Hallie Thompson
June 12, 2023
This is based off an paper I did my freshman year of college titled “A Critical Look at the Zero Waste Living Movement.” When trying to accomplish radical, wide-scale change it can be scary and there is not one right way, but there is one wrong way—continued complacency. This post is about looking at solutions from all angles but, most importantly, giving yourself and others grace because no one is perfect and striving for perfection is hurting our ability to be successful activists.
Our World is Drowning in Waste
As our world drowns in waste and people continue to choose everyday conveniences over the future of our planet, activists are seeking new ways to make a difference. One movement that is on the rise is the zero-waste lifestyle. Many influencers have taken on the challenge of cutting out as much waste as possible, and they share their testimonies of how it revolutionized their lives on social media.
Individually, the advocates are taking huge strides to reduce their personal footprint. Unfortunately, collectively the movement does not yield positive results on the same scale as it does individually. The movement potentially plays into gender stereotypes, marginalizes minorities and the low and working class, as well as puts a tremendous amount of pressure on individual sacrifice and discomfort. On a larger scale, the movement depends on technology and intrinsically motivating people.
Many experts have begun looking into these flaws and deciding if, as a whole, the movement is productive. The individuals who have achieved zero-waste living–or close to it–reap tremendous benefits, but what about everyone else? Is it enough to create the radical change so desperately needed?
Background
The movement began in 2009 when Bea Johnson, a young mother from San Francisco, started sharing her journey towards zero-waste living on her blog (De Wilde and Parry, p. 5). By participating in conscious consumerism, her and her family produce only one mason jar of waste per year (M&S, p. 2). She urges others to follow her lead to reap the benefits of a changed lifestyle, but most importantly to reduce environmental impact.
The movement took off after Johnson’s first book, Zero Waste Home: The Ultimate Guide to Simplifying Your Life While Reducing Your Waste, was published in 2013. Throughout the book, she focuses on three main tasks that are particularly wasteful in homes: cooking, cleaning, and grocery shopping. She argues that by changing how households are run, a dramatic reduction in waste is possible. Since the book’s publication many activists have joined the movement and began blogging their own personal journeys towards zero-waste living (De Wilde and Parry, p. 2).
Johnson offers five Rs of zero-waste living: refuse, reduce, reuse, recycle and rot to guide aspiring activist. The five words are designed to aid consumers towards responsible decision making throughout their daily lives. The idea is to refuse anything that is unnecessary, reduce consumption whenever possible, reuse or recycle anything that can be and everything that is left over should ideally be able to rot or compost (De Wilde and Parry, p. 8).
While I personally love what Johnson has done, the movement is unattainable for the majority of people. It is dependent on influencers sharing their tips and tricks to a changed lifestyle. Many have blogs and social media accounts where they frequently post helpful information for those considering the lifestyle switch. The influencers are predominantly women, and their posts and ideas are generally aimed at women as well, specifically those of a higher class, typically white and middle aged. A common theme across some of the most well-known bloggers is a sense of entrepreneurial spirt as they share links to their zero-waste “must-haves” where they receive some compensation for the sales they make (De Wilde and Parry, p. 5-7).
As the movement grows in popularity many people have begun to wonder if zero-waste living is possible on a larger scale with government involvement. Could the household lifestyle change be applied to entire communities or countries? If so, what would it look like? This is not a new concept; during the 1950s through 1970s, Socialist Hungary attempted a zero-waste society (Gille, p. 39). The idea behind shifting zero-waste living from households and applying it to entire communities and countries is to re-envision how society is being run on larger scale (Song, p. 15).
One challenge of large scale zero-waste living is that it would be dependent on technology, as the waste problem is usually seen as a technical or management problem (Song, p. 15). Since advancements in technology have largely been the cause of the environmental degradation being experienced, many people are wary of depending on more advancements to save us. Shifting the focus from recycling to reusing can reduce waste and the chemicals need to break down plastic and metal waste as well as pollution caused by it. In Hungary waste was seen as valuable and was redistributed and reused continuously. This was common ideology especially during war time scarcity (Gille, p. 40). With that said, zero-waste projects are challenging and expensive. Therefore, prevention is the best course of action, yet this is less frequently mentioned in the movement, likely due to people unwilling to give up the luxury of modern conveniences (Gille, p. 41).
Zero-waste living is dependent on individuals choosing what to buy and how to dispose of waste. Therefore, a conflict exists between whether waste prevention or recycling is the best way to solve the problem (Cecere, Mancinellis and Mazzanti, p. 4). If it is left only to household sustainability then only a select few will engage in a zero-waste lifestyle, it will not be enough to make an impact of significant size. However, on a government scale, it is extremely challenging to get a large amount of people to engage in zero-waste living.
