Gerry Gillespie: the ability to feel the interconnection of things is fundamental to human survival.

We need to get off a recycling treadmill that recovers only 20 per cent of what we extract, argues the ever-passionate Gerry Gillespie, president of Zero Waste Australia.

Recycling programs have saved many millions of tonnes from landfill and created many jobs. Indeed, they have grown so much that the recycling industries in the US are now four or five times larger than the combined waste industries.

And yet civilisation today is destroying its ability to sustain itself in a series of carefully choreographed steps. This is measurable and tangible, obvious by one very notable factor – the waste we produce. Pollution in our air, poisons in our waterways, noxious waste in our landfills.

Those of us who work in the environmental movement need to be clear on our objective. If it is to hand something of a sustainable future to our grandchildren, it is time to move on from the self-congratulatory era of talkfests on waste minimisation to an era of rapid social reassessment and on-ground activity.

We can no longer be distracted with minor achievements, such as recycling levels reaching 30-40 per cent in most developed communities around the world.

We can no longer satisfy ourselves with the small-time pickings issuing from increasing Alcoa’s profits by recycling aluminium for them, or assisting the paper industry’s environmental image by handing back their newspapers at less than cost price.

For humanity to survive, we need to redesign many of the things we make and use. If we continue simply to extract materials from nature for manufacturing and recycle then remanufacture only 20 per cent of what we extract, we are simply postponing the inevitable, curtailing the calamity.

We need a new direction that can lift us all from the recycling and reuse treadmill and take us to another starting point in human history.

There is an increasing environmental awareness in the community and a willingness to participate in corrective actions. This is reflected in worldwide recycling surveys that reveal any surveyed community is willing to recycle. In the majority of instances, these figures are in excess of 90 per cent. Given the 30-40 per cent recycling benchmark, it is clearly not the will to recycle that is the problem – it is the system in use.

These programs feature poor systems design, inefficient collection processes, negative media reports, lack of positive beneficial feedback, complex, confusing product and packaging design and incorrect and misleading packaging markings.

At the moment, we have a waste handling system where recycling is the poor cousin; in the vast majority of instances, a poorly planned, ineffective and expensive poor cousin.

If recycling is to be the number one priority then what is needed is a resource handling system specifically focused on recovering all that it can, maximising quality of material, minimising damage, maximising employment, minimising mechanical handling and focusing on value to the community rather than narrowly defined economic cost.

What would happen to recycling levels if the roles of waste management and the recycling industries were totally restructured? What would happen if the entire focus of both industries were brought into one focus of resource recovery?

Perhaps if systems were designed to maximise the quantities of material recycled and if they were given a new and a vibrant focus, they could go to a new level as yet unseen.

Where are the big benefits?
If one is to look for benefits in any system, it is appropriate to think through the ramifications of the removal of any one element from the mix and its effects on the materials remaining in the system.

For example, in trials conducted in the Canberra suburb of Kaleen in 1993, glass was variously included and excluded from collection trials containing paper because glass fragments in paper made the paper unmarketable.

The ramifications of source separation, partial or total, of all or any part of the mix of materials will impact on the technology required to collect, transport, process and value add to the final product prior to sale.

To do this, we need to look at all elements of the system, collection processing, sale and reuse. We need to evaluate agglomeration of the materials streams, both as a range of products and as a regional business opportunity.

We also need to evaluate fully the benefit and cost of all these elements and their final sale, including social values such as employment, community benefit and environmental benefits.

We need therefore to identify one by one the extraction of any one element from the materials stream and evaluate the effects of that removal on the value and handling properties of the remainder. But we also need to be cognisant of the loss of opportunity inherent in valuing only one small part of the stream.

The elements of any stream of output materials will vary depending on climatic conditions, eating habits, local supply and other factors. In the main, the toxic level will be about one per cent maximum, the organic fraction 40-70 per cent and the remainder basically inert.

Of all the elements in the domestic stream, the organic fraction is the most underrated and feared. It can have odours if allowed to rot, it can be dangerous to health if not collected in the correct manner, and it cannot be successfully composted into product if it is contaminated.

However, if correctly collected, processed and utilised, it also represents the greatest opportunity. The City to Soil collection program in NSW is a good place to start.

If the legacy emissions currently in the atmosphere are to be addressed, success will rely on the sea or the soil – and we have little control over the sea. Improving our soils worldwide is the only way of doing it.

While climate change may be the largest threat we have brought upon humanity, the generation of carbon in agricultural soils and the opportunities for change that it brings could be one of the greatest benefits that humanity has ever given to the world.

This new direction is based on the simplest and most disregarded of the products of humanity – our organic waste.

This is an edited version of a paper to the Zero Waste Summit last year.