Tools for a circular economy: Assessing waste taxation in a CGE multi-pollutant framework.

Economic theory states that incineration and landfill taxation can effectively diminish the environmental impacts of pollution and resource use by reducing their associated pollutants while stimulating the reuse and recycling of materials, and therefore, fostering a circular economy. The aim of this research is to assess the economic and environmental effects of these taxes in Spain in different scenarios with a detailed dynamic computable general equilibrium (CGE) model, as there are no studies analyzing this in detail. We focus on the economic impact on GDP and sectorial production and the environmental impact on different categories: global warming potential, marine eutrophication potential, photochemical ozone formation potential, particulate matter, human toxicity (cancer and noncancer), ecotoxicity, and depletion of fossil resources. We find in all scenarios that these taxes have a limited economic impact while reducing all of the environmental impact categories analyzed. The study reinforces the theory that policy makers need to impose taxes on landfill and incineration to reinforce the circularity of the economy and reduce environmental burdens, but also demonstrates that they can improve their design without additional costs.

Evaluation of Externality Costs in Life-Cycle Optimization of Municipal Solid Waste Management Systems.

The development of sustainable solid waste management (SWM) systems requires consideration of both economic and environmental impacts. Societal life-cycle costing (S-LCC) provides a quantitative framework to estimate both economic and environmental impacts, by including "budget costs" and "externality costs". Budget costs include market goods and services (economic impact), whereas externality costs include effects outside the economic system (e.g., environmental impact). This study demonstrates the applicability of S-LCC to SWM life-cycle optimization through a case study based on an average suburban U.S. county of 500 000 people generating 320 000 Mg of waste annually. Estimated externality costs are based on emissions of CO2, CH4, N2O, PM2.5, PM10, NOx, SO2, VOC, CO, NH3, Hg, Pb, Cd, Cr (VI), Ni, As, and dioxins. The results indicate that incorporating S-LCC into optimized SWM strategy development encourages the use of a mixed waste material recovery facility with residues going to incineration, and separated organics to anaerobic digestion. Results are sensitive to waste composition, energy mix and recycling rates. Most of the externality costs stem from SO2, NOx, PM2.5, CH4, fossil CO2, and NH3 emissions. S-LCC proved to be a valuable tool for policy analysis, but additional data on key externality costs such as organic compounds emissions to water would improve future analyses.

Life-Cycle Costing of Food Waste Management in Denmark: Importance of Indirect Effects.

Prevention has been suggested as the preferred food waste management solution compared to alternatives such as conversion to animal fodder or to energy. In this study we used societal life-cycle costing, as a welfare economic assessment, and environmental life-cycle costing, as a financial assessment combined with life-cycle assessment, to evaluate food waste management. Both life-cycle costing assessments included direct and indirect effects. The latter are related to income effects, accounting for the marginal consumption induced when alternative scenarios lead to different household expenses, and the land-use-changes effect, associated with food production. The results highlighted that prevention, while providing the highest welfare gains as more services/goods could be consumed with the same income, could also incur the highest environmental impacts if the monetary savings from unpurchased food commodities were spent on goods/services with a more environmentally damaging production than that of the (prevented) food. This was not the case when savings were used, e.g., for health care, education, and insurances. This study demonstrates that income effects, although uncertain, should be included whenever alternative scenarios incur different financial costs. Furthermore, it highlights that food prevention measures should not only demote the purchase of unconsumed food but also promote a low-impact use of the savings generated.

Estimation of marginal costs at existing waste treatment facilities.

