HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-11-15 City Council (2)FROM:
HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
CITY MANAGER
City of Palo Alto
City Manager’s Report
DEPARTMENT: PUBLIC WORKS
DATE:NOVEMBER 15, 2004 CMR:470:04
SUBJECT:REQUEST FOR COUNCIL DIRECTION TO STAFF TO DEVELOP A
PROPOSED ZERO WASTE POLICY AND IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that Council direct staff to return to Council with a proposed policy for zero
waste, including an implementation plan.
BACKGROUND
Zero waste is a philosophy and a design principle that goes beyond recycling to take a far-
reaching "systems approach" to the flow of resources and waste through society (Attachment A).
Recycling is not sufficient to address the myriad of problems surrounding unsustainable growth
in production, consumption, and waste creation. Zero waste, a component of sustainability, uses
nature as its model. In basic terms, there is no waste in nature because everything is connected.
Natural biologic systems cycle waste from one species to another as a food or resource. The zero
waste philosophy is similar in that it encompasses the :entire system and cycle of production and
consumption, from raw material extraction to product design to how consumers choose products,
and more. Zero waste policies and programs focus on reducing and minimizing the creation of
waste, reducing consumption, maximizing recycling, and ensuring product design and packaging
that includes take-back, reuse, repair or recycling to return resources to nature or the economic
mainstream.
a
The California Integrated Waste Management Act (AB 939) established the 50 percent landfill
diversion goal bythe year 2000 for local governments based on an integrated waste management
hierarchy that prioritized waste reduction and recycling over all other options. The Palo Alto
community achieved 55 percent landfill diversion in 2002.
Most cities in California have met the AB 939 goal, and in 2001, the California Integrated Waste
Management Board developed a broader strategic plan, which included zero waste. The first and
seventh strategic goals of the Board’s plan are to: "Increase participation in resource
conservation, integrated waste management, waste prevention, and product stewardship to
reduce waste and create a sustainable infrastructure", and "Promote a ’zero waste California’
where the public, industry, and government strive to reduce, reuse, or recycle all municipal solid
waste materials back into nature or the marketplace in a manner that protects human health and
the environment and honors the principles of California’s Integrated Waste Management Act°"
Communities adopting specific zero waste goals and strategies date back to 1996. The adoption
of policies and implementation of programs have led the following communities to pursue
broader waste diversion goals:
CMR:470:04 Page 1 of 3
The Australian Capital Territory, in 1996, was the first government in the world to set a goal
of achieving no waste going to landfill and has implemented the "No Waste by 2010" Waste
Management Strategy.
Over half of the communities in New Zealand have adopted zero waste as a goal.
Seattle, Washington adopted zero waste as a guiding principle in 1998.
In California, the following communities have adopted zero waste goals: Del Norte County,
San Francisco, San Luis Obispo County, and Santa Cruz County.
Other communities in California have adopted goals beyond 50 percent diversion, such as,
Alameda County (75 percent) and the City of Los Angeles (75 percent).
The business community has shown leadership with best practices for eliminating waste, reusing
and recycling discarded materials, and composting discarded organic materials. Some
businesses have diverted over 90 percent of their wastes from landfills. The operations of these
businesses range from factories to vineyards, to the high tech industry to carpet manufacturing.
DISCUSSION
Locally, zero waste is gaining momentum with the formation and action of the Zero Waste Task
Force of San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties. The task force was formed as an ad hoc group to
promote zero waste in the South Peninsula!San Jose/San Francisco Bay Area region. On
September 3, 2004 this task force adopted a Zero Waste Communities Strategy. The task force’s
zero waste communities strategy encourages communities to go beyond California’s AB939 goal
of 50 percent waste diversion by adopting a zero waste goal and developing a tailored zero waste
plan for their community. The intent of the task force is to:
Network with other communities in the Bay Area, across the state, U.S. and throughout the
world
Raise public awareness on waste issues.
Gain elected official support for policy and planning shifts needed to achieve zero waste.
A zero waste policy would be a fitting next step given the City’s Sustainability Policy: "To meet
the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own
needs." In adopting the suStainability policy, the City of Palo Alto accepted the responsibility,
through its programs and services, to:
~,Reduce resource use and pollution in a cost-effective manner, while striving to protect and
enhance the quality of the air, water, land and other natural resources.
