Advertisement

The Imperishable Waste Quota

  • Kate Meyer
  • Peter Newman
Chapter
  • 28 Downloads

Abstract

This PB was first called “chemical pollution” but has now been redefined as “novel entities”. However, no limit or control variable has been proposed. This is due to the complexity of measuring and monitoring novel entities. There are too many different chemicals and other entities to sensibly aggregate them into a single measure.

We are proposing two proxy indicators to address novel entities through the Planetary Quotas. The first is the grey water footprint component of the water Quota. We do not propose a specific limit for grey water. Rather, we acknowledge that water pollution will be limited through the grey water component of the water Quota.

The second proxy indicator we are proposing is net imperishable waste which is about long-term pollutants such as plastic and heavy metals. There is evidence that we have already gone beyond the global limit for imperishable waste assimilation. As such, we propose that this Planetary Quota is net imperishable waste ≤0 kgs.

References

  1. Bjørn A, Diamond M, Birkved M, Hauschild MZ (2014) Chemical footprint method for improved communication of freshwater ecotoxicity impacts in the context of ecological limits. Environ Sci Technol 48:13253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ciais P, Sabine C, Bala G, Bopp L, Brovkin V, Canadell J, Chhabra A, Defries R, Galloway J, Heimann M, Jones C, le Quéré C, Myneni RB, Piao S, Thornton P (2013) Carbon and other biogeochemical cycles. In: Stocker TF, Qin D, Plattner G-K, Tignor M, Allen SK, Boschung J, Nauels A, Xia Y, Bex V, Midgley PM (eds) Climate change 2013: the physical science basis. Contribution of working group I to the fifth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USAGoogle Scholar
  3. Commission, E (2011) Roadmap to a resource efficient europe. COM (2011) 571 Final. EU Commission, BruxellesGoogle Scholar
  4. Commission of the European Communities (2001) White paper: strategy for future chemicals policy (COM2001 88 final)Google Scholar
  5. Council NR (2008) Minerals, critical minerals, and the US economy. National Academies Press, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  6. Dalberg (2019) Solving plastic pollution through accountability. Gland, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  7. Daly G (2006) Bad chemistry. onearthGoogle Scholar
  8. de Souza Machado AA, Kloas W, Zarfl C, Hempel S, Rillig MC (2018) Microplastics as an emerging threat to terrestrial ecosystems. Glob Chang Biol 24:1405–1416CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Egeghy PP, Judson R, Gangwal S, Mosher S, Smith D, Vail J, Cohen Hubal EA (2012) The exposure data landscape for manufactured chemicals. Sci Total Environ 414:159–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. IEA (2018) Oil 2018–analysis and forecasts to 2023. Market report series. International Energy AgencyGoogle Scholar
  11. Kaza S, Yao LC, Bhada-Tata P & van Woerden F (2018) What a waste 2.0 : a global snapshot of solid waste management to 2050. Washington, DC, World Bank. © World Bank. https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/30317 License: CC BY 3.0 IGO
  12. Kosuth M, Mason SA, Wattenberg EV (2018) Anthropogenic contamination of tap water, beer, and sea salt. PLoS One 13:e0194970CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Macleod M, Breitholtz M, Cousins IT, de Wit CA, Persson LM, Rudén C, Mclachlan MS (2014) Identifying chemicals that are planetary boundary threats. Environ Sci Technol 48:11057CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Murphy F, Ewins C, Carbonnier F, Quinn B (2016) Wastewater treatment works (WwTW) as a source of microplastics in the aquatic environment. Environ Sci Technol 50:5800–5808CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Rockström J, Steffen W, Noone K, Persson A, Chapin FS, Lambin E, Lenton TM, Scheffer M, Folke C, Schellnhuber HJ, Nykvist B, de Wit CA, Hughes T, van der Leeuw S, Rodhe H, Sorlin S, Snyder PK, Costanza R, Svedin U, Falkenmark M, Karlberg L, Corell RW, Fabry VJ, Hansen J, Walker B, Liverman D, Richardson K, Crutzen P, Foley J (2009a) Planetary boundaries: exploring the safe operating space for humanity. Ecol Soc 14:32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Rockström J, Steffen W, Noone K, Persson A, Chapin FS III, Lambin E, Lenton TM, Scheffer M, Folke C, Schellnhuber HJ, Nykvist B, de Wit CA, Hughes T, Van der Leeuw S, Rodhe H, Sörlin S, Snyder PK, Costanza R, Svedin U, Falkenmark M, Karlberg L, Corell RW, Fabry VJ, Hansen J, Walker B, Liverman D, Richardson K, Crutzen P, Foley J (2009b) Planetary boundaries: exploring the safe operating space for humanity. Ecol Soc 14:32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Seegraswiese (2013) Plastic_bag_jellyfish.png. WikimediaGoogle Scholar
  18. Steffen W, Richardson K, Rockström J, Cornell SE, Fetzer I, Bennett EM, Biggs R, Carpenter SR, de Vries W, de Wit CA, Folke C, Gerten D, Heinke J, Mace GM, Persson LM, Ramanathan V, Reyers B, Sörlin S (2015) Planetary boundaries: Guiding human development on a changing planet. Science 347:1259855CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Tyree C, Morrison D (2017) Invisibles: the plastic inside us. Orbmedia.org
  20. U.S FDA (2017) Mercury levels in commercial fish and shellfish (1990–2012) [Online]. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Available: https://www.fda.gov/Food/FoodborneIllnessContaminants/Metals/ucm115644.htm. Accessed 6 June 2018
  21. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2008) Chemical hazard data availability study: what do we really know about the safety of high production volume chemicals? Climate and Society: Lessons from the Past 10 000 Years, 476–482Google Scholar
  22. Wiedmann TO, Schandl H, Lenzen M, Moran D, Suh S, West J, Kanemoto K (2015) The material footprint of nations. Proc Natl Acad Sci 112:6271–6276CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kate Meyer
    • 1
  • Peter Newman
    • 2
  1. 1.The Planetary Accounting NetworkAucklandNew Zealand
  2. 2.Curtin UniversityWestern AustraliaAustralia

Personalised recommendations