Reducing Our Waste, Securing Our Future

Reducing Our Waste, Securing Our Future

The Evolution of Waste Reduction

When the first Earth Day was celebrated some half century ago, the new platitude was “Reduce, Reuse, Recycle”. While some small steps have been made (the # Rs have been expanded – “Refuse, Reduce, Repair, Reuse, Recycle, Rot”) we’re clearly now in over our heads in waste.

In December 2022, the United Nations General Assembly adopted a resolution at its seventy-seventh session to proclaim 30 March as International Day of Zero Waste, to be observed annually. The International Day of Zero Waste encourages sustainable production and consumption habits and aims at increasing awareness of how zero-waste projects accelerate the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. The United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN-Habitat) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) facilitate the observance of the Day

Research evidence continues to accumulate on human transgression of key planetary geo-bio-chemical boundaries, which threaten our collective futures irreparably. The evidence has been forewarned over decades of our denial. Our choosing to deny this reality not only doesn’t make it disappear, it accelerates its arrival. This is a global hairball, not solvable by one nation, one industry, or one community. Hence, the Sustainable Development Goals agreed to by all member states of the United Nations in 2015.

Addressing Systemic Issues

While it is perhaps somewhat easier to measure our geo-bio-chemical boundary transgressions, they clearly are simultaneously embedded in the social, economic, and political systems we humans have constructed. This is the essential theme of the recent scientific paper from late 2023 in the journal, Science Progress. This concern has been raised before, perhaps most thoroughly in a global review from 2018 by the International Panel on Social Progress (IPSP). In its three-volume study, IPSP laid out in much detail a possible direction to head. IPSP is an international effort of more than 200 social scientists from every continent representing all the social sciences to try to find a way forward for the entire human family together.

Goals for Social Progress

A Manifesto for Social Progress: Ideas for a Better Society, which is a shorter overview of this colossal enterprise written by some of the principal leaders of the effort offers this:

“We cannot simply undertake minor changes, small fine-tuning of policies, and avert the looming crises. A more fundamental transformation is needed. We believe that this transformation is possible… Three main goals must be pursued and achieved in conjunction, and they relate to three fundamental values:

●       Equity: reduce inequalities of development between countries and social inequalities within countries;

●       Sustainability: put the planet back on a track that preserves ecosystems and the human beings of future generations;

●       Freedom: expand and deepen basic liberties, the rule of law, and democratic rights for all populations.”

(A Manifesto for Social Progress, Cambridge University Press, 2018, p.85)

The authors immediately concede, after pointing us in this direction, that there will be a natural tendency to attempt to work on any two of the three goals. They go on for several pages with scenarios for any combination of two goals sought while one is missed, whereby all of the scenarios end badly. While there is consensus in the “direction” the human family should go for true social progress for all, the route they agree on must be worked out. But even getting our communities to support these basic three goals would be a huge step forward.

Understanding Waste

Waste is a word that can be used as a verb, a noun, or an adjective. As a noun, an accepted definition from the American Heritage Dictionary is commonly understood – “An unusable or unwanted substance or material, such as a waste product:”. But the term can be used in many ways. We waste not just material goods but time, talent, human energy, money, landscapes, opportunity, …

The Impact Equation

Paul Ehrlich, author of The Population Bomb almost 60 years ago, came up with the I=PAT formula - I(Impact) = P(Population) x A(Affluence) x T (Technology). The (A) has often been replaced by (C) Consumption in more recent iterations. If two of the three variables remain the same but one increases, then the total impact will increase. Surely if two or more variables increase the Impact increases exponentially. Technology is a wild card in that it can either increase impact (automobiles, plastics, etc.) or decrease it (i.e., replacing incandescent bulbs with LEDs, renewable energy with fossil fuel energy).

We have yet to realize the power of this equation especially given population increases (world population in 1940 was about 2.3 billion; 2.5 billion in 1950; 8+ billion today). But of course, the developed world and higher income individuals in the developing world are consuming many times more than we were in 1950. So given the transgressions of planetary boundaries, shrinking the global consumption while also making distribution more just, requires significant reductions from those of us in the developed world while increasing consumption for the poorest members of the human family. Waste needs to be reduced in every portion of the supply chain, from production, distribution, consumption and end of life. Eco-designers William McDonough and Michael Braungart urge to design not for the typical cradle to grave, but “cradle-to-cradle”.

