FoFC – Land and Cultural Preservation Fund, Inc. http://l-cpf.org healthy, vibrant, diverse and resilient communities Thu, 23 Jun 2016 19:21:57 +0000 en-US hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=4.5.3 Zero waste is a goal worth aspiring to (published in FNP 2/19/16) http://l-cpf.org/zero-waste-is-a-goal-worth-aspiring-to-published-in-fnp-21916/ Fri, 19 Feb 2016 17:59:28 +0000 http://l-cpf.org/?p=6520

Zero waste? C’mon, get real. That’s impossible. There’s always going to be trash. Sheeesh, what planet are you from?

Zero waste is a goal. Ending poverty, hunger and war are also goals. Just because we’re not going to achieve them in the near future doesn’t mean we should abandon them. If you start on a trip without a goal, you waste (ha!) your time and effort going in random directions. Read the full article.

Actually, I don’t particularly care for the term “zero waste,” but it seems to have caught on fairly widely. Maryland has a draft zero-waste plan, and it has been proposed to the Frederick County Solid Waste Advisory Steering Committee that Frederick County adopt a zero-waste policy.

Frederick County is nowhere near zero in its waste production. Despite successful efforts in residential and business recycling, composting of yard waste and other diversion efforts, we are still producing thousands of tons of waste every year. Most of its goes to a landfill in Pennsylvania, and it costs us a pretty penny to dispose of it there. In 2014, it cost us $8,347,136 to ship and dump 137,000 tons of trash.

Zero waste can point us in a better direction. Here is the long-term goal, according to Wikipedia: “Zero Waste means designing and managing products and processes to systematically avoid and eliminate the volume and toxicity of waste and materials, conserve and recover all resources, and not burn or bury them.” Does this Wikipedia definition add anything? The short-term goal below seems sufficient.

The short-term goal for Frederick County is to drastically reduce that 137,000 tons we send to a landfill. Here are some realistic ideas:

  • Organics: Frederick County should establish a large composting facility that will divert food, other organics and wet paper from landfills. These materials make up over 30 percent of the overall waste stream. Such a facility could be a private business, a public-private partnership or a county-owned operation. The initial goal of the composting program would be to process food waste from large institutions such as schools, food stores, hospitals and restaurants.
  • Recycling: Improve our recycling program. All county facilities and operations must participate in recycling. Schools are particularly important. Custodial staffs will need training and monitoring to see that this program is properly implemented. Apartment buildings, businesses and medical facilities should be included in a county-wide recycling program. Each municipality should be encouraged to increase its recycling rate in various ways. Some possible approaches:
  • Organize a “Biggest Loser” contest for the municipality that reduces its MSW collection by the largest amount each year.
  • Encourage municipalities to institute save-as-you-recycle (aka pay-as-you-throw) programs. An incentive is already in place: Municipalities currently pay a $69-per-ton tipping fee for waste, but pay no tipping fee for recyclables collected. The savings could be passed on to taxpayers.
  • Resource recovery facility: the co-location of reuse, recycling, compost processing, manufacturing and retail business in a central facility. A resource recovery park can include thrift stores; repair centers for bikes, computers and appliances; a paint-blending location; construction and demolition materials; and secondary manufacturing such as manufacturing dog beds from discarded mattresses. Such a facility could be a private business, a public-private partnership, or a county-owned operation.
  • Refunds on beverage containers: Endorse the Maryland Redeemable Beverage Container Refund and Litter Reduction Act, which will be considered by the Maryland Legislature this session. Four billion beverage containers are purchased in the state of Maryland each year. Only one quarter of these containers are currently recycled. That leaves 3 billion containers that end up in waterways, parks, along the roadside and ultimately in landfills and incinerators. This bill will encourage increased recycling of these 3 billion containers, with the benefit of reducing litter. With passage of this bill, a 5-cent refund would be available for all glass, aluminum and plastic beverage containers. The Maryland Environmental Service would run the program, which would be entirely self-financed through unredeemed deposits. The 10 states that already have programs like this recycle between 60 percent and 90 percent of their bottles.

These points will be a big step towards zero waste. That’s not so hard, is it?

Ellis Burruss is an appointed member of Frederick County’s Solid Waste Steering Committee and a board member for Friends of Frederick County. He is a resident of Brunswick, where he owns a printing business and serves on the City Council.

]]>
4/2/16 REGISTRATION OPEN: The Future of Stream Restoration and Preservation in Maryland http://l-cpf.org/4216-registration-open-the-future-of-stream-restoration-and-preservation-in-maryland/ Thu, 11 Feb 2016 21:52:34 +0000 http://l-cpf.org/?p=6498 FSRP flyer v3 (1)The Future of Stream Restoration and Preservation in Maryland

April 2, 2016

8:30 am – 5:00 pm

Mount St. Mary’s University – Frederick Campus

Register now – it’s FREE!

Program

·    Keynote Speaker:  Dr. Margaret Palmer, University of MD

·    Panel Discussion

·    Sessions for citizens/watershed groups/anglers

·    Sessions for stream restoration professionals

·    Sessions for policy makers, leaders, government officials

Sponsors:  Mount St Mary’s University, Center for Watershed Protection, Hood College, Frederick County Office of Environmental Sustainability, Friends of Frederick County, Society for Ecological Restoration, Maryland Department of Natural Resources and Maryland Biological Stream Survey.

 

 

 

 

 

 

]]>
Countdown to 2017: risks to the Chesapeake Bay http://l-cpf.org/countdown-to-2017-risks-to-the-chesapeake-bay/ Mon, 08 Feb 2016 16:24:13 +0000 http://l-cpf.org/?p=6488 Check out this Center for Progressive Reform report Countdown to 2017 Five Years In, Chesapeake Bay TMDL at Risk Without EPA Enforcement

Executive Summary

When the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) created the Chesapeake Bay Total Maximum Daily Load (Bay TMDL) out of local TMDLs for 92 individual Bay segments in 2010, reactions were polarized. Supporters of Bay restoration hoped this unprecedented, legally enforceable, multi-state approach would break the gridlock and compel compliance with a “pollution diet” that would restore the world-famous estuary from its continued state of degradation and ever-present dead zones. After all, billions of dollars in state and federal funding and decades of previous “cooperative” efforts had repeatedly failed to reach their stated goals, rendering an enforceable TMDL framework the only remaining option. Even opponents of the significant expenditures required to meet the Bay TMDL pollution reduction goals seemed to share the view that this time would be different. As EPA, the seven Bay jurisdictions – Delaware, the District of Columbia, Maryland, New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia – and the Chesapeake Bay Program began work on implementing the Bay TMDL in 2010, affected industries hurried to the courts, legislatures, and media, seeking to overturn the TMDL and obstruct EPA and state regulators from pursuing their commitments under the new framework. To its credit, EPA vigorously defended the TMDL in federal court, twice triumphing. The agency also deflected the most destructive legislative efforts to undermine implementation of the TMDL. However, EPA has no time to rest on its laurels. Instead, EPA must recognize another, equally potent threat to Bay restoration. The seven Bay watershed jurisdictions are lagging far behind in implementing the Bay TMDL….

 

Read the report, and the recommendations.  In summary, they are:

1. Pennsylvania’s failure to uphold its commitments jeopardizes the entire Bay TMDL.

2. Agriculture is the largest pollution source and the most promising and cost-effective sector for future reductions. Accelerating progress means solving the manure crisis.

3. The Bay TMDL is vital to water quality for communities located far from the Chesapeake Bay.

4. The model is not perfect, but is good enough to show where more progress is needed.

5. Too much Bay pollution is unregulated or under-regulated. States must close this gap.

]]>