~ Minimize human impacts on local and regional ecosystems.
The creation of a zero waste community would best be accomplished by obtaining direction from
Council to proceed in the development of a zero waste policy (to be adopted by resolution) for
the City. Staff believes the policy could be developed and bi:ought to Council with an
implementation plan within six months. The City Recycling Program has developed and
implemented programs and conducted outreach using the integrated waste management
hierarchy of source reduction, reuse, recycling, landfilling, and incineration° The City’s current
waste reduction activities and 2003 Recycling Program Annual Report, which includes a history
of programs was previously reported to Council (CMR 398:04). To assist staff in determining
the type of programs to be developed, waste disposal characterizations are performed. A waste
disposal characterization describes the waste stream that is currently being disposed. The most
CMR:470:04 Page 2 of 3
recent study of Palo Alto’s waste stream was conducted in 1997 to assist the City in achieving
the AB939 mandate. Attached to this report are two tables comparing the results of the 1990 and
1997 waste characterizations (Attachment B). Since the 1997 characterization, the Recycling
Program has developed, implemented, and expanded its program offerings to the community.
Staff will. need to conduct another waste disposal characterization in order to assess the current
waste stream being disposed and to plan for future programs and outreach.
Throughout the process of developing a zero waste policy and implementation plan, staff will
work with task force and community stakeholders, including local businesses to ensure that the
proposed elements of the zero waste policy are viable options.
RESOURCE IMPACT
Resource impacts are not Lnown at this time. Potential funds and staffing necessary to develop
and !mplement zero waste programs and policies would be determined and identified in the
preparation of a zero waste implementation plan.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
These recommendations are consistent with existing policies.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
This recommendation to conceptually approve a zero waste goal is not a project under the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and no further environmental review is
necessary.
PREPARED BY:
DEPARTMENT HEAD:
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
MIC~L D. JACKSON
Depu~ty Director o~f PW/Operatjons
GLENN S. ROBERTS
Director of Public WoNs
~ "EMIL~~SON
Assistant City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A: Grass
Attachment B:
Roots Recycling Network Zero Waste Briefing Kit (excerpts)
(http://www.grrn.org/zerowaste/kit/briefing/index.html)
1o Case Studies
2.Barriers to Achieving Zero Waste
3.Principles of Zero Waste
4.Frequently Asked Questions
5.Facts and Figures
CMR:470:04
Table 2-6 and Table 2-7 of Waste Generation Study, Prepared by EMCON,
September 2, 1997
Page 3 of 3
ON THE WAY TO ZERO WASTE WORLDWIDE
Throughout the world, innovative businesses, governments, and communities are already implementing,
successful programs that reduce waste to zero - or darn close. New initiatives are continually reported
from around the world, and are chronicled on the GrassRoots Recycling Network’s web site: www.grrn.org.
Here are some of the leaders pursuing Zero Waste goals in the following categories:
1.Local Government ZeroWaste Plans
2.Model Communities
3.Resource Recovery Park,s
4.Extended Producer ResponsibilityforWaste
5.Environmentally Preferable Purchasing
6.Product and Packaging Design
7.Comprehensive Zero Waste Business
Approaches
1. Local Government Zero Waste Plans
Communities can pursue Zero Waste by first
seeing a goal. of eliminating rather than managing ~
waste. This simple step can lead to breakthroughs
when resources and the creativity of policy-makers
and engineers are redirected to developing
solutions based on providing clean streams of
resources to local entrepreneurs.
The role of local government changes when discard-
ed materials are treated as community enhancing
assets rather than as liabilities (waste). Instead of
managing liabilities, local government policies
promote entrepreneurial innovation and direct
that creativity to maximizing the delivery of clean
resource streams to local enterprises, For updates,
see ’Zero Waste Around the World’ at
www, grm,org/zerowaste/zw.world.html,
Examples:
Del Norte County, CA,’USA (population 32,000).
