By Cecilia Allen, Global Projects Advisor, GAIA
Once seen as the domain of dreamers, zero waste is now mainstream. It has even entered the language of the UN: the body created a resolution urging governments to “promote zero‑waste initiatives,” an International Day of Zero Waste, and a Zero Waste Advisory Board, and UNEP, UN‑Habitat and other UN bodies use the concept in campaigns and reports. This year, zero waste was named one of the top priorities on the Global Climate Action Agenda. Türkiye’s Zero Waste Foundation, a leading promoter of these efforts, is organizing its second Global Zero Waste Forum under the motto Road to Antalya: Zero Waste as Climate Action. Türkiye will be the host of climate COP31.
While this progress is exciting, words matter. When the same UN bodies that are meant to promote zero waste recognize waste-to-energy incineration plants and reuse of the highly toxic incinerator fly-ash as a zero waste solution, it means something is off. Likewise, when Pakistan claims to pursue a “zero waste” economy by increasing waste-to-energy capacity, alarm bells go off among zero wasters worldwide: Incineration is an oxymoron to zero waste. What these examples show us is that a true definition of zero waste needs to be adopted and vigorously defended.
What is zero waste?
The concept of “zero waste” emerged 30 years ago by adapting manufacturing targets such as “zero defects” to solid waste. Zero waste is both a vision and an action plan. As an action plan it includes strategies to design out the idea of “waste”: waste prevention, redesign, reuse, changes in consumption patterns, recycling, composting, and other methods to reprocess organic material. Zero waste is guided by the goal of progressively reducing disposal in landfills and incinerators, a yardstick for judging the effectiveness of waste programs and policies.
As a vision, its ultimate objective is to change how we produce, consume and process discards so our materials economy fits within planetary boundaries. This concerns not only materials but our relationship with them, the environment, and one another. That is why zero waste is rooted in environmental justice– supporting the flourishing of everyone regardless of race, class, or any other identity, and the rights of nature. Zero waste systems are community‑based, recognize waste pickers as workers, eliminate “sacrifice zones” that disproportionately burden poor and marginalized communities, and put people at the center of solutions.
That is the beauty of zero waste: it offers an encouraging alternative to a linear waste system that perpetuates disposal, resource depletion, climate change and pollution that threaten public health and well-being. It will not happen overnight, but it sets a clear direction.
Defending zero waste
There are multiple conversations within the environmental movement about the co-option of the zero waste concept. Should we let it go? Defend it? There are solid arguments on all sides of the table. But our objective is to expand true zero waste worldwide. Mainstreaming means ideas become accepted as normal because most people share them — that is what thousands of communities, government officials and businesses have worked toward for decades. Fighting this co‑option is therefore an inevitable part of mainstreaming.
Every time a waste‑to‑energy or plastics‑to‑fuel project is presented as “zero waste,” authorities in the field must set the record straight. Waste‑to‑energy incineration perpetuates waste generation because it requires feedstock to burn, competes with reuse and recycling for high‑calorific materials, relies on fossil‑based feedstocks such as plastics, produces greenhouse gas emissions, and creates hazardous residues. None of that could be farther from zero waste.
Most importantly, zero waste is not just an abstract concept. For over three decades, hundreds of cities, thousands of communities and many waste practitioners have led the transition toward it. They have shown that it is possible to achieve over 90% source separation, diversion rates of 80% and higher, improved working conditions for waste pickers, and local economies based on repair and reuse. They also demonstrate that following the waste hierarchy creates more jobs, reduces more methane emissions, and improves public health.
Enabling zero waste implementation
In recent years more governments, financial institutions, universities, and waste practitioners have embraced the zero waste vision and prioritized upstream measures over disposal. That is encouraging, but much more is needed. For example, only 1% of international finance aimed at methane abatement in the waste sector goes to zero waste strategies such as composting.
If multilateral development banks and other international financial institutions directed the remaining 99% shifted from harmful end‑of‑pipe systems like incinerators and megalandfills to community‑based organic waste prevention and recovery, the the playing field would level: there would be more incentives for a shift in production and consumption patterns, and local governments and communities would speed up the zero waste transition. If governments that claim to pursue zero waste acted accordingly, they would lead the transition and inspire others.
UN bodies such as UNEP, UN‑Habitat and the Zero Waste Advisory Board have a special responsibility to set a clear vision for governments and institutions, and promote an authentic zero waste agenda to advance environmental sustainability, social equity and economic systems that respect natural boundaries.
As we continue the work toward a zero waste future, let us honor its true spirit that drives systems change. And let us support and scale up the proven programs and policies that governments, communities, waste pickers, NGOs, and businesses are sustaining. Let us protect the term, and honor the practice: put real zero waste into action.
