion of SWMCB Roles and policy direction:

• Foundation for waste management policy.• A means to increase efficiency (that is, less

waste) in business and government.• A way for government to reduce its waste

management costs.

Recommended SWMCB Roles

Minnesota Integrated Solid Waste Management Stakeholder Process

• Identifies strategies to meet state goals of GHG reduction by 2025, which included Source Reduction, Recycling, Organics, and Waste-to-Energy.

• Metro Centroid:– 3 scenarios – public, incentive based, waste-to-

energy, organics, etc.– Final report concludes Extended Producer

Responsibility/Product Stewardship is leading method – framework policy.

SWMCB Resolution

• On January 27, 2010 the SWMCB adopted a resolution for product stewardship.

THE FUTURE OF PRODUCT STEWARDSHIP

Product Stewardship in the Future

•It could be:– The foundation for waste management

policy;– A means to increase efficiency (that is, less

waste) in business and government;– A way for government to reduce its waste

management costs; and– A movement towards less toxic products

(i.e. “green” chemistry or design for the environment).

Action – What You Can Do

• Lead the way!– Introduce and discuss ideas in your organization.

• Adopt a product stewardship resolution.• Develop product stewardship policies.• Advocate for the product stewardship

legislative platform.• Support local take-back programs.• Form a product stewardship committee.• Join other efforts underway (e.g. MPSC,

SWMCB).

Contact Information

Presenter information