Rural De! Notre County is the first county in the
United States to guide its solid waste strategy with
a comprehensive Zero Waste plan, which it adopted
in 200& Officials expect the plan to ease the con;
version from a timber-oriented economy to a new,
sustainable economy using local resources cur-
rently being wasted, Contact: Del Norte County
Solid Waste Management Authority, 707-465-1100;
recycle@cc.northcoast,com, More Info: Del Norte
County Waste Management Authority Zero Waste
Plan, February 2000
(www, grrn,org/orde~/order.html#del.norte).
New Zealand Councils. More than one-third of New
Zealand’s 74 local governments have adopted goals
of Zero Waste to landfills by 2015 as of late 2001,
and an effort is underway to get the goal adopted
nationally, Zero Waste New Zealand Trust
(www, zerowaste,co,nz) provides a small amount of
grant money to help councils get started but does
not supply a blueprint -that is being developed by
local officials, managers, and engineers, The Trust
predicts the creation of 40,O00jobs over 10 years
through converting local transfer stations to
resource recovery centers, and through the resulting
proliferation of reuse and recycling businesses.
Contact: Warren Snow, wsnow@envision-nz.com.
Other communities planning for Zero Waste:
Seattle, WA, USA (population 534,700) adopted
Zero Waste as a ’guiding principle’ in 1998. ,The plan
emphasizes managing resources instead of waste,
conserving natural resources through waste
prevention and recycling (www, ci.seattie.wa.us/
util/solidwaste/SWPlan/default.htm).
Santa Cruz County, CA, USA (population 230,000)
adopted Zero Waste as a long-term goal in 1999.
The Australian Capital Territory of Canberra
(population 300,000) adopted a No Waste by 2010
goal and plan in 1996. The plan envisions a waste-
free city by 2010, with its two landfills replaced by
’Resource Recovery Estates,’ Recycling has
increased 80% since 1995.
(www, act.gov, au/nowaste)
~ Every day another city achieves cost effective diversion rates well above the national average,
and new recycling markets, program, and processing strategies demonstrate success. ~’v
-- Joan Edwards, Joan Edwards & Associates;
former director of recycling, cities of New York and Los Angeles
www.t~rFiq ,or.~
Examples:
U.S. Eederal Agencies. As a result of Executive
Orders in the 1990s, federal agencies are taking the
lead in buying recycled paper and other recycled
products, as well as products that include features
such as reduced toxics and reduced energy needs
( www, epa,gov / oppt/ epp/ gen~resource/total 5.html ) ,
King County, WA, USA. A national leader in buying
environmentally preferable products
(www.metrokc.gov/procure/green See also Pacific
Northwest Pollution Prevention Resource Center
www.pprc,org/pprc/pubs/topics/envpurch.html).
Product and Packaging Design
Many companies have been innovative in redesigning
products, whether to reduce costs or to meet
government incentives or requirements. Some have
redesigned packaging to minimize materials. Others
have redesigned products for ease of reuse and
recycling. Still more have transformed the concept of
their products to eliminate waste. Extended Producer
Responsibility encourages manufacturers to design
products for easy disassembly, to minimize the cost.
of manufacturer responsibility for recycling.
Interface, Inc.. (Dalton, GA, USA) This maker of
commercial carpets is changing its focus from
providing a product to providing a service, leasing
carpets to customers and taking back old carpet
and tiles for refurbishing or recycling. Interface also
pioneered the practice of installing carpet in tiles,
so that onJythe high wear places need to be
replaced when worn out.
Herman Miller (Zeeland, MI, USA) In manufacturing
office furniture, Herman Miller used to receive molded
plastic chair seats in single-use cartons containing
shells in bags, separated by chipboard sheets, placed
56 to a double-sided corrugated box. After unpacking
the seats and assembling the chairs, Herman Miller
was left with 30 pounds of packaging for every 56
chairs. The company developed, with its vendor, a
protective rack that stores 90 seats in the space that
previously housed 56 and can be reused 80 to 100
times or more.
7, Comprehensive Zero Waste Business
Approaches
Businesses pursue Zero Waste in many ways, in
addition to redesigning products. For example:
Re-evaluating products and services to create
the greatest consumer and environmental
value, within economic feasibility;
Minimizing excess materials and maximizing
recycled content in products and packaging;
Finding productive uses for, reuse, recycling, or
composting over 90% of their solid waste;
Reducing procurement needs, then specifying
products that meet Zero Waste criteria;
¯Establishing easily accessible repair systems,
as well as recovery processes for packaging
and products.
