#P2Week Day 2: Reducing Your Impact Through Repair

Those of us in the Great Lakes region (and the rest of the US and Canada) live in a so-called “throw-away society” in which consumerism is rampant, and goods are not often designed or produced with durability in mind. In fact, in recent years, more and more goods are designed to be explicitly or implicitly disposable. Even complex products, such as consumer electronics, are treated as if they are meant to be ephemeral. The classic example is the smartphone. These devices are astounding feats of scientific innovation and engineering. For perspective, consider ZME Science’s article from September 2017: Your smartphone is millions of times more powerful than all of NASA’s combined computing in 1969. Despite their complexity, and the fact that you, and probably everyone you know, barely scratch the surface in terms of using these devices to their full potential, we are constantly bombarded with cues to upgrade to the latest model. And new models seem to be released ever more frequently, always being touted as somehow greatly more advanced than their predecessors. A simpler example is clothing–when was the last time you sewed up or patched a hole in a shirt or pair of pants? Something that once would have been done by most people as a matter of course might now be deemed peculiar. A modern member of our culture might wonder why one would bother to patch a pair of pants when a new pair could be obtained so cheaply.

Our “take-make-dispose” model can also be called a  linear economy, and the message you receive in such a system is clear: if you have something that becomes damaged or has minor performance issues, you should just replace it. In fact, even if what you have is working well, the time will quickly come when you should just replace the old with the new. Replace, rinse, and repeat. A linear economy is one in which natural resources are extracted and used to create goods which will entirely, or partially, inevitably end up in landfills or incinerators. Some materials may be recovered and recycled, but over time these materials degrade in quality and are used for increasingly lower grade purposes, so that ultimately they will become wasteof little or no further use.

Of course, in order to replace whatever is being disposed of, new goods are required. And those new goods require as much or more resources as the ones that went before them–new minerals and other raw materials must be extracted. Extraction processes can have negative environmental and social impacts (e.g. pollution, habitat destruction, human rights issues related to labor practices, health issues related to exposure to chemicals or physical risks, etc.). Materials are transported to factories (requiring the use of energy in the form of fuel) where they are transformed into new products, again potentially with new human exposures to toxins or other adverse conditions, and potential new emissions of toxins or other substances of concern. In the case of products such as electronics, sometimes components are manufactured in places distant from each other and must be further transported to be brought together in yet another factory to create a complete device. And the finished product is in turn transported across the globe to reach consumers, resulting in more expenditure of energy, more emissions. By the time most products reach the consumer, a great deal of natural and human resources have been invested in them, and however positively the product itself may impact a human life or the broader ecosystem, the number of potential negative impacts all along the supply chain have stacked up. Clearly, any tendency to treat products as disposable, purposefully or incidentally, exacerbates those negative impacts by requiring the manufacture of more products, more quickly than might otherwise have been the case, as long as the demand for product does not diminish.

The tragedy of this linear cycle of use and disposal has lead to the advocacy for a circular economy–one in which extraction of resources is minimized and products and services are designed in such a way as to maximize the flow of materials through resource loops as close to perpetually as physically possible. In such a system, what might have once been considered “waste” continues to be valued in some form or another. A circular economy is built upon design for durability, reuse, and the ability to keep products in service for as long as possible, followed by the ability to effectively reclaim, reuse and recycle materials.

A comparison of linear and circular economies. From the New Zealand Ministry for Environment, https://www.mfe.govt.nz/waste/circular-economy.

So while the industrial designers of tomorrow will hopefully create products that are in line with the more circular worldview, what can you as a consumer do today to foster a circular economy? Of course you can reduce your use of materials, but practically, you will still need to use some products in order to support yourself, your family, and your lifestyle. You can reuse materials for something other than their original purpose, and sell or donate unwanted functional items so that someone else may use them. Similarly you can purchase items that have been previously used by someone else. And recycling of materials after the end of their original purpose allows for at least some extension of their value. But there is another “r,” which in some ways can be seen as a specialized form of reuse, that is becoming more popular–repair. If you own something with minor damage or performance issues, you can choose to repair it rather than replace itAccording to WRAP, a UK organization dedicated to resource efficiency and the circular economy,  “Worth over £200m in gross revenue each year, 23% of the 348,000 tonnes of waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) collected at household waste and recycling centres could be re-used with minor repairs.” The US company iFixit reports similar statistics, and further states that for every 1000 tons of electronics, landfilling creates less than one job, recycling creates 15 jobs, and repair creates 200 jobs.

