A Conversation on Waste and Local Action

CUCCR is a local program within our institution and accepts only materials generated by the university itself. However, it is open to anyone who wishes to visit or take materials. Traditional recycling, waste hauling, and composting for the university are provided by the City of Montreal/contracted agencies. How much impact does a program like this make locally, or globally? There are many ways to answer this. One way is to quantify the weight and estimated cost of every item diverted from landfilling through CUCCR, which allows us to measure the material impact of this program. When a member finds material at CUCCR, staff weighs each item and logs that weight. Everything at CUCCR is free, but members are also asked to state how much they would pay for the item on the market. This system has allowed CUCCR to quantify its community impact. Since 2017, CUCCR has diverted 46 tons of unwanted materials (or 8–10 elephants in weight), but it has also saved members an estimated nearly half a million dollars in avoided costs.

Does this matter compared to the vast weight and value of global landfills? We think so. Both through material diversion and community connections, CUCCR shows that local reuse initiatives do work and provide ecological, social, and economic values to communities.

Solid waste is one of the earliest entry points to thinking about sustainability. In particular, the subject leads us to question the wasteful nature of our current economic and material use culture. Many people naturally recoil from throwing away potentially useful items. Studies show that children, especially those aged 6 years and up, show an aversion to food waste [1]. Perhaps, part of adulthood is hardening our hearts to the harms that seem unavoidable within our world, and a charm of childhood is ignorance of a system and the difficulties in changing it. While all actors in waste systems matter, individual actions are far less consequential than the decisions made by the government and especially by manufacturers and large corporations that, in most ways, drive the waste crisis.

The level of societal waste generation has risen sharply since at least 2005 and is predicted to increase even more [2], [3]. Systems of reuse, on the other hand, have dropped. Ragpickers in Victorian England and more recently in India created opportunities for the collection and reuse of materials, but these relied on the availability of disenfranchised people to do poorly paid, unregulated, and hazardous work [4], [5]. In this way, “habits” of reuse and recycling occur because these services are cheap or free and convenient. We can see this as a policy void left where municipal services do not exist, and where impoverished populations eke a living off of the local waste produced by industrialization. Exporting items for recycling and landfills to other countries renders this dynamic invisible to those who produce the waste and dangerously salient for those who must live with it.

Liboiron [6] solidified this idea with the title of their book “Pollution is Colonialism.” The Guardian termed the export of German plastic waste to other nations as waste colonialism [7]. In the Section on mismatched incentives, we will examine the reasons that government policy and industry practice privilege extracting new materials over using recycled materials and recycling over reuse. However, colonial extraction is another way to think of our current system of waste.

Effective methods to address a waste crisis are limited and often relate to the cost of the inputs, processing, and extraction. Current rates of recycling are reported to hover around 30% in the province of Quebec where the authors reside [8]. The province has recently expanded the provincial take-back program, which collects bottles at the point of sale and specialized depots [9]. The first is some terminology. A common metric used for evaluating the success of a recycling system is diversion, meaning the percent of total waste that was not sent to landfills. This rate can be divvied up into several parts, i.e., what is put in the recycling truck, versus what is ultimately sorted and available to send for reprocessing. Based on 2021 provincial data, 62% of recyclable materials were sent to a sorting facility [8]. After sorting, 76% of the collected materials were purchased, bringing the total percentage of recyclable materials purchased for recycling to 47%. This number should be taken with some additional skepticism since it depends on the categories considered potentially recyclable and because we do not know the degree to which purchased materials are productively repurposed.

Choosing what materials are considered eligible to be diverted, for example, large appliances, has a huge impact on the diversion rate. Waste programs that are limited to recycling glass, paper, and metal can report a higher success rate within these categories compared to programs that consider a larger range of inputs. Some material recycling facilities (MRFs) limit the ability to recycle certain plastics, which can make the success of these recycling programs seem higher while not actually increasing waste diversion [10].

Establishing the global rates and success of recycling systems is even more challenging. China’s ban on importing waste disrupted the global flow of recycled goods and led to the collapse of global prices for recycled inputs. Many municipal recycling programs relied on the money earned from those goods. While some new municipal recycling programs are launched, it appears that more are being suspended or canceled [11], [12].