Collins & Aikman, Dalton, GA, USA
(www.collinsaikman.com). Makers of automotive
fabric and trim, the company Sent zero manufacturing
waste to landfill in 1998. Waste-minimization and
energy-efficiency programs boosted production
300% and lowered corporate waste 80%.
Xerox Corporation, Rochester, NY, USA
(www.xerox.com) In 1999, the company’s non-
hazardous solid waste recycling rates worldwide
reached 87% and beneficially managed 94% percent
of hazardous waste through recycling, treatment,
or fuels blending.
ZERI Breweries, Namibia (Africa), Sweden, Canada
and Japan (www.zeri,org/systems/brew.htm) The
Zero Emissions Research and Initiative Foundation
has helped design breweries that utilize 40 different
biochemical processes to reuse everything, including
heat, water, and wastes. A digester transforms
organic wastes into m~thane gas for steam for
fermentation, Spent grain is used to grow mushrooms.
Alkaline water supports a fish and algae farm.
Fetzer Vineyards, Hopland, CA, USA (www.fetzer.com
then "Fetzer Story", then "Environmental Philosophy").
Fetzer recycles paper, cardboard, cans, glass, metals,
antifreeze, pallets, and wine barrels; composts corks
and grape seeds. Garbage was reduced by 93% in the
past several years, with a goal of no waste by 2009.
Zero Waste presents compelling environmental, economic, and social goals for the 21 st century.
Successful programs worldwide are already moving toward Zero Waste. But achieving Zero Waste
- or even substantially increasing current recovery rates - requires an engaged public willing to
question conventional economic wisdom and political practice. Four barriers present key chal-
lenges to achieving Zero Waste communities.
Barrier 1 - Government Subsidies Favor
Extraction and Waste
subsidies for wasting
Under resource policies dating as far back asthe
1800s. federal and state programs subsidize
logging, mining, and waste disposal industries -
businesses that compete directly with resource
conserving enterprises engaged in cycling used
materials back into the marketplace. Whatever
subsidies exist for recycling efforts pale in
comparison with, for example, the hundreds of
billions of dollars in subsidies provided to virgin-
resource processors over the past century and to
this day. Or the U.S. government’s allocation of an
average of $2.6 billion each year just in direct
taxpayer subsidies for the resource extraction
and waste industries.
America’s wasting industries require unsustainable
amounts of energy and capital to .operate, But
instead of subjecting them to fair competition,
government policies further underwrite their
inefficiency through countless indirect subsidies,
like preferential energy pricing, cheap water, and
tax credits.
Barrier 2 - The High Cost of Waste is Hidden
:ct real costs.
Most of the cost of waste is hidden, giving wasting
industries an invisible competitive advantage.
Product prices usually do not reflect their full
environmental costs. Damage to ecosystems, loss
of habitat and biodiversity, production of green-
house gases, toxic pollution, health problems, and
harm to recreation industries are real costs created
by our current system of resource use but not
calculated into the price of goods. These costs
remain obscured, as consumers pay three separate
times for many products: once at the store, again
for disposal, and yet again to mitigate environmental
damage and health costs. Meanwhile, many of the
benefits of resource conservation, such as job
creation, community economic development, and
energy conservation, are not accounted for in
economic transactions and statistics.
The hierarchy of environmental policy says Reduce,
Reuse, Recycle, and lastly,. Landfill or Incinerate.
However, our economy typically operates in
reverse, putting landfills and incinerators at the top
of the profitability scale because operators can
exclude the costs of wasting and rely on put31ic
subsidies and guarantees.
