Sustainable World Without Waste

Sustainable World Without Waste – Day 3 Small Group Discussions – May 12, 2021 1

Sustainable World Without Waste Day 3 Breakout Session

We spent the first two days discussing the challenge of waste, what our disciplines bring to the table, and how we can work together to make progress towards a sustainable world without waste. On Day 3 we discussed how we can go about operationalizing these thoughts and effect change in society. How do we bring about change in:

• Our Communities • Industry • Our Social Institutions/Policy • Academia

Each group was encouraged to discuss all 4 of the above topics and any other areas as desired. However, participants were invited to select their personal priorities among the four areas, and groups were set up to allow discussion to focus primarily on individual priorities. Breakout Group #1 focused primarily on Social Institution and Policies. Breakout Group #2 focused primarily on Industry. Breakout Group #3 focused primarily on Academia. Breakout Group #4 focused primarily on Community. Breakout Group #5 had no primary focus. Breakout Group #1 Facilitators - Melissa Bilec, Tim Jaquet Scribe - Amrita Sen Participants - Brian Anderson, Heriberto Cabezas, Madisen Gittlin, Brian Roe, David Giles, Matthew Realff How do we bring about change in: Our Communities What are the key topic areas where outreach/education is the most necessary? Who are the key stakeholders that should be engaged in the process? MG: One of the biggest barriers to amplifying movements is poor linkages between NGOs and funding sources. Industry Which industries represent the best opportunities for making progress towards a SWWW? What are the best practices that should be promoted/adopted? What are the best strategies for synergy between being profitable and sustainable?


• If we believe in market economics then we have to reprice our activities and products to include the attributes of sustainability in the profit equation. For example, a carbon price would likely reduce our waste of energy and reduce the flow of CO2 to the environment.

• MR: Industries bifurcating into those enthusiastic about waste reduction and anti-reduction due to historic treatment wrt other stakeholders. These industries need to be re-engaged in a positive light.

• DG: Systems thinking is a buzzword. Supermarkets are “built” to make waste. They can be mitigated partially and locally made more efficient, but the institution is not built to minimize consumer demand. They can’t afford to not keep things on the shelf, but then things are going to be left behind. Waste reduction involves changing the structure on which institutions are built.

o MR: Supermarkets exist for efficiency - there is often a tension between efficiency and sufficiency of consumption.

• DG: On the political right, groups like The American Legislative Exchange Council are really effective at prototyping policy, which can then be cut-and-pasted into state legislatures. They’re awful policies. But we could still learn from them in terms of strategy.

• BA: It’s interesting to think about what are the aesthetics of sustainable products. Do we need to change how we expect things to look? (e.g. Food that is ugly but edible. Using recycled products that might degrade the appearance but not functionality.)

• DG: Reformist reforms vs revolutionary reforms. From a design perspective, goal is to build a design that does not base itself on throughput. So if IKEA is still focused on selling as much furniture as possible, are they really creating revolutionary reforms.

• MB: Biocombustibles following petroleum based recycling stream because that’s the infrastructure that was in place.

o Consumer education. Composting infrastructure available to community is not sufficient.

• Positive drivers towards a WWW is going to be very stream specific. The organizations and information that make progress towards reducing food waste are probably going to be different than medical waste or industrial waste.

Our Social Institutions/Policy What are the key policy changes to help us progress towards a SWWW? Who needs to be engaged and/or who are the best parties to execute them? How can we tackle issues like inequality to either reduce waste or reduce its negative consequences?

• DG: When systems are scaled up, they tend to be scaled up in a way that is friendly to the existing power structures/processes.

• HC: Regulation can be a blunt instrument that can yield a tremendous amount of resentment. We need a narrative that says we should reduce waste so that we don’t get as much pushback.

o BR: But you can also support individuals by resetting norms that can activate individual behavior change.

• Infrastructure needs to be present for the policies implemented. (California organic waste example) Policy/infrastructure needs to be designed for the world we want, not the world we have.


