Worldwide waste generation

[szymeeek]

Hey guys!
I've been looking for some studies on amount of worldwide waste generation but haven't found anything yet ;( Do you know any? 

[szymeeek]

OK, so I've found it and if you're interested, it's World Bank's "What a waste. A Global Review of Solid Waste Management".

[Ken Fabian]

So the world's number one waste product - about 5 times more than all other waste combined but a gas not a solid, ie CO2 - is not included? It does get it's own studies, lots of them but the enormous scale of that waste stream does leap out when you list it together with the rest.

[MigL]

I know what you mean, and the liberation/generation of CO2 is a concern for the vast majority of people.

That being said, CO2 is not waste.
It is essential for life on the planet, and part of a 'cycle'.
( its constituents are the basis for all life on the planet )
Certainly not the definition of waste

[Ken Fabian]

4 hours ago, MigL said:

That being said, CO2 is not waste.
It is essential for life on the planet, and part of a 'cycle'.
( its constituents are the basis for all life on the planet )
Certainly not the definition of waste

I disagree; the products of combustion of fuels are waste, just as food scraps and sewage solids are - which are also (potential) nutrients for other living things. They are especially problematic waste products when the flows of them exceed the capacity of natural as well as technical cycles to recycle and re-use them.

[Sensei]

Your brand new TV, phone, car, house, cloth, etc. etc. are waste (waste-to-be) too... it is just a matter of time.. just wait a couple years, or a couple decades..

[studiot]

11 hours ago, MigL said:

I know what you mean, and the liberation/generation of CO2 is a concern for the vast majority of people.

That being said, CO2 is not waste.
It is essential for life on the planet, and part of a 'cycle'.
( its constituents are the basis for all life on the planet )
Certainly not the definition of waste

+1

Well considered.

[Strange]

11 hours ago, MigL said:

That being said, CO2 is not waste.
It is essential for life on the planet, and part of a 'cycle'.
( its constituents are the basis for all life on the planet )
Certainly not the definition of waste

But, as with many things, more is not necessarily better. You would die if you tried to breath pure oxygen for an extended period.

Some plants might do a little better with slightly raised CO2 levels, others not so much. Levels of CO2 only slightly higher than we have now will start to reduce rice production, for example, which is obviously a staple food for large parts of the world.

There are many things which are essential for life but may be produced as waste from industrial processes. Polluting the environment with excessive excessive amounts of water, salt, fertiliser, CO2 or many other things would generally be a bad thing.

[Danijel Gorupec]

Yep, waste and pollutant is not the same. Waste is defined from manufacturing point of view, while pollutant is defined from ecological point of view. (Although even 'pollutant'  does not seem as a good word - it has a broader meaning - maybe 'poison' wold do better?)

[qidran]

Global waste production will continue to increase by 70% if no actions are taken (World Bank's report). In 2050, waste generation will increase to 3.40 billion!! They evaluates that between 33% and 40% of the waste is not manage properly. They are rather dumped or burned.