GreenYes Archives

[GreenYes Home] - [Thread Index] - [Date Index]
[Date Prev] - [Date Next] - [Thread Prev] - [Thread Next]


[GreenYes] Ten Points on "Zero Waste" by Guy Crittenden, 22 July 2008


Here's a perspective on Zero Waste from Guy Crittenden, editor of Solid
Waste and Recycling Magazine and HazMat Magazine, Canada:
Ten Points on “Zero Waste”
by Guy Crittenden, 22 July 2008
****http://blogsw.solidwastemag.com/2008/07/ten_points_on_zero_waste.html
*
*Some recent correspondence with members of the new Ontario Zero Waste
Coalition caused me to write up an explanation of Zero Waste, as I
understand the term. My motivation was both to clarify the term and
further differentiate it from other concepts that, while they may work
in concert with Zero Waste (at present), are quite different. The main
one is “waste diversion” -- a catchall phrase for activities like
municipal recycling and composting that may be worthwhile for some
applications, but that are not the same as Zero Waste and might, in some
instances, work against the goals of the Zero Waste movement.

I offer an edited version below for the benefit of interested parties.
The items are not listed in order of importance.

1. The Zero Waste movement is concerned with moving beyond “waste
disposal” and even “waste diversion” toward a society that views waste
as poor design. The idea is to design waste out of products and
packaging completely.

2. Ideally, municipalities could eventually only collect and process
organic materials (kitchen scraps and yard trimmings); “product waste”
(all the byproducts of the consumer society) will be managed in
manufacturer networks, reverse distribution systems and, in some cases,
municipalities collecting material under contract from private
businesses. Industry will pay for the reuse and recycling of its
byproducts, as well as anything that needs final disposal, which should
be as close to zero as possible.

3. “Waste diversion” (recycling, etc.) is only an interim step along the
path to true Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) wherein businesses
will assume “cradle to cradle” responsibility for their products, and
not externalize certain lifecycle costs onto the environment or
taxpayers (which provide a kind of subsidy by absorbing industry’s
effluvia or carting it off). When they have to pay for the end-of-life
management of their products, businesses have a financial incentive to
become “eco-efficient.”

4. The Zero Waste movement opposes “product stewardship” programs that
look superficially like EPR but are in fact nothing of the kind. In some
product stewardship programs an industry funding organization (IFO) is
established that charges an advance recycling fee to collect and manage
waste materials. Even if this offers the positive aspect of keeping the
materials out of landfill, there’s often no incentive for producers to
change “business as usual” (i.e., redesign products for reuse and
recycling). For consumers, the “eco fee” becomes analogous to a green
tax that they have no choice but to pay, with only a vague idea that
some good will come from the program. In the worst instances, the
advance recycling fee rewards “free riders” that foist poorly designed
products (from an ecological standpoint) on the market, yet get to wear
the same green “fig leaf” as companies that are more eco-efficient. The
eco-fee may even discourage companies from doing more to improve their
environmental performance at each stage, because the stewardship program
has simply made the environmental image problem “go away.” Consumers
feel the problem has been dealt with and consume in the usual way,
“guilt free.” Instead, true Extended Producer Responsibility is what is
sought.

5. Nothing in the Zero Waste philosophy is meant to question the good
intentions, sincerity and professionalism of municipal waste managers.
They generally perform an excellent job doing what society asks of them.
Instead, what Zero Waste proponents are doing is changing what is being
asked of these professionals. Where society and its elected
representatives used to ask, “How can we safely dispose of this waste?”
or (more recently) “How can we divert more of this material from
disposal (e.g., landfill, incineration)?” the new questions are along
the lines of, “What would a truly sustainable society look like?” The
answer to that question may include municipalities not handling many
waste materials at all. Local governments have, in a sense, become
“enablers” of the throwaway society.

6. Even if we could design the perfect landfill that never leaks or the
perfect emissions-free waste-to-energy incinerator, Zero Waste advocates
would still view that negatively because the very last thing they want
is make it even easier to consume and dispose of goods (“guilt free”).
Something that’s often lost in the simplistic public conversation over
waste diversion versus disposal is that the biggest part of the
environmental footprint occurs not at a product’s disposal or recycling
stage, but “upstream” during the stages of natural resource extraction,
manufacturing, transportation and distrubution, and during the useful
life of the product. We’re facing a broader sustainability challenge,
not a mere “disposal problem,” the Zero Waste advocates might say.

