Thinking for the Future:

The Possibility of Zero Waste
in the Regional District of Nanaimo

Barriers

Although the philosophy discussed thus far appears to be an entirely beneficial one, there are many barriers that stand in the way of implementing zero waste policies and procedures. Without the support of government, industry, and the public, no overhaul of the existing system can be successful. So, there is need to examine some of problems associated with waste reduction measures, and look for ways to overcome opposition to them.

One of the biggest barriers encountered in the creation of waste reduction programs is that of the public consciousness. Many activists believe that the largest problem faced by the waste management industry is an unwillingness on the part of the individual to take ownership or responsibility for their waste. For some reason, the average citizen has come to rely on the "magic can" that causes all their garbage to disappear each week, and is vehemently opposed to anything that threatens to take this service away from them. An example of this behavior is when the City of Nanaimo moved to a biweekly collection system for garbage and recyclables. Although residents were not asked to reduce their waste in any way, there was such public opposition to the program that the next city council was elected partly on a platform that promised a return of weekly garbage collection. We must also take into account the cognitive dissonance associated with behavioral change, in which people resist activities that force them to reevaluate their self-perceptions.

On a larger scale, there is the perception that waste reduction strategies are in opposition to economic growth. Because of the prevailing capitalist belief that markets must experience continuous expansion in order to ensure economic prosperity, our society has traditionally placed an emphasis on ever-growing extraction, processing, and sale of material items. This renders any attempt to reduce consumption ideologically counter to economic growth or success in the eyes of our culture.

There is also the power of established industries that believe that the wastefulness of society is necessary in order to ensure profits, and who resist waste reduction as a threat to their continued well-being. The entrenchment of these industries (such as traditional logging, fishing, mining, and manufacturing) in our existing power structure ensures that the compliance of political bodies with reduction efforts may remain difficult to obtain.

On a practical level, this lack of support translates to a lack of funding for zero waste initiatives. The costs associated with public education measures, start-up and operation of recycling programs, the building of new facilities, etc. all require political support in the form of funding through taxes or new user fees. Political support must also be gained in order to implement certain policies, such as material bans, new fee structures, and real-cost accounting measures.

Another practical problem associated with the expansion of recycling is the need on the part of the recycling industry for a "markets first" approach. This means that, before a product can viably be recycled, there must be an existing market for the recycled end product. Just because an object can be diverted from disposal to a recycling facility does not mean that that material will find a home in the production of a new materials.

The profit margins for recycling are slim to none for certain substances, as a lack of demand for the product leads to an extremely competitive market and low prices. Only through increased demand for recycled feedstock can expanded recycling become feasible. This must be accomplished through legislation of recycled-content minimums (as seen in California and Oregon, where much of our recycled paper fiber is used at this time), or by consumer demand for recycled goods. Either option requires intensive public education in order to gain support.

Table of Contents

Top | Zero Waste | Resources | Home