Page 269 - Week 01 - Wednesday, 15 February 2012
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
The Greens’ approach would see much more emphasis on source separation, which is an approach to waste management that focuses on recovering and recycling materials to their highest economic and environmental value. It presents different types of waste streams from being mixed together, becoming contaminated and therefore difficult or impossible to reuse. As the name suggests, resources are separated at the source, be that at home or at work, and this is usually done by separating the resources into different containers. Providing a third bin for the collection of organic and green waste is one possible example of that.
The contrast to this approach is “commingled recycling” or what is called “dirty recycling”. Under this approach waste streams are collected together, so that recyclables are mixed with non-recyclables. Typically, an attempt is then made to separate this waste after collection, and that is what a dirty MRF does. That is what the government is suggesting.
There is strong evidence that using source separation, followed by the processing of organic waste material through composting, is the best approach if we want to minimise greenhouse gases. The European Union’s study of waste management said: “Source separation of waste followed by recycling and composting or anaerobic digestion gives the lowest net flux of greenhouse gases compared with other options.”
Source separation also triumphs in terms of overall environmental benefits. This becomes clear when there is a full life cycle analysis of different waste management options. As I pointed out to the government, this analysis was simply not done in the waste strategy.
If we look across the border at Goulburn, the contamination rates in Goulburn’s city to soil third bin collection system are very low. This is because residents know that their organic waste is going back into agriculture, which is something they value. Removing organic waste and hence methane emissions from ACT landfills by biodigestion and composting it to activated carbon and biofertilisers would further reduce our emissions footprint from imported oil-based fertiliser use.
The benefits of using high quality organic material in soil are, unfortunately, often overlooked but they are substantial. Land degradation and declining soil fertility are causing big problems in Australia. Using organic material in our soils sequesters carbon. It preserves nitrogen and phosphorus for agriculture. Compost can also replace chemical and oil-based fertilisers, herbicides and pesticides and improve soil fertility for more food production.
All of these benefits are really only available when we use source separated organic material. Source separation recovers the highest quality organic material for composting with the highest reuse value, which can then be used to enrich soils and sequester carbon. Source separation would be enhanced by an education program. And source separation has a synergy with the plastic bag ban, because if you do not put organic matter in your landfill bin there is really no need for a bin liner.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video