7. Everyone agrees that waste management infrastructure -- if it’s to be
built at all -- should be constructed and operated to a high standard
and comply with environmental regulations. Waste management
professionals constantly try to deflect public skepticism about new
waste transfer, processing or disposal systems with promises that
everything will be done properly, and that there won’t be toxic
emissions or odors or leaks. However, in place of better disposal
infrastructure, Zero Waste promotes what some people call “industrial
ecology” -- a materials and energy flow system that is harmonious with,
and reflective of, natural systems, where waste is either not produced
at all, or is the raw material for another product. Nothing goes to
waste in nature. While government has a role as regulator and overseer,
this outcome is just too important to entrust to government alone. The
power of a subsidy-free marketplace can be harnessed to achieve
sustainability faster and for the very long term. A Zero Waste system
would include changes in the way products are made, used and delivered
to the marketplace. Eco parks would spring up to efficiently share
resources, including raw or recycled materials and electricity or steam.

8. Any list of preferred Zero Waste materials and systems quickly points
up the (ironic) point that often the environmentally superior solution
is also the cheapest. Examples include: reusable cloth shopping bags
instead of disposable (or even recyclable) plastic or paper bags;
refillable coffee mugs instead of paper or polystyrene cups; water
consumed from the tap or via refillable containers, rather than
single-serve plastic containers (often transported great distances);
soft drinks and beer, etc. sold in refillable containers rather than
throwaway “recyclable” containers; computers and other electronics
equipment designed for easy dismantling for reuse or recycling at
end-of-life; packaging made from recyclable and renewable fibres rather
than plastics derived from fossil fuels (e.g., foam, film plastic,
bubble wrap, etc.). The savviest Zero Waste proponents prefer not to
play the game of trying to specify which materials are the best or
worst; instead, they say that if we force industry to internalize its
costs (and not externalize them onto the environment of ratepayers) the
most eco-efficient solutions will emerge.

9. Zero Waste advocates decry the situation in which public policy often
focuses only on residential waste which, while visible to voters, is
only about one-third of the waste stream. The other two-thirds of
commercial and industrial waste is made up primarily of recyclable
materials such as metal, paper, cardboard, wood, etc. that should not be
sent to landfill. It’s time, they say, for policies that consider all
“three-thirds” of the waste stream.

10. The Zero Waste movement is not advocating a return to some kind of
pre-industrial Stone Age. It’s not attempting to turn the clock back
very far. Our grandparents who survived the Great Depression knew a
thing or two about thrift and the value of reusing glass bottles and
getting all the possible use out of a product. In their day, durability
was prized over mere “convenience.” The throwaway society was invented
in the 1950s in the era when “cheap” energy from oil and electricity
seemed limitless, and the modern chemical industry was born. In an era
of peak oil and greater awareness of the dangers from some synthetic
chemicals, it’s time to rethink the throwaway society and replace its
values with those of just two or three generations ago.

*Conclusion*

When we complain about the “inconvenience” of having to bring a reusable
cloth shopping bag into the grocery store, or ride a bike to work (where
possible), or put our kitchen scraps into a green bin for composting,
what we’re really complaining about is having to change from a “waste
full” way of being in the world to a “waste less” way of life. We’re
like modern equivalents of degenerate aristocrats who, having fallen on
difficult times, have to learn to live without servants, empty their own
bed pans, wash their own soiled linens and cook their own food.

The modern throwaway society gave us a lot of convenience over the past
half-century, and it also spoiled us rotten and made us careless
individuals who cry crocodile tears over bleached coral reefs or
disappearing rain forest even as we move into larger and larger
climate-controlled homes filled with designer furniture and appliances
that magazines have convinced us we must have. Indeed, we have a fetish
now for these things.

Marshall McLuhan once said, “There are no passengers on Spaceship Earth.
We are all crew.” He made this statement in 1965, in reference to
/Operating Manual for Spaceship Earth/ (1963) by Buckminster Fuller.

That statement is something I think about every day, both the McLuhan
quote and the title of Buckminster Fuller’s book. Whether you’re an
environmental engineer, a waste recycling coordinator, a person working
in industry, a consumer or just (!) an interested citizen, you are
engaged, as a crew member, in the ad hoc writing of that operating
manual. The Zero Waste movement is currently writing a section --
perhaps a whole chapter -- in that manual, because waste is the rough,
cut-your-fingers edge where the consumer society and Earth’s natural
systems collide. It’s where we can measure the size and depth of our
ecological footprint.

Far from being just about “the household trash,” Zero Waste is really
about… everything.





--------------------------
Gaia-members@no.address
To unsubscribe, email gigie@no.address




Get fantasy football with free live scoring. Sign up for FanHouse Fantasy Football today.



[GreenYes Home] - [Date Index] - [Thread Index]
[Date Prev] - [Date Next] - [Thread Prev] - [Thread Next]