Calculated. Incorporated DEC, 2008 process default with life cycle based emissions including process energy, sequestration, avoided product credits for peat substitution. Avoided Landfill excluded.
Note: Data published prior to NGERS guidelines mean that directly referenced values may include outdated carbon accounting approaches such as including biogenic emissions. Indicative of performance as a more reliable would plot performance against assumptions.
Guidance on the identification of policy or funding priorities from the broad spectrum of waste streams and materials that exist is not immediately possible from published studies. Studies vary in term of the indicators that they report against, the terms of reference and functional unit of the study, goal and scope of the original study, the system boundaries, data quality etc. These variations mean that comparison of results should proceed only with regard to the study context.
Material stream priorities need to be ranked by the waste stream from which they originate as well as by the end-product that is recovered if they are to reflect the environmental performance variations that exist at this level.
Examples are provided in Table 13 for a material stream (office paper) and waste stream (residual MSW). To define categories in a more streamlined way would fail to capture system variables that are influential in determining the overall performance of the system.
Note: The absence of a toxicity assessment has the potential to bias the results as a measure of sustainability. For waste treatment, toxicity impact is one of the most significant impact categories (NPCC, 2001, ERV 3003). For example, LCA data reveals the toxicity impact savings from recycling paper into recycled office paper is notably higher than for other grades due to the materials intensity of producing writing paper grades.