Translated material
Throw away wisely
Instead of the lights of the mind, the Everests of our shit will rise.
Robert Rozhdestvensky
According to Gosstroy estimates, in the next five to seven years, the annual cost of housing and communal services reform in per capita terms will be at least $450 [1] . It is difficult to say how justified this figure is, but in any case one can hardly count on the fact that such expenses will be covered by utility bills or the budget. Meanwhile, the structure and functioning mechanisms of housing and communal services can be rebuilt in such a way that it becomes profitable. This is evidenced, in particular, by “junk arithmetic”.
According to calculations made by the relevant committee of the Federation Council, a Russian family of four throws out 100 kg of waste paper, 3 kg of aluminum foil, 150 kg of various plastics, a thousand glass bottles, 3.5 kg of old clothes, and approximately 3.5 kg of shoes per year. This list does not include old electrical appliances and furniture. If these figures are recalculated for the entire population, it turns out that in our country more than 40 million tons of municipal waste are deposited in landfills and landfills annually [2] . And this is 11.4 million tons of waste paper, 2.6 million tons of plastic, 1.1 million tons of textiles, 700 thousand tons of glass, 600 thousand tons of scrap metal, 10 million tons of organic waste. Moreover, the growth in the volume of packaging containers alone is 4-5% per year. The market price of all this raw material, which is in steady demand and owned by local authorities under current legislation, exceeds $1.2 billion. However, waste still remains a headache for the authorities, not a source of prosperity.
Non-payments in this area are a chronic phenomenon. Utility companies, deprived of normal funding, saving on transport, often dump garbage anywhere. Up to 10 thousand hectares of usable land are alienated annually for the disposal of household waste. If we take into account unauthorized dumps, this figure will have to at least double. The vast majority of landfills and landfills are sources of air, soil, surface and ground water pollution.
It seems that we have entered a period of a new Middle Ages. Then garbage and waste were simply thrown out next to the house. It’s the same now - around most villages and towns there are a lot of garbage heaps. In cities, landfills within city limits have become commonplace. Even in Moscow there are hundreds of them. A new business is developing around large cities - purchasing land plots for organizing solid waste landfills - this turns out to be more profitable than construction. In large centers they are trying to solve the waste problem in the most unsuccessful way - by building waste incineration plants. They are supposedly harmless and generate cheap electricity. This is a dangerous misconception, if not a myth deliberately introduced into the consciousness of citizens. Such factories emit particularly toxic compounds - dioxins, flue gases and ash. The costs of their neutralization are not offset by income from the sale of generated electricity. In addition, the specific (per ton of waste processed per year) costs for the construction of such plants are much higher than for the creation of complex waste processing facilities.
Thus, everything related to household waste has actually become an area of environmental and economic crime. This is well illustrated by the so-called “Pushchino case” (1996), which ended successfully only thanks to the intervention of the city public and Greenpeace Russia. We will return to it later.
Unlike other types of waste, reducing the amount of those classified as household waste depends not only on the authorities, but also on each individual person. Therefore, it is so important to conduct educational work among the population and actively engage in environmental education of the younger generation. Today, such educational programs cover approximately 30% of the Russian population, mainly schoolchildren. At the same time, according to sociological surveys, only every fifth of them is ready to personally participate in practical matters of environmental protection.
The practice of many countries shows that long-term government programs for involving the population in environmental activities and, in particular, the separate waste collection program have a remarkable effect. And references to the fact that Russia has not yet matured to such programs due to the low culture of the population are completely unfounded. After all, until relatively recently, waste management in the country was completely different. Every nail, every screw was valued. Rags, bones, old galoshes, broken equipment were not thrown away, but were handed over to the junk dealer in exchange for children's toys, threads, needles and other small items. Every village house, every dacha had a compost heap, where weeds from the garden and food waste turned into excellent fertilizer in two years. After the war, all the equipment remaining on the battlefields was melted down into combines and tractors.
Unfortunately, the powerful industry created in the country largely worked for itself: to extract the most ore with the help of the largest excavator, in order to smelt the most steel in the world and make the largest excavator from it. Instead of one good product, ten bad ones were produced, which soon failed and turned into scrap metal. According to Doctor of Economic Sciences M. Ya. Lemeshev, by the beginning of perestroika, so much of it had accumulated in the country that it was possible to safely close all the mines - there would be enough metal for 10 years [3] .
But in the Soviet years, at least there was an established system for collecting recyclable materials. Now in Russia this work is not being done at all. But the capacity for processing individual components of solid waste in many cities has been preserved, but there is nothing to load them with. Meanwhile, 35-45% of solid waste is an excellent raw material for industry, and 25-35% after composting can be used as fertilizer.
Fig.
That is, the amount of solid waste that needs to be disposed of can be reduced by at least two and a half times. However, to do this, the garbage must be divided into components. From the mess that ends up in trash cans today, no more than 11-15% of secondary resources can be extracted. And biodegradable (organic) waste cannot be used at all.
