Theory and Practice Candice Anderson Toronto, Canada Zero Waste

Practice Case study examples of San Francisco and South Australia Refers to diversion of materials from landfill or incineration Increased recycling and composting Theory vs Practice Practice Case study examples of San Francisco and South Australia Refers to diversion of materials from landfill or incineration Increased recycling and composting Theory Derived from grassroots community, individuals Expressed as a set of principles Practice Case study examples of San Francisco and South Australia Refers to diversion of materials from landfill or incineration Increased recycling and composting

Zero waste theory principles 1.Waste is unusable, unwanted and unrecyclable objects/materials 2.ZW is a visionary goal 3.Waste must be avoided and eliminated from the source 4.Waste is evidence of poor design 5.Waste must be avoided/eliminated, not reduced or minimized 6.Eliminate toxins 7.Adhere to the principle of highest and best use 8.There are barriers to the realization of ZW

Redefining Waste Unusable Unwanted Unrecyclable Subjective Accounts for changes in lifecycle New perspective new problems Much waste is produced

Visionary Goal Unconventional solutions Outside “garbage mentality” “Fundamental challenge to business as usual” GRRN

Waste must be avoided and eliminated from the source “Waste that is not generated cannot create any problems making non-generation the cheapest waste handling measure” (Kharbanda and Stallworthy 1990)

Waste is evidence of poor design Zero Waste involves moving from the back end of waste disposal to the front end of resource management. If a product can't be reused, repaired, rebuilt, refurbished, refinished, resold, recycled or composted, then it should be restricted, redesigned, or removed from production. Zero Waste International Alliance

Waste must be eliminated, not reduced or minimized Aim for “Zero Waste” not “Less Waste” Reduction is potentially more dangerous Zero allows for a perpetual goal Go beyond zero – achieve maximum benefit

Eliminate Toxins Utilize the precautionary principle Reduction is potentially more dangerous For those that can’t be eliminated, reuse safely to maximum benefit and effectiveness

Adhere to the principle of highest and best use Materials vs function “Creating complexity costs money and other resources. Conserving complexity is an example of reusing function. When you destroy complexity without making use of it, you squander resources” Getting to Zero Waste

Recognize barriers Institutional and ideological barriers preventing implementation of zero waste theory –Authority, control, information –Linear industrial system, globalization, consumer culture, perceived/planned obsolescence –Habit, tokenism, rebound effect

In Practice – Policies Policy documents adhere closely to zero waste theory in both SA & SF SA mission to Avoid, Reduce, Reuse, Recycle SF aims to “eliminate waste and pollution…by redesigning the manufacture, use, and recycling of materials…valuing the highest and best use of materials”

Case Studies South AustraliaSan Francisco Population1.6 million (1.1 in Adelaide)835,364 Density1295 persons/km 2 (Adelaide)6847 persons/km 2 Per capita generation490kg609kg Beginning of ZW movement % to landfill46%28% Diversion rates54% MSW, 76% C&I waste, 72% C&D waste72% MSW Goals70% diversion of MSW by % diversion of C&I by % diversion of C&D by % reduction in waste generation per capita by % diversion of MSW by % of C&D

SF Practice Highlights Plastic bag ban Styrofoam ban, mandatory compostable/recyclable substitutes Mandatory recycling/composting Facility tours, art program Toxic Reductions Program

SA Practice Highlights Zero Waste South Australia National strategy Plastic bag ban Local recycling processing Research centre Comprehensive strategy

Conclusion Zero waste goes beyond diversion efforts Adhere to theory to maintain integrity of concept Perpetual goal to zero Maintain visionary aspect of zero waste