The daily digest of Twin Cities culture | Secrets of the City

Are we really so close to eliminating daily waste that we need to be worried about relying on it?

Me thinks not...

As I noted in this post, the "not-ready for mainstream media" has contributed much good journalism and opinion of late to the Minnesotans who know where to find it.

Like the white belt hipsters who read this site, for example.

12:47--Says that according to Xcel, energy efficiency can be achieved with no rate increase.

-Sen. Klobuchar

Um, what?

Yeah, the excuse that people will be loosing their jobs is quite annoying, especially when it comes to nasty or worthless jobs.

Although we have made some steps to reduce pollution, there is still large amounts of problematic waste all around us. Living in the city, there is nothing more depressing than:

1) Being blown by the hot diesel exhaust of busses or semis. The UMN campus connectors are the worst.

2) Seeing multicolored oil slicks in puddles when its raining, and then thinking that this water ends up in our city lakes. (where I would like to take a dip sometime)

3) Breathing the white cloud of smoke out of someone's car which is obviously burning a lot of oil. Eww.

Considering the large migration to cities, I envision a place where we could all live in a truly clean-air environment. The abundance of cars, snow-blowers, lawn mowers, and practically everything else that is fossil fuel powered seems to point far away from this dream.

I ride my bike to work, I collect the organic refuse in my apt for composting and I pay extra to use wind electricity, I'd like to think I make a small difference...

This isn't just about our children, our own health is being damaged by all this local pollution.

"I collect the organic refuse in my apt for composting . . . I'd like to think I make a small difference."

I'm guessing your downwind neighbors think you make a fairly big difference.

Solar Energy, the Momentum Has Started
Solar energy is the most abundant natural resource we have, and that technology has been around for awhile, but it wasn't practical from a financial perspective until now. So why should the customer have to pay a premium price for renewable energy when is cost less to produce? When we can provide the average homeowner with the ability to produce their own electricity and keep the saving instead of paying for Commercials, Stadiums and other corporate greed we are making headway in solving our energy crisis.
There is a solution! I recently learned of a company that has figured out how to get Clean, Safe, Affordable Solar Power to the masses, and they do it without requiring any significant investment on the part of the homeowner. Thats right they have taken down the traditional barriers to Solar Power. This company is helping homeowners convert to solar the easy way through a rental agreement. The customer gets a worry free solar system custom designed for 100% of their current consumption of electricity & an electric rate that is frozen at or below today's rate for up to 25 years. We need to do all we can to save energy and solar is one way to do it ; lets catch the wave that is rolling across the country with Solar Energy. We can win over the big Corporations that want pollute and dirty our green earth. We can be part of the solution and not be part of the problem. This program is an easy way that we can have an impact on the environment and our pocket book. http://www.begreengosolar.com

If anything, this looks to prove that we humans are here to do what we want with this planet until Jesus returns. Oils slicks and global warming don't matter when the return of Jesus will cure all ills. He will make it better.

Damn.. Cyrillic doesn't translate well.

Oops, my bad.

What is it with these Minneapolis liberals who moan on and on about how great they are for the environment? It's lovely you're "doing your part," but you shouldn't need constant affirmation. What ever happened to people doing good for the sake of good and not as an attention-getter?

Troll! Go start a trash fire in the barrel in your back yard.

You know was take a lot of fossil fuels to produce?

GASOLINE!

Dick Nixon also created the farm policies that encouraged farmers to convert their corn to high profit High Fructose corn syrup. That sure has done wonders for the heath of people around the world.

"Also, the corn lobby appears distasteful."

They are an ugly bunch, by and large. I mean, who wears plaid suits anymore?

What ever happened to people doing good for the sake of good and not as an attention-getter?

Whatever happened to people doing things for the sake of good instead of just sitting back, doing nothing and complaining about people doing things to just to get attention as an attention-getter.

By the way, this isn't a swipe at you, I'm just saying that either side of any issue is full of attention-whores.

Don't hate the player, hate the game.

Welll at least they don't go sprinting around corners like the smokingban lobby does.