As with understanding how much waste is actually diverted from the landfills, the case for using recycled materials versus those that are newly extracted is highly dependent on the material itself. Aluminum recycling stands out because the initial cost of separating aluminum ore is hugely more expensive than reprocessing existing aluminum. However, for many other materials, extracting and processing new materials are—in terms of dollars—often lower than reusing already processed materials. This can be due to the often contaminated nature of the material stream, more complex processes needed to use recycled material, or simply the much lower cost of using new materials [13], [14]. This is, of course, a false economy. These market values do not reflect the true cost to society in terms of sustainability.

One of the most striking aspects of solid waste handling is the galling disconnect between the huge amounts of waste, the relatively straightforward methods available to prevent that waste, and the costs that are increasingly deemed untenable to reclaim waste.

We have, in other words, a production and economic system geared toward waste and landfilling, rather than reuse and repurposing. Alternate modern systems exist in the form of circular economy. While some of these circular economy initiatives have thrived, successful efforts are generally characterized by the high level of start-up support and the necessary intervention required to keep these systems functioning. In order for circular economy or other reuse initiatives to be successful, a significant level of government initiative is required.

Another way to think of this is the missing incentive for reuse and repurposing. In years past, rag pickers and other laborers had incentives to collect these goods because they were able to earn a living from some form of recycling. Several things have changed. One, we hope, is that most workers have better prospects for making a living. Another, much less optimistic take, is that the type of living many workers actually face involves working in factories in the global south where wages are pushed very close to zero. These workers form the backbone of the modern production engine, where their low wages help to facilitate low prices for new goods. In this system profits are taken by a few, and consumers are able to purchase low-priced goods. When these consumers are located in the global north, they generally cannot earn their own wages in jobs of production, either because they are unwilling to work for such low wages or prevented from doing so by regulation or law. Access to low-cost goods is one of the few advantages of wages that have failed to keep up with inflation. Finally, in many cases, the cost of the recycled product is higher than those made with newly extracted materials.

Thus, for sustainability, particularly in the area of solid waste, we have an incredible mismatch between goodwill (which is high) and incentives (which are low) [15]. Think of government or institutional spending, then, as a way to realign incentives. Alternately, think of this spending as a way to offset massive subsidies paid to line the pockets of a few billionaires while harming workers in the global south and leading to massive harm to the planet globally.

One way to look at the impacts that individuals can have on environmental outcomes writ large is as personal environmental behaviors (PEBs). These can have an important impact. While estimates vary, PEBs, if broadly adopted, could possibly shift total climate impact by roughly 13% [16]. This would be an incredible achievement, and with a problem as complex as climate change, differences on this scale matter. However, it is equally obvious that a 13% change is not sufficient to end the climate crisis. Additional changes at the levels of government and industry are critical, but enormous barriers exist to successfully enacting those changes.

Radical changes in the incentive structure and pricing of waste are urgently necessary, as is a reduction in the production of low-quality items that do not last and marketing that encourages people to acquire and dispose of things frequently. All these things require systemic change. In the meantime, we can use collective approaches within our communities to achieve more than what we could individually and to do what governments will not.

A classic example of a Common Pool Resource is a fishery. A fishery is a common pool resource because it is hard to exclude others from the resource and high extraction by one group reduces the total amount of resources available for others. Elinor Ostrom’s work revealed that individual communities are best equipped to determine regimes that manage their own resources when they are given the freedom to do so [17]. Moreover, the ways that these systems work are incredibly varied [18]. Different approaches work for different communities. Waste materials also represent a common pool resource. However, often, that is a negative resource—one that communities would often prefer to dispose of elsewhere. Circular methods try to turn waste into a common pool resource that we would want. In Viral Justice, Ruha Benjamin emphasizes the urgency of imagining different systems and moving ahead with change—and critically, of imagining different ways of doing things that create the world we would like to see, rather than waiting for systemic change [19]. While Benjamin focuses on justice, these themes ring true for waste as well. Benjamin advises us to cultivate our own plots where we can, to create positive change in the world. Anna Timm-Bottos and Arrien Weeks’s vision and commitment have created meaningful, local change within our university community.

Broad, structural changes in materials handling and extraction are needed. However, as the planet’s inhabitants, we need a way to act now. The individual actions discussed here can have a measurable impact if broadly adopted. At our local university level, CUCCR has had an important impact in diverting material from landfills. This project is a Concordia-specific initiative. However, other institutions, universities, communities, and organizations can also develop their own, unique, and specific waste diversion programs. Seeing the possibility in local, collective action is essential to developing the political action necessary to create real change in solid waste. If PEBs have the potential to create a 13% decrease in global carbon emissions, how large of a difference could widespread adoption of collective solid-waste initiatives such as CUCCR make? We would like to find out.