There are many barriers to repair, including costs (real or perceived), knowledge, confidence in those performing the repair (one’s self or someone else), and access to tools, instruction manuals and repair code meanings which tell technicians exactly what the problem is so they can address it. Manufacturers of a variety of products, particular those with electronic components (everything from automobiles to cell phones to tractors) have come under pressure in recent years over the attempt to monopolize access to parts, tools, and necessary information for performing repairs, leading to what is called the Right to Repair movement. Currently, 18 US states, including Illinois, Minnesota,  and New York in the Great Lakes region, have introduced “fair repair” bills which would require manufacturers of various products to make those tools, parts, and pieces of information accessible to consumer and third-party repair shops. You can read more about the history of the right to repair movement and right to repair legislation on the Repair Association web site.

In an increasing number of communities around the world, citizens are coming together to share their knowledge, tools, and problem-solving skills to help each other repair every day items for free. I’m writing this on the campus of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, and here are some examples of local projects that can help you repair the items you own:

  • Illini Gadget Garage. This one’s my favorite, but I’m admittedly biased, since I helped launch this project and coordinated it for the past few years. The IGG is a collaborative repair center for personally-owned electronic devices and small appliances. “Collaborative repair” means that project staff and volunteers don’t repair your device for you; rather they work with you to troubleshoot and repair your device. Assistance is free; consumers are responsible for purchasing their own parts if needed, though staff can help determine what parts might be necessary. In addition to working with consumers by appointment at their campus workshop, the IGG crew conduct “pop-up” repair clinics in various public spaces around the Champaign-Urbana community and across campus. Consumers not only benefit from the “do-it-together” approach, they also get access to specialized tools (e.g. soldering irons, pentalobe screwdrivers, heat guns, etc.) that enable device repair, which many folks wouldn’t have in their tool box at home. Though successful repair obviously can’t be guaranteed, project staff say that if it has a plug or electrical component, and you can carry into the shop (or pop-up), they’ll help you try to figure out and fix the problem.
  • The Bike Project of Urbana-Champaign. Including both a downtown Urbana shop and a Campus Bike Center, this project provides tools and space for bicyclists to share knowledge and repair bicycles. This project sells refurbished bikes, and individuals who are willing to work on fixing up a donated bike (with assistance) can eventually purchase a bike at a discount. See https://thebikeproject.org/get-involved/join-the-bike-project/ for membership fees; an equity membership based on volunteer hours is available.

Wherever you live, you can watch for repair-related courses from local community colleges and park districts, and check to see if your local library operates a tool library, or at least lends some tools (e.g. you can check out a sewing machine and accessories from the Urbana Free Library). Many libraries also provide access to online research tools that can assist with auto and home repairs or more (e.g. see https://champaign.org/library-resources/research-learning).

Interested in starting your own repair-oriented project? Check out these additional examples and resources:

Learn more about the circular economy on the WRAP web site, or the Ellen MacArthur Foundation web site.

 

Waste reduction policy resources for municipal and county governments

Recently, Rick Yoder of P2RIC  asked me to help him identify resources that local and county governments can use when developing waste reduction policies. This post compiles our results to provide a starting point for communities looking to do similar projects.

Comprehensive resources and templates

Waste Reduction Planning and Implementation for Owners/Operators (CalRecycle)
A comprehensive web page with linked steps to developing a good waste reduction plan. Lists specific material options and multiple policy suggestions. Concludes with reference to an environmental management system (EMS).

Implementing Waste Reduction (CalRecycle)
Outlines the steps for establishing a waste reduction program within a state agency. Many of these steps are consistent with those used by the private sector. This is a general outline that pertains mostly to office settings.

SFEnvironment: Striving for Zero Waste
Details San Francisco’s steps to become a zero waste city by 2020. Includes links to ordinances and practices that prevent waste, reduce and reuse first, and recycle and compost. They also link to policies related to zero waste.

StopWaste.org Model Policies and Ordinances
Links to models policies and ordinances in Alameda, Calif.

Austin Resource Recovery Master Plan (2011)
The Austin Resource Recovery Master Plan (Master Plan) projects future activities and services provided by Austin Resource Recovery (ARR or Department) for the next 30 years. The Master Plan looks at the Department in its entirety, laying a framework for how the Department provides services to its customers and empowers the Austin community to achieve Zero Waste. Implementation plans for each proposed project, service or policy will be developed within the context of the Master Plan, each one in synergy with the other to ensure consistency between the service message and physical development of the service program.

Texas Pollution Prevention (P2) Planning
Through the Waste Reduction Policy Act (WRPA), Texas requires companies that are large quantity generator or report on TRI Form R to submit P2 reports to the state each year. The site includes information on the state law and associated regulations, as well as a pollution prevention planning guide for facilities and links to P2 planning resources.

Zero Waste Communities (CalRecycle)
Links to Communities with Zero Waste Plans and ResolutionsCommunities Educating on Zero Waste or Working Toward a PlanZero Waste Community Tools and Resources; and Zero Waste Community Case Studies.

Reducing Waste and Recycling More, An Evaluation of Policies from Across America
Evaluation of extended producer responsibility policies from around the U.S.