Climate Justice Requirements

As just mentioned, the disparity driven by global inequality needs to be faced. Perhaps this is made most visible in recent studies looking at inequality and climate. The following graph depicts the nature of a just response to the disparity of responsibility for the excess of CO2 in the atmosphere.

Note that the wealthiest 10 % need to reduce their consumption by 90% by 2030!  That’s most of us, folks. A couple in the US with combined annual incomes of $50,000 would rank in the top 7% globally. These disparities must be addressed.

Rethinking Waste

Our culture refuses to face this reality, thus even the slowing of growth will not be enough to prevent further transgressions of the planetary boundaries we need to live within. The International Day for Zero Waste must help us pause to consider all that we waste while many among us suffer from not enough, not to mention the theft from future generations our over-consumption ensures. Sufficiency must be a partner with efficiency. But let’s expand how we think of waste beyond what we put into our trash for the landfill. How much do we waste energy, regardless of how it’s produced – car idling, lights left on in vacant spaces, areas heated/cooled when absent. And let’s not stop there. Let’s look at waste more broadly?

How, for example, does pouring trillions of dollars into making nuclear weapons that we can’t possibly use without making the world unlivable for many, anything but waste? What of the culling of scientific minds to research more efficient means of killing people and destroying communities rather than working to heal all that is broken?

Maybe beginning to think more deeply about Zero Waste can steer us away from annihilation of ourselves and the community of life we share it with. That is surely the hope of recognizing International Day of Zero Waste. There is no time to waste.

No Time for Silence

 

The President’s newly announced budget this week ramps up an already bloated military budget. This is the popular and easy thing to do in a war-based culture. While the Russians brutally invade Ukraine, the drumbeats to beat ploughshares into swords intensifies in a war culture. To propose a more peaceable approach is to invite calls of emasculation, for the war culture is male dominant; just ask the myriad women in the military abused by their comrades. In a war culture, the heroes are the ones that destroy the enemy, even if the enemy they destroy is generally like them--young men asked to ”defend” their nation.

One doesn’t need to experience war firsthand to understand its horror. Certainly the impacts on those directly involved, whether soldier or civilian, are of another level entirely. Even the dubious winners of war leave with untold moral injuries that disrupt their lives forever and, for many, cause them to abruptly end it. In a war culture the fixation is on more weapons, more power, more soldiers that we are told will surely bring peace. History tells a different story, should we be willing to escape the glorification of war in film, parades, football halftime shows, recruitment videos and other realms of war culture and examine the data, as Erica Chenowith has.

Many in the peace community have counseled that contesting the growth in military spending during the atrocious Russian war against Ukraine is counterproductive.  If former general, and then President, Eisenhower could state the following during the Korean War (1953)

Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.
This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities. It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population. It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals. It is some fifty miles of concrete pavement. We pay for a single fighter with a half-million bushels of wheat. We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people.

Why, then, should peace-seeking believers in nonviolence shrink from calling for peace and military spending reductions? We expect ridicule from the pragmatists, realists and war profiteers that we are just so naïve. So be it. It is time to put the brakes on the war machine that is robbing our future in an unending theft of the resources needed to build a just and peaceful world for our children and grandchildren as Eisenhower warned.

Martin Luther King Jr. noted during the height of the Vietnam War, "A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death." Fittingly, this speech at the Riverside Church in New York City a year to the day before his death was subtitled “A Time to Break Silence.”

Let us stand with those brave members of Congress unafraid of being called “naïve” or worse – Bernie Sanders, Pramilya Jayapal, Barbara Lee and others--to break our own silence.  

For a better overview of the military spending debacle, read the Quincy Institute’s analysis of the new budget request by William Hartung  here. Or a broader look at the complexity through the eyes of energy expert Richard Heinberg today.