Anna Timm-Bottos and Arrien Weeks founded the CUCCR initiative in 2017 (see Figure 2). Faisal Shennib coordinates environmental and waste reduction initiatives for Concordia’s Office of Sustainability Department. The three teamed up to pilot CUCCR and have been collaborating on operating and expanding the program since then. They are interviewed here by Ketra Schmitt.

Figure 2.Co-founder Arrien Weeks and then volunteer Mikaela Kautzky in the original used material depot (600 sq. ft.). © Concordia University, photograph by Lisa Graves.

Ketra: First, Anna and Arrien, what inspired you to start CUCCR?

Anna: Well if we go way back, I was working as a substitute art teacher in Victoria, BC, Canada. I was looking for affordable places to source materials for my classroom and found it extremely tedious and labor-intensive to track down the excess that I knew was being thrown away. When I came to Concordia to do my MA in Art Education, I decided to use the thesis portion to go and visit reuse centers in Canada. It was in tandem with my research that I put the proposal together for a university model. My supervisor, Kathleen Vaughan, was incredibly supportive and encouraged me to apply for some internal funding, “Big Hairy Idea,” where the goal was to make a big change and link together students, faculty, and staff. Our campus is like a small city, with departments and areas that produce all kinds of dry waste materials. CUCCR seemed like a very practical way to support students and help the university divert some of its usable waste instead of sending it to the landfills. When Arrien joined me, he brought the strong sustainability underpinnings and the power tools we needed to really build the space.

As much as CUCCR is about materials, it is also about people. We have been so lucky to welcome folks from all over the world, eager to share their ideas and knowledge through workshops, internships, class visits, and projects. We have gone on to support new ideas and sustainability projects on campus, across the city, and beyond (see Figures 3 and 4).

Figure 3.Small jars at the checkout for things you did not know you were looking for. © Concordia University, photograph by Lisa Graves.

Figure 4.Something as small as a button can help someone see the potential of reuse. © Concordia University, photograph by Lisa Graves.

Ketra: Was the motivation located just in waste avoidance, or a commitment to reducing acquisition and consumerism?

Anna: It was more about connecting people to the materials that were being discarded and creating a space that was outside of the traditional consumer culture. I wrote a lot about the gift economy in my Master’s thesis,1 and I just love the way that CUCCR has always prioritized a sense of abundance and an eagerness to share what we have with everyone. The zero waste goals were built second. As Concordia was finalizing its first Sustainability action plan, we were able to set goals and targets around diversion and reduction of waste produced on campus. I really wanted to create a space that was welcoming and allowed people to see the potential in items they might otherwise overlook (see Figure 5).

Figure 5.Art? A surface to paint on? Why not give an old canvas new life? © Concordia University, photograph by Lisa Graves.

Arrien: Long term we would like to influence the institution to change internal purchasing in a way that would further reduce and hopefully eliminate material streams that we see in the depot. By being able to see what comes into the depot we can be aware and maybe critical of how things arrive there (see Figure 6).

Ketra: What role did the space that you had available play?

Anna: The space in which we piloted CUCCR was actually an old dusty storage cage in the basement of the Hall building. It was in rough shape, but we saw the potential, and we were extremely grateful to get anything on the downtown campus, especially something connected to a loading dock and an elevator. We worked with facilities to add a new coat of paint to the floors and brighter lighting. Arrien then went to work sourcing all the materials needed for the shelves, a big center table, and a checkout station. It was through relationship building and asking for discarded materials that we found everything we needed for the physical depot space. People from every area of the university were eager to donate items that were taking up space in their offices and storage rooms, items that needed to be discarded but were too good to waste. This otherwise undesirable space was transformed into a really welcoming, turquoise, storefront for everyone to explore.

Ketra: What about the space that CUCCR is in now?

The current space is kind of a similar story. It was undesirable at first, but we have been able to transform it into a space that not only displays materials for people to take but also encourages the creative questioning we require to change the culture and promote reuse (see Figures 7 and 8).

Figure 8.Collage drawers are one of the most opened drawers in the depot. © Concordia University, photograph by Lisa Graves.

Ketra: I want to ask specifically about the “creative” component of CUCCR. How does CUCCR inspire/inform art making, and a sustainable art practice?