General Service Administration (Denver) > Waste Reduction & Recycling
Compilation of GSA Denver waste reduction and recycling policies and regulations.

Sustainable Facilities Tool (GSA)
Brings together the sustainability information necessary to green your buildings. Use SFTool as your quick reference for day-to-day questions or dig deeper to understand more about efficiency, indoor environmental quality, conservation and the connections between them.

Buildings

Circular Economy in the Built Environment: Opportunities for Local Government Leadership
Authored by StopWaste and Arup, this primer provides an overview of a circular economy framework for the built environment at the community, neighborhood and building scales. The ideas and concepts included here are intended to stimulate local government decision-makers and staff in Alameda County and beyond to consider policies and actions in their jurisdictions. It illustrates concepts with real-world examples of sites and policies. The document is intended to initiate conversation and action among public policymakers, public agency staff and other partners.

Food waste

ReFED > State & Local Governments
Links to information about ways that states and municipalities can incentivize prevention, recovery, and recycling of food waste.

Tackling Food Waste, Nashvillian-Style
In 2015, NRDC launched the Nashville Food Waste Initiative (NFWI) to develop high-impact policies, strategies, and practical tools to serve as models for cities around the country. As a midsize, demographically diverse metropolis in the center of the country, Nashville can serve as a model for other cities. This page provides an overview of the project and links to resources.

Nashville Food Rescue Landscape Analysis
Recent research by NRDC explored the potential to expand food rescue from consumer-facing businesses (such as institutional foodservice, restaurants, caterers, convenience stores and retail grocery) located in Nashville, Denver and New York City. The analysis for Nashville found that the equivalent of 9.3 million additional meals could, hypothetically, be rescued from these business sectors per year under optimal conditions. This includes the potential for an additional 2.4 million meals from restaurants, 1.8 million meals from institutions including hospitality (mainly hotels), healthcare, colleges, universities and K-12 and an estimated 200,000 meals from caterers. Much of the potential from these foodservice sectors would likely be in the form of prepared foods. If the potential from institutions, restaurants and caterers could be realized, it would meet an additional 23% of the meal gap in Davidson County. The possibility of expanding donation of high quality prepared food thus resents a significant opportunity in Nashville.

GLRPPR Sector Resources

Journal articles

Contact your local library to obtain the full-text of these articles.

Policy incentives to minimize generation of municipal solid waste (Waste Management Research, 2000)
Municipal solid waste minimization involves decisions by product manufacturers, government institutions, private businesses, and householders to reduce the amount of waste placed in the waste stream (‘source‐reduction’) and to divert waste entering the waste stream toward benign purposes (‘waste diversion’) – rather than toward disposal through incineration or landfilling. Three basic types of policy incentives can be used to prompt waste generators, handlers, and managers to minimize waste generation: command‐and‐control regulations, social‐psychological incentives, and economic incentives. The likelihood of command‐and‐control regulations being successfully implemented depends importantly on the social‐psychological and economic incentives for waste minimization provided in the regulations. Experience from various parts of the world shows that, when such incentives are provided, agencies and individual householders can learn to change their attitudes and behavior toward generation and disposal of waste. However, fully achieving this result will require considerable time and much purposeful attention to the wide array of interrelated matters required in minimizing waste generation.

Effectiveness of state pollution prevention programs and policies (Contemporary Economic Policy, 2013)
States are using regulatory-, information-, and management-based policies to encourage the adoption of pollution prevention (P2) and reduce pollution. Using a sample of facilities of S&P 500 firms which report to the Toxic Releases Inventory from 1991 to 2001, this study employs dynamic panel data models to examine the effectiveness of state legislations and policies in increasing P2 and reducing toxic releases. I find that toxic waste legislations are effective in reducing toxic releases and in promoting P2, but the effect of policy instruments differ. Facilities in states with reporting requirement and mandatory planning adopt more P2 even in states that do not emphasize toxic waste reduction. The effectiveness of reporting is stronger among facilities with good environmental performance, while the potency of mandatory planning is greater among facilities with past P2 experience. In contrast, numerical goals reduce toxic pollution levels only among those which have been subjected to high levels of enforcement action. These suggest that reporting requirement and mandatory planning may be promoting the P2 practices which can improve public image and which benefit from enhanced technical know-how, but they are not causing meaningful pollution reductions, implying that the existing policies must be complemented by other approaches to achieve higher reductions in toxic pollution levels.

