In striving to create a waste-free world, it is important that we articulate not only our goals but the ways we plan to go about bringing them to fruition. I believe our objectives would be much better served in this regard with a simple word substitution. Rather than focusing on diversion rates as the way we measure recycling success, what we really need to be talking about are “destination rates.”
So what's the difference between “diversion” and “destination” when used in this context? To begin with, the idea of material simply being “diverted” is one that reflects a conventional waste-industry mindset. In other words, the mere fact that a consumer deposited it in a recycle bin and the material recovery facility baled it and put it in a container for export to an unknown destination -- which is for the most part the definition of “diversion” -- is far short of what it takes to achieve a zero waste objective.
In a zero waste world, every material relegated for recycling would have a specific destination, just as those liter-size Pepsi bottles are reprocessed into PET (a solid version of polyester) and then converted into new bottles. Another example: Johnson Controls thermostats that have the perfect color and blend of plastics would be continually returned to the company and reused. Likewise, key electronic components would all go back to their manufacturers – the Apples, Dells, and HPs – where they could be incorporated into the next generation of products. Even cars would be broken down by components, which would then be returned to auto plants. A focus on destination rather than diversion is the first step in the methodology of zero waste. But to accomplish this, there are certain specific things that need to be done.
Photo of hand placing bottle in recycling bin provided by Mikhail Zahranichny via Shutterstock
Next page: Four ways to get to zero waste
I think zero waste is a bit
I think zero waste is a bit of a misnomer. Zero landfill (or incineration) would be more accurate. Zero waste gives the impression of having no waste. Recycling, reuse, repurposing etc are all good, but the material is still a waste, and in the US regulated as waste (other countries write rules a bit differently).
Many good points here,
Many good points here, particularly, "Promote awareness of material values." These are valuable resources and the entire lifecycle of a product/packaging can be thrown off course when the destination is not clearly communicated to consumers who are handling materials at end-of-life. Earth911's blog has more commentary on this. Thanks for a great article, Anthony Zolezzi.
This article is so true.
This article is so true. Thanks for sharing. We would love to use this info at future educational events that our young founders have scheduled. We agree that the USA has a long way to go but raising awareness is our first step to gaining support which will force federal support.
This article is so true.
This article is so true. Thanks for sharing. We would love to use this info at future educational events that our young founders have scheduled. We agree that the USA has a long way to go but raising awareness is our first step to gaining support which will force federal support.
While I share Mr. Zolezzi's
While I share Mr. Zolezzi's vision, we are by no means close to achieving this. The horizon is not even in site with only 12 states having CRVs for beverage containers and many of the states having little or no recycling infrastructure in place. States with robust recycling infrastructure, like California, are facing a growing threat of "illegal recyclers" bringing in material from neighboring states for the redemption value of aluminum and glass containers. Without a federal mandate to make recycling a priority, most states will continue to allow valuable material to be landfilled.