This nonsense about ethanol taking extra fossil fuels to produce is nonsense. You see, city slickers, farmers grew corn long before there was ethanol and will continue to grow corn with or without ethanol. Increased ethanol use doesn't directly mean more tractors in the fields. The tractors are already in the fields. The real concern should be that more and more farmers are forgoing soybean crops for corn. Crop rotation is important to maintaining healthy soils.

If you would like to see corn, gas up the Yugo and take the back streets out to the far reaches of the city. Corn is that big giant green stuff.

"Bobby what's the carbon footprint of cooling your house to 70 degrees 8 months of the year?"

I agree with your point, to the extent that someone chooses to do that. However, in the south (of here), you can design homes that stay relatively cool (no, not 70, but with open breezeways, shaded apots, etc.) and I'm assuming that someone very aware of such issues would do so, and NOT run the AC. Difference is that, here, you don't have the choice - you need to expend energy to stay warm enough to live.

I agree with your point, to the extent that someone chooses to do that. However, in the south (of here),

But you have to live in the South!
and yes anything South of Ames, Iowa is the South!

Vlado4:

I didn't say it was attention whoring to discuss the environment and things that people can do to help. I was just commenting on the general "look-at-me" I'm doing good things, trend in America. Kind of like the (Red) campaign or the Livestrong bracelets. They are good causes but there are a lot of people who are just buying into it because that's the thing to do, not because it's the right thing. And I brought it up because it's not just liberals doing it, it's everyone. Still, there's no in the case of the environment and the two campaigns I just mentioned, who really cares why people are doing it as long as they are doing it.

the corn lobby is pure evil

Sure, wayne. Unlike these guys...

Ah good old Morris, my adopted home town.

I could have done without the stale beer smell on the occasional morning but they got some good things happening there. I have a picture of their windmill right here on my desk. I'm hoping for good things from the hydrogen generation pilot project they are trying.

Minneosta?

Yeah, that Morris hydrogen project is way cool...I posted a notice about it on a service called Stateline.com (Kevin probably knows this one -- its for policy wonks).

Seriously, I'm really rather fond of you Wayne. Like the smart, goofy son I never had. If you are serious about quitting, I do wish you luck.

Some info on incinerators/RDF facilities:

One [pdf]
Two [pdf]

More at www.no-burn.org. Also, for anyone with access to the U's library search website, there's a lot of peer-reviewed literature out there, with much of it dedicated to improving the quality of these types of operations. That doesn't necessarily make RDF an appropriate choice, of course.

I just found one (Report: comparison of environmental impacts from solid waste treatment and disposal facilities, Waste Management and Research 17, no. 3 [1999]) that concludes:

Releases of pollutants to the environment were determined on the basis of per tonne municipal solid waste (MSW) received for three widely implemented technologies: (1) landfilling with energy recovery; (2) waste to energy; and (3) mechanical separation to refuse-derived fuel (RDF)/compost with RDF incineration for energy recovery. All three technologies were considered with a nominal capacity of 1000 tonnes MSW per day. The analysis was based on the solid waste composition of Athens, Greece, and the facilities were assumed to meet EU Directives and to include the proper disposal of residues. It was found that landfilling with energy recovery produces slightly higher air pollution and greenhouse gas releases, mainly owing to the emission of uncollected biogas. Released leachate rates are at a ratio of 5:1:2 for landfilling with energy recovery, waste to energy and mechanical separation to RDF/compost with RDF incineration for energy recovery, respectively. Landfilling with energy recovery does not produce air emissions of toxic metals, but releases dioxins and furans at the same levels as the other two methods; polychlorinated biphenyls are also released by landfilling with energy recovery, mainly due to electricity production from biogas. Mechanical separation to RDF/compost with RDF incineration for energy recovery produces lower releases per tonne MSW for most pollutants, but the pollutants are more widely dispersed in soils, groundwater and the atmosphere. The methodology used is not significantly affected by uncertainties and may be used for the further evaluation of environmental impacts and the assessment of integrated MSW management schemes.