This investigation aims at providing an improved basis for assessing economic consequences of alternative Solid Waste Management (SWM) strategies for existing waste facilities. A bottom-up methodology was developed to determine marginal costs in existing facilities due to changes in the SWM system, based on the determination of average costs in such waste facilities as function of key facility and waste compositional parameters. The applicability of the method was demonstrated through a case study including two existing Waste-to-Energy (WtE) facilities, one with co-generation of heat and power (CHP) and another with only power generation (Power), affected by diversion strategies of five waste fractions (fibres, plastic, metals, organics and glass), named "target fractions". The study assumed three possible responses to waste diversion in the WtE facilities: (i) biomass was added to maintain a constant thermal load, (ii) Refused-Derived-Fuel (RDF) was included to maintain a constant thermal load, or (iii) no reaction occurred resulting in a reduced waste throughput without full utilization of the facility capacity. Results demonstrated that marginal costs of diversion from WtE were up to eleven times larger than average costs and dependent on the response in the WtE plant. Marginal cost of diversion were between 39 and 287 € Mg(-1) target fraction when biomass was added in a CHP (from 34 to 303 € Mg(-1) target fraction in the only Power case), between -2 and 300 € Mg(-1) target fraction when RDF was added in a CHP (from -2 to 294 € Mg(-1) target fraction in the only Power case) and between 40 and 303 € Mg(-1) target fraction when no reaction happened in a CHP (from 35 to 296 € Mg(-1) target fraction in the only Power case). Although average costs at WtE facilities were highly influenced by energy selling prices, marginal costs were not (provided a response was initiated at the WtE to keep constant the utilized thermal capacity). Failing to systematically address and include costs in existing waste facilities in decision-making may unintendedly lead to higher overall costs at societal level. To avoid misleading conclusions, economic assessment of alternative SWM solutions should not only consider potential costs associated with alternative treatment but also include marginal costs associated with existing facilities.

Life cycle costing of waste management systems: overview, calculation principles and case studies.

This paper provides a detailed and comprehensive cost model for the economic assessment of solid waste management systems. The model was based on the principles of Life Cycle Costing (LCC) and followed a bottom-up calculation approach providing detailed cost items for all key technologies within modern waste systems. All technologies were defined per tonne of waste input, and each cost item within a technology was characterised by both a technical and an economic parameter (for example amount and cost of fuel related to waste collection), to ensure transparency, applicability and reproducibility. Cost items were classified as: (1) budget costs, (2) transfers (for example taxes, subsidies and fees) and (3) externality costs (for example damage or abatement costs related to emissions and disamenities). Technology costs were obtained as the sum of all cost items (of the same type) within a specific technology, while scenario costs were the sum of all technologies involved in a scenario. The cost model allows for the completion of three types of LCC: a Conventional LCC, for the assessment of financial costs, an Environmental LCC, for the assessment of financial costs whose results are complemented by a Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) for the same system, and a Societal LCC, for socio-economic assessments. Conventional and Environmental LCCs includes budget costs and transfers, while Societal LCCs includes budget and externality costs. Critical aspects were found in the existing literature regarding the cost assessment of waste management, namely system boundary equivalency, accounting for temporally distributed emissions and impacts, inclusions of transfers, the internalisation of environmental impacts and the coverage of shadow prices, and there was also significant confusion regarding terminology. The presented cost model was implemented in two case study scenarios assessing the costs involved in the source segregation of organic waste from 100,000 Danish households and the subsequent co-digestion of organic waste with animal manure. Overall, source segregation resulted in higher financial costs than the alternative of incinerating the organic waste with the residual waste: 1.6 M€/year, of which 0.9 M€/year was costs for extra bins and bags used by the households, 1.0 M€/year for extra collections and -0.3 M€/year saved on incineration.

Material resources, energy, and nutrient recovery from waste: are waste refineries the solution for the future?

Waste refineries focusing on multiple outputs of material resources, energy carriers, and nutrients may potentially provide more sustainable utilization of waste resources than traditional waste technologies. This consequential life cycle assessment (LCA) evaluated the environmental performance of a Danish waste refinery solution against state-of-the-art waste technology alternatives (incineration, mechanical-biological treatment (MBT), and landfilling). In total, 252 scenarios were evaluated, including effects from source-segregation, waste composition, and energy conversion pathway efficiencies. Overall, the waste refinery provided global warming (GW) savings comparable with efficient incineration, MBT, and bioreactor landfilling technologies. The main environmental benefits from waste refining were a potential for improved phosphorus recovery (about 85%) and increased electricity production (by 15-40% compared with incineration), albeit at the potential expense of additional toxic emissions to soil. Society's need for the outputs from waste, i.e., energy products (electricity vs transport fuels) and resources (e.g., phosphorus), and the available waste composition were found decisive for the selection of future technologies. On the basis of the results, it is recommended that a narrow focus on GW aspects should be avoided as most waste technologies may allow comparable performance. Rather, other environmental aspects such as resource recovery and toxic emissions should receive attention in the future.