~ The whole concept of industry’s dependence on ever-faster, once-through flow of materials
from depletion to pollution is turning from a hallmark of progress into a nagging signal of
uncompetitiveness. WW
-- Hawkert, Lovins, and Lovins, Natural Capitalism
Barrier 3 - Producers Ignore Responsibi!ity
for Products’ Environmental Costs
Barrier 4 - Inertia of Existing Viewpoints and
Practices
Manufacturers’ choices determine how a product
will impact the environment - whether to use virgin
or recycted materials, whether to design for reuse
or recyclability, what packaging to use, how costly
it will be to recycle, whether ~o sell or lease the
product, and so forth. Yet producers have almost no
responsibility for disposing or recycling their products
n our communities. As long as these functions are
provided attaxpayer expense, manufacturers have
little incentive to redesign their products or make
less wasteful products and packaging.
Producer responsibility initiatives, like producer
take-back systems, encourage Zero Waste by
providing incentives for innovation in source
reduction, durability, and recydable design.
Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) for waste
makes manufacturers responsible for the lifecycle
of their products and packaging, providing the
missing link between product design and recycling.
EPR is not prescriptive - it doesn’t tell companies
how they must reduce their waste, it simply
penalizes them for generating it. Costs are borne
by producers and consumers, rather than by
taxpaye~rs.
of
Conventional wisdom has a lot of powerful friends.
Changing viewpoints and practices isn’t easy. It is
simple for local governments to hire a single
contractor to manage all municipal discards, and bury
or burn the majority. Comprehensive community
resource recovery systems, on the other hand.
require s~gnificant time and ingenuity (though not
necessarily more financial resources) to design
and develop. True resource recovery systems are
information intensive, rather than capital intensive,
and require attention to diverse material streams,
multiple businesses, and public education and par-
ticipation. Bankers and investors prefer centralized
capital-intensive projects, like landfills and
incinerators, rather than dispersed, labor- and
knowledge-intensive community resource
recovery projects.
People who recycle every day increasingly sense
that, despite their best efforts and intentions, the
systems are being made to fail. Absent an under-
standing of the political and economic dynamics at
work, and without all the words to articulate their
frustrations, the recycling public will lose out to
wasting industries., The language of.Zero Waste can
translate this emerging public perception into
actual practice,
Information and education are the keys to overcoming these barriers, Zero Waste is in the community
interest. To get to zero we need to change the rules so that resource-conserving enterprises
outcompete resource-wasting businesses. We need local resource management systems that serve the
community, and state and federal sustainable materials policies, Together, we’ll build communities and
businesses that make Zero Waste - or darn close.
RESOURCES
Welfare for Waste: How Federal Taxpayer Subsidies Waste Resources and Discourage Recycling, by GrassRoots Recycling Network, ]-axpayers for Common Sense,
Friends of the Earth, Materials Efficiency ProJect, 1999 (www.grrn.org/order/wolfare4waste, html)
WaSting and Recyciihg ih the L/hired States 2000, GrassRoote Recycling Network and Institute for Locai Sol&Reliance, 2600 (www, grrn,orglorder/w2klnfo,html)
Natural Capita#sin: Creating the Next Industrial Revolugon, Paul Hawken, Amory Lovins, and L Hunter Lovins, (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1999)
(www, natcap,org)
Crear.ing Wealth from Waste, Robin Murray (London: Demos, 1999 (www.grm.orglorder/cwfw.info.html)
ATTACHMENT A-3
ZERO WASTE: A NEW WAY TO LOOK AT OUR NATURAL RESOURCES
Systemwide
Principles
Government
Policies
Raw Material
Supply
Principles Guiding
Current Practices
Limitless flow of resources from nature
to dumps,
¯Lack of producer responsibility for
environmental and social impacts of
products and packaging,
Focus on increasing production and
productivity of labor.
Focus on large-scale, centralized, capital-
intensive industries (resource extraction
and waste management).
¯Many environmental costs and benefits
not accounted for.
¯Manage waste at taxpayer expense,
Regulate specific environmental
emissions at facilities,
Subsidize virgin extraction firms and
waste management firms.
¯Emphasis on virgin resources with harvests
determined by commodity cycles.
¯Toxic materials managed,
Guiding Principles for
Pursuing Zero Waste
Flow of resources viewed as a cycle with
minimized input and output.
Responsibility by producers for the life-
cycle impacts of products and packaging,
creating incentive to design more benign
products,
Focus on increasing benefits to
communities and optimizing productive
use of resources,
Focus on locally owned, independent
industries.
Accounting for environmental costs and
benefits.
