[greenyes] Dialog Paper # 2

[RicAnthony@no.address]

Prior to the Dialog held last August 2004 in San Francisco, I released a 
series of papers that addressed what we call "Managing Discards in the New 
Millennium."  These papers were presented to stimulate the discussion at the dialog.  
For the next nine weeks under the title Dialog Paper #, I will release each 
document to the four lists (GAIA, ZWIA, CRRA and Greenyes).  Each list is not 
linked together, but I would request your response be to "all" or to the 
author.  The ultimate result of this discussion will be a rewritten and edited 
version each document.  All the papers can be downloaded from   
http://crra.com./grc/international/whitepaper.html
Zero Waste Theory
By Richard Anthony, Richard Anthony Associates, San Diego, CA, USA 
A system design to handle discards from a household, business, institution, 
or city with a zero waste goal would be theoretical. Recognizing that 
scientifically, absolute zero is improbable, close counts. Any system that reduces 
wasting to ten percent of current generation rates would make a significant step 
toward sustainability and would be close to zero (90% successful). 
In a zero waste system everything has to go somewhere. Discards create jobs 
and products. In the cycle of use: reuse, repair and recycle close the loop to 
wasting. Discard management plans involve getting discarded resources to a 
place where they will be used again. 
In a perfect world this would happen logically. But the fact is that in many 
cases the status quo of wasting is protected and encouraged by law. In many 
places in the world, tax laws and government funding for the collection and 
disposal of discarded materials encourage wasting over recovery. 
Government has the power to finance and implement discard management systems. 
Some systems are financed in such a way that they discourage the growth of 
recycling and composting industries. From the grassroots perspective the 
individual has some control of this decision by insisting that the government include 
convenient recycling and composting programs in the disposal system. 
If the natural forces of supply and demand were not subverted by subsidies 
for wasting, the consumer would place value a product based on its reusability, 
repair ability and recyclability, when making purchasing decisions. 
When recycling and composting are considered a part of the disposal system 
when costs are analyzed, the revenue is used to reduce the public subsidy for 
the proper handling of the discards. When adding the cost of long term disposal 
monitoring and considering the economic cost of taking land out of production 
forever, destroying ancient forests and polluting air and water downstream, 
planning a system to reduce or eliminate these future costs makes economic 
sense. 
Zero waste discard management systems have political as well as technical 
considerations. The way each human being accounts for their daily generation of 
discards, and the way those discards are managed in a community are political 
and technical decisions. The future sustainability of the planet depends on 
people at the point of purchase choosing products that can be ultimately 
composted or recycled and at the point of discard making a decision as to where in the 
system the discarded material should go. Aside from product design decisions 
and separation requirements, most of the decisions in the process are 
technical. 
The consumer and the manufacturer are both responsible for the proper 
disposal of a product before, during and after purchase. The relationship between the 
consumer and the manufacturer should not be confused by government subsidies 
for disposal of wasted resources. It is not fair to make the entire population 
pay for the disposal of products enjoyed by only a few. The consumer should 
encourage the manufacturer to design products that can be repaired and 
eventually recycled or composted. 
Manufacturers have the responsibility to the community to produce products 
that are designed for recyclability and/or compost ability. Manufacturers should 
be encouraged to use recycled materials in their products. Products should be 
produced in a way that they can be repaired where wear and tear occurs and 
dismantled and recycled into new products when they cannot be repaired. 
There is a hierarchy of use of materials that involves the highest and best 
use of materials in the areas of energy and resources [2-6] Source Reduction, 
Reuse, Repair, Recycling, Composting, Transformation and Landfill. In 
California in the early eighties the “Three R’s” were used to teach pollution 
prevention. The first R in the “Three R’s” (reduce, reuse and repair) refers to 
source reduction, or the area of discard management that addresses over packaging 
and single use products. The 3 “R’s” are taught as a means to demonstrate how 
product design can lead to decreasing waste. Consumers are encouraged to 
consider buying products that can be reused and repaired. 
To many the key component in a zero waste disposal system is reducing the 
amounts of discards at the source. Products designed for a single use are used as 
examples of unnecessary over consumption. The debate over paper versus cloth 
diapers for babies addresses reusable washable cloth diapers as opposed to 
introducing fecal mater to landfill via paper diapers. Some other reuse issues 
include cotton versus paper napkins, double sided versus single sided copies, 
and refillable versus single use products. 
Repair ability in a product is another design criteria that can be omitted 
when subsidized wasting occurs. The notion that the manufacturer owns the 
products and rents it to the customer is becoming popular in the carpet and computer 
industries. As the product wears out or becomes obsolete the product is 
returned to the manufacturer for dismantling and recycling. Automobiles, appliances 
and computers are examples where landfill and incineration are unacceptable 
disposal options. The materials used in these products can pollute water and 
air. The proper disposal hierarchy for these items is reuse, repair and recycle. 
After reuse and repair, the next step on the hierarchy is to separate 
materials at the source for recycling or composting. Sorting discards into recyclable 
and compost able categories assists in zero waste by keeping wet materials 
from contaminating paper products. Plastic and glass are contaminants that are 
hard to remove from finished compost. Wet organics are contaminants to paper 
recycling. Once collected based on reuse, recycle and humus markets material 
processing facilities (MFR) classify materials into specific categories. These 
categories include reusable products, paper, metal, polymers, glass, ceramics, 
vegetative debris, putrescibles, soils, wood, textiles, and chemicals. 
The hierarchy places mixed waste (not source separated) composting, 
transformation processes and sanitary landfill at the bottom. In a zero waste system, 
items that cannot eventually be composted or recycled are returned to the 
manufacture though advance recycling fees or product deposits. The price of 
recovery and recycling is added to the product cost to cover the infrastructure 
needed to reintegrate this material back into use. 
Thus zero waste theory calls for disposal systems that place disposal costs 
responsibility on the manufacturers to redesign products for recycle ability. 
The discard management service provider whether government or private 
contractor, is mandated to collect source separated material from clearly labeled and 
conveniently located storage containers and deliver them to processing centers 
that will sort, process and reintroduce these materials back into the use 
system. 
Ricanthony@no.address
RichardAnthonyAssociates.com
San Diego, California