Trash piled nine yards high is converted to heat and electricity at a waste-to-energy incinerator. Photo by: Brian Cliff Olguin for The New York Times
The lifestyles and consumption habits of individuals in developed countries are causing a huge worldwide waste problem leading to overfilled landfills and worse quality of air. The world is at a state of disequilibrium. Our natural resources can no longer sustain the demands of consumers, while consumers keep asking for more.
Countries are looking for ways to efficiently dispose waste. Figure 1 illustrates common practices on how waste is managed. For the purposes of this entry, I will be focusing on waste incineration.
Illustration of the Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) model developed by Björklund et al. (2003).
Waste incineration is the practice of converting waste into ashes before placing them in landfills. It significantly covers less space in landfills, and reduces the demand for fuels, like coal, to produce heat. Additionally, this process produces combined heat and power (CHP), which can be beneficial in many neighbourhoods.
One shining example that widely practices this type of waste management is Sweden. They not only achieved the benefits mentioned above, but also generated added revenues by importing trash from its neighbouring countries, which amounts up to 700,000 tons of waste annually.
Nonetheless, we must not ignore the consequences of this practice to our environment and our health. This process emits hazardous and cancerous chemicals, unless strict protocols are implemented. Installing streamlined filtration systems can reduce the accidental exposure of these chemicals to the environment. In fact, Sweden is doing well with respect to minimizing airborne damages from incinerating garbage. Nevertheless, the ashes are still disposed in landfills, which create a devastating impact in our environment.
This leads us to the fundamental question: is this sustainable? In my opinion, not even close. This strategy is beneficial in the short-run for managing waste, but it does not fully address the real problem. It may have an indirect effect to consumers by taking away the motivation to reduce consumption. Hence, it is necessary to find alternative cleaner methods in disposing garbage, and it starts at the consumer level.
Consumers need not wait for government interventions before taking action. There are three basic methods in which consumers can be proactive and play a significant role: reduce, reuse, and recycle. These simple techniques are quick and easy ways to minimize waste that incur little-to-no cost for the consumers.
Supporting green products by creating demand in this market is another strategy that can help. Research has shown that consumers are willing to pay more for products that can help the environment. However, the issue lies in the lack of awareness, or perceived availability for green options in many categories. This is perhaps the biggest constraint that prevents consumers from switching to green products. Stimulating demand for greener product may have the capacity to encourage companies to introduce more in different categories, which may raise awareness.
Today, we are consuming the resources of one and a half Earths. We only have one to live in. Waste incineration certainly creates a positive impact in transforming waste to energy. It also serves as a good substitute to landfill disposal, but waste prevention techniques will always be the best option to combat our global problem.
Further reading:
Effects of planned expansion of waste incineration in the Swedish district heating systems
A City That Turns Garbage Into Energy Copes With a Shortage
Negative Impacts of Incineration-based Waste-to-Energy Technology
Hi Alvin, you made a really good point when you said that garbage incineration “may have an indirect effect to consumers by taking away the motivation to reduce consumption.” In consumer psychology we call this a ‘licensing effect,’ since doing one good thing (burning garbage to save landfill space) gives consumers a ‘license’ to do a bad thing (consuming more). We see this pattern when people buy hybrid cars but end up driving MORE because they save on fuel costs, so the environmental benefit is cancelled out.
There’s a great paper you might enjoy called “Do Green Products Make Us Better People?” that shows a pretty amazing licensing effect: buying a green product makes consumers more likely to cheat and steal afterwards. You can read the paper here: http://web.missouri.edu/segerti/capstone/GreenProducts.pdf
Hello noahcastelo. That’s exactly my point. I am fond of social psychology, and I believe that this is part of people’s irrationality. Aside from the licensing effect, some people also think that one person cannot affect the whole world, whether it’s for the good or bad, and that may be the reason people do not play their part. I can’t recall the term for that – perhaps “external locus of control?” Anyway, that may explain why waste prevention strategies are not widely prevalent yet.
A big, long-term strategy is definitely required where the majority will participate, while the others will be somewhat pressured to conform to society. Thanks for the link. I will definitely read that!
Hi Alvin, I agree that “supporting green products”, as talked about in your blog causes the growing concern for licensing affect, the negative side of such a positive concept. I wanted to add that I still can’t help but be optimistic for efforts of businesses to proactively counter the issues that they can. At least their efforts are aligned with trying to make a difference and doing something that is in their power to do so and at the same time generate sufficient profits in order to continue to do business. My opinion is that a chance at ‘lessening the bad’ seems worth it to pursue and hope that more and more companies engage in greener activities. In addition, I think that accountability for the effect of promoting consumerism falls just as much on consumers as producers.
The issue then can mostly be resolved by changing the behaviour of society and a cure is the development and promotion of social marketing efforts that really influences and promotes positive purchasing behaviour.
The 3Rs is just as important as lessening consumerism. The minimization of owning “stuff” or buying less can be promoted by the idea of sharing resources. An example of a company that promotes shared resources is Zipcar. Hopefully more and more consumers will opt to make the right behavioural choices in order to be able to support the availability of needed resources in the future.
Hey Suzette, thank you for your input. You raise some great points. Companies certainly need to be proactive in this initiative. After all, they supply the things we buy, so we have to tackle the supply chain. We, as consumers, can only do so much, if companies do not participate.
Fortunately, big companies are already looking for innovative ways to address the issue. Tesla, Fisker, Nissan developed the first line of electric cars. Additionally, Coca-Cola is doing so many things from their emissions (they also have a facility that produces heat and power at the same time), to manufacturing (PlantBottle), to distribution channels (Using hybrid trucks).
As for-profit companies, they are doing implementing these strategies mainly to reduce costs/improve efficiency/build a competitive advantage. Nevertheless, these companies see an opportunity in greener products, and i think this is where consumers must enter the picture. People can support their cause by increasing demand for green products. This does not necessarily imply increasing usage of products in general, but rather shifting from one “bad” product to a good one.
For your Zipcar example, I am still debating with myself whether that is good for the environment. The good side is it has less emissions compared to an average car. The bad side is it encourages people to drive, instead of commute, which brings us back to the whole licensing effect problem. Those are the only things that I can think of now. I would have to research on this topic first.