• Parc for Local Authorities
• Parc for Business
• Parc & Carbon Management
• Increased Recycling
• Products & Markets
• Energy Crops
• More Soil

Carbon Management and Parc
 

“….the key aim of climate change policy should be to ensure that those generating GHGs, wherever they may be, face a marginal cost of emissions that reflects the damage they cause.”

Parc reduces your carbon footprint
Waste is a major driver of all local authority carbon footprints - from waste collection through to the treatment and disposal of residual waste.
One of the crucial benefits of our system is the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. Compared to competitor systems, like incineration, we’re able to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by over 40%.

Comparing Parc with incineration
Durham University Department of Earth Sciences was commissioned to study the carbon dioxide equivalent greenhouse gas production from Parc, landfill and Energy from Waste (Waste Incineration).

The graph below shows the cumulative carbon dioxide equivalent greenhouse gas production from 100,000 tonnes of municipal solid waste (MSW) every year for 25 years.

Energy from Waste (EFW or waste incineration) has a massive carbon footprint, because burning one tonne of waste creates one tonne of carbon dioxide (enough gas to fill a two storey house).
Landfill produces methane (compared to carbon dioxide this is 21 times more powerful as a greenhouse gas) and it goes on producing methane year after year - even once the landfill is closed, the graph assumes 50% methane capture). However, it still takes 35 years for landfilling to reach the level of carbon dioxide given out by a waste incinerator.
Parc has the lowest carbon footprint. It produces low levels of carbon dioxide from the bacteria that make the compost and from the maturing soil products.

Performance Assessment of Parc by Eunomia Research & Consulting
This analysis was carried out on the basis of modelling with a view to understanding the monetized greenhouse gas damages associated with different treatment processes. The methodology used was state of the art.
The indication would appear to be that the preference, in terms of GHGs, lies with the Parc system. Landfill always performs worst, unless capture rates for the landfill gas are assumed to be very high over the lifetime over the landfill.
See the full report (PDF).