Interesting how the word ‘waste’ has become benign in common use and the behaviour associated with creating waste has become socially acceptable. Consider that waste is defined as the “wrong use of money, substances, time, energy, abilities”, etc. Clearly having waste built into our daily operations and lives is not an effective strategy for running a business or a household, yet, every day huge volumes of waste are created by both.

Simultaneously we are growing very aware that there are finite amounts of resources on this planet and we are extracting them at an alarming rate. In fact, we are even extracting sustainable resources faster than can replenish themselves.

Clearly we have to change and we must do so quickly. As a first step, we need to stop accepting waste as part of daily life. Secondly we need to see “waste” as a resource that can be mined and transformed into products we need/want. So how do we do this, and are there additional opportunities to be realized through mining the waste stream?

One very successful approach is through Resource Recovery Centres. These centres are designed to mine resources from the waste stream that would otherwise be dumped into a landfill. The range of materials that can be viably extracted from typical waste streams includes compostables, metal, glass, paper, Styrofoam, cardboard, electronics, and plastics. A well designed Centre can be scalable and flexible to evolving needs, and can be a “One-Stop-Drop” zone for receiving recyclables, compostables, and other resources. But Resource Recovery Centres can achieve a lot more than just extracting valuable resources It can also serve as a transfer station where resources are collected then transferred to processing stations. Other uses include a Reuse and Repair Zone for various items such as bicycles, an Education Centre and Community Meeting Place that provides up-to-date information on resource recovery developments and sharing experiences – to list a few. But can this solution meet everyone’s needs?

First the downside

There are essentially three major drawbacks to Resource Recovery Centres.

• First, if resource recovery efforts are 100% successful, then there will be no garbage to fuel garbage incinerators designed to generate electricity.
• Second, it requires individuals and businesses to assume responsibility for their own waste, which may be difficult for some to accept.
• It undermines the principles of consumerism, wherein “single use and toss” is the mantra.

Now the upside
The multitude of benefits of Resource Recovery Centres far out way the downside.

• First, they are an effective means for achieving Zero Waste Goals, which means no expensive landfills and their related environmental degradation through ground water contamination and greenhouse gas creation, not to mention their unpleasant appearance/odours and attraction of pests.
• Second, they form a basis for local economic development through job creation and training. There is money to be made by extracting the resources and selling them rather than throwing them in the landfill (a euphemism for garbage pile).
• Third, they eliminate costs associated with existing waste collection and disposal solutions.
• Fourth, they can actually create community as it becomes a gathering spot for people to meet, learn,exchange and engage with their neighbours.
• Fifth, a centre can effect positive behavioural change wherein it is no longer acceptable to simply throw things away, which leads to a community of conservation, rather than a community of waste.

In developing sustainable solutions to address the challenges we face in the 21st Century requires innovative solutions that offer alternatives to the existing infrastructure, changing people’s beliefs and behaviours, and quantifiable results that benefit everyone. A Resource Recovery Centre is one example of how we can turn “waste” into “resource” and even make money doing it.

This piece was also published here.

How is increased resource productivity linked to the approaching holiday season? As we graze the fields of products and services in search of that perfect gift, just think of the materials used for the product as well as its packaging. Some questions may arise such as:

• Are the materials used thrown away when no longer wanted, or can they be recycled, upcycled, repurposed, or reused?
• What is the alternative to turning it into garbage?
• How does it align with the Zero Waste concept?
• How does resource productivity and waste align?

In our Business of Sustainability Workshop, we present “resource productivity” as a key characteristic of a sustainable business, and now is the season to “Shop till you Drop!”

“One-Stop-Dropping” is a concept from the recycling community that means there is one place where you can go to drop off all the things you no longer want.

This includes everything from plastic containers to baby furniture to glass containers and compostables. The idea is to simplify the confusion of what can and cannot be recycle, make it convenient, and be a community resource for learning and possibly emergencies. Of course, developing the concept is one thing, but turning it into a profitable business model is quite another. But we found a functional model in our own backyard here in Gibsons!

Gibsons is a town located on British Columbia’s Sunshine Coast and is famous for being the location for the CBC’s TV series “The Beach Combers”. It is also the location for the “The Gibsons Resource Recovery Center” which is owned and operated by Buddy Boyd and his partner Barbara Hetherington. Their operation is the largest non-government funded operation of its kind in BC, and has never received taxpayer’s money. Rather, it generates revenue by selling clean recyclables and by mining the discard stream. It also creates local jobs by employing 13 people in a region that is struggling economically.

The jobs created by the centre support a recent report prepared by the Tellus Institute with Sound Resource Management which suggests the United States could generate an additional 2.4 million jobs by tackling its waste issues through strategies such as one-stop-dropping. As adeptly stated by Boyd, his operation excels at “reclaiming garbage and putting it back into the community, not the ground.’”