Academia What are the key research areas to advance our knowledge frontier on topics pertaining to waste? What can we teach our students to help advance towards a SWW? If we were to create an interdisciplinary master’s program aimed at SWWW, what are the key learning objectives/topics/courses that should be included?

• MB: Home Ec. has been changed to Family and Consumer Science. We are being taught to be consumers from a young age. Should we be teaching people to be non-consumers?

o DG: Also the concept of family. American culture has a specific view of families and consumers.

• DG: What are the theories of change that are underlying our writing and research? • MB: A design class that focuses on disassembly or end of life. • BA: “Circular Spirit” class. Considers view as designers towards a more sustainable

planet. Aligns with UN sustainable development goals. Pushes circular economy community to examine its ethical foundations. Read sustainability lit to talk about origins of progress or language around that. Waste from brewing industry- clean source, one item, interesting how much of it is sourced from 1 item.

Operationalization DG: Community Economies project inspired by feminist geographists. Grassroots strategies are often done with the government’s objectives in mind. Scale up causes laws to be written in a way that allows corporations to get away with doing minimum. This is a systems problem. Systems thinking is a buzzword. Supermarkets are “built” to make waste. They can be mitigated partially and locally made more efficient, but the institution is not built to minimize consumer demand. Eliminating waste means eliminating or transforming wastes. Waste reduction involves changing the structure on which institutions are built. Cultural narrative after a point scales up beyond individual psyche. MB: Challenges with scale? The problem is institutionalized. MR: Carpet Industry in a reactionary posture, due to being isolated out. Industries bifurcating into those enthusiastic about waste reduction and anti-reduction due to historic treatment wrt other stakeholders. These industries need to be re-engaged in a positive light. Learnings from carpet industry flown to the mattress industry due to close association. Hard to recycle mid-range products with some env impact. Electronics components have toxicity issues. The issue is mid valuable, bulky waste streams- cant be reused. Certain categories make waste reduction harder. Systems need to be designed to handle these. Medium term products are harder to handle. Manufacturers singled out are right to be resentful, due to historically being singled out. A level playing field is necessary. Opportunities for negative feedback should be avoided. Positive feedback and narrative necessary.


HC: Regulation is a blunt instrument which leads to resentment. Cultural narrative is missing- which says waste needs to be minimized. The pushback slows progress. Until that cultural narrative comes into play, waste reduction will be a struggle. Regulation and policy aren’t enough. BR: Complaint is that system does not support the customer’s activities. But, individual behavior can be made to align with regulations, alongside some resentment. MB: Everything is single use in health care due to infections. Idea of WWW by thinking about design. How can we think about design in curriculum to train the next gen of students by designing products by minimizing waste? BA: Need for culture change. Any solution will be multipronged and plural. If solutions arent rolled out with other approaches, they are unlikely to work. Experimenting- rough prototyping by putting it into the world. Accountability and outcome measurement are a problem. It is unrewarding if outcomes aren’t as expected. The way that progress is marketed in culture- in supply and demand side- .. Eco-design aesthetic. Floor interface- reuse carpet tiles. Aesthetic degradation. It is a terrible model. The reality we need to sell that ugly/used is an acceptable aesthetic. It is a big part of impression. MB: We are inundated with images all around. Social media markets sell used things- aesthetics are changed. The idea of how we think about design aesthetics needs to change. EMF’s work in the fashion industry. BA: Remake of fibres accept degradation. Other companies like IKEA accept aesthetic degradation. DG: Reformist reforms vs revolutionary reforms. From a design perspective, goal is to build a design that does not base itself on throughput. MG: Barrier to amplifying grass roots efforts is poor linkage between NGO and funding sources. In food waste world, there is lots of funding. But city govts and NGOs arent aware (who are the most in need of funding) California’s legislation mandate passed before they had the means to achieve it. Design for implementation- infrastructure is a barrier. Designing for a infrastructure that “will” be available ?? MB: Biocompostibles following petroleum based recycling stream because infrastructure wasnt in place. Infrastructure design and planning should be in parallel. MG: Consumer education. Composting infrastructure available to community is not sufficient. We are being “taught” to be consumers.


