That brings me to my second point: It is critical not only to require reductions of methane from landfills but to move a step further and phase out landfilling of reactive waste, such as Municipal Solid Waste, altogether, achievable by June 1st, 2030.
The benefits are far reaching:
– Significant Methane reductions
– Recover of high-quality resources
– Creation of substantial amounts of sustainable jobs
– Removal of overall toxic impacts to air, soil and water
– $Billions in savings to the taxpayer (vs. forever care as landfills are modestly engineered structures that fail sooner or later)
– Retaining millions if not billions in revenues
Dear Senator Cardin: I received my Ph.D. in May 2021 from UMBC’s School of Public Policy at the age of 71. My dissertation focused on municipal solid waste (MSW) in the U.S. I’ve been busy since receiving my degree. I met with Mayor Brandon Scott and his Department of Public…
We have reviewed your response to our challenge to you, which we submitted on November 20, 2021, and frankly, we find it not only inadequate and misinformed but condescending as well. Let me point out some obvious examples.
…
“Finally, I want to emphasize that King County is open to looking at new technologies for regional waste management, and future updates to our Comp Plan will explore landfilling alternatives, including a waste-to-energy option.” This statement is nothing short of laughable. You have had several studies done over the past decade, at least one of which recommended a waste-to-energy facility as the least-cost, best environmental solution, yet you chose to continue to expand the landfill. How much has this cost the King County taxpayer? How much will it cost our children, and their children, both financially and from an environmental and public health perspective?
…
We have reviewed your response to our challenge to you, which we submitted on November 20, 2021, and frankly, we find it not only inadequate and misinformed but condescending as well. Let me point out some obvious examples.
…
It is with the claims regarding the 90%+ rate of collection for methane gas that we have the strongest disagreements. Your estimates are based on modeling, not measurement. The USEPA, which provides the model you use, has stated that methane emissions from landfills “have been understated by a factor of two,” and that their methods for estimating these emissions are outdated and flawed. (Statement ofSusan Thorneloe, Senior Chemical Engineer, USEPA, July 13, 2021.) Your continued insistence on overly high collection rates is not believable in the face of such commentary, and the issue is not whether you ”followed the procedures” but how much methane you are emitting.
Thank you for cosponsoring HB 1663, Reducing Methane Emissions from Landfills. As you know, landfills are a major source of methane emissions, and your bill will bring the State of Washington in line with Oregon, California, and the USEPA with respect to the efforts to reduce this potent global warming gas.
Unfortunately, even with added controls in place, landfills will remain a significant source of methane emissions. The US EPA recently stated that they have been “understating methane emissions from landfills by a factor of two,” and that their methods for estimating landfill methane emissions are outdated and flawed. (1.) Given your interest in reducing these emissions, we hope you will consider banning the practice of disposing of Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) in the state altogether, achievable by 2030, by moving toward an integrated waste management system, as successfully practiced today in much of Europe.