Today's Topics:
Some Thoughts On Zero Waste (2 msgs)
Zero Waste in Principle to Zero Waste in Practice
Send Replies or notes for publication to: <greenyes@UCSD.Edu>
Send subscription requests to: <greenyes-Digest-Request@UCSD.Edu>
Problems you can't solve otherwise to postmaster@ucsd.edu.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 1997 02:30:22 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Roger M. Guttentag" <rgutten@concentric.net>
Subject: Some Thoughts On Zero Waste
Dear GreenYes List Members:
I had the opportunity to listen to some of the discussions on Zero Waste at
the just concluded NRC Congress in Orlando as well as on this discussion
list; particularly the most recent messages from Steve Suess, David
Kirkpatrick and Ed Boisson. I would like to add my own thoughts in the hope
that it will contribute to our general thinking on this most important issue.
I can appreciate Steve's strong enthusiasm for Zero Waste as I perceive at
the core of his arguments that, fundamentally, Zero Waste is morally right
and that is why you should support it. I agree that there is a moral
grounding to Zero Waste but I also believe that not every Zero Waste
supporter will see it in the same moral light as Steve does or in any moral
terms at all. There will a variety of reasons why people will (or will not)
support Zero Waste. For this reason, I believe we should not try to gain
converts to Zero Waste by arguing that not endorsing it can be construed as
being deceitful, hypocritical or a sign of some other flaw of moral
character. We should heed David's recent counsel on this discussion list
that Zero Waste must draw its allies from all directions and those who don't
immediately endorse Zero Waste may be doing so for very honorable reasons
for which we should have a respective understanding (even if we don't agree
with them).
Having said this, I can also understand Steve's frustration with finding
some resistance to the idea of Zero Waste by NRC Congress attendees who, one
would think, should be the first to embrace this concept. I have wondered
about this myself. My theory is that this hesitancy is due to the sense of
uncertainly over what one is agreeing to and the global (and personal)
implications of that agreement. I have to agree with Ed Boisson's previously
expressed sentiments - what does Zero Waste really mean? In contrast to
Zero Waste, Recycling is a very concrete concept and yet look how much
trouble we still have in trying to maintain political and economic support
for it. Now let's look at Zero Waste, a concept that is truly oceanic in
depth in regard to its potential meaning. Who wouldn't, at first contact
with this idea, hesitate for a while to think it over? It also shows, I
think, how deeply ingrained our social acceptance is of waste generation as
an inevitable social consequence. Arguing for Zero Waste sounds, in some
ways, like arguing for Zero Gravity - that we are attempting to repeal some
kind of natural law.
Obviously, proponents of Zero Waste want to achieve a paradigm shift in our
thinking about the way we should be using natural material and energy
resources and systems. However, paradigm shifts must occur within a
specific methodological framework. For example, scientific paradigm shifts
occur within a framework defined by the scientific method of research.
Similarly, Zero Wasters (I hope this is an acceptable reference) need to
define more clearly the social and economic framework within which the Zero
Waste paradigm is to function.
I will bring up one example for initial discussion purposes. In an earlier
message to this list I raised this question
"Is robust economic growth and declining resource utilization a compatible
set of goals that are achievable?"
I still believe this is the central issue that the Zero Waste movement needs
to grapple with. I feel that this issue has not been clearly addressed.
The Zero Waste literature I have read plus messages on this list argue that
one of the central platforms of Zero Waste is to create jobs, not waste.
Job creation is important but it is derivative of much larger economic
issues. The current political mood of this country, in general, does not
support job creation through public spending. We are also not creating jobs
if public policies are being used to shift jobs from one economic sector to
another. Therefore, the long term political acceptance of Zero Waste will
depend on showing that not only is Zero Waste and economic growth compatible
but that economic growth would be enhanced if it is based on Zero Waste
principles (The message should be - Make Money, Not Waste. Who would oppose
this?). Tying Zero Waste to economic growth would also have the potential of
attracting new allies who would not normally endorse the idea of Zero Waste
because of their beliefs that it would be bad for the economy. Therefore,
does the Zero Waste movement endorse the explicit promotion of economic
growth as a platform goal?
Finally, the Zero Waste movement also needs to demonstrate that Zero Waste
is feasible and practical. This can include publicizing successful examples
that can be found here in the U.S. and abroad as well as developing new
projects. Achieving Zero Waste will require tremendous creativity in
finding solutions where none exist currently. I would hope that one major
source of this creativity could be found in our colleges and universities.