TJ: Lack of transparency and accountability to consumers. DG: Troublesome semantics. Consumption and model of single family- pillars of capitalism. How will the change come about : Gradual dissemination of ideas that will be put to policy? Social movements? Response to catastrophic change? TJ: The reporting of information and connectivity brings about more awareness. HC: Echo chambers of people in social media forming like minded groups. Optimistic about gradual change: policies, politics and social action. BR: Food waste: identifiable subset of wastes. Has been globally dealt with in many countries. Grass roots activities, at governmental levels have plans in place. WWW will be stream specific. Constituencies have pushed food waste as a social cause. Overall breadth of question is perplexing and global approach might not be possible. Cant measure progress with food waste. MB: Peer pressure causes action to propagate within a community. This has happened with tackling of food wastes. This is a theory of change (economists would know) Utilization of visual triggers to think about how action moves and influences to reduce waste Educational/Curriculum Visions MB: Design class that focuses on disassembly etc. BA: Circular economy principles’ class. More holistic and less focused on design. Assumes shared interest as designer to sustainability. Aligned to UN SD goals. Amplifies social awareness. Read sustainability lit to talk about origins of progress or language around that. Waste from brewing industry- clean source, one item, interesting how much of it is sourced from 1 item. Humanistic, Technological side. Pragmatic side of design. Concept of regeneration- not increasing efficiency. Increasing ways of giving back. Scale of time taken into account. Use of biology as an engine against the scale of time. MB: Design for the environment. Elucidates design for disassembly is skewed in terms of thinking. Concept of design over time BA (noted after the breakout group): A quick note on design. Of course, there is a range of understandings of design in what it purports to be about, do, and accomplish. I’m speaking from a design educator perspective, and the design I’m most often concerned with is at the scale of an object. My work with artisans is interested in preserving diversity, learning from the past and through lateral practices, expressing positive visions (new hybrid practices), and demonstrating sustainable material systems specifically. This said, I may not represent the broad spectrum of design (especially considering design thinking). However, I might argue for involving designers generally because design is especially good at: taking action (acting) early even while relatively ignorant, broadening stakeholder inclusivity, and articulating/projecting/demonstrating preferable futures.


Breakout Group #2 Facilitator(s) - Valerie Thomas, Bhavik Bakshi Scribe(s) - Rishabh Chauhan Participants - David Shonnard, John Sutherland, Daniel Ross Cooper, Mike Brown, George Basile, Bert Bras How do we bring about change in: Industry Which industries represent the best opportunities for making progress towards a SWWW? What are the best practices that should be promoted/adopted? What are the best strategies for synergy between being profitable and sustainable?

• David S.: Plastics material as an example. Petrochemical companies are interested in continuing to produce plastics, but focus on a world without plastic waste by bending the material flows to be circular, that is back to the companies that produce plastics in the first place. Address end of life problem.

• Industry is not monolithic… they are quite varied. • Internal leadership matters (that leadership may take different forms, e.g. top

down, middle management, etc. whatever is in place at an org). • Mike Brown sees many more companies interested in waste issues and willing to

work on it. • Bert Bras: sees a cycling pattern of industry interest in dealing with sustainability

issues depending on government attitudes, so not certain that companies will be interested in dealing with waste as a long-standing trend.

• Need to engage industries in positive ways that are enabling against their goals. • Consumer behavior is changing and younger consumers will be driving change

more than the companies themself. • Mike Brown: Visibility is a concern. Not all companies have the same visibility. • Are there high leverage opportunities? - Where structural changes are driving

opportunities? • Blind spot in talks about climate change is growing companies, and billions of

people moving to the middle class. • For reducing consumption, we need to reduce imports. This could hurt the

developing companies. • Developing countries have the concept of frugality • The development of developing countries will be affected by cost of energy • Engineers tend to focus on efficiency improvement… incremental

improvement. Will this approach be sufficient to address the existential threat of climate change? Perhaps an “effectiveness” approach (identify the right disruptive change) is needed??

