The concept of zero waste challenges the perception of waste from the old days when waste was something to be thrown away, with no value at the end of its life cycle. In fact, the entire concept of waste should be eliminated and waste should be regarded as a valuable resource. We should take nature as an example of the best a zero waste model. There is no waste in nature, life builds up and breaks down, is used and re-used endlessly and harmlessly. The waste of one species is the food for another. A dead tree becomes the home for a bird, fertilizer for other plants, and food for termites. Nature is fascinating in the way it functions and how it designs its systems. This is how “Biomimicry 3.8”, studies nature’s best ideas and then imitates these designs and process to solve the human problems and creates the product and the process that no one ever even thought to create before.
We humans are the only species that produces waste, taking for granted Mother Nature. In the industrial world, we extract resources from the earth, produce and use what we want, and even make business from the use of natural resources. Yet we don’t stop there; we even returned the harmful wastes we produce back to the earth. Some people might blame or wonder why deforestation, water shortages, declining biodiversity, climate change, and earth quake happen frequently compared to the last decades. Some may even blame it on the earth itself, when in fact it is no one other than us.
Zero waste occurs when a given process has no output that is not used. Many think of waste is just solid waste, but energy, air and water should be accountable as waste also. Zero waste maximizes recycling, minimizes waste, reduces consumption and ensures products are made to be reused, repaired or recycled or biodegradable. Zero waste creates many business opportunities and innovative processes and ways to return resources back to the life cycle loop. Waste, is not actually waste; it is a resource.
So, what is zero landfill? Are the concepts of zero waste versus zero landfill the same? According to the Waste Management website, a zero landfill goal has a concrete, tangible end-state, while the concept of zero waste requires continuous improvement. A zero landfill initiative considers the recycling of non-product outputs, while at the same time exploring other options that are higher on the waste solutions hierarchy. On the other hand, the zero waste target is to eliminate all non-product outputs entirely from the system or to reuse non-product outputs back to the system. That way, there is nothing left on the curb.
Can we achieve zero waste? Yes We Can.
The most important concept behind zero waste is the goal of eliminating output that is detrimental and it should not be overwhelmed by the word “zero”. Even though some people believe it is “easier said than done”, we must remember that we cannot it do alone as individuals; it depends on each and every one of our efforts, including support of communities, organizations, businesses and the government, working closely together towards zero waste. Everyone should have a social responsibility to reduce the environmental impacts of our used products. We should not wait to be driven by someone else.
The idea of “who is driving the bus?” amuses me and leads me to think that all stakeholders in the life cycle loop are basically waiting for each other or simply waiting for the driver to take the lead. The worse scenario is one in which everyone just points the finger at each other.
The more important question is that even if we have the driver, are we following? Can the Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) Principle drive?
Thomas Lindhqvist formally implemented the concept of EPR, in a 1990 report to the Swedish Ministry of the Environment. Over the years, many countries have adopted the EPR principles such as Europe, Canada and North America and Asia. EPR, also known as Product Stewardship, is placed upon the manufacturer to reduce the environmental impacts of the product at each stage of the product’s life starting from raw materials extraction, production, packaging and distribution through the end use and final disposal phases as shown in Figure below. It also focuses on take-back, recycle, and reuse disposal of the product; which later converts the linear “cradle-to-grave” production and distribution chain into a “cradle-to-cradle” system. However, ERP is no longer focuses specifically on manufacturers and has extended the framework responsibilities to all the players in the product chain.
Singapore is a relatively small country, with a land area of approximately 707 sq. km. Its population grew from about 2 million to 6 million in 2012. At the same time, the quantity of solid waste disposed per year grew from 1,200 tones per year in 1970 to 7,600 tones per day in the year 2000. That’s a huge problem for such a small country with limited land resource for incineration plant and landfills. In 2008, 57% of all waste disposed in Singapore was considered domestic waste – mainly from paper, metal and plastic and the number keeps on increasing.
It shows that there is potential to reduce packaging waste in the municipal solid waste stream. In the review of Singapore Green Plan (SGP), one of the focus groups suggested that Singapore should adopt the principle of EPR to reduce the waste coming from packaging, as well as reduce the amount of packaging in their product. The National Environmental Agency (NEA) would not implement ERP as legislation because it would increase the cost of manufacturing and those costs would be gradually passed on to the consumer. However, some manufacturers voluntarily agreed to participate in ERP.
Is there a way for manufacturer to sustain economic growth and minimize their impact on the environment at the same time? Some companies have proven that they can not only reduce their impact on the environment, but also increase the revenue together.
Boncafe International Pte Ltd is a local gourmet coffee in Singapore. As business grew over the years, the company noticed that 33% increase in usage of packaging and in turn, the production cost increased by 3.3%. As a responsible company, they agreed to implement the ERP and agreed to sign on Singapore Packaging Agreement. The company managed to change the thickness of the packaging material from 140 to 120 microns without compromising on the look and quality of the product. As shown in the figure below, the changes they made reduced material usage by 14% and cost by 12.9%. These small changes made a huge different on environmental and business aspects of the company.
This leads me to another point, if we don’t know “who’s the driver?”, maybe a better question is “who can really drive the bus?” In ERP, could it be the Manufacturer or the Consumer?
Governments could not implement and make ERP a mandatory legislation because of industry concerns that the new legislation would dry up business cost and would increase the price of the good.
In Monroe Country, Rochester, recycling is mandatory for residents and business/institutions. However, I believe not everyone is aware of that. I believe the reason for this is due to the lack of transparent information, and media coverage. Recycling also plays a role in the product life cycle loop, and although it is not inside the circle , it is still part of it.
I believe government should tighten the laws and regulation on manufacturers and put extra pressure on leading manufacturers or retailers in order to make zero waste a reality. For instance, when Wal-Mart announced that they would only accept products within the required carbon footprint level, almost the suppliers modified their products according to the define requirements. The consumer has also responsibilities to consistently provide feedback to manufacturers when a product deliberately impact on the environment in a negative way.
As the principle of ERP, everyone has these responsibilities. It depends on the individual perception, awareness and initiatives to reach the goal of zero waste.
So, we should not wait for the driver because we are all the drivers.
