In my “Paved with good intentions” post, I touched on some of my concerns with recycling rates.  So how do we resolve those issues and create a better working system?

Here are some elements that I think any system needs to have

• Sub-Categories
• A companion per-capita metric
• The ability to reconcile waste to energy and alternate daily cover as something different than trash or recycling.
• Shows the different benefits that come from recycling different materials
• Deducts for discards at processing facilities AND mills.

In my “Strength in Numbers” post, I already addressed the need to use a companion per-capita metric when looking at recycling rates.

So as a homage to the “12 days of Christmas”, let’s say that we break out the others into a week-long “5 days of fixing recycling metrics.”

Day 5:  Why I love WARM

Of all the various metrics currently out there, there is one that I think is key to fixing our recycling rates.  That is EPA’s WARM model. Other than metrics that I have developed myself, it has been the only metric that I have been excited about in decades.  And quite frankly, I am even more excited about WARM than many of my own metrics.

So why do I like WARM so much:

• WARM measures lifecycle impacts of recycling, not just how much stuff is diverted from a landfill.  It is the first mainstream recycling metric I have seen that measures both impact and tonnage.  As I state in a presentation that I do, “if you only measure what doesn’t go into a landfill, littering is as good as recycling.”  WARM is the first measurement tool that I have seen that finally measures recycling in a way that shows that recycling is better than littering.

• WARM includes lifecycle impact comparisons for waste reduction and waste-to-energy, allowing a valid form of comparison among various solid waste options.  This finally reconciles the WTE and waste reduction slices of the pie that traditional recycling rates have failed to measure.

• WARM shows the different lifecycle impacts of recycling different materials.  As I mentioned earlier in this series, it is more impactful to recycle some materials than others.  WARM is the first mainstream metric I have seen that finally shows that not all recycling is created equal.

• WARM allows for data to be compared either in greenhouse gas impacts (equivalent tons of CO2) or energy impacts (BTUs).  This allows the same metric to be readily tweaked for different comparisons and different audiences.

To be fair, there are still a few gaps in the WARM model:

• It does not capture some other impacts such as water impacts, or hazardous waste impacts.  As such, one of two choices that looks best in WARM may be different if you were measuring those other impacts.

• It still does not discount the outthrows, contaminants and other materials that pass through processing facilities and mills un-utilized , materials that still end up as waste.  As such, it is still only measuring the materials collected, not the materials actually recycled.

• WARM still does not reconcile stuff that is used as alternative daily cover or other engineering beneficial uses in a landfill.

Also, there are still a couple of things to be aware of when using WARM.  I’m not sure they are flaws with the WARM metric but they are things to be aware of to prevent misuse.

• WARM requires relativity.  It is dependent on comparing 2 different scenarios.  That could be comparing 2 different programs all inclusively (including all of their waste and recycling decisions), or it could mean evaluating 2 different scenarios (e.g. if right now you are sending 100 tons of waste to a landfill, what would be the impact of recycling the 20 tons of paper in that waste and sending the rest to a waste-to-energy facility).  It does not let you exist in a vacuum and say “this is the total climate impact of my waste and recycling program.”

• I still think you need to need to report sub-categories.  WARM does a better job than other recycling metrics at comparing one program that say includes landscape composting vs. another that does not.  However, if comparing programs in very different circumstances (say a program in a climate with a 12-month growing season vs one with a 7 month growing season) without line items, you cannot see how many of the impacts are from things that are circumstantial differences rather than actual program differences.  If you are trying to use the metrics and comparisons to improve your program, you will eventually hit a point where the only way you can compete with another program would be to uproot your municipality or facility and move it to a different climate.  I think that needs to be more transparent than it is.  While that problem is not unique to WARM, it is unfortunately not fixed by WARM.

Despite its few remaining limitations, WARM is a major breakthrough in terms of measuring recycling and solid waste decisions.  As someone that has obsessed about recycling rates and their value as a comparison tool far longer and more often than most sane people should, I cannot encourage strongly enough for folks to use WARM.  It provides a great new option to evaluate, promote, and compare your recycling program.  If we could collectively start using WARM, and in doing so, agree to measure net recycling (discounting the discards at both the processing facilities and mills), and show our subcategories, we would have an incredibly valuable recycling metric.  That would be a gift to recycling programs and public planners everywhere.

Roger Guzowski

Roger has spent more than 20 years in the recycling field and has managed award-winning campus recycling programs in both Massachusetts and California.
Throughout that time, Roger has been one of the more prolific public speakers about recycling in the country, having presented in almost every region of the country and for a broad spectrum of organizations.
Roger has also been a frequent contributor to several recycling list-servs and an author or contributor to several editorials and publications.
Roger has played a leadership role in several state and national collegiate recycling councils, and has been actively involved with a variety of recycling organizations including MassRecycle, the California Resource Recovery Association, the Northeast Resource Recovery Association, and the National Recycling Coalition.

• Pin It
• Share
• Tweet