In addition to the typical recycling associated with curb side service, the centre accepts electronics, Styrofoam, plastic films, paint cans and aerosol sprays, CFL lighting, and miscellaneous items such as book shelves, chairs, picture frames, and so on. There is even a knife sharpening service. Its goal is to incorporate composting, educational facilities, a café, and other amenities that would help a community transition from wasting to maximizing its resources.

Further, from a user perspective, it makes waste management easy and takes out the guess work. Upon arrival at the site with garbage in hand, trained and friendly staff is on hand to answer questions and help sort your waste (aka garbage). It makes it easy and reduces greenhouse gases (GHGs) by allowing people to drop off their recyclables on the way to get groceries or do other shopping. Two trips for the price of one!

In addition to being a viable business, such centres can quantifiably contribute to:

• Public Education
• Community Engagement
• Reduced Waste Removal Costs
• Reduced Taxes
• Zero Waste Goals
• Local Economic Development

So, If you are interested in learning how this concept can help your municipality reduce costs and achieve Zero Waste goals, please contact us! Perhaps the best gift this season to your community will be a new business operator, jobs, savings, and reduced GHGs.

Canada’s 41st General Election was conducted in May of this year, and the Conservative Party of Canada achieved a majority government on a platform focused on the economy. They will be setting the sustainability agenda for Canada for the next 4 years or so, with Environment Minister Peter Kent leading the way. They are facing a big challenge.

According to the Conference Board of Canada, Canada is second-to-last out of 17 countries for greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions per capita. This is 4X the amount produced by Norway, and only Australia is a worse emitter. The largest contributor to Canada’s GHG emissions is the energy sector, which includes the oil sands. While Canada has made several international commitments for significant GHGs reductions, there has been very little improvement.

In 1992, Canada signed the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and committed to stabilizing GHG emissions at 1990 levels by 2000 – exceeded by 30%. Ten years later, Canada went on to ratify the Kyoto Protocol and pledged to reduce GHG emissions to 6 per cent below 1990 levels between 2008 and 2012. When the Kyoto Protocol entered into force on February 16, 2005, however, Canada’s absolute GHG emissions remained 54 per cent above 1990 levels.

Even though the commitments have been modified twice, the path and solutions remain vague. The newest commitment by the Canadian government is to reduce GHG emissions by 17 percent from 2005 levels by 2020.Mr. Kent has made it clear that there are no plans to implement cap-and-trade or carbon tax regimes. While Canada stumbles politically, California is stumbling legally. California had planned to be rolled out cap-and-trade in 2012; however, Judge Ernest Goldsmith of the San Francisco Superior Court recently ruled that it must first consider alternatives. So, while North American efforts to address GHG production continue to be deferred, the clock is ticking.

Bold international leadership in GHG reduction is exemplified by countries such as Germany which is aggressively tackling this issue. Not only is Angela Merkel’s government achieving its GHG reduction commitments, it is planning to do so simultaneously with the shut down of its entire nuclear industry. Germany is thinking strategically and is eyeing huge economic opportunities in renewable energies and has plans to shift its entire energy grid to renewable sources by 2050 – no oil sands required. As well, the costs associated with GHG production are increasing due to various mechanisms such as taxes, tariffs, and penalties. By not aggressively pursuing strategies and policies to reduce GHG production in Canada, the government is actually making the Canadian business community vulnerable to competition.

“The company that has significantly reduced its GHG emissions will have a competitive advantage.”

To achieve its international commitments and strengthen the business community, Canada must make substantial GHG reductions now. However, the stated Canadian approach will be to introduce regulations for specific sectors such as coal, transportation, and the oil sands.

For the coal sector, coal fuelled power stations will need to find coal alternatives o sequester the carbon emissions. In transportation, new automobiles will need to meet stricter GHG emission guidelines. However, regulations for the oil sands are still on the drafting table and may be revealed later this year and phased in gradually. This deferral comes despite the fact the oil sand GHG production doubled from 1990 to 2008 and promises to triple once again by 2020.

Canada is not only responding slowly to addressing the oil sands’ GHG production issue, it is also taking steps to prevent other organizations, such as the European Union, from placing tariffs on the oil sands. The EU is considering placing tariffs on GHG intensive fuel sources and as such would make them less competitive within their market. In a letter to the EU “The Government of Canada believes this approach raises the prospect of unjustified discrimination and is not supported by the science.” This at a time when level headed thinkers have concluded the scientific debate is over.

