What problem are you trying to solve

I thought that the article I read today on a new green initiative highlights the issue of how confused the green world is.

The context is Anaerobic digestion. The process breaks down organic matter to produce biogas which can be used as a renewable energy source for heat and power, and as a transport fuel. It produces a nutrient-rich digestate which can be used as fertiliser, and importantly it keeps organic waste out of landfill, which cuts greenhouse gas emissions. At its full potential it is thought anaerobic digestion could produce enough electricity to power 2 million homes.

Visiting the Ludlow plant, Joan Ruddock said:

“Anaerobic digestion is extremely attractive. Why would we go on throwing food waste into holes in the ground when we could generate our own electricity and end up with a product that can be returned to the soil?"

Thanks Joan. So what are we doing here? You note the reference to the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. How? If you have a ton of food waste and put it in a hole in the ground it will emit green house gases (probably methane). Which if left to enter the atmosphere would cause the greenhouse effect. So when I take it and burn the methane then it is released into the atmosphere? But note the renewable energy claim. Why is it renewable? If it is carbon neutral because the creation of food locks up carbon which is then released then ok. But that is not what happens. It is the bacteria from rotting food which creates the gas I think. Essentially the waste food is food for bacteria whose byproduct is methane. Is this carbon neutral. I have no idea whether the methane produced contains more carbon than the food alone (i.e. what effect does the bacteria have on the process).

Nowhere is there reference to the amount of carbon used to grow the food, to transport the food, to cook the food etc. Maybe if less food was wasted then we may actually see a reduction in the overall problem.

So what are they trying to achieve? Renewable electricity (not a compelling argument that this achieves it), a reduction in landfill (is that a problem for organic waste), reduction of methane in landfill (already technologies for dealing with that) or all of the above?

If it is all of the above then it says to me that waste food is a good thing. This is intuitively wrong so quite what is the problem this seeks to solve.

Waste is waste. No point worrying about what to do with it without working out how to reduce it.