Waste was the third key area of issues linked to climate change. For a majority of MASS
organisations, climate change-related waste issues were reported. Nine out of the twelve MASS cases, or seventy-five per cent, identified waste as a climate issue with only cases C, F and G not doing so. This meant that waste as a climate issue was evident in all three theoretical categories although Category 1 (publically-owned, not-for-profit), was where it was indicated most strongly. Waste manifested as a climate issue because it was widely recognised by MASS organisations that GHG emissions, such as methane (CH4), can be produced when the solid waste that was generated at their
stadia is disposed of as landfill, and decomposes, at Solid Waste Disposal Sites (SWDS). The creation of GHG emissions from the decomposition of solid waste when dumped as landfill – sometimes
referred to as “landfill gas” – is a valid point that is recognised by the International Energy Agency (IEA, 2008), the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP, 2010), the United States Environment Protection Agency (USEPA, 2015), the Australian Department of Climate Change & Energy Efficiency (DCCEE, 2007b, p. 190; 2012d), and the Victorian Environment Protection Authority (VEPA, 2012). A summary of these results is presented in Table 14 below.
Table 14: Waste issues identified by MASS organisations relating to climate change
CLIMATE CHANGE- RELATED WASTE ISSUES
ENERGY AS A CLIMATE CHANGE ISSUE FOR MASS CASES BY
THEORETICAL CATEGORY MASS MANAGERS
REPORTING THIS (N = 13) Category 1 - Publically-owned, not-for-profit Category 2 - Privately-owned, not-for-profit Category 3 - Privately-owned, for-profit
MASS cases identifying waste as a climate change issue (n = 8)
A, D, E, I, J B, H, K L
A1, A2, A3, B1, B2, D1, D2, E1, H1, I1, J1, K1, L1 Recognition of the link
between waste and indirect/landfill GHG emissions (n = 10)
A, D, E, I, J B, H, K C, F
A1, A2, A3, B1, B2, C1, D1, D2, E1, F1, H1, I1, J1, K1 Recycling cited as a
means for reducing GHG emissions (n = 10)
A, D, E, I, J B, H, K C, F
A1, A2, A3, B1, B2, C1, D2, E1, F1, H1, I1, J1, K1
TOTALS 5 3 3 13
Waste as a climate issue was reported in different ways. For example, several cases talked about their attempts to reduce solid waste disposed as “landfill” that had the effect of reducing GHG gases from SWDS. The word “landfill” was used eleven times by MASS managers in the interviews, and the following is a good example of a link that was drawn between it and GHG emissions. When asked if stakeholders have any impact on how their organisation “responds to climate change?”, Manager A2 said:
As we turnover contractors and service providers, etc., we have certain policies in place that they have to adhere to and they would modify our tender program going about what our requirements are. And a lot of those are based on waste as a closed loop attempting to get towards 100 per cent closed loop so we are not going to landfill. That’s got an impact on our carbon footprint... (A2, p. 8).
Other cases also connected waste with climate change. Waste reduction was a clear example that illustrated the relationship; if you reduced waste, you also reduced GHG emissions. Case J expressed it this way:
Our things that we’ve looked at in regards to mitigating any emissions are reducing waste. So obviously with the recycling programmes and separating glass, cardboard and bulk recycling from waste which has been, I mean we were looking at moving around 40 cubic metres of just general waste beforehand, that’s what we’d do after every AFL game. Now we move about 35 cubic metres of recycling in general and about 10m of rubbish or general waste. So that’s probably where we’re looking at mitigating greenhouse gas emissions (J1, p. 11).
Case H also understood the relationship between lower waste and lower GHG emissions reporting that, “waste management again is a big part of reducing that carbon footprint” (H1, p. 5). Case E also reported that it was important for governments to legislate for reducing solid waste to landfill in order to create “meaningful reductions” in landfill gas emissions (E1, p. 6). However, as with their energy reduction strategies, the goal of reducing waste was not solely about reducing GHG emissions. Other factors that were identified for this included cost savings, corporate social responsibility, and pressure to reduce solid waste volumes from state and local governments.
Most MASS organisations also had sophisticated solid waste recycling programs in place that meant that they had already reduced their contribution landfill gas/GHG emissions. Ten out of the twelve MASS cases, or eighty-three per cent, reported having recycling programs in place for solid waste from their stadia. Four of the twelve MASS cases (A, F, I, & J), or thirty-three per cent, reported using the Closed Loop Recycling (CLR) system that aims to eliminate the disposal of all recyclable material as landfill. Recyclable materials diverted from landfill by the CLR process include metal and plastic drink containers, and all paper and cardboard waste.