Beyond Zero Waste CaNWE Do It
Thursday, June 30, 2011
By Richard J Mauck
A group of northern Californian super recyclers, environmentalists, zero waste zealots, a wannabe the greenest politician, and one devil’s advocate were bemoaning, disparaging, discussing, and wondering what’s next? The conversation went something like this:
“California has achieved its 50% landfill diversion rate, but we’re still landfilling amounts of waste equal to where we started!”
“OK, but we are on the road to zero waste.”
“Not true. We are really on the road to nowhere. We’ve already admitted zero waste isn’t really zero waste, but as close as we can get to zero. It just means we’ll never get there later than sooner. We’ll always have waste, and it seems like a lot of it.”
“If we are going to make a difference, we have to think out of the box, and in our case out of the bin.”
“Let’s not forget about carbon emissions and global warming issues.”
“…not to mention global hunger and world peace.”
“What do we do? What do we do? What do we do…?”
“Don’t get your feathers ruffled, Chicken Little. Let’s just take on waste generation and carbon emissions. There is a concept and plan that can work, and it is self-perpetuating once it is put in place.”
“OK, what have you been smoking, and can I get it at our local medical marijuana dispensing facility?”
“What did your coach tell you to do all the time? Give me 110%! That’s what we ask for…we want the manufacturer and producers to reduce their carbon emissions and waste generation by more than they generate, and we want them to take steps to reduce the global impact, too.”
“That’s crazy, man. How do you think you’ll do that?”
“We utilize what’s been most successful in the past: local initiatives coupled with economic incentivization, and follow through. It’s called guerrilla policy politics. You keep fighting the many small battles at many local level jurisdictions, winning enough to finally bring pressure to establish your policy on a broader level.
“One example is that of the ‘No Smoking’ bans, which after failing to pass at the federal and state levels, sought and gained passage at the local level in so many jurisdictions it brought the state legislators and tobacco producers to the table and passed legislation at the state levels. Another example in California is the push to remove plastic bags and non-recyclable takeout food containers from the wastestream by banning, and/or charging a fee for their use, which has brought the plastic bag manufacturers and petroleum industry out in force. Success is happening in northern California’s ‘big five’ (cities of San Francisco, Berkeley, San Jose, Santa Cruz, and Palo Alto), with others joining statewide. Statewide legislation is not far behind. Got the picture?”
“But it’s so slow and, item by item, will take 1,000 years.”
“That’s why we have to think bigger and better—globally. Think ‘a continuing waste elimination process coupled with a resultant carbon negative emission process.’”
“And then, no waste and no carbon emissions?!”
“You got it. Waste elimination and carbon negative emissions policy means all producers, manufacturers, and businesses must reduce their waste generation and carbon footprints annually by a schedule until zero and beyond. Not only will they be responsible for their own efforts, they will have to buy carbon emission/waste elimination credits, invest in approved programs/projects that reduce waste and carbon emissions, or pay heavily incentivized fees based on gross sales for noncompliance. The pool of any fees collected will be shared on a sliding scale as rebates to those successful companies who are achieving zero and beyond. ”
“I guess you could say there will be the ‘haves’ and the ‘have nots,’ and the ‘haves’ will have to have the money to pay if not compliant.”
“It will cost too much. The lobbyists will kill it. No one will…”
“Relax! The costs will be acceptable if the actions are targeted at the source of the problem. Forcing design and process changes to comply at the point of conception will minimize and internalize the product cost. The noncompliance fee and the rebates/grants to compliers need to be set to tip the playing field towards this choice. An example would be how advance disposal fees on electronics resulted in immediate changes and impacts.”
“How can we win?”
“Remember, a continued 110% waste reduction goal leads to waste elimination, and negative carbon emissions will eventually result in zero. Always fight the battles now at the local level, where big money lobbyists and special interests operate least effectively. The opposition is eliminated by a thousand cuts, not one swift blow.”
“How will they do it? How do you get negative waste generation and negative carbon emissions?”
“As many ways as you want to give them credit for, like buying emission credits from others, mining old landfills for metals and recyclables, and saving the rain forest. Not to worry. If the noncompliance fee is set correctly, manufacturers, producers, and businesses will choose to comply and create their own compliance models and project choices to be adopted. The pressure by the public and achievers on nonachieving competitors will be tremendous, so government would have only to develop the reporting, auditing, and enforcement regulations.”
“You convinced me we should try. Where do I sign up?”
“Glad you asked. I have created a new organizational group called the CaNWE Group, which stands for the Carbon Negative Waste Elimination Group. Our slogan is ‘CaNWE do it? Yes, WE CaN!’”
…and, as they say, the rest is history.
Author's Bio: Richard J. Mauck is a former president of SWANA International, a longtime public administrator and consultant, and now, with your help, can be instrumental in making the CaNWE Group’s vision a reality…now that you see the possibilities. |
Advertisement]