¯Eliminate waste by holding producers
responsible for impact.
¯Systematically optimize environmental,
economic and social impacts of the
production and consumption cycle.
¯Create level playing field or outright
subsidies to promote resource conservation
industries.
Emphasis on recycled material use and
sustainable harvesting of natural
resources.
Emphasis on use of non-toxic materials.
Chart continued on back page,,,
Wasting resources wastes jobs because it removes resources from commerce.lf
Dan Knapp, Urban Ore, Inc,
~ www,~rrn.org
Product and
Packaging
¯ Design
Manufacturing
Practices
Sales and
Consumption
End-of-Life
Management
Principles Guiding
Current Practices
¯Guided by competitive innovation, with
emphasis on marketing and sales,
¯Some attention to design-for-recycling,
clean production, or design-for-environ-
ment where public attention is focused.
¯Focus on short product lifespans to
maxi .mize sales.
¯Companies strive to minimize compliance
costs with end-of-pipe emission
regulations.
Wholesalers and retailers assume no
responsibility for environmental .
management.
Emphasis on large-scale distribution and
international trade.
Consumers select products based on
price and quality.
¯Many environmental costs and benefits
hidden,
¯Secretive and complicated accounting
processes.
¯taxpayers bear most costs of disposal,
including landfilling and recycling,
Guiding Principles for
Pursuing Zero Waste
¯Guided by design-for-environment
principles to reduce resource use and
environmental emissions, and to
minimize recycling or reuse costs.
¯Focus on waste minimization, durability,
repairability, and recyclability.
¯Maximized lifespans of products.
Companies redesign entire operations to
minimize resource use and environmental
emissions and maximize product reuse
and recycling,
Producing companies are responsible for
end-of-life management of their products
and packaging.
Producers influence Zero Waste throughout
the system by adjusting specifications
for suppliers and by taking responsibility
for end-of-life management,
¯Wherefeasible, products are leased, with
ownership retained by the producer,
¯Wholesalers and retailers are active part-
ners in product take-back and marketing
environmentally sound products.
¯Emphasis on regional distribution and
sales.
¯Consumers select products based on
environmental performance, price, and
quality.
¯ConsUmers participate in recycling and
reuse programs.
¯Programs create strong incentive to
maximize diversion,
¯Programs incorporate full cost accounting
principles.
¯Producers bear most costs of didposal,
www,grrn.org
ATTACHMENT A-4
Q: What is Zero Waste?
A: Zero Waste is a s~mple goa! with far-reaching
implications. The goat applies to the whole production
and consumption cycle - raw material extraction,
product design, production practices, how products
are sold and delivered, how consumers choose
products, and more. Pursuing ZeroWaste requires
questioning the view of nature as an endless
source of raw materials and an endless dumping
ground for waste. In fact, Zero Waste advocates see
nature as the ultimate production model - a system
in Which all materials are cycled back for productive
reuse and nothing is wasted.
Q: Is Zero Waste the Same as 100% reuse,
recycling and composting?
A: No. While much of the focus has been atthe end
of a product’s lifecycle, the lion’s share of waste
and associated environmental destruction happen
before consumers see the product on the shel~.
Seventy-one garbage cans’ worth of industrial
waste are produced for each can of discarded
products and packaging set out at curbside. This
includes waste from mining, clear-cutting timber,
oil and gas drilling, as well as from refining and
manufacturing those raw materials. Zero Waste
applies to our entire environment, our economy
and our community.
Q: Aren’t other efforts underway to achieve
the same thing?
A: Other concepts speak to aspects of Zero Waste but
focus on either the production end (cleaa production,
industrial ecology, design for environment and sus-
tainable development) or the disposal end (integrat-
ed waste management). Zero Waste encompasses
all of these with a comprehensive, whole-system
approach, with one set of consistent principles.
Q: Isn’t it impossible to get to Zero?
A; No system is 100% efficient. But we know that
we can get darn close. B_~ establishing a goal of
Zero, public and private organizations ca~ focus on
eliminating waste rather than on "managing" it.
Q: Aren’t we already rec~ycling as much as
possible?
