Chapter 1
	Why Reduce, Reuse, Recycle?

Almost everything creates waste. In order to lessen it, the concept of “Reduce, Reuse, Recycle,” provides a basic decision-making framework that can be used to manage waste streams large and small. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), in 2008 Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) in the U.S. totaled 250 million tons, which is approximately 4.5 pounds of waste per person per day. [1] When such waste is generated, systems need to be developed and implemented in order to manage it with the least environmental impact.

Traditionally, waste management in the U.S. has consisted of open dumping into landfills as well as incineration to decrease material volume. During the 1960s and 1970s, a large percentage of garbage was burned, but this practice declined through the 1980s until landfill disposal peaked in 1990. [2] Since this time, the number of MSW landfills in the U.S. has decreased dramatically. In 1988, there were 7,924 MSW landfills and by 1995, this number had decreased to 3,581. In 2007 only 1,754 landfills were reported in the U.S. [3]

In 1989, the EPA published The Solid Waste Dilemma: An Agenda for Action, which established a hierarchy for handling solid waste: Source reduction (or waste prevention) including product reuse and on-site composting, Recycling (including off-site or community composting), Combustion (incineration) with energy recovery, and Landfilling. The report states, “A mix of these options must be molded into an integrated waste management system where each component complements the others to safely and efficiently manage the waste.” [4]  

As the most favorable option in the MSW management hierarchy, source reduction (reduce and reuse) is a crucial element in creating a more sustainable campus. While recycling questions and influences how products are manufactured, it is not designed to question why they are produced. Source reduction does raise this type of question: Is the product absolutely necessary? If so, can it be produced with fewer resources? Can it be produced more energy efficiently? Can it be manufactured using locally sourced materials so as to cut down on transportation impacts and support the local economy? Can it be produced with renewable resources using renewable energy sources? Can it be produced with non-toxic and/or biodegradable materials? Can it be designed to be repaired/reused instead of thrown out? According to Conservatree, “‘[A] source reduction product' can be defined as a product that results in a net reduction in the generation of waste compared to the previous or alternate version and includes durable, reusable and remanufactured products; products with no, or reduced, toxic constituents; and products marketed with no, or reduced, packaging.” [5]

Effective communication between purchasing departments and the sectors of campus they serve is essential in incorporating source reduction as part of general campus procedures. In addition to resulting in a lower overall impact, source reduction will also compliment other waste reduction strategies on campus by reducing the volume of materials that will need to be handled by the recycling program and trash collection services.

Recycling, as the word indicates, is a cyclical process and is the second most favorable option in the MSW management hierarchy. After purchasing a product and using and reusing it to its full potential, a choice becomes evident: throw it away or recycle it. If there is an available market, choose recycling. In 2007, the recycling rate in the U.S. was 1.54 pounds per person per day. [6] While recycling is preferable to incineration or landfilling, it still has negative associated environmental impacts such as major energy use and pollution from reprocessing materials. However, these environmental costs are much lower than those associated with harvesting and processing raw materials. Recycling is most appropriate when the options for reduction and reuse have been completely exhausted, but a material has enough integrity that it need not be replaced with a virgin material.  

Recycling has a variety of benefits such as saving energy and raw materials, thereby reducing dependency on foreign energy and material sources, benefiting the local economy through job creation at recycling depots, and increasing opportunities for innovative product design and manufacturing. It also prevents the pollution generally associated with manufacturing products from virgin materials, conserves natural resources including minerals, timber, and water, and decreases greenhouse gas emissions. [7]

Materials may decompose very slowly in landfills, which is another incentive for recycling instead of landfilling. The following table shows the decomposition rates [8] of common items that are frequently landfilled:

Reducing, reusing, and recycling provide alternatives to the harmful effects of incineration and landfilling. Incineration (i.e. combustion) compliments other landfill procedures by reducing volume before materials are landfilled as ash. However, the combustion process is a major contributor to pollution as the byproducts include carbon monoxide, dioxins, acid gases, toxic metal compounds, and toxic ash all of which adversely effect human health and the environment. Landfills are similarly harmful in that the effects can be difficult to contain. They release methane, a potent greenhouse gas, through the decomposition of organic materials. As materials break down, leachate is formed which poses the major threat of groundwater contamination.  

Potential environmental and health hazards can be avoided by reducing, reusing, and recycling. However, the three Rs also create opportunities for positive outcomes instead of merely avoiding negative outcomes. Implementing programs that incorporate waste reduction and material reuse and recycling requires a community effort. The relationships and alliances formed add a social layer to creating a more sustainable world. Creativity and innovation are encouraged as these connections are strengthened. Many ideas, plans, and actions using the basic structure of “Reduce, Reuse, Recycle” can combine to create positive long-term solutions.                                                            

Colleges and Universities play the important role of educating future leaders. Day-to-day operations serve as an example to students and the greater community. Using resources efficiently and effectively, collecting materials to recycle, and purchasing non-toxic recycled-content products will enhance the reputation of the school, while reducing costs and contributing to a better world.

Resources 

Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) “Precycling: Shopping for Future Generations.”
http://www.edf.org/article.cfm?contentid=2194 

EPA National Service Center for Environmental Publications (NSCEP)
http://nepis.epa.gov           

EPA Reduce, Reuse, Recycle
http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/conserve/rrr 

EPA Report. Municipal Solid Waste in the United States: 2007 Facts and Figures.
http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/nonhaz/municipal/pubs/msw07-rpt.pdf

EPA “Source Reduction Program Potential Manual: A Planning Tool”
http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/conserve/downloads/source.pdf

 EPA WasteWise Program
http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/partnerships/wastewise/index.htm

 Grassroots Recycling Network (GRRN) Campus Zero Waste
http://www.grrn.org/campus/

Mount Holyoke Recycling and Waste Reduction
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/offices/es/8436.shtml

 National Geographic Human Footprint Episode
http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/episode/human-footprint-3224/Overview#tab-Overview

 University of Oregon Campus Zero Waste Program Factoids
http://www.uoregon.edu/~recycle?Factoids.htm