Oregon's statewide GHG reduction planning has addressed materials management in two separate documents: the 2004 "Oregon Strategy for Greenhouse Gas Reductions", and the 2010 "Interim Roadmap to 2020".

Oregon Strategy for Greenhouse Gas Reductions (2004) Cover_Cap_Case_2.jpg

  1. Who did it: Governor's Advisory Group on Global Warming. This was a temporary group convened by Oregon's Governor. The Advisory Group was supported by 7 technical subcommittees. The technical subcommittee on materials and waste was staffed by Oregon DEQ, which also conducted modeling of GHG impacts.
  2. What they did (and when): Adopted a Strategy for Greenhouse Gas Reductions in 2004. It should be noted that the Strategy is basically a package of recommendations from the Governor's Advisory Group to the Governor; it does not constitute a formal Climate Action Plan adopted by Oregon. The Strategy reframed the topic of materials from the traditional (at the time) framework of "waste" to one of "materials use, recovery, and disposal". The Strategy contains 3 "significant" materials/waste actions and 7 "other" actions. The most significant, achieving the waste generation and recovery goals in Oregon statute, is one of the largest single actions in the entire Strategy (in terms of GHG reduction potential). Pages 99 - 113 of the Strategy address materials/wastes; the first several pages provide a long but thorough introduction to the manner in how the materials life cycle contributes to emissions, and the geographic and temporal scope of those emissions (making this topic different from most other elements of the Strategy).
  3. Why they did it: Oregon's Governor convened the Advisory Group to focus attention on the problem of global warming and opportunities to reduce Oregon's emissions. DEQ changed the focus of the "technical subcommittee on waste" to the "technical subcommittee on materials and waste" to reflect the large GHG reduction potentials associated with prevention and recycling, unrelated to "waste sector" emissions..
  4. Results/outcomes/successes/failures/lessons learned: Progress was made towards several of the materials/waste recommendations between 2004 and 2010. It is difficult to tell how much the Oregon Strategy for Greenhouse Gas Reductions contributed to this progress. In some cases, changes would have happened anyway. For DEQ, the Strategy was helpful in supporting specific policy work (such as bottle bill expansion). Perhaps equally important, prior to this project, DEQ had not significantly considered the GHG impacts of wastes or materials. The process of evaluating emissions and emissions reduction opportunities formed a solid foundation that has strengthened DEQ's effectiveness in materials (including waste) management work generally.
See also this page which summarizes the modeling of GHG impacts of materials and waste.

Interim Roadmap to 2020
  1. Who did it: Oregon's Global Warming Commission. The Commission was supported by 6 technical committees. The technical committee on materials management was staffed by Oregon DEQ.
  2. What they did (and when): Adopted an Interim Roadmap to 2020 in 2010. As of late 2010, the Commission intended to take public comment on this Interim Roadmap and finalize it in mid/late 2011. The Roadmap includes a positive vision of what materials management in Oregon would look like in 2050 if the state's statutory goals (GHG emissions 75% below 1990 levels) are met. Also included are 9 "key actions for 2020" and 29 additional "tier two" recommendations. The Interim Roadmap takes a "pragmatic approach" to emissions reductions, counting emissions reductions potential associated with materials management in Oregon even if the emissions in question are not included in Oregon's conventional GHG inventory. Key actions and tier two recommendations are listed below.
  3. Why they did it: Oregon's Legislature in 2007 adopted statutory GHG reduction goals for 2010, 2020, and 2050, and also established the Global Warming Commission. In 2010, the Commission turned its attention towards achieving the 2020 goal, and laying a foundation for achieving the 2050 goal. The decision to include a committee on materials management was an outgrowth of the work the EPA, DEQ, City of Portland, Metro, and others had undertaken in preceding years to draw attention to the potential contributions of materials management. The decision to include trans-boundary emissions reduction opportunities (emissions reductions that don't "count" in the state's traditional inventory) was made in a spirit of pragmatism.
  4. Results/outcomes/successes/failures/lessons learned: Perhaps too early to tell. Comparing the Interim Roadmap (2010) to the earlier Oregon Strategy (2004), the work performed for the Strategy in 2004 established a good foundation for the work in 2010. While the 2004 Strategy included 10 materials/waste recommendations, the Interim Roadmap expanded this to 38. The Interim Roadmap provides greater specificity and also casts a broader net, including significantly more and more focused recommendations particularly in the areas of "upstream" life cycle emissions, product stewardship, waste prevention, and green building.

