Guest Editorial: Zero What?

Zero. It’s a concept we can usually all rally around. Zero calories. Zero emissions. Zero accidents. But when it comes to solid waste management, zero is not as clear as it may seem. As an engineer, zero means one thing: it’s a clear number. But as HDR’s planning and consulting practice lead, I am often faced with trying to interpret what zero means to clients and communities.

At the recent SWANApalooza in Denver, “zero waste” was in the spotlight. There were five sessions that specifically dealt with the topic. I had the opportunity to moderate a panel discussion that was entitled “Zero What?” The purpose of the session was to have a discussion with three communities that are on the road to zero waste: the City of Denver, CO; the City of Bexley, OH; and the City of Toronto, Ontario (ON), Canada. Each of these communities recently underwent the development of a solid waste management plan with the goal, in part, to reduce the amount of waste being generated and disposed of. One thing became clear in the discussion—the roads to zero waste do not follow the same path, nor do they have the same destination.

When it comes to solid waste, the planning of management systems is always local. Local waste quantities and characteristics. Local infrastructure. Local economies. Local values. It makes sense, therefore, that the definition of zero waste would mean different things to different communities. For some on the road to zero waste, it means getting to average, such as raising Denver’s recycling rate from 23% to the national average of 34%. For the City of Bexley, zero waste is aspirational—to significantly reduce the amount of waste destined for the landfill, with the ultimate goal of 90% diversion. For the City of Toronto, zero waste means building upon an integrated solid waste management system that achieves over 50% landfill diversion and prioritizes reduction and reuse.

The road to zero waste is not always smooth. For the City of Denver, there are numerous challenges to improving diversion: no fee trash collection, seemingly “unlimited” residential trash disposal, opt-in recycling, fees for organics collection, and a lack of city and state policies. For the City of Bexley, challenges include funding and a need for more business support. For the City of Toronto, increasing multi-family diversion remains a significant challenge.

One thing became clear in the discussions: achieving zero waste requires changing behavior. Manufacturing behavior. Purchasing habits. Reducing consumption. Eliminating recycling contamination. Being creative to find new uses for old things. Increasing participation in the programs that already exist in our communities. Being mindful of how we manage our resources.

But as we all know, old dogs don’t always like to learn new tricks. When we come to that fork in the road, taking the road to zero waste is the right path. However, we do need to define zero waste in a way that is SMART (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, and Time-Bound). We need to understand what it means to each of us as unique communities; because as Yogi Berra once famously said, “If you don’t know where you’re going, you might not get there.”