Wasteful waste-reducing policies? The impact of waste reduction policy instruments on collection and processing costs of municipal solid waste (Waste Management, 2011)
We study the impact of some local policies aimed at municipal solid waste (MSW) reduction on the cost efficiency of MSW collection and disposal. We explicitly account for differences between municipalities in background conditions by using a bootstrapped version of the Data Envelopment Analysis methodology in combination with a matching technique. Using data on 299 municipalities in Flanders, Belgium, for the year 2003, our results indicate that municipalities that are member of a waste collection joint venture, or that subscribe to a voluntary agreement to reduce MSW at the highest ambition level, collect and process MSW more efficiently than other municipalities. Weekly instead of two-weekly waste collection, or using a weight-based pricing system appears to have no impact on efficiency. Our results show that aiming at MSW reduction does not lead to lower efficiency of public service provision, even on the contrary.

Direct and indirect effects of waste management policies on household waste behaviour: The case of Sweden (Waste Management, 2018)
Swedish legislation makes municipalities responsible for recycling or disposing of household waste. Municipalities therefore play an important role in achieving Sweden’s increased levels of ambition in the waste management area and in achieving the goal of a more circular economy. This paper studies how two municipal policy instruments – weight-based waste tariffs and special systems for the collection of food waste – affect the collected volumes of different types of waste. We find that a system of collecting food waste separately is more effective overall than imposing weight-based waste tariffs in respect not only of reducing the amounts of waste destined for incineration, but also of increasing materials recycling and biological recovery, despite the fact that the direct incentive effects of these two systems should be similar. Separate food waste collection was associated with increased recycling not only of food waste but also of other waste. Introducing separate food waste collection indirectly signals to households that recycling is important and desirable, and our results suggest that this signalling effect may be as important as direct incentive effects.

Waste policies gone soft: An analysis of European and Swedish waste prevention plans (Waste Management, 2018)
This paper presents an analysis of European and Swedish national and municipal waste prevention plans to determine their capability of preventing the generation of waste. An analysis of the stated objectives in these waste prevention plans and the measures they propose to realize them exposes six problematic features: (1) These plans ignore what drives waste generation, such as consumption, and (2) rely as much on conventional waste management goals as they do on goals with the aim of preventing the generation of waste at the source. The Swedish national and local plans (3) focus on small waste streams, such as food waste, rather than large ones, such as industrial and commercial waste. Suggested waste prevention measures at all levels are (4) soft rather than constraining, for example, these plans focus on information campaigns rather than taxes and bans, and (5) not clearly connected to incentives and consequences for the actors involved. The responsibility for waste prevention has been (6) entrusted to non-governmental actors in the market such as companies that are then free to define which proposals suit them best rather than their being guided by planners. For improved waste prevention regulation, two strategies are proposed. First, focus primarily not on household-related waste, but on consumption and production of products with high environmental impact and toxicity as waste. Second, remove waste prevention from the waste hierarchy to make clear that, by definition, waste prevention is not about the management of waste.

Waste management regulation: policy solutions and policy shortcomings (Scottish Journal of Political Economy, 2018)
A model of packaging waste management is presented to explore the policy options available to governments to implement waste regulation in light of the Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR). Our model endogenizes the packaging design as an additional determinant for the overall amount of waste jointly with consumers’ sorting effort and producers’ output decisions. The model shows that the policies that yield the first‐best allocation may not find public support. Furthermore, if the set of available policy instruments is limited, production and consumption of the good is likely to settle on a sub‐optimal level even though the optimal allocation may be achievable. Finally, the model demonstrates that a landfill tax may actually increase landfill waste in the presence of tradable credits for recycling activities. The results shed light on some shortcomings of existing regulatory schemes such as the Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging Waste) Regulations of the UK.

Food Policies to Tackle Food Waste: A Classification (in Food Waste at the Consumer Level: A Comprehensive Literature Review, 2018)
Food waste definitely represents a threat for the sustainability of our food systems. Recently governments are starting to be aware of it and are implementing promising food policies. Indeed, in this chapter we will seek to highlight the most relevant international policies put forward to curb the phenomenon and to classify them, according to the most effective food policy measures.

Food waste matters – A systematic review of household food waste practices and their policy implications (Journal of Cleaner Production, 2018)
In recent years, food waste has received growing interest from local, national and European policymakers, international organisations, NGOs as well as academics from various disciplinary fields. Increasing concerns about food security and environmental impacts, such as resource depletion and greenhouse gas emissions attributed to food waste, have intensified attention to the topic. While food waste occurs in all stages of the food supply chain, private households have been identified as key actors in food waste generation. However, the evidence on why food waste occurs remains scattered. This paper maps the still small but expanding academic territory of consumer food waste by systematically reviewing empirical studies on food waste practices as well as distilling factors that foster and impede the generation of food waste on the household level. Moreover, we briefly discuss the contributions of different social ontologies, more particularly psychology-related approaches and social practice theory. The analysis reveals food waste as a complex and multi-faceted issue that cannot be attributed to single variables; this also calls for a stronger integration of different disciplinary perspectives. Mapping the determinants of waste generation deepens the understanding of household practices and helps design food waste prevention strategies. Finally, we link the identified factors with a set of policy, business, and retailer options.