Zero Waste is a Proven Job Creator
Reprinted from 2011
This month, the City Council is scheduled to vote on a sanitation department proposal which would divert all of the city’s waste to a single spot, the McCommas Bluff landfill, changing the way Dallas handles its trash. My concern is that the local community- including many of our leaders- may not have all the information they need to make truly informed decisions about resource recovery. Let’s face it, trash is not exactly the sexiest of issues.
In recent years, the city has done a wonderful job of implementing green and sustainability initiatives for the benefit of our community. I couldn’t believe my eyes when I saw that we had an urban reforestation program. I believe they have moved us in the right direction, and I am proud to say I grew up here.
Now, though, we are at a crossroads. It’s decision time. The sanitation department wants to claim all our trash (resources) for a Resource Recovery Park they are proposing to create at the McCommas Bluff landfill. The route many other cities around the world are taking, though, is the one that leads to Zero Waste.
Before making a decision like this, Dallas needs to finish its homework. We need to look at best practices from other cities that have led the charge before we set goals allocating 100% of resources to one location outside of the private sector.
I would like to share a bit of information I’ve gathered over the past three years from my involvement in Austin’s Zero Waste conversation. In 2008, Austin became one of the first U.S. cities to set a goal of net Zero Waste outside of California. Zero Waste means utilizing waste to make materials and new products rather than letting it sit, unused, in landfills. Statistics say that we will need up to six more planets to continue to waste resources at our current rate, but there is hope in the zero waste movement. This movement is more popular outside of the U.S., but it has begun to take hold here, especially in the state of California.
Here are some facts which may help us to create open community discussion about issues which hold power to shape our economy, our reputation as a progressive city, our employment numbers and our preparedness for future droughts and food shortages.
Regarding employment, for every 10,000 tons of trash that goes into a landfill, one job is created. For the same tonnage to be recycled, ten jobs are created. If the trash is to be reused, 75–250 jobs are created. Clearly, Zero Waste takes the cake when it comes to employment figures.
On the one hand, I am excited that the sanitation department has created an initiative called flow control and has asked the city council to vote on turning the entire McCommas Bluff landfill into a Resource Recovery Park. On the other hand, my experience tells me that cities have never done it this way before. Generally, a city will officially vote on and declare a goal of zero waste. Then, the urban planning phase kicks in which includes developing a strategic, and then an operational plan. I believe the local community should be involved in this planning process.
Without first setting a goal of Zero Waste and putting time into research and planning, the door is open to scenarios which may make sense for the sanitation department but which may not create the jobs or the economic benefits for our community which a well-planned zero waste initiative might. The flow control proposal may only see waste converted to energy and fuel, which, while laudable, would not produce the results a zero waste Resource Recovery Park promises. We need information and answers from the sanitation department regarding the goals and expectations of their proposal.
Around the country, multiple plans for waste management involve incineration, which is a competing alternative to zero waste. Incineration is not nearly as effective at creating jobs as zero waste facilities. Incineration may very well create valuable by-products such as energy and fuel, but zero waste projects do these things and build economics and jobs, too. Because no zero waste goal has been declared, we have reason to believe the current sanitation proposal may only offer our city a fraction of the benefit presented by a zero waste Resource Recovery Park. We propose education and conversation regarding these issues. Again- and we want to make this point clear- our intention is certainly not to disparage the progress the sanitation department has already made and is offering to make. Thus far, they’ve taken us to a positive place in the trash disposal realm. We just want to make sure we and our community are educated and involved in these issues so that, together, we are empowered to push Dallas towards maximum economic development, employment and self-sufficiency.
Here, we offer an example of the success of zero waste goals over standard green best practices: In 2003, the UN had a summit on sustainable development in Johannesburg, South Africa. Because the summit was green in nature, naturally they decided to have a green event. The zero waste people said “green is not good enough”, and the event was split between two teams: the green team and the zero waste team. At the end of the conference, the green team had achieved approximately 23% landfill diversion. The zero waste team achieved 73% landfill diversion. In this competition, zero waste proved much more effective in creating less wasteful, clean economy.
Saying you’re “green” is the start of the conversation. Zero waste is the way to actually transform a community and produce economics needed for true sustainability. These days, greenwashing is the cheat sheet to good marketing. Zero Waste necessitates a triple bottom line: people, planet, and profit, a framework that ensures initiatives are done for the true good of the people and planet and not just another way to make money. Going green is sometimes just a way to increase the cash driven bottom line. Zero waste is an economic development issue, and any entity grabbing for all our future resources in one place (McCommas Bluff) without a triple bottom line approach means that this maneuver could work for a few but won’t have nearly the impact that a city-wide planning process will have.
Some on the city council are asking if the flow control proposal will cost too much. The zero waste ninjas that have designed plans for cities like Austin, L.A., Seattle, and Chicago essentially guarantee the government that total costs for the transition will not go up. Budgets currently allocated to wasting, are just redirected to reuse, which creates substantially more jobs.
An entity that may not have economic development as its end goal initiating a “send all the waste here” plan make me nervous. We need to do things in a way that has worked previously so we can create workable economics as fast as possible. Going into uncharted territory- as the sanitation department’s proposal does by not setting a zero waste goal prior to planning for resource recovery- means we may have to bite the bullet and suffer for skipping the time-intensive learning curve. We have sent so many of our jobs overseas because we have structured waste management and have not employed reuse strategies. Not only can a Zero Waste strategy bring jobs back to the U.S., but these jobs would also be green jobs.
The mayor of a Zero Waste city typically implements this goal into urban environmental accords because constituents support the move. Just in the last two weeks, multiple businesses in the local community have committed to zero waste goals in conversations with Adbongo clients, including Pearl Cleaners, Eat Green DFW, MTV3, Green Ox Energy, SET Engineers, Electronic Waste Disposal, Green Scene, Global Greenology and Key Image Media. Clearly, when every single local business leader with whom we’ve talked over the last two weeks has committed to this goal, Zero Waste must be important in our community.
Before we send our trash (and potential for economic growth) to one location under government control, let’s make sure it will benefit all of us. Ask your council person to set a goal of Zero Waste and tell him/her you want to be a part of the planning process that allocates municipal resources.
John Bushe, Managing Member
jbushe@adbongo.io
512.518.5444
Definition of Zero Waste (zwia):
The Planning Group of the Zero Waste International Alliance adopted the following definition of Zero Waste on November 29, 2004. This is intended to assist businesses and communities in defining their own goals for Zero Waste.
“Zero Waste is a goal that is ethical, economical, efficient and visionary, to guide people in changing their lifestyles and practices to emulate sustainable natural cycles, where all discarded materials are designed to become resources for others to use.
Zero Waste means designing and managing products and processes to systematically avoid and eliminate the volume and toxicity of waste and materials, conserve and recover all resources, and not burn or bury them.
Implementing Zero Waste will eliminate all discharges to land, water or air that are a threat to planetary, human, animal or plant health.”
This is the goal we are striving for. Measures of success in meeting this goal are outlined in the Zero Waste Business Principles and the Global Principles for Zero Waste Communities. Businesses and communities that achieve over 90% diversion of waste from landfills and incinerators are considered to be successful in achieving Zero Waste, or darn close.
This definition is intended to be a living document.Please email gary@garyliss.com with any comments or suggestions.
