The New Materialism Managing Materials as if Matter Matters By David Morris The toxic waste crisis, the garbage crisis, the greenhouse effect, acid ra in , ozone dep le tion , groundwater pollution, are all symptoms o f the same disease: our m isuse o f materials. In the last decade a powerful worldwide environmental movement has forced every level of government, from cities to the United Nations, to re-examine, and begin to change, the rules governing materials extraction, processing and disposal. As we change the rules, we alter the underlying economics for much of our economy. "Everything is connected to everything else,” is the credo of the ecology movement. Banning leaded gasoline created a billion gallon a year market for ethanol, which, in turn increased the price corn farmers received from 10-40 cents a bushel. Curtailing land dumping of garbage hiked the cost of disposal 5-10 fold and transformed a tiny, voluntary, community based recycling movement into a global enterprise. If we seriously try to reduce atmospheric carbon dioxide buildup, we may witness the most dramatic change of all. Carbon based materials represent 85 percent of our fuels and perhaps 50 percent of all nonfood materials. In 1987 an international accord called for a 20 percent reduction of CO2 emissions by the year 2005. The U.S. is not a signatory, but in 1989 Oregon’s legislature required its Department of Energy to develop a specific plan to achieve that goal. We cannot predict the specific environmental regulations that will be enacted over the next decade, but we can predict their general impact. Each time we raise the cost of waste we increase the value of efficiency and recycling. Each time we regulate acid rain or greenhouse emissions, we make plant matter, which contains very little sulfur and absorbs carbon dioxide as it matures, more attractive as both a fuel and industrial material. While changes in the external regulatory environment raise the cost of the traditional way of doing things, techno log ica l advances make it increasingly feasible to change the way we do things. We can now take a molecule of almost any material and, through processing, impart to it properties previously unique to a very few materials. Auto parts previously made only from steel or aluminum can now be made from oil-based plastics or sand-based ceramics. Automotive fuels previously made only from fossil fuels can now be made from plant matter. Industries that previously used only a small amount of scrap can now make high quality products using 50 percent, or even 100 percent used materials. Only 4% o f the globes population, we produce 25% o f its pollutants and over 30% o f its garbage. These unprecedented changes in the regulatory and technological environments concerning materials offer a unique challenge for state government. States that anticipate these changes can reap significant rewards. They can simultaneously clean up their own environments, and strengthen their internal economies. They can nurture new products and services that will become attractive exports as other parts of the country and world also adapt to the rules of the new age. There is another reason for acting first. Americans consume twice as much fuels and industrial materials as Western Europe and Japan, and almost ten times the planetary average. Only 4 percent of the globe’s population, we produce 25 percent of its pollutants and over 30 percent of its garbage. If the rest of the world adopted our habits, the planet would quickly become uninhabitable. Yet this is exactly what developing countries hope to do. They will be unlikely to heed our warnings of impending catastrophe if we ourselves do not dramatically change our consumption habits. This combination of carrot and stick should prompt Minnesota to develop a coherent and comprehensive materials policy that combines economic and environmental objectives. In the last 12 months we have moved in the right direction. 1. Last May the Public Utilities Commission, on the basis of “ widening evidence of the environmental effects of acid rain and global warming,” declared “ increased e f f iciency in the use of energy” to be “ critical.” It is designing new regulatory procedures to encourage utilities to pursue energy conservation as aggressively as they trad it iona lly develop new power sources. 2. In 1989 the state legislature, for the first time, also declared: “ The fo llow ing waste management practices are in order of preference: 1) waste reduction and reuse, 2) waste recycling and yard waste composting, 3) resource recovery through mixed municipal solid waste composting or incineration, and 4) land disposal.” 3. With regard to plant matter, state tax credits have encouraged ethanol production. Various researchers are devising ways to convert lignin and starch into plastics. The state has several fast growing tree plantations. State government has assisted state institutions to convert to wood energy. These steps, however, fall far short of a comprehensive policy. State and regional agencies project another 10-15 percent increase in per capita consumption of electricity and an equal increase in per capita garbage generation by the end of the century. The recent legislative session established a 30 percent stateI f the rest o f the world adopted our habits, the planet would quickly become uninhabitable. wide recycling goal by 1993. That implies accepting two-thirds of our used materials being burned or land- filled. Two more ethanol plants may soon join the Marshall plant, but even with the proposed expansions, instate ethanol will be able to provide only 3-4 percent of the state’s transportation fuel needs by the early 1990s. State support for fast growing tree plantations is modest. NSP abandoned its support for wood fired electricity in early 1988. What should be done? First, we need to formally adopt two objectives o f state policy: reduction in our per capita consumption of virgin materials; and a dramatic shift from a reliance on hydrocarbons or fossil fuels to carbohydrates or living fuels. Slight improvements in efficiency or recycling are insufficient if we increase our consumption even faster. Modest increases in vehicle efficiency, for example, can be overwhelmed by major increases in the number of miles driven. Second, we need a Materials Czar who can vigorously promote these goals. Such a person must cut a c ro ss an o f te n fragm en ted adm inistrative structure inherited from a different era. Today the sanitation department has no connection to the public u t i l ity agency or the economic development department. The Public U tilities Commission regulates only one component of fuel use—electricity. No agency regulates non-electrical use, although building codes and some pollution regulations affect such use. Plant matter harvested in 1-2 years, as a matter of tradition, is under the jurisdiction of the Department of Agriculture (DOA). Plant matter that matures over 10 years is under the Department of Natural Resources (DNR), as is vegetation that promotes wildlife. The Pollution Control Agency (PCA) regulates waste disposal although a subset of this, solid waste, is also regulated by counties and cities. The Department of Trade and Economic Development (DTED), Office of Waste Management (OWM), A g r ic u ltu ra l U t i l iz a t io n Research Institutes (AURI) and other agencies provide financing for raw material processing and distribution enterprises. Their specific jurisdictions are still evolving. A first task will be to develop benchmarks to evaluate the progress we are making toward our objectives. How efficient are we? What portion of our fuels comes from direct solar energy, or the stored solar energy of plants? How much are we recycling? What is our per capita consumption of materials? What is Possible? Energy Efficiency In 1976 a typical Minneapolis-Saint Paul home used 154 million btus for heating, the equivalent to 7.5 tons of oil. In 1984 the same size house needed only 3.5 10 Clinton St. Quarterly—Winter, 1989-90
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy NTc4NTAz