Flaws
Dependency on Technology
As the movement has begun taking off, with it has come many critics, many of which are concerned that zero-waste living is only achievable through an increased dependency on technology. This leads to hesitancy as technology and its convivences are largely responsible for the waste crisis we are facing now. A roadblock preventing zero-waste living from having a larger impact is individuals who are unwilling to give up modern conveniences. Depending on technology to achieve zero-waste living will allow individuals to enjoy a modern lifestyle while also reducing waste (Song, p. 21). Even clean energy will no longer be clean if overused (Song, p. 24). To truly make an impact we must as a society cut back and stop overconsuming.
One of the five R’s Johnson depends on to achieve zero-waste living is recycling. However, many of the materials frequently used are composed of multiple substances, making recycling increasingly difficult. To combat this problem, we must either stop production of these materials or advance technology to make recycling possible for mixed materials (Gille, p. 41).
Rot is another one of the R’s Johnson identifies as key to household sustainability. However, composting is dirty, gross and a lot of work. Making it easier for people to compost by creating large composting plants will make the gross task less daunting (Cecere, Mancinelli and Mazzanti, p. 9). Yet, with large waste reduction sites comes many negative health issues that predominately fall on underprivileged people.
Pressure on Individual
Zero-waste living creates a sense that small individual acts will add up and make a difference (Gille, p. 42-43). Waste reduction is typically private, unlike recycling. It is individuals making a conscious choice to cut out waste within their home for tasks such as cleaning, cooking, and shopping. Since waste production is private, little government compensation is offered which makes it entirely up to the individual and their morals to make these choices.
Financial situations and other factors can also affect a person’s decision towards responsible consumption (Cecere, Mancinelli and Mazzanti, p. 6). Focusing on individual reductions in waste allows larger corporations and polluters to receive little incentives to cut down their plastic production (Müller & Schönbauer, p. 419).
Individuals who are willing to take on the challenges of zero-waste living must receive support for the work they are doing within their homes to reduce the pressure. Currently, achieving a zero-waste household is a full-time job that few are capable of. While household sustainability is important, it is foolish to push on people while multi-billion dollar companies are not held responsible for the tons of waste they produce daily.
Gender Stereotypes
An interesting paradox has occurred due to increasing the pressure for household sustainability. This movement is being led by women, yet it is feeding into gender stereotypes that see women as homemakers. As women continue to fight for equality and win, they have more and more responsibilities piling up. They are now working full-time while still cooking, cleaning, grocery shopping and taking care of the kids. Zero-waste living makes these tasks a full-time job. Women cannot do it all, yet they are putting pressure on themselves to figure it out.
There is a continued gender gap in domestic labor, where women do the large majority of it. By targeting domestic labor as an area to reduce waste, the expectation is falling disproportionately on women (De Wilde and Parry, p. 3). Good mothers take care of their kids and the environment. The aesthetics of the movement is catered to women as they are more likely to be drawn to the hyper organization of the movement (De Wilde and Parry, p. 14). Buying food in bulk, storing it in glass jars, making cleaning products at home to keep your house squeaky clean and more is the aesthetic portrayed in zero waste activist’s social medias. In reality, it is hard, grimy and time-consuming work.
Most of the movement is white, middle-class females from the Global North (Müller & Schönbauer, p. 417). This is mainly because the movement has turned tedious tasks into a clean, minimalist, aesthetic that appeals to women more than men. While the 5 Rs have nothing to do with gender, it becomes a gendered issue as domestic labor is often invisible work done quietly by women.
Environmental Racism
Especially in the last few years after the murder of George Floyd, racial justice has been a major topic of conversation. Environmental racism is becoming a more popularized term to show that environmental destruction and climate change are disproportionately impacting racial minorities. The zero-waste movement is ignoring this aspect of the environmental movement (Müller & Schönbauer, p. 418). It is only focusing on individual action, while ignoring that few have the luxury of time, money, and resources to achieve zero-waste living.
Racial composition of a community is the most accurate predictor of a hazardous waste site such as an incinerator (Davies, p. 710). These are the people who are less likely to have political clout and have the power to keep these harmful factories out of their communities.
Refusing a receipt or proof of the transaction may be a simple way to cut out waste for most people, but for an African American man, could lead to potentially dangerous situations. Since people of color are more likely to live near toxic waste sites, they are also more likely to have unsafe drinking water. Something that may seem small to an upper-class white woman, such as refusing plastic water bottles, is impossible for those that do not have access to clean water.