Experience Pushchina
In the small town of Pushchino near Moscow, where the Scientific Center for Biological Research of the Russian Academy of Sciences is located, the first attempts to establish separate collection of household waste were made ten years ago. From the very beginning, we understood: the main thing is to instill in the population, and above all children, an environmental culture and, in particular, a culture of waste management, the loss of which Academician D. S. Likhachev wrote with pain: “The problem in question is - a reproach to us all. And to those who, after spending time in nature, do not take the leftovers with them, and to those who produce an abundance of cans, boxes, bottles... without applying the mind and means to dispose of them, and to educators of children and youth... and spiritual shepherds, who carries the Word of God, in which an indispensable attribute was the protection of the world around us.”
By the way, we really counted on the support of the church: we asked local clergy to explain to parishioners the importance of the problem in their sermons. However, things didn’t go beyond promises - so people walk along the road littered with garbage to the temple (where behind the fence there is cleanliness and order). It’s good that schoolchildren from time to time hold campaigns to clean it up.
The public of Pushchino was forced to deal with the problem of household waste in 1996 in connection with the already mentioned “Pushchino case”. By that time, the Zhernovka training ground (essentially an ordinary ravine 11 km from the city), which had been operating since 1969, was almost full. The purchase of a new land plot for a landfill and its engineering development required significant funds and time (six to seven years).
The administration found a way out - it decided, together with the Austrian company Forderanlagen und Maschinenbau AG Wien (FMW) and a number of other companies, a kind of “garbage brokers,” to build a power plant that runs on waste. The fuel for it was to be briquettes consisting of 78% household waste and 22% petroleum products. Turkey undertook to produce these briquettes in the amount of 100 thousand tons per year from Austrian garbage. In the future, and a very vague one, it was planned to burn Pushchino garbage at the plant. The most piquant thing is that the Austrians were going to begin construction of the plant only three years after signing the contract, and the delivery of briquettes to a special site near Serpukhov in the declared volumes was supposed to begin immediately.
The city's public rebelled: it demanded an independent examination, attracted Greenpeace, and appealed to the regional Duma with a protest. As a result, the project was not only buried, but the FMW company was actually blocked from entering the Russian market.
However, this did not solve the problem of waste disposal. And then an initiative group, which included activists who fought against the construction of a waste incineration plant, including the author of this article, as well as a number of scientists from the Institute of Biological Problems of the Russian Academy of Sciences, proposed that the administration switch to separate collection of solid waste and the use of components as recyclable materials. This made it possible to extend the existence of the Zhernovka testing ground for many years. The then director of the Housing and Communal Services Department (UZHKH) A.V. Afanaskin, the current head of the city, supported the idea. At the beginning of 1998, the solid waste management scheme developed by the engineering and consulting company Geopolis was approved at an extended meeting of the environmental committee with the participation of representatives of the administration, deputies and the public of the city of Pushchino.
Unfortunately, due to the default, it was not possible to begin implementing the separate collection program. But active promotion of rational waste management in the city continued - thematic exhibitions, school environmental competitions were organized, and the local newspaper periodically published articles on this topic.
Finally, in 1999, the city’s housing and communal services managed to organize a mobile collection point for cardboard containers at retail outlets. Two years later, in one of the microdistricts, enthusiasts began an experiment in separate collection (a grant from the international environmental program ROLL allocated for the project “Household waste is a source of recyclable materials”). And in February 2003, by order of the head of housing and communal services, this experiment was extended to the entire city.
The work was carried out mainly with grant funds. Schoolchildren went door to door and handed out bags for separate collection. They explained what waste should be put where, and how to crush it correctly.
The primary processing point for recyclable materials was refurbished and equipped. The removal of fractions to it was carried out every other day in any weather. The most difficult task was finding buyers for recyclable materials, since our volumes are relatively small and it was not very profitable to drive vehicles for them.
Food waste was removed separately, mixed with sewage sludge, treated with reagents that convert heavy metals into insoluble form, and composted for a year. The compost was later used for urban flower beds.
Residents also actively participated in the program. Most of them, approximately 80%, almost immediately began to organize their garbage correctly. When, 40 days after the start of the experiment, we brought the head of the city to the primary processing point, he could not hide his admiration: “We really are talking about money.”
Funds from the sale of recyclable materials ensured the self-sufficiency of the primary processing point. The removal of fractions from residential areas was paid for by the grant, and when it ended a year and a half later, the housing and communal services began to constantly disrupt the removal schedule. As a result, the janitors, who received a small income from recycling, lost interest in the experiment, and it died out.
Fig.
It was possible to return to separate collection two years ago, when entrepreneur V. A. Maryev, owner of the company Rin-Upak LLC (it is engaged, in particular, in the production of roofing mastics from old tires) was involved in the program. On a contractual basis, he was given the primary processing facility for recyclable materials. The public, using funds from a new grant for the “Clean City - with and for Children” project, helped put it in order and install containers for separate collection in the city. Rin-Upak workers went around them once a week and replaced the bags. The cardboard containers are transported to the processing point by a dump truck belonging to UZHKH, which travels around organizations and stores according to a schedule.
