Waste

Un-recycled waste is, among other things, simply a manifestation of inefficiency. And there is no inherent reason why human technology must create what we now call “pollution.”

In the cycles of nature, there are sources, such as air, water and food, and sinks, such as wastes produced by animals’ and plants’ use of the sources. According to Debra Dadd-Redalia, author of Sustaining the Earth, Choosing Products That Are Safe for You, Your Family, and the Earth, a product of technology is sustainable “if it is made, used, and disposed of in such a way that it could continue to be made, used, and disposed of again and again indefinitely.”

A sustainable source must use resources in such a way as to allow them to be available “from generation to generation.” Similarly, in the case of sustainable sinks, the waste resulting from a product “must stay within the manufacturing loop or assimilate into the natural ecosystem and not build up or cause pollution” (Sustaining the Earth, Hearst Books, New York, NY, 1994, p. 29).

In a perfect world, there would be no waste, since everything would be re-used, ad infinitum. However, just as the perpetual-motion machine has yet to be invented, likewise some waste is here to stay, at least for the foreseeable future. Our job is to just minimize it as much as is humanly possible.

And if your mother, like mine, taught you that wasting food is a “sin,” then you know what I mean – it just isn’t right. It just makes sense that nothing should be wasted if that waste is in any way avoidable.

Of course, in nature, nothing is truly wasted. Even food discarded by humans is consumed by rats, worms and bacteria if nothing else.

However, humanity is reaching the point where it can no longer afford to squander resources, and the currently great inequality of lifestyle between the few and the many can only cause increasing strife in the future.

But if what is currently considered “waste” could be seen as a valuable commodity, it seems likely that businesses and governments would not want to discard it. This is the thrust of the work being done by architect William McDonough and chemist Michael Braungart, who’ve coined the term “Cradle to Cradle” design, and joined forces to create a blueprint for recycling “waste” into products which themselves will create additional value for everyone. Like the late Bucky Fuller, they are hopeful for the future, believing that we can indeed make things better for all humans and the environment as well.

By working with nature, they believe technology can accomplish far greater things than it has done in the past.

A modest example is the use of sugarcane waste in China, which has always been burned anyway, as a fuel to generate electricity. Rather than just waste this resource, and pollute the air at the same time, a company known as Pulse Energy is burning the material in plants that also capture the pollutants formerly released by free burning of the fields (Business 2.0, Vol. 7, No. 7, August 2006, p. 100, article by Todd Woody). Such technology could also be useful in places like Florida, where cane waste is also routinely burned in the fields where it lay.

An example more apparent to everyday electronics users worldwide is the appallingly short useable life of computers, PDAs, and other devices. Even if one wishes to avoid “keeping up with the Joneses” and chasing after the latest, most innovative products by being an “early adopter,” it’s becoming increasingly difficult to do so and still function in the business world. New versions of Windows and other software, requiring more memory and faster processors than can be installed in older systems, rapidly make older equipment obsolete. The result is the filling up of landfills with items that would have been state-of-the-art equipment not that many years before their unceremonious burial in the trash heap.

A system in which the consumer could easily recycle virtually all out-of-date electronic devices would save money for users while returning many useful raw materials to manufacturers. A method of “mining” the needed materials from the discarded equipment is all that need be developed, and it surely has to be easier than pulling “virgin” raw materials out of the ground.

And as we’ve said, is pollution ever really necessary? Can’t increased efficiency eliminate it? (See BFI article by J. Baldwin “Design as Savior, Designer as Slave”.) After all, think of the potential monetary value of all the “waste products” discarded by industry on a daily basis. In effect, much if not all garbage is really wealth that is being thrown away.

And what of built-in obsolescence? Lewis Mumford compared the refrigerator to the automobile – one often keeps a refrigerator for 20 years; why not a car? Part of the reason people buy new vehicles is demand created by advertising and fashion (and no refrigerator will ever hold the allure of a new sportscar), but part of it may also be built-in obsolescence. After all, the typical refrigerator is in constant operation throughout its lifespan, but how often do we hear of one breaking down unless it’s been in service for many years? Granted, automobiles are much more complex devices, with more systems that can fail, and they have to operate outdoors, often in harsh conditions. But most of us would agree that a BMW (or even an inexpensive Honda) is probably designed to last longer than the typical American car. And that realization leads us to some further questions, again posed by Debra Dadd-Redalia.

Firstly, is a particular product really something that you need? After all, NOT buying it could not only save you the money you’d spend on it, but could also keep you from feeding it into the waste stream.

Secondly, is it safe? If you can determine that a product may endanger the health of you, someone else in your household, pets, or even the plants and animals in your yard (if you have one), then it’s probably best not to buy that product unless you have no other choice.

Third, is the product made well and of such quality and design that you will want to keep it for a long time, and not dispose of it before it’s really worn out?

Also, has the item you’re contemplating purchasing been manufactured in a sustainable way, using recycling or other means to reduce environmental damage? This is not always easy to determine, but it’s getting easier. Timberland™ boots, for example, now have labels on their boxes listing the company’s environmental impact, much like the nutrition labels now required to appear on most food items.

Consider how you will dispose of the product after it’s outlived its usefulness. Is it biodegradable or easily recyclable?

Is the product’s packaging excessive? I, for one, despise plastic packaging that comes in so many layers it frustrates you to get the item out. And after all that frustration, you generally can’t recycle what’s left of the packaging, but just have to throw it all away.

Has the product traveled a tremendous distance to come to you? Of course, from your perspective, it may not really matter. A computer built in China, for example, may still sell for less in the U.S. than a comparable one built domestically, despite the cost of transporting it halfway across the planet. And although your personal need for a good computer at a low price, with which you can do valuable work, may certainly outweigh whatever concerns you may have about the inefficiency of it’s having been built so far away, and transported so far, it’s still something to think about. The more products we can buy that are built close to home, the fewer resources will be used to bring those products to us, and the less ecological harm will be done.

Of course, these concepts can apply to food as well as other products. For example, consider the concept of just raising and transporting plants for direct human consumption. And then consider the consumption of fuel, labor and machinery involved in growing crops to feed to animals (not to mention the production of waste such as manure), and then raising, killing, packaging and transporting the meat from those animals. The latter is undoubtedly less efficient. However, as previously mentioned, the growing of crops in monocultures may not be the most efficient use of land either. Smarter, less wasteful approaches can, and must, be developed.

(CONTINUE READING)