• People will start recycling when we run out materials. • There is more adoption of LCA than a few decades ago. • Companies are much more open to making changes that consider the

environment (and, as Bert Bras said -- the lift is easier when the system needs to be changed and capital is available)


• Diverse perspective is needed. • ISO 9000 is the worst thing for sustainability (Mike Brown); it raises barriers to

innovation in manufacturing. • Because of the rebound effect, we should not seek to improve efficiency in fossil

fuel resource use, as that drives more use of fossil fuels. Efficiency efforts should be directed toward sustainable and renewable energy use

• Much of the recycling - of high quality aluminum, of steel, does not displace primary production; instead this recycling leads to more consumption

• As academics, we can bring to industry the broader picture of how materials, processes, and lifecycles combine

Our Social Institutions What are the key policy changes to help us progress towards a SWWW? Who needs to be engaged and/or who are the best parties to execute them? How can we tackle issues like inequality to either reduce waste or reduce its negative consequences?

• “Climate Native” millennials and younger may/could drive more significant market/business change.

• Do we need economic policies that support sustainable circularization, e.g., pricing waste, rewarding circularization, etc.

• Role for China as a huge player in the global supply web and resource use? • Clean air act, less polluting cars, innovation in electricity - examples of policies in

the US that had positive benefits. Cooperation between stakeholders is needed for such positive changes.

• Policies can be a big leverage. • Policies were pushed by Governments and not industry.


• Our basic role is to identify/show true inefficiency, i.e. where today’s activities are out of alignment with fundamental reality

• Microeconomics (even if huge like a big company) vs global supply webs supporting it all. How to integrate the two? Are there businesses that can serve as “labs” for this?

• Our models do not include 50% of the population. Our system is out of line. • Decision makers are not rational - this breaks down all the models. • Need to explore and redefine “rational” to be more aligned with how people

actually make decisions and take actions…then need to build decision support systems that reflect this...

• Provide insights that can support global governance policies and incentives • Ask and answer how does the field of engineering (broader: science) need to

change in order to be directly supportive of sustainable futures


• Provide viable technology solutions to existing problems (e.g. green energy, electric vehicles)

• Create model (novel) systems with industry partners that can be scalable and extensible (e.g., Nike t-shirt cycling example M. Brown)

• Figure out where cycling is good and where single-use (without damage) is good • Academia can learn from existing examples and apply to new ones.

Jump to

• Breakout Group #1 Social Institution and Policies • Breakout Group #2 Industry • Breakout Group #3 Academia • Breakout Group #4 Community • Breakout Group #5 No primary focus


Breakout Group #3 Facilitator(s) - Elena Irwin, Dusan Sekulic Scribe(s) - Sunghoon Kim, Yazeed Aleissa Participants - Yuan Yao, Yinlun Huang, Nick Caverly, Cliff Ian Davidson, Fazleena Badurdeen, Alan Randall, Faye Duchin How do we bring about change in: Academia What are the key research areas to advance our knowledge frontier on topics pertaining to waste? What can we teach our students to help advance towards a SWW? If we were to create an interdisciplinary master’s program aimed at SWWW, what are the key learning objectives/topics/courses that should be included? Wide-ranging discussion:

• Dusan: We have to be clear about what the system boundaries are and what the interactions are that we want to study -- can’t just put together disciplines without paying attention to these conditions

• Zero waste is nonsensical -- we can’t achieve that. But the topic of waste is great for seeking to understand waste and sustainability from a systems perspective

• Faye: There are different paths about waste. Collaboration with different areas is difficult. Collaboration means = I am not wedded to my specific discipline, let’s start w the problem and let’s be willing to come up w something new

• Tension arises when engineers aren’t interested in theory -- theory is how I put together the conceptual ideas

• Fazleena: Example in attempting to co-teach a class w faculty from four different colleges -- Difficulties we have is we have different languages, which makes communication between disciplines challenging. Another difficulty is how we evaluate interdisciplinary scholarship -- it’s more complicated given an understanding of multiple disciplinary contributions and integration is needed.