Summary of Key Actions for 2020
  • Advocate for carbon price signal across life cycle of products and materials (either by an emissions cap and/or a carbon tax), including imports (border adjustment mechanism/carbon tariff if necessary)
  • Research and integrate a consumption‐based GHG inventory methodology with the State's conventional inventory, and identify high‐carbon product categories
  • Develop and disseminate information: easy‐to‐use life cycle metrics for different food types
  • Establish standards, incentives, and/or mandates for carbon footprinting, labeling of products
  • Focus product stewardship on upstream emissions and design for appropriate durability, repairability, reusability, efficiency, and recovery
  • Establish higher standards for new buildings: “net zero” plus offset of materials
  • Provide consumer education, information, outreach on consumption, materials use, and prevention/reuse, including low‐GHG food and diet choices
  • Reduce (prevent) waste of food at the retail and consumer level by 5‐50%
  • Conduct research on highest/best use for organic wastes and the carbon impact of different conversion technologies
Summary of "Tier Two" Recommendations
General Policy:
  • Change Business Energy Tax Credit from an energy tax credit to a carbon (life cycle) reduction tax credit.
  • Provide funding and resources necessary to achieve existing statutory prevention and recovery goals.
  • Shift from a "waste management" to a "materials management" focus and give consideration to GHG reduction potentials, when updating the state's "Integrated Resource & Solid Waste Management Plan".
  • Include the costs of GHG emissions in policy-making considerations (e.g., "economic test" for recycling).
  • Initiate state and local government low-carbon purchasing requirements (including buildings).
  • Conduct research to evaluate alternative economic models (e.g., steady-state, sustainable).
Low-Carbon Production and Consumption: General Products and Food:
  • Create or advocate for a "do not mail" registry (unwanted mail).
  • Create incentives, regulations to reduce carbon impacts of packaging.
  • Reduce use of single-use retail carry-out bags; ban plastic single-use bags.
  • Identify low-carbon methods of home food production, then increase adoption of these methods.
Building Materials and Practices:
  • Create/require a carbon footprint score for buildings, including materials.
  • Provide incentives for lower-carbon building materials.
  • Encourage/incent changes in urban form.
  • Change code: larger homes must also be more energy-efficient.
  • Require all State construction (including institutional) to apply the SEED (State Energy Efficient Design) program to materials.
  • Expand/incentivize infrastructure for salvaged goods, use of salvaged materials.
Waste Recovery:
  • Use carbon-based metrics for measuring recycling.
  • Implement policies to reduce loss of recyclables at processing facilities.
  • Expand product stewardship focusing on end-of-life management to cover additional materials; include life cycle GHG emissions as a primary product selection criteria.
  • Expand bottle bill to cover additional materials; increase deposit to ten cents if 80% recovery rate note achieved.
  • Increase funding by $1.20 per household-year for recycling outreach.
  • Require garbage and recycling service parity (residential curbside).
  • Develop markets for compost products.
  • Require communities over a certain population to collect for recovery food waste from residences and certain categories of non-residential waste generators.
  • Implement a feed-in-tariff to support anaerobic digestion.
  • Conduct improved research into methane emissions, as well as opportunities to reduce emissions through better surface monitoring.
  • Require intermediate covers to be designed as oxidation covers at areas of landfills without active gas collection.
  • Require installation of gas collection as waste is placed (reducing installation delay), consistent with current technologies.
  • Require that alternative final covers be designed to reduce GHG emissions.