Author: Mark Lennon

Electronics Amnesties are a different take on Weird Waste. Used electronics are a liability. They contain information you don’t want to escape. They contain hazardous substances. Many of them, particularly CRT and flat-screen monitors, TVs, laptops, and anything with a rechargeable battery, are regulated wastes. And like dust mites or cockroaches, they’re everywhere – you just can’t see them. Hiding in closets, behind desks, under work tables, stashed in storage rooms.

An Amnesty is a way to get rid of the junk and the liability. It’s like when the library lets you bring back your way overdue books without a fine. Tell your staff that for a period of days or weeks they can bring their old electronics to be recycled, and you’ll turn a blind eye to the fact that they’ve been sitting on these things for years.

We did this a few years ago with MIT, and the results were staggering – over 40 tons in two weeks. Granted, that was MIT, but the basic story is the same at almost every organization: electronics are a hidden liability. An Amnesty is a way to make it go away.

There is nothing we throw away that is not a resource.

Paper – To make paper we kill trees, hurt the land, and damage ecosystems. Almost 100% of paper can be recycled. The small fraction that can’t be recycled can be composted or burned to create energy – renewable, carbon-neutral energy.

Plastic – Plastic is highly refined oil. On a planet where wars are fought over oil, it’s idiotic to throw plastics away, which we do by the millions of pounds every day. The best thing to do with this highly engineered oil is reuse or recycle it. If we can’t do that, we should burn it for energy. Plastic is (contrary to widespread belief) a very clean fuel, much cleaner than oil or coal.

Glass – There’s plenty of raw material for glass; we’re not going to run out of sand anytime soon. But making glass from sand uses huge amounts of energy. Making glass from glass doesn’t. Glass in almost all of its forms can be reused or recycled. Energy (coal, oil, natural gas) is the resource that’s saved.

Metals – The planet is running out of metals. Every scrap of metal we use can be recycled. Recycled metals, all metals, are worth a lot of money.

Food waste – One of the most serious issues on our planet is loss of fertile soil. This is true in the U.S. as it is around the world. Food waste composts into high quality soil. It is a resource that can be returned to the earth that produced it. Food waste also contains a lot of energy. That’s the reason we eat it. That energy can be captured by converting food waste to liquid fuels: ethanol or bio-diesel. A lot of food waste can be converted to animal feed, freeing up other food for human instead of animal consumption.

The list goes on and on. There really isn’t much “waste” in the world, just a lot of resources we’re throwing away. And, there’s more to those resources. Reuse and recycling create jobs. Compared to using virgin raw materials, reuse and recycling are immensely better for the environment. Reuse and recycling support local, not multi-national economies.

So, think zero waste. Even as a recycler, I used to think Zero Waste was a silly, unrealistic goal. Not any more. There’s nothing in our “waste” that isn’t a resource, that can’t be put to productive use, that can’t conserve energy and resources if reused or recycled, that can’t, if reused or recycled, make the planet a healthier, more robust place to live.

The reverse is also true. Everything that we waste tends to run down the planetary ecosystem and the worldwide economic system.

Think zero waste. It’s the only way forward.

For over 100 years into the 1970s the H.W. Carter overall factory was a cornerstone of the community in Lebanon, NH. Sitting just off the town green, it was also a centerpiece of the landscape.

But as in thousands of other communities, times changed, the Carter factory closed, and the structure devolved into an eyesore. In the mid-90s part of the building was leased by the regional Alliance for the Visual Arts. AVA attracted a number of artists to the building’s low rent space, and the old Carter factory became a hub for the local art scene. But it remained a grubby, creaking, leaking, energy-wasting eyesore.

Then in 2001 AVA acquired the building outright, and AVA’s board embraced the idea of a sweeping transformation of the Carter factory into a space that would be not just a community art center, but an example of the best in sustainable, caring design and construction.

IRN had the good fortune to be invited to join the project team as waste manager, and over the course of fourteen months we had the opportunity to witness an amazing renewal. The exterior look of the building kept its original character, with just enough new details to let you know that something special was inside. And inside – probably the most gorgeous and flexible gallery space north of Boston, teaching spaces that host a year-round schedule of classes, and naturally lit studio space for some two dozen artists, along with state-of-the art heating, ventilation, lighting, and plumbing; a green roof; waste-water management, and dozens of other features that amounted to LEED Gold. The project has been honored with multiple awards including the Merit Award for Excellence from PlanNH, the Citation Award in Historic Preservation/Restoration from the AIA Vermont Chapter, and the Excellence in Construction – Historical Renovation award from the Associated Builders & Contractors of VT/NH.

IRN is happy to have made our small contribution in a 97% reuse/recycling rate. But as waste people our favorite thing was AVA’s Waste-to-Art project. As the building was gutted, AVA invited regional artists to muck through the piles of junk left behind from 125 years of making overalls and dungarees – pieces of sewing machines, time clocks, parts of old scales, a 1910 freight elevator, painted and repainted siding – and then go make art. The resulting artworks were assembled into an amazing opening exhibition of sculpture and wall pieces that tied together the history of the old building, AVA’s commitment to sustainability, and their role as a leader in the New England arts community. The exhibit got a LEED innovation credit, but more important it sold out, putting $20,000 into AVA’s bank account. The best use of trash we’ve ever seen.

Take a look at photos of the AVA restoration and Waste-to-Art exhibit at http://picasaweb.google.com/nhmlennon/AVAWasteToArtExhibition2008#.

Smith College’s Ford Hall is a 140,000 square foot brick and steel structure designed house Smith’s engineering, chemistry, and computer science programs. Ford Hall uses sustainable design, construction, and operating elements not only for their environmental and economic benefits, but also as teaching tools. In this light Smith sought to maximize and document the financial costs and benefits of jobsite reuse and recycling as a demonstration for Smith students, faculty, and staff – and for the broader academic community – of what can be accomplished with aggressive and imaginative waste management.

Ford Hall was built on the site of a downtown residential/commercial block that was a local landmark, and its demolition triggered controversy. Deconstruction was an important part of Smith’s response, assuring the community that the affected structures would be recovered and reused. Deconstruction was comprehensive down to interior finishes, furniture and appliances, flooring, trim, mantels, doors, windows, cabinets and casework, kitchen and bath fixtures, exterior benches and landscaping elements (e.g., pavers).

This level of attention carried through to demolition of the remaining shells. “Source separation” – that is, onsite separation of wastes into their constituent components – was practiced as much as possible, yielding homogeneous loads of wood, metals, wood, and ceiling tiles. This practice had no impact on the demolition schedule, and had the double benefit of reducing disposition costs and increasing recycling rates. Similar practices were employed as the new Ford Hall was erected and finished.

When the project wrapped up, IRN had helped Smith and contractor, William A. Berry achieve a 97% reuse and recycling rate. But what Smith really wanted to know was the cost. Had reuse and recycling been cost effective, or were they an expensive environmental add-on?

The Answer: Including the cost of waste management planning and documentation, Berry’s project managers calculated savings of about 25% compared to their budgeted waste disposal cost (that is, the cost without recycling). There was an increase in labor for daily site cleanup, but this was more than offset by the savings in disposal costs. At the end of the project, Berry had kept nearly 2,500 tons of usable materials out of landfill, achieved three LEED points and saved some serious money for itself and its client. And Smith had enduring lesson for its students in the economic value of sustainability, and in the advantages of getting materials back into the economy, and not down into the landfill.

See www.wastemiser.com for a complete case study and documentation of reuse and recycling results.