• Yinlun: I agree that education is challenging. Different views on waste, what is waste, agree that there are many challenges w speaking different languages. Different views have an approach towards waste related to their discipline.

• Cliff: Research and education go hand in hand, they reinforce and inform each other. Students don’t understand what we are trying to communicate -- every person has a different knowledge base, which makes communication and education difficult. I totally agree with the Dusan’s talking about zero waste.

• Nick: We often end up in these interdisciplinary spaces because we are not entirely satisfied w our disciplinary homes and spaces -- this feeling can be very productive, pushes us to reach across disciplinary silos not only but also across our institutions -- e.g., can we build common curriculum that we all contribute to and draw on

• Potential learning outcome: Produce students who can think on these multiple axes -- can think integrated across engineering, anthropology, econics, environmental science, etc = a hope to produce these kinds of students, but how do we do this?

• Alan: The circularity of a “world without waste” is that it would be wasteful to even try → this is the best encapsulation of the issue I heard in the three days(!)

• Value uncollected, opportunities going begging, resources unused = ways to think about waste


• still struggling with convergence applied to social sciences -- examples seem to be in engineering. Perhaps we are already convergent (to some degree?)

• Yuan: Lots of interdisc experience--problem focus is useful, but also this can of work creates problems for going up for tenure -- need to be changes in the P&T process if we expect junior faculty to do this kind of work

• Previously taught a cross-disc course (engineering - social science - ecology) -- but students didn’t have a solid foundation in any of these, and couldn’t understand

• At Yale: All MS interdisc students have a foundational course in physical sci but then have specialization

• Two hands: need to build faculty as well as students Common Themes that emerged: Three things that are foundational and that we don’t have, that we should advocate for in the report:

1. Common research frameworks to promote interdisciplinary understanding and collaboration

To overcome the language barriers, knowledge differences, etc: We can start w either (1) the problem and then develop a common understanding from there (convergence approach) and/or (2) develop a common framework (e.g., Faye’s point above) -- but to develop common framework you do need common or agreed upon approach -- e.g., both ecologists and economists use mathematical models, and there has been good progress in integrating these approaches because of their common approach

A tangible need (that we could lift up in our report) is the need to develop a common integrated modeling framework like IPCC to have a common understanding of the problem, so that could then provide a common framework for collaboration -- this could help to bridge the barriers to collaboration across disciplines → need an integrated modeling framework that could support a common framework to advance both convergence in research AND education

Accounting for perspectives of humanists and social scientists -- integrate these perspectives early (Nick “we’re inexpensive!”)

2. Challenges in developing interdisciplinary education programs

• finding a common vocabulary between disciplines. • How to approach it from a student's perspective? What are the learning

outcomes?

Nick: How do we make space for students to sit with the complexity of the problems that our world faces (especially, but not limited to waste)? Could we imagine a kind of academic program that would produce students as capable of thinking with economic models as they are with engineering concepts as they are social scientific/humanistic principles? Doing so would require us to shake off silos (disciplinar, institutional, geopolitical)


• Potential learning outcome: Produce students who can think on these multiple axes -- can think integrated across engineering, anthropology, econics, environmental science, etc = a hope to produce these kinds of students, but how do we do this?

Cliff: Learning from existing sustainability programs. For example, the masters and PhD program at Arizona State university.

Cliff: Other example = CMU program -- introduced students to interdisc thinking at the start, some took to it, some not

We can develop the rationale for developing these programs (e.g., preparing students for the real world complexity, etc) but we need time and resources to develop the programs

Fazleena: We talk a lot about convergence in research but what about convergence in teaching? How do we do this? e.g., can we have a convergence accelerator for education?

• And how would we write a proposal in which the research and education is integrated and reinforcing each other → to do convergence research we need convergence education and vice versa

Nick to everyone (05:05 PM) I don’t know how NSF CAREER type awards work in your fields but for SBE directorate careers the educational part is really instrumental. So maybe that is a model to think from?

