Search

Abstract: A tax on waste-to-energy incineration of fossil carbon in municipal solid waste from households was introduced in Sweden on July 1, 2006. The tax has led to higher incineration gate fees. One of the main purposes with the tax is to increase the incentive for recycling of materials, including biological treatment. We investigate whether and to what extent this effect can be expected. A spreadsheet model is developed in order to estimate the net marginal cost of alternative waste treatment methods, i.e., the marginal cost of alternative treatment minus avoided cost of incineration. The value of the households’ time needed for source separation is discussed and included. The model includes the nine largest fractions, totalling 85% (weight), of the household waste currently being sent to waste incineration: food waste, newsprint, paper packaging, soft and hard plastic packaging, diapers, yard waste, other paper waste, and non-combustible waste. Our results indicate that the incineration tax will have the largest effect on biological treatment of kitchen and garden waste, which may increase by 9%. The consequences of an incineration tax depend on: (a) the level of the tax, (b) whether the tax is based on an assumed average Swedish fossil carbon content or on the measured carbon content in each incineration plant, (c) institutional factors such as the cooperation between waste incinerators, and (d) technological factors such as the availability of central sorting of waste or techniques for measurement of fossil carbon in exhaust gases, etc. Information turns out to be a key factor in transferring the governing force of the tax to the households as well improving the households’ attitudes towards material recycling. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Background and objectives Public health co-benefits from curbing climate change can make greenhouse gas (GHG) mitigation strategies more attractive and increase their implementation. The purpose of this systematic review is to summarize the evidence of these health co-benefits to improve our understanding of the mitigation measures involved, potential mechanisms, and relevant uncertainties. Methods A comprehensive search for peer-reviewed studies published in English was conducted using the primary electronic databases. Reference lists from these articles were reviewed and manual searches were performed to supplement relevant studies. The identified records were screened based on inclusion criteria. We extracted data from the final retrieved papers using a pre-designed data extraction form and a quality assessment was conducted. The studies were heterogeneities, so meta-analysis was not possible and instead evidence was synthesized using narrative summaries. Results Thirty-six studies were identified. We identified GHG mitigation strategies in five domains – energy generation, transportation, food and agriculture, households, and industry and economy – which usually, although not always, bring co-benefits for public health. These health gains are likely to be multiplied by comprehensive measures that include more than one sectors. Conclusions GHG mitigation strategies can bring about substantial and possibly cost-effective public health co-benefits. These findings are highly relevant to policy makers and other stakeholders since they point to the compounding value of taking concerted action against climate change and air pollution. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]