Collection and pressing of polyethylene bottles and aluminum cans from public catering establishments has been established. A special team is engaged in selecting cans and bottles at the landfill.
This activity does not bring much profit, since separate collection of solid waste becomes truly profitable if the city’s population exceeds 100 thousand. But they manage to make ends meet.
All these years, the activists were helped by school teachers who involved schoolchildren in environmental activities. The city authorities are doing their best to facilitate this. It was even possible through the employment center, which is responsible, in particular, for summer employment of children, to assign a small salary to members of school eco-teams.
Children write and post leaflets, go door to door, convince residents to put garbage in containers, and clean up parks and squares. On the initiative of the head teacher of school No. 3 E.V. Biryukova, all schools in the city began to conduct “Operation 4 B” (collection of Paper, Batteries, Aluminum Cans and Plastic Bottles) once every quarter. The results of the operation and numerous environmental competitions are summed up annually at the city festival “Earth Day”. Even kids are invited to it, bringing gifts to Mother Earth (cans, bottles, batteries, paper). Ata presents the most active young ecologists with diplomas “Keeper of the Pushchino Land” and awards them with T-shirts. The cabbage show “Tired of Garbage,” which was organized by students from school No. 3 and the ecological lyceum, was shown on local television, which, according to the head of the city, “was more useful than any calls.” The same guys prepared two videos on the proper use of containers, which appeared on the screen almost every day for several months.
Ten years of focused work were not in vain. Currently, the system for separate collection of solid waste, primary processing of valuable fractions and their sale operates almost without failure. The Rin-Upak company monthly delivers 35 tons of waste paper, 1.5-2 tons of plastic bottles, 0.3-0.7 tons of aluminum cans, glass containers and broken glass. The load on the landfill has decreased significantly. It will still operate for another five years, although they planned to close it back in 1995.
Fig.
Fig.
Of course, there are still many problems, and we are far from the same Canadians who have halved the volume of solid waste in five years. However, the experience of Pushchino has shown that all references to the lack of consciousness of our citizens are unfounded - the majority of city residents carefully put their garbage in containers. If, of course, they are given such an opportunity. Last May, when the next grant ran out, Rin-Upak asked the administration to allocate small funds to additionally pay workers for collecting recyclable materials. However, the head of the city chose to transfer the maintenance of containers to UZHKH, which is not at all interested in this. As a result, the well-established system for collecting recyclable materials from the population fell into disrepair within two months.
The garbage problem should be solved as part of the housing and communal services reform. First of all, it is necessary to legally and financially separate the services (commercial or municipal) responsible for the collection and removal of solid waste, and the services involved in disposal. The former should be financially interested in reducing the volume of waste transported to landfills. Then they will do everything possible to extract the maximum amount of recyclable materials from waste (the sale of the latter, of course, cannot cover all the costs associated with the removal and disposal of solid waste, but will ensure a significant reduction in them). Today, although we pay for removal and disposal separately, the funds end up in a common pot for all public utilities. There is no competition for our money between them and therefore separate waste collection for them is an extra headache and significant, at the initial stage, additional costs. It is not enough to install multi-colored containers, it is necessary to establish uninterrupted removal of fractions, otherwise, upon finding a filled container, for example, with waste paper, even a well-meaning citizen will throw the paper into the first one he comes across. It is also necessary to organize the acceptance of recyclable materials and their processing. And, perhaps most importantly, painstaking educational work among the population is needed. For example, in German schools, instilling in children the habit of separating household waste into steel components in the early 70s, and special containers were installed everywhere only in the early 90s (a good illustration of how seriously developed countries take the education of a culture of waste management, The very fact of the publication in Finland for the tiny Russian community of the “Handbook for Household Waste Management”, which we reprinted in full in this issue, serves as an example).
The experience of St. Petersburg, where they have been trying to establish separate waste collection since 2005 (like the experience of Pushchin, but the scale of the cities is not comparable), has once again demonstrated that the current housing and communal services structures are not at all suitable for this. According to Greenpeace at the end of 2006, out of 4,400 containers purchased with funds from the city budget, only about 400 were installed. Moreover, a quarter of them were broken. It is significant that in those few places where separate collection is organized more or less normally, a significant portion of residents carefully place their garbage in bins.
The reason for such a deplorable state of affairs with the collection of solid waste in St. Petersburg is the same as everywhere else - the lack of a clear regulatory act that would spell out how waste should be handled, who is responsible for it and how this entire system is financed. The problem needs to be solved on a national scale, and not at the municipal level - who knows what.
I repeat once again, there is no need to refer to the low culture of the population. It's not about her, it's about the system. And this system needs to be changed urgently.
Fig.
[1] Babanin I. Assessing the efficiency of separate waste collection // Solid waste. 2006. No. 10.
[2] Hereinafter we are talking about municipal solid waste (MSW). They do not include bulky materials (BGM), hazardous, construction, medical and other wastes, which theoretically should be collected under special programs, but in practice are usually mixed with solid waste.
[3] Lemeshev MPIt’s not too late... Reflections of an environmental economist. M.: Young Guard, 1991.