Many intersecting social categories require attention such as race, class, and gender (De Wilde and Parry, p. 18). To tackle climate change and the waste problem, there must be a holistic view of the world and the problems being faced.
Environmental Classism
Low-income communities are threatened by air and water pollution as well as floods and other disasters. The wealthiest 1% own half of the world’s financial wealth and are doing little to help the underprivileged (Müller & Schönbauer, p. 418). It is important to also mention that the U.S. has the highest rich-poor gap of any country in the world. Often these problems are seen as only relevant for developing countries, yet it is happening here in our own country (Davies, p. 709).
The movement is exclusive to those who have time, money, and social or educational capital. It puts strain on low- and working-class women who are trying to do it all and are not receiving enough support (De Wilde and Parry, p. 16).
Environmental Justice argues that combining poverty, discrimination, and environmental degradation into one conversation is the most effective way to create a better tomorrow (Davies, p. 708).
Benefits
Individual Action
Since global issues are so tricky and widespread change can feel impossible, zero-waste living offers a solution to those who are able to significantly reduce their waste. Small personal steps towards zero-waste living can make people feel good about their contribution towards a greener tomorrow, even if it is failing nationally (Gille, p. 42). People are able to align their actions with their beliefs and for many people it is life changing.
Warm glow giving and the joy of giving are real. It is acceptable for someone to be proud of the actions they take and the sacrifices they make. Zero-waste living allows personal action to be the emphasis without worrying about the larger concepts of policy or science that can often be stressful and slow moving. Just do what you can personally do and feel good about it ( Cecere, Mancinelli and Mazzanti, p. 7).
Innovation
Much of the recycling and reuse that must happen to achieve zero-waste living requires creative and innovative thinking (Gille, p. 42). We cannot continue to do the same thing and expect different results. Living zero-waste is thinking outside the box. While it is not necessarily always feasible, it provides a foundation for the next movement to launch (Song, p. 24). New creative ideas are never a bad thing.
Large change and lofty goals require innovative solutions, both behaviorally and technologically (Cecere, Mancinelli and Mazzanti, p. 2). One way to acquire more innovative solutions is to gather a diverse group of people with diverse thought and background. Zero-waste living can integrate environmental justice into its philosophy, and could be the innovative solution that ends environmental degradation, discrimination, and poverty (Davies, p. 708).
Changing the Focus
Changing from industrial to ecological civilizations might be the only way to stop the damage being done. Taking the focus away from economic development and onto the health of the planet and the people is key to a sustainable future (Song, p. 23). People must stop viewing this as someone else’s problem.
Feminine Empowerment
Another way to look at the movement’s intentions is to empower women to take back what it means to be a homemaker. As females lead with compassion and bridge the gap between household and collective action, it could be the innovative approach we were missing before (De Wilde and Parry, p. 4 & 17).
This does not mean that all women should be expected to take on this responsibility. Feminism is about empowering ALL women. Whether a woman wants to be a stay-at-home mom who is living a zero-waste lifestyle or working as an environmental lawyer with no kids at home, she should feel just as powerful and proud of her accomplishments. It is important to avoid creating an expectation for all women or people since this is not realistic for many.
Conclusion
Environmental destruction, climate change and the waste crisis are not easy tasks to tackle. They are intertwined with racism, classism and sexism that have transcended many generations. As environmental justice movements are gaining popularity, it can be easy to dismiss movements that are failing to encapsulate the full extent of the destruction and suffering caused by the climate crisis.
However, no movement is perfect, and progress must be recognized and celebrated. While the zero-waste influencers may not fully understand the extent of the suffering that is occurring, their personal actions are incredible and cannot be overlooked. We must celebrate their successes and simultaneously push these activists to use their platforms to uplift underprivileged people and voices while making a space that is all inclusive.
Ultimately, sustainability is at the heart of environmental progress. We cannot expect everyone’s environmental action to look the same. Sustainability means taking actions that you can with the time, money, and resources you have while avoiding burnout. Empowering people may be the most effective way to tackle the climate crisis.
While I dream of living zero-waste someday, I know that even being able to dream about such a thing is a privilege. I am also hesitant to strive for perfection. I am human, I make mistakes and I sometimes fall short. My business is far from zero-waste, but I do not let this fact take away from the action I do take. I buy biodegradable and compostable materials as much as I can and continue to learn and look for new ways to cut out waste. I choose to give myself grace and to give others the same. We were set up to fail, our society is designed around convenience and profit rather than people and the planet. It is perfectly reasonable to fail—our society depends on it. So, whatever allows you to wake up the next day and keep fighting is noble and worth celebrating. I am human and I practice imperfect activism and I encourage you to do the same.