Since this study took place in an EU country where environmental laws are must stricter, you can assume the environmental impact would be more severe here.

if rock-tenn uses refuse derived fuel (RDF) to satisfy their power needs, the public health in the neighboring communities will suffer greatly.

Could you provide any back up for this what so ever?
I was under the impression that the Garbage Burner in Minneapolis was quite clean. Isn't the amount of pollution have more to do with scrubber techonology than what they are burning?

what makes you think it's clean? would you stick your head down the smoke stacks and breathe deeply?

scrubbers do some good, but the heavy metals, dioxins and furans are still there and have to go somewhere, usually to landfills where it can leach into the ground water - and infect other communities. since the RDF comes from households, there is a high concentration of plastics, PVCs and other things that produce highly toxic fumes when burned.

oh yeah, that back up you wanted.

"This just in from the US Supreme Court, via the BBC."

A slightly more informed analysis (from law.com) than what the BBC can normally do:

"The Court had three questions before it.

Do states have the right to sue the EPA to challenge its decision?

Does the Clean Air Act give EPA the authority to regulate tailpipe emissions of greenhouse gases?

Does EPA have the discretion not to regulate those emissions?

The Court said yes to the first two questions. On the third, it ordered EPA to re-evaluate its contention it has the discretion not to regulate tailpipe emissions. The Court said the agency has so far provided a "laundry list" of reasons that include foreign policy considerations.

The majority said the agency must tie its rationale more closely to the Clean Air Act.

"EPA has offered no reasoned explanation for its refusal to decide whether greenhouse gases cause or contribute to climate change," Stevens said. He was joined by his liberal colleagues, Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David Souter, and the Court's swing voter, Justice Anthony Kennedy.

(Note that the "and if it tries to make the case that CO2 is not involved, it would have a hard time winning it" comment was only the slghtly mad reporter's opinion, and is not part of the opinion.)

I think a significant environmental issue is one that has not been addressed.

What happens to Minnesota's waste paper when the largest paper re cycler in the state is forced to shut its doors?
What will be the energy cost of transporting the raw material much of which was collected in curbside recycling buckets of the states population?

Rock-Tenn in St. Paul recycles nearly 1% of the countries waste paper into consumer products such as beverage containers, cereal boxes and cardboard boxes.
***************************************

"Yeah, the excuse that people will be loosing their jobs is quite annoying, especially when it comes to nasty or worthless jobs."
*******************************************
I take offense to your observation since it's my damn job you are talking about. It is not nasty or worthless and the average Rock-Tenn salary in St. Paul comes in around 60K.

"I take offense to your observation since it's my damn job you are talking about. It is not nasty or worthless and the average Rock-Tenn salary in St. Paul comes in around 60K"

Curious how this comes out here. Oft times, the outlook of people who pride themselves on their environmental activism and correctness as they view productive pursuits (i.e., work, employment, "industry", evil corporations) is quite negative - "industry" is destroying the earth, "industry" has ruined our air, The Evil Corporation has despoiled the homeland of the cricket-eyed owl, etc.

But "industry" is mostly us: people making a living, producing some product which others of us wish to buy. The Evil Corporation is typically staffed by thousands of people who drink, try to decide if Lost is better than Survivor, argue about who has the best haggis, and post comments on internet boards, and the stock in those companies is typically owned by all of those same people in their 401ks or IRAs. If you have some sort of retirement or pension account, you're likely one of the owners of Haliburton and Exxon.

It gets sort of delightfully clearer when someone phrases it as indelicately as was done here - "jobs" are hurting the environment. Yeah, and they're our jobs, and, when you stop and realize that "industry" can be personalized right down to "Joe in accounting", or "Jane the weird Marketing VP", you see that it's not simply a matter of some evil, Gaia-hating fiends who must be stopped. It's us, and our demand and expectation that we'll work and garner rewards from work and produce things that make the world function, and any call to "stop industry" really means, let's lose all these neat modern products and go back in time to when things were simpler and cleaner.

But everyone died before thirty then, so I think we should think about it first.

Thanks for adding your links and opinions, Rick. Good to hear an insider's perspective.