To keep Canada competitive we need to find alternative solutions to simply clinging to the revenues of the oil sands. It is hard to walk away from the estimated 2 trillion dollars the oil sands will potentially add to the economy; but, given the global trends it is time to act. Canadians will continue to slip further behind competition from countries without oil reserves, such as Germany, that are aggressively pursuing alternative economic models not based on fossil fuels.

We have a serious issue in the production of GHGs and we need to take steps to address it. Deferring the issue simply compounds the damage to Canada’s competitive capability, its international reputation, and makes it a follower rather than a leader.

Providing local people with local opportunities to get engaged and make a difference in their communities is the best approach to addressing climate change. By supporting our municipalities and public institutions to achieve tangible and quantifiable results, rather than buying offsets, we can enable them to leverage their existing infrastructures to benefit everyone and to help them stay focused on their mandates.

In accordance with the BC government’s Greenhouse Gas Reduction Targets Act, all public sector organizations, such as School Districts, must be carbon neutral by 2010. Similarly, under the B.C. Climate Action Charter, over 160 municipalities have committed to being Carbon Neutral by 2012. This is great news, however the real work of reducing the greenhouse gases (GHGs) is being limited by the government’s decision to treat the offsetting much like another tax, taking money away from important initiatives that could be better spent in-house to make real reductions, and not trade them off.

When a public sector organization or a municipality calculates its GHGs it can “offset” its production by purchasing “quality offsets” from the Pacific Carbon Trust (PCT). For example the Village of Harrison Hot Springs has purchased 113 tonnes of carbon offsets from the Pacific Carbon Trust, and has announced that it is the first amongst BC municipalities of the gate to declare itself “carbon neutral”. But of course such declarations beg the question of “how much did they actually do to reduce their own GHG?” or “Is this a temporary way of dealing with GHGs until they can find a more sustainable solution”?

Buying offsets to “neutralize” GHG emissions is an approach that in most cases takes money out of an organization that could be reinvested in itself to reduce its own carbon footprint.

There is a real opportunity to be seized by insightful organizations in addressing their own GHG emissions. There are many not-for-profit, community based groups that would love to engage with other organizations to put those offset dollars to good use – to plant trees, create community gardens, and numerous other activities that reduce GHGs. By participating in this way, organizations can actually engage their employees with the local community, reduce their carbon footprint, and improve their image. As well, it provides the chance to learn more about relevant issues and develop creative ways to reduce GHG production by leveraging an organization’s most valuable resource, its people. So why would we take public sector dollars and give it to the private sector? Why can’t they be given the opportunity to engage in their own creative means of finding solutions?

Harrison Hot Springs will have paid $25/tonne to PCT to achieve carbon neutrality, which equates to $2,825. Pacific Carbon Trust then gives that money to companies such as Encana Corporation (which explores and develops unconventional natural gas and sells quality offsets). An alternative approach that would achieve the same quantifiable results would be for the municipality to work with local community groups to develop a local offset program.

In Harrison Hot Springs’ case, that $2,825 could be used to purchase approximately 1,400 seedlings, which would be roughly the equivalent of offsetting 280 tonnes of GHGs over the lifetime of the trees (This number varies by species, growing season, and other variables but is a reasonable estimate). So, in this scenario, the municipality would get more bang for their buck by offsetting an additional 167 tonnes of GHGs. This could potentially make them GHG negative or consume more GHGs than they actually produce. Additionally, given the right approach, school aged children could be engaged in the planting process thereby providing an educational opportunity regarding climate change. The Village could become more beautiful by planting the trees in key areas and by changing brownfield sites into green sites.

Another opportunity for the municipality would be to collaborate with the local school district to create “edible school” programs, or convert school asphalted areas into community gardens. There are so many possibilities if people see the vision and use their available resources.

When you focus on sustainability in terms of DOING something, rather than playing shell games or trading your sins for taxes, then the future looks much more promising. Conducting business as usual but paying the piper for it just doesn’t make sense.

Greenomics is committed to the vision of a sustainable world of sustainable businesses so we applaud efforts made by our political leaders in addressing these most challenging issues, and we want them to do it quickly but also practically. We have the mechanisms in place to determine GHG footprints. We now need to get the most out of our investments and efforts to achieve positive results.

I believe the best results can be achieved by providing local people with local opportunities to get engaged and make a difference in their communities and globally. This means supporting our municipalities and institutions to achieve tangible and quantifiable results. Rather than buying offsets, let’s let our municipalities and school districts and other institutions keep that money and have them apply it to their own activities to effect real change. Let them leverage their existing infrastructure to benefit everyone and to help them stay focused on their mandates.

The results of our survey conducted in January, 2011 are tabulated. We had 15 respondents who answered the multiple choice questions and responded to the open answer section. The open answer section is summarized in our February 2011 Newsletter, and the multiple choice outcomes presented here.