3. Fostering interdisc faculty -- overcoming barrier to disciplinary-based tenure

Research and education go hand in hand, they reinforce and inform each other. We can’t provide interdisc educ to students without giving faculty the needed time and opportunities to be interdisc themselves, which requires changing the incentives and evaluation and reward structures

Jump to • Breakout Group #1 Social Institution and Policies • Breakout Group #2 Industry • Breakout Group #3 Academia • Breakout Group #4 Community • Breakout Group #5 No primary focus


Breakout Group #4 Facilitator - Tom Theis, (Cindy here listening) Scribe - Brieanne Berry Participants - Fernanda Cruz Rios, Vikas Khanna, Robert Richardson, Chloe Ahmann, Brian Fath, Weslynne Ashton, Cindy Isenhour How do we bring about change in: Our Communities What are the key topic areas where outreach/education is the most necessary?

• Is education really one of the key questions we should be asking? How do we gauge the success of education/eco-literacy campaigns? (BF)

• Eco-literacy being implemented in MD (BF) • Societal and environmental impacts of the daily decisions we make (FCR) • Or is it essential that we educate the powerful stakeholders about the needs of

those who they seek to engage (e.g. waste pickers, repairers, resellers, composters, etc) (CI)

• Ask communities what they need (don’t assume we know what they need) o Who is doing the educating? Implies that researchers are the experts and

need to share information with stakeholders (CA) • Need to LEARN from communities and engage them in the process of research

design (CI) • Taxonomy of waste - need to think about broad ideas of waste (waste of human

capital) and the implications of our work (does automation have negative impacts on people). Important consideration for thinking about waste reduction (VK)

• Literature gap on taxonomy of waste - can help us think about communities who are not included in our decisions and research (VK)

o https://betterbuildingssolutioncenter.energy.gov/resources/taxonomy-waste (RR)

• Special taxation districts - "blighted" - in Chicago that denote places that are able to access greater funding. These tend to be in wealthier places, giving privileged access to pots of money…(TT)

• How do we get our knowledge OUT of academia and into the hands of people who can use it? (VK)

• Place-based solutions to problems (BF) - but acknowledging the links between rural and urban places

• I also want to talk about the potential dangers associated with the commodification of waste in a circular economy. As waste becomes “the next resource frontier” how can we still design systems that don’t disenfranchise “communities” who have often relied on waste work, often in the informal sector. This is of course a big topic for folks who study “pickers” but there are other “communities” that rely on waste work. (CI)

o Just one example… lots of people here in Maine make a living by “picking” resalable goods from thrift shops and yard sales. They invest labor to find them and develop expertise about reuse markets. BUT, today with the increased popularity of thrift and vintage goods… many platforms are being developed that buy directly from sellers and market them on

https://betterbuildingssolutioncenter.energy.gov/resources/taxonomy-waste

https://betterbuildingssolutioncenter.energy.gov/resources/taxonomy-waste


national markets. Yes, transaction costs are reduced, but there are people whose labor is no longer valued in the system and process. And I should note that many people do this work because they don’t have the social support for full time work (due to care for a dependent or other factors that make them vulnerable) (CI)

• When we think about extracting monetary value from waste there is a danger of ignoring multiple forms of value. How can non-monetary value become valuable? Do we need multiple kinds of value or just something OTHER than money? (WA)

• Trying to see different metrics of prosperity and progress (Genuine Progress Indicator) - so much that GDP doesn't monetize, so work is given a value of $0. If we can incorporate the value of volunteer work - we know it has value and it improves peoples' lives...alternative measure of wealth. Should we monetize the non-monetized so it's counted in the equivalent of value to things that the market doesn't value? (RR)

• GPI brings things into a dollar valuation - an attempt to correct for what is left out (RR)

o Even an estimate of the value of ecosystem services can help us make a case for conserving them (VK)

• Process integration as a key to increase the number of roles at play in circularity (BF)