Anna: Arrien and I both come from a fine arts background, but we both share the ethos of using what we already have. We know deeply that people can do amazing things with the most unusual materials, and it is access to those kinds of materials that allow for ideas to bubble and grow. I also want to emphasize that we always wanted this space to be for everyone, not just fine arts students. There is so much creativity in folks from every background, and maybe, it is not part of their degree or their training, but they still need a place like CUCCR to come while they problem-solve project ideas, build a prototype, or test a concept. Creativity can also look like mending a ripped shirt, building a side table from scrap wood, making a card for a friend, or adding a cookbook shelf in your kitchen. We need places like this to prevent new purchases and keep usable items in circulation for as long as possible.

Arrien: We encourage folks to come up with ideas and not a shopping list because you never know what you might find that could take your plan in a new direction or spark a different idea.

We share our own approaches to art making and encourage others to share their ideas as well. This creates a vibrant community of skill-sharing, material literacy, and alternative practices.

Ketra: How do you see the relationship between the material flows within the university community?

Faisal: CUCCR is like the engine or core of a truly local circular economy model. It is all about space and community—unwanted materials need a space to pause (this is a concept that Anna always referred to) and need people displaying it, sorting it, and engaging the community to think differently about the materials (see Figure 9).

Ketra: That’s interesting. Was that also your vision?

Faisal: No! My original vision of a reuse center would have, admittedly, not worked as well, or would have been limited in how well it could work. Other universities were doing something like having a storage space and displaying items on a webpage that you could sell, which might recover some funds to cover the operating costs. This really limits what materials you accept and completely stunts the potential for community building. Less materials salvaged and picked up also means less economic value to the community.

Ketra: That comment takes me back to the idea of standing up for individualized, local approaches to circular economy. Do you think CUCCR works in the way it does because of our specific environment?

Faisal: Yes for sure. Material types and flows are very diverse at an institution like Concordia. This makes it very difficult to design specific and direct local input/output connections with a small sustainability team. A pausing space increases the chances of this happening. It also makes sense to build other material sorting projects around this core. For a while, we had a plastics recycling operation and now we have an e-waste refurbishing project adjacent to CUCCR.

Ketra: What inspired you to quantify the diverted waste?

Arrien: We wanted to track CUCCR’s impact from day 1, since it’s a very unique project in a university setting. By logging the individual checkouts, we can start to identify trends in who is taking away these materials, at what time of year is the busiest, and how much money they might have spent on them.

Faisal: Tracking diverted waste helped us justify the project as part of the university’s zero waste program. I was building a program that had very specific points attributed to impact toward the zero waste target. To make the case for the operationalization of the project within my department at the time (Facilities Management), we needed to be able to show what the diversion impact was and how much that cost to accomplish. Waste is traditionally tracked by weight, so this was the logical indicator of choice. The space was previously a thrift space at Concordia operated by the student union; it was not supervised and materials weren’t tracked. So although it may have been very useful, there was no concrete way to prove that.

Ketra: How do you see this tracking of diversion from a sustainability perspective?

Faisal: From a sustainability perspective, we were interested in going beyond simple weight of waste diverted right from the start. The goal would eventually be to recognize that not all materials have the same life cycle impact and to have some degree of categorization and tracking of key sustainability indicators beyond weight of waste, like greenhouse gas emissions saved. However, we quickly realized that manually categorizing materials of the types and variety that we encounter at the center is virtually impossible. Beyond tracking the flow of materials through the center, the project benefits from the hours of experience, material literacy, and community connection that our staff and volunteers develop. When people come into the space, it can be fun to explore what can be somewhat chaotic displays of materials on your own. However, often, a choice suggestion by staff in response to an interaction can make the difference between a successful and unsuccessful visit (see Figure 10).

Ketra: What role does technology play in CUCCR?

Faisal: From the start, we’ve tracked each item that leaves CUCCR by weight and estimated cost. However, there are a few ways that machine learning tools could improve our categorization of waste flows, through computer vision algorithms that are trained on labeled photographs of materials checked in or out of the center. This could also help inventory, to some extent, what is received and leaving the space, which could be used for analytics or even marketing to users. This could drive more usage, which would improve the sustainability impact of the project. Although we try not to only center the environmental impact and operational efficiency of the project, it’s somewhat of an inevitable accounting we have to do.

Ketra: Anna, Arrien, and Faisal—it has been a blast talking with the three of you about CUCCR and your vision for local sustainable reuse. At a time when so many people can feel discouraged about environmental sustainability, and the connected issues related to economic inequality and the affordability crisis, I’ve really enjoyed shining a light on our local center that helps to address these issues at the same time.