A: Currently, more than two-thirds of"municipal"
products, packaging and organics discarded by
households, businesses and institutions is wasted
(buried in landfills or burned in incinerators). Many
communities are diverting 50% or more through
waste prevention, reuse, recycling and composting.
Yet easily recycled materials continue to be thrown
away: 73% of glass containers, 77% of magazines,
75 % of plastic containers, and 45% of newspapers
and aluminum beverage cans. In addition, many
products today are not designed to be repaired,
reused or recycled.
Q: Why can’t the free market handle these
issues?
A: If the market were truly ’free,’ and incorporated
the real environmental and social costs in making
products, perhaps it could. But markets today are
heavily influenced by tax subsidies and incentives
that favor extraction and wasteful industries.
Environmental damage, reduced quality of life,
health effects, social problems and many other
costs are not included in the price of products.
When taxpayers pick up the tab for waste,
manufacturers of wasteful products and packaging
lack incentive to eliminate waste or make products
recycling-friendly.
~ Zero waste is fundamentally a positive concept. Zero Waste is a design philosophy that can
help communities achieve a local economy that operates efficiently, sustains good jobs, and
provides a measure of self-sufficiency,lr
-- Peter IVlontague, Environmental Research Foundation
O: What’s the difference whether you use
new materials or recycled? IV]anufacturing
is manufacturing.
A: Recycled product manufacturing saves resources
and almost always saves significant amounts of
energy and water compared to manufacturing with
virgin materials, while polluting air and water less.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency reports
that recycling reduces air pollutants in 10 major
categories and water pollutants in eight major
categories. Environmental Defense calculates that
current U,S. recycling saves enough energy to
provide electricity for g .million homes per year,
By 2005, recycling will reduce greenhouse gas
emissions by 48 million tons, the equivalent Of
the amount emitted by 36 million cars.
Q: Are you suggesting that we should simply
stop extracting and harvesting natural
resources?
A: Zero Waste envisions sustainable harvesting
of natural resources, While achieving Zero Waste
may not totally eliminate virgin materials production,
it would significantly reduce the demand, All
remaining natural resources would be extracted in
environmentally sustainable and careful ways, with
impacts and costs translated into the price of the
finished product,
Q: Think of the misery and dislocation caused
by the ~oss of so many job!! How could you
suggestsuchupheaval? "
A: The Zero Waste vision is all about building strong
communities and local economies. Research by the
Washington OC-based institute for Local Selr
Reliance shows that only 1 local job is created for
every 10,000 tons of solid waste landfilled each
year. Composting the same amount creates 4jobs,
recycling it creates 10, and making new products
from the recycled materials adds 25 local jobs. In
the manufacturing sector, recycling creates more
than 1 million U.S. manufacturing jobs alone,
Q: Doesn’t recycling cost more than
landfilting or incinerating?
/~: There are economies of scale for recycling,just
as there are for wasting. Recycling systems
designed as ’add-ons’ to landfill and incineration
operations can be inefficient. Although no one
expects landfills or incinerators to make money,
many cities have proven that well-run recycling
programs cost less than wasting and earn money
as well.
Q: How can Zero Waste be implemented at the
community level?
/~: Three essential changes are needed: (1) Public
officials must be educated that Zero Waste strategies
provide an alternative to landfilling or incineration.
(2) Replacement facilities for landfills and incinerators
must be developed. All the elements for Recovery
Parks exist today, although in pieces; the next big
step is to create local policies that build and support
working parks. (3) Policies must require maximum
feasible separation of discards by material type, and
must ensure lifecycle producer responsibility to
share the cost of collecting used products and
encourage product redesign.
Q: Can we really eliminate landfills and
incinerators?
A: We already have the technology to reach a 90%
diversion rate in both businesses and communities.
Establishing a goal of Zero Waste unleashes ingenuity
and resources, and creates the opportunity for
developing locally appropriate breakthrough
strategies; Reaching Zero’Waste will take the efforts
of all segments of society, including corporations,
politicians, community leaders and citizens.
ATTACHMENT A-5
~ 0 o
E
ATTACHMENT B
qq~qqq~qooooo
00~O0
00~0
to o
00~ ~0 000~0
~0
o~o~o~~qq~q
~~0
0
00~ ~0
~00
00