Zero-Waste
Diversion
RAM supports true zero waste. Two RAM graphics describe maximizing diversion from municipal solid waste -- destinations when quality-oriented high-recovery systems are applied to it. First a bar chart:
For those preferring a simplified, less precise graphic to help them remember:
Plans
Citizens across the U.S. have called for zero waste too, convincing their governments to pay for plans describing how to accomplish it.. Unfortunately, then, often, a scam unfolds, of a common type:
Scam Plan Steps
- A Scope of Work is assembled by government bureaucrats who aren't as committed to change as the activists, or if they're really lazy or bought by disposal companies, don't want change at all.
- Salespersons for consultants come running, with slick presentations, promising to deliver.
- Lots of money is asked for, to bring in "experts" from elsewhere.
- After contract signing, the consultants assemble a relatively standardized plan used by many in the industry, that preserves their positioning to make money off future lucrative disposal projects -- but does not achieve zero waste. They add bulky cosmetics, like scenic photos, intended make it look like a custom plan. Their input sessions with the public end up being PR shows.
- When activists start seeing evidence of such content, they become upset that the plan does NOT call for zero waste. It still contains disposal. Lots of it. Consultants have clever come-back lines, like "Achieving 100% zero waste would be prohibitively expensive," which is not true.
- At that point, what can activists do? The money has been spent.
Preventative Steps Beforehand
To prevent plan scams as much as possible:
- RAM has tried to explain zero waste methodology in the next page of this website, so activists can read and understand it.
- Activists need to insist that any Scope of Work requires consultants to describe how 100% zero waste would certainly be achieved, in an environmentally responsible and acceptable manner, the most economical way possible. Cost ranges for every element need to be included. As to whether every element can be afforded, that decision is for the clients to make. NOT the consultants.
At a minimum, plans need to include the following types of facilities (Letters match corresponding items on the Methodology page):
A. Dry waste sorting/recovery facilities, for both MSW and C&D wastes, typically separately, B. Wet waste composting/anaerobic digestion facilities, C. Aggregate sorting/recovery facilities, D. Heavy molded/extruded products facilities, which often create composites out of unrecyclable plastics as binders and other wastes as fillers (e.g. Trex), E. Pyrolysis or other energy/fuels production facilities (e.g. Enerkem) for only wastes that can not be dealt with by facility types A-D. This does not include incineration of wastes, as this produces environmentally inferior byproducts. And, F. Hazardous waste collection and processing facilities, which emphasize re-use as much as possible. G. Another essential component is a contractual requirement that all residues coming from facilities A-F must be part of the feedstock for other facilities A-F. Not disposal. Other key must-have plan elements include:
H. Marketing of all recovered commodities, I. Maximizing local market development, J. All economic, environmental, and health costs and benefits need to be internalized for both material recovery, and hypothetical disposal, K. Collection needs to be coordinated with processing (A-F above). Franchising should be considered, where a single collection and processing entity is obligated to produce the desired results, with penalties for failure sufficient to assure compliance. Wet/dry techniques can reduce costs. - To save money and eyewash, certain elements consultants typically include in their plans need to be banned, for all plan providers:
L. Any photographs of the municipality or other scenery not necessary for the understanding of elements, like facilities, in the plan, M. Any branding, naming, color schemes, or education programming. These are best created locally, including through schools or contests. Plenty of sources of these are freely accessible online, and N. "Pay-As-You-Throw" (PAYT), or its confusingly euphemistic identical twin "Save-As-You-Throw," applied to residential collection. These preserve disposal (indeed make funding dependent on that continuing), increase illegal dumping (San Francisco is plagued with this), increase backyard burning, and cause processing difficulties due to what residents do with their set-outs. They achieve almost no waste reduction. E.g. Nashville/Davidson County's curbside recycling program reduces its total solid solid waste stream by a mere 1%, with about a 74% participation rate. Even if participation were increased to 100% with PAYT (not likely), that would change 1% to just 1.3% -- huge percentage-wise, consultants enjoy pointing out, but insignificant for achieving zero waste. PAYT increases billing costs. It fills up plans, bulk-wise, with endless implementational complexities. PAYT also erects a smokescreen that causes residents to think something good is being done while actually virtually nothing is. Thus, PAYT actually prevents zero waste.
Copyright © Recycling Advocates of Middle Tennessee
🚧 This website is under construction 🚧
This area contains links to things that are not actual pages in the site, but instead are references while the site is under construction.
Here is a page with different fonts that we can use on this website
📚 Here is the doc library that contains all documents scanned in by Lee. 📄
🖼️ Here is the figure gallery that contains all figures scanned in by Richard. 🖼️
🚗 This parking lot contains misc. text and info that needs placement. 🖊️