Who are the key stakeholders that should be engaged in the process? • All of them, but particularly those likely to be or historically disenfranchised by the

process (CI) • Relationship-building with community organizations takes time. (WA) • Scale is critical - everyone is going to be affected by decisions around urban

development and circular cities - fundamental to educate stakeholders on the impacts of decisions so they can co-create design goals (FCR)

• The word community is a broad and often misused term - often used to talk about people who live in a place. Communities are more than just place-based individuals. Businesses, NGOs, policymakers, and more - need to think about communities in really broad terms (RR)

• Key is to listen to what people want and what works there. Sustainability has to be a local solution for what works in place. Remind people of the value of place. (BF)

• Disregard for place is one of the hallmarks of unsustainability (BF) • Stakeholder produced knowledge should be used, importantly also, to formulate

policy or design social institutions (CI) • How do we think about ourselves as belonging to multiple communities -

work/home, urban/rural? (RR) • How do we leverage different kinds of knowledge? (FCR)

o Rural educational efforts in India: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10098-020-01982-0

What barriers do we see to making change? • Do academic timelines/expectations prevent us from doing community-engaged

work? (TT) • Can we reimagine the ways universities operate? (TT)

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10098-020-01982-0


o Community-engaged work typically counts as "service" work (UPitt), but more than just service is needed to succeed in academia (VK)

o It is tough… that’s for sure… particularly to build trust in relationships. You have to deliver and invest int he relationships. And on a much quicker time-frame than what is typical in academia. (CI)

• Building trust is extremely challenging - how does digital technology accelerate our ability to collaborate with communities? (FCR)

• Universities have been rethinking higher education for some time (defining enrollment, MOOCs, etc.). Now might be a good time to do this rethinking. What is the purpose of education? (WA)

o Extension programs – and their possible expansion – might fall in here. We were talking about them when we talked about examples of community-engaged research. (CA)

• Academia is unsustainable the way we have been doing it. A community-based model could be an outcome (BF)

• Problem of novelty. It's hard for community members to maintain connections (BB)

• Thinking of community work not as accessory to research, but as essential to it (CA).

o Extension agents who work directly with growers, conservationists, etc. and they are evaluated based on their ability to address community challenges. There is a system set up to evaluate people through the tenure track on this process (VK)

o If we think about community members as people with expert knowledge there are opportunities to bring in communities to conceptualize the problem rather than bringing them in only after the research has been outlined (CA)

• Engineering used to rely more heavily on industry partnerships - this shifted when massive funding agencies emerged to provide resources. Now there is a gap between engineering curricula and what industry does (TT)

• Promotion system is so flawed within academia - federal grant money counts much more than industry-funding. This disincentivizes community engagement (VK)

• Need for more diverse sources of funding. Someone is developing the research agenda when they decide what should be funded (FCR)

• Need for NSF to create funding streams that value community-engaged work (CA)

• Not many opportunities to fund applied work in NSF as grants are currently structures (VK)


Breakout Group #5 Facilitator(s) - Tim Gutowski Scribe(s) - Junjun Zheng Participants - Harry Saunders, Matthew Eckelman, Elana Resnick. How do we bring about change in: Our Communities

What are the key topic areas where outreach/education is the most necessary? Who are the key stakeholders that should be engaged in the process?

Industry Which industries represent the best opportunities for making progress towards a SWWW? What are the best practices that should be promoted/adopted? What are the best strategies for synergy between being profitable and sustainable?

Our Social Institutions What are the key policy changes to help us progress towards a SWWW? Who needs to be engaged and/or who are the best parties to execute them? How can we tackle issues like inequality to either reduce waste or reduce its negative consequences?


