Environment - Oregon looks at a garbage-reduction strategy to stop trash before it happens by curbing the urge to consume
Sunday, September 16, 2007
By SCOTT LEARN
The Oregonian

Now that Oregonians are good at recycling, state officials are edging toward a far tougher Step 2: Stop buying so much stuff in the first place.

People are buying and throwing out more than ever -- roughly a ton and a half for every Oregonian each year -- and even Oregon's much touted recycling rates can't keep up. Add the state's expanding population, and you get a pileup.

And you get potential failure to meet Oregon's freshly minted goals for curbing greenhouse gases.

To cut consumption and waste, and the manufacturing emissions at the front end, regulators are writing a strategy that suggests people consider smaller houses, avoid cramming their homes with junk, try drinking water from the tap instead of plastic bottles, buy used instead of new, repair things that break, downsize that big-ticket remodeling project.

The payoff from tamping down consumer cravings could be big, reducing global warming, saving forests. But tinkering with lifestyles -- and the consumer economy -- is risky business.

Even among environmental stalwarts, the state will have to battle the mind-set that recycling, promoted since the 1970s, can even the green equation.

From an environmental standpoint, recycling a product or buying one made with as little energy as possible is good, said David Allaway, the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality's point man for waste prevention. But in almost every case, not buying the product at all is better. That's because recycling comes after the energy for manufacturing, mining, logging and drilling is already expended.

"There's a notion that a full recycling bin indicates environmental progress," he said. "We'd rather have more in the recycling bin and less in the garbage. But buying large quantities of stuff and recycling it isn't good for the environment."

Waste accumulation

Oregon has long prided itself on being a recycling rock star. But the state's total discards -- trash and recycling -- continue to grow with consumption.

Residents already have blown past state trash targets, set in 2001. The idea was to stop growth in per person waste generation by 2005. But discards now top 3,000 pounds a person, up 43 percent from 1993 to 2005, and up 5 percent from 2004 to 2005.

By 2009, we're supposed to have no overall increase in discards. But the odds of meeting that goal look long: From 1993 to 2005, Oregon's waste tonnage increased by more than two-thirds, fueled by population and housing growth. It jumped 6 percent from 2004 to 2005 alone.

That's a problem for Oregon's plan to curb global warming, which banks on meeting the trash targets. Stopping the growth in waste -- and the related consumption -- generates the third-highest greenhouse gas savings, behind only boosting auto mileage and increasing renewable energy.

The environmental significance of waste prevention has been obvious for a while; researchers have tracked a steady rise in consumption and waste since the 1960s.

And there has been progress. Business, driven to cut costs, has lightened packaging. Manufacturers see waste reduction as their most pressing environmental issue, according to a survey this month for Dow Corning. Green product design and green commercial buildings are de rigueur.

Consumer demand has been a tougher nut to crack, in Oregon and the rest of the industrialized world. And consumer classes in developing countries, including India and China, are joining the party.

As much as half the increase in Oregon's waste generation could come from changes in the way governments manage and track waste. Other reasons strike close to home: bigger houses, more remodeling and demolition, more purchases of household furnishings, less durable stuff. There's the high-tech goodie that quickly becomes obsolete. There's soaring paper use. Higher incomes. An onslaught of advertising. Import-fueled lower prices.

Waste prevention, particularly on the demand side, is also low on government's agenda. King County, Wash., which includes Seattle, is a national leader. For a year now, Tom Watson, the county's avuncular eco-consumer expert, has starred in television spots that gently encourage folks to think before they buy.

But if the draft plan flies, Oregon would be the state putting waste prevention most squarely on its to-do list, said Watson, who coordinates the National Waste Prevention Coalition.

Allaway has worked on waste prevention for 17 years, observing government's relative enthusiasm for recycling. It's easier to measure, he said. And over the years, it has gathered allies, including industry and garbage companies.

"Where are the advocates for prevention?" Allaway asked. "Where are the businesses who have a financial interest in telling people to buy less stuff?"

Local government officials, who regulate garbage rates and haulers, fret about waste prevention being seen as a blow to the local economy, Allaway said. "They don't want to spend taxpayer dollars promoting 'Buy Nothing Day.'

"On the surface, it looks bad for the economy," he said, "Our point is you can stimulate the economy without spending on cheap, wasteful goods."

Limited state strategy

Oregon' s draft strategy would set a waste prevention agenda through 2017. But it doesn't have a budget yet, or a firm timetable. It's not clear how much of it agency leaders will support. And it sidesteps the most controversial waste prevention proposals, such as legislative mandates, steeper planning fees for bigger houses, and carbon taxes that penalize energy-hog products.

Instead, the strategy calls for promoting green residential building. That includes encouraging smaller houses, durable materials and green design. Better to build wide doors or senior-friendly showers from the get-go, for example, instead of demolishing walls later.

The plan would build on successful packaging-reduction projects and continue research to pinpoint where waste prevention makes the most difference. One helpful tidbit so far: The Portland area has the highest per capita waste, the product of higher incomes and more construction.

As in King County, Oregon's strategy would also lean heavily on consumer education.

Julie Daniel, director of BRING Recycling in Eugene, helped advise the state on the plan. Daniel wants tougher mandates for waste prevention and green products. But she's optimistic that consumers, many starting to care more about their ecological footprint, will rein in their buying.

The education she got when advising on the state plan "was huge for me personally," she said, "just really understanding that the environmental impact happens before I even go to the store."

Now she's trying to buy used more often, including a $100 used TV last year. She shares with neighbors, buys in bulk, rents when she needs a tool, buys stuff that'll last and thinks twice before she hits the checkout counter.

Daniel came to the West Coast in recycling's salad days, the early 1970s.

"Since then, there have been hundreds of thousands of new products," she said. "Recycling is an incredibly effective way to deal with waste after you've made it. But it does nothing to deal with waste in the first place."

Scott Learn: 503-294-7657; scottlearn@news.oregonian.com

©2007 The Oregonian