Perhaps one or more university campuses can adopt a goal of being "Zero
Waste" zones within five years. The solutions they develop may have wider
applicability that can be easily replicated in non-academic environments.
Maybe we should try to do something comparable in K-12 school systems as
well. If students can learn how to function within a zero waste educational
system it will become easier for them to accept zero waste as a general
social principle.
Roger M. Guttentag
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 1997 17:50:56 +1000
From: Ian Reeve <ireeve@metz.une.edu.au>
Subject: Some Thoughts On Zero Waste
Roger Guttentag wrote:
> Therefore, the long term political acceptance of Zero Waste will
>depend on showing that not only is Zero Waste and economic growth compatible
>but that economic growth would be enhanced if it is based on Zero Waste
>principles (The message should be - Make Money, Not Waste. Who would oppose
>this?). Tying Zero Waste to economic growth would also have the potential of
>attracting new allies who would not normally endorse the idea of Zero Waste
>because of their beliefs that it would be bad for the economy. Therefore,
>does the Zero Waste movement endorse the explicit promotion of economic
>growth as a platform goal?
Economic growth is a treadmill that most democratic industrialised nations
find very difficult to get off, should they wish to. Elected governments
need to keep unemployment down if they are to remain in power, and to do
this they need to find new jobs at least as fast as technological
innovation is causing the shedding of jobs. Growing the economy is one way
of soaking up unemployment and it has the added attraction of
(allegedly)increasing everyone's wealth without having to tackle the
politically fraught issue of the increasingly unequal distribution of
wealth in society. Of course the new investment in the growing economy
tends to be capital (=resources) intensive rather than labour intensive, so
each increment of growth consumes more resources per job created.
Clearly this cannot go on for ever on a finite planet. Even if we achieve
the admirable goal of closing all the material cycles in the economy so
that no materials are discharged to the biosphere, we cannot beat the laws
of thermodynamics. The materials transformations necessary to turn what
was once waste and discharged to the biosphere into new goods must
unavoidably create waste heat which can nowhere but into the biosphere. An
infinitely growing zero waste economy will destroy planetary life support
systems just as surely as infinitely growing CO2 emissions that are the
present preoccupation.
One school of thought as to how to get off the treadmill argues that we
should shift the tax base from taxing wealth creation (income and company
profits) to taxing materials flows from the biosphere into the economy
(minerals, fossil fuel, primary production) and materials flows from the
economy to the biosphere (CO2, nutrients, hazardous wastes etc.). This
would have the effect of making labour intensive production more
competitive than capital intensive production and increase the number of
jobs per unit of materials throughput in the economy, as well as removing
the cost advantages of virgin materials over recycled materials.
It seems to me that it would make a lot more sense that, if Zero Waste has
to be hitched to some other wagon, it be hitched to a "tax at the
biosphere-economy interface" wagon rather than the economic growth wagon
that carries the seeds on its own destruction.
WASTE
ZERO < would have to be a fairly attractive package, provided
UNEMPLOYMENT
we don't commit the fallacy of the unconsidered alternative by believing
that economic growth is the only way to create jobs.
Ian Reeve
___________________________________________________________
Ian Reeve
Senior Project Director
The Rural Development Centre
The University of New England Ph: +61 67 732220
ARMIDALE, NSW 2351 Fx: +61 67 733245
AUSTRALIA ireeve@metz.une.edu.au
http://www.une.edu.au/~trdc/RDC.HTM
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 1997 09:41:43 +0900
From: oldxeye@crisscross.com (Hop)
Subject: Zero Waste in Principle to Zero Waste in Practice
(Not wishing Ed's comments to be taken out of context, refer to GreenYes
#233 if necessary) Ed Boisson said,
>I still think "zero waste" is
>a bit trite, and itself evasive in that it conveys the vision, but not
>the enormity of the task, at hand. But if it's helping to get folks
>bought in, well, I can't knock that.
To which I say:
The benefits of "Zero Waste" result not from its adoption as a philosophy,
nor in it becoming policy, but rather from it being practiced by
individuals, members of households, and employees of organisations. But to
attain these benefits en masse requires us each to first adopt the
philosophy, and then see value in the policy, so that we can each, in our
individual ways, put the principle into practice.
------------------------------
Date: (null)
From: (null)
>..... Maybe I should be adding my perspective to the soup,
>rather than drinking from a different bowl.
>
>..... In short, Steve Suess can count another convert to his ranks. His
>perseverance hit the mark, and I agree: the zero waste campaign is a
>good thing.
------------------------------
End of GreenYes Digest V97 #234
******************************