TG: What inspires you and what problem to solve? ME: 1. Waste is not necessarily a problem itself but toxic waste is. Waste stream has a toxic component. It was designed with toxic parts. Understanding the position and design out of waste. Harazed waste for regulatory leverage. - be treated by design if awaring about the toxicity. 2 Waste is a useful resource, but it is not if it is not in the right place (e.g. construction waste) - not having a great way to deal with waste. More information infrastructure about how to deal with waste. - using informational technology. HS: Three barriers: 1) needs for toxicity of waste - some are toxic but some are useful. - need more organized framework to deal with waste 2) academic research area - rebound associated with waste reduction. 3) be alert to the circumstances in the developing world. Be cautious about the different value system (across different countries). ER: the developing vs developed nations -> Informal and formal sectors. In some developing countries, the minority groups are working with waste. The waste workers are those who have no other options of livelihood. E.g. available work. Not only the social aspects but also the relevances to the accumulation of capital - based on unrecognized labors. Not only the waste itself but also the labor are not well paid. How “no waste” has the environmental advancement and shifts the system that has broader (social) impacts.


TG: Thinking about human involvement and labor seems different perspectives other than the conventional engineering thinking.

• Waste is not the issue • Waste becomes a problem due to the side effect that when they are not well organized

and fully absorbed. Naming the issue! How to work the SGD all at one time. Waste is inevitable. Not getting rid of waste. 1 - problem of scale; 2 the continue to growth.

• I presume the current system is NOT ok. The issues are scale and growth. • “A world without exp. Growth”

The second try is to combine anthropology and engineering - about the material system • Provide a system with jobs and social mobility. The key features of the material system -

create the jobs giving social mobility. • Convergence study to combine the problems from two systems (human/social and

engineering). The connections between anthropology and engineering with a focus on jobs.

• Merge a larger picture - answering a question on how a society builds upon cheap labors (that related to waste issues).

ME: Mismatch of the labor markets in the first and secondary material market.

• People are more engaged in the primary material market. Many people are recycling. • How a society (big picture) to support the secondary material system. How the labor

force works and workable economically. ER: How socialist and capitalist economies treat the secondary market (differently). There is also social capital and the political economy. Examples of workers were working on the primary market, but now are shifting to the secondary economy. TG: there are few places that take the issues (job) seriously. Many jobs are associated with the secondary market. Many technologies (to treat the waste well) may not be available soon. ME: The example of reuse - the example of construction - a lot of opportunities, but only if it is local. If you end up shipping it internationally, it may not be good - needs more market development of the local uses of the waste. ER: In countries (E.G., EU), waste flows don’t count REUSE. It is important to quantify and take into account the reuse. To emphasize and quantify the efforts. TG: What can we do about it? How could we make change? What is the research agenda? Open up a vision for collaboration from different disciplines. ME: Practical - many waste can not be reuse/recycle appropriately due to toxicity

• Decontaminating the waste -> allow for reuse and recycle. E.g., lead paint -> not allow to reuse. Many problems of the capital stock already there maybe an issue of contamination

• Non-toxic design on new products. -> have a function to link the material. ER: Placing regulation on design - Policy related. ME: There are so many aspects of the waste.


TG: combining the scale of jobs and material system. The study of “the work of the feature.” - new technologies -> displace workers -> improve productivity -> new jobs -> new kinds of test (higher skill jobs) -> new framework on design.

• Invest in a material system for two reasons -> 1) people’s needs 2) new jobs and social mobility - society as a whole -> not only the “high skill jobs” -> not displacing the middle-class people.

• Small case studies to identify the patterns - number of examples -> to familiarize the engineers with jobs.

• To make sure the schemes we are pursuing are actually bringing new jobs. “People won’t employ people, they want AI.”

TG: Value those jobs to create for their citizens. ER: People are afraid of technologies -> “machine will take over” -> not suitable for the local situation to have new technologies. They employ people to do the work rather than invest in technologies. Not only about labor, but also the labor can bring social mobility.

• Does that lead to social mobility to increase the purchasing power. In some cases, some people in that work would never get out of that field.

TG: Groups lobby for improving the work standard. - lobby costs are high so they invest in the capital, which lead to deindustrialization in other place. Jump to

• Breakout Group #1 Social Institution and Policies • Breakout Group #2 Industry • Breakout Group #3 Academia • Breakout Group #4 Community • Breakout Group #5 No primary focus

Sustainable World Without Waste

Documents

Transcript of Sustainable World Without Waste