The document discusses the history and concepts of recycling and zero waste. It traces the development of recycling from the late 19th century through modern curbside programs and deposit return systems. However, it argues that recycling rates remain low because economic incentives for returning materials are now missing. True zero waste is also seen as an unrealistic goal given the laws of thermodynamics, as recycling still produces some amount of waste. Waste-to-energy is discussed as another proposed solution, but the document questions if this allows unsustainable consumption patterns to continue. Overall, the document takes a skeptical view of whether recycling and related concepts can achieve zero waste goals.

1. FUTURE TRENDS – ZERO WASTE
Page 1 of 7
Talk about various energy conservation measures, recycling, carbon capture, zero waste to
landfills, waste to energy, and “green” this or that began in earnest in the early first decade and
started picking up speed around 2005. Here I will discuss two concepts, recycling and waste to
energy, which are attempts to achieve the ultimate delusional dream – zero waste.
Recycling and waste reduction aren’t new concepts. In 1897, New York City created a materials
recovery facility that first sorted recyclables and then transferred them to separate “picking yards”
where paper, metals, metals, carpet, burlap bags, twine, rubber, and other items were sorted for
recycling and reuse. In 1904, the first aluminum can recycling plants opened in Chicago and
Cleveland.
During WWI, the Federal government created a Waste Reclamation Service with the curious
motto, “Don’t Waste Waste – Save It”. The Great Depression of the 1930s was a natural time,
maybe to be repeated soon, for recycling requiring no outside motivation. During WWII, many
essential goods like nylon, rubber, and metals were rationed and recycled.
In 1964, the aluminum can was introduced creating the modern waste management problem. The
aluminum industry soon began creating a massive system for recycling and redeeming used
beverage containers. U.S. collection grew from 1.2 billion cans in1972 to more than 62 billion cans
in 1995 through curbside recycling programs and more than10,000 recycling centers.
In 1970, Gary Anderson entered a design competition held in 1970 by the Container Corporation
of America which asked contestants to create a symbol for recycled paper. The symbol is part of
the Resin Identification Codes that now appear on plastic containers.
April 22, 1970 celebrated the first Earth Day, an event to increase public awareness of the world’s
environmental problems, in the United States for the first time. Millions of Americans, including
students from thousands of colleges and universities, participated in rallies, marches, and
educational programs. The Environmental Protection Agency began operation on December,
1970.
In 1974, University City, MO became one of the first municipalities in the country to offer curbside
recycling to its residents. In 1976, the federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act was
enacted to close open dumps, create standards for landfills, incinerators, and the disposal of
hazardous waste.
In 1981, Woodbury, New Jersey became the first city in the US to mandate recycling. In 1987,the
garbage-laden barge called The Mobro cruised up and down the East Coast of the U.S. looking
for a place to unload. This event resulted in increased public concern about waste management
and served as a catalyst for the country’s growing recycling movement.
In 1990, McDonald’s stopped using Styrofoam containers. The 20th-anniversary theme for Earth
Day was recycling. By 1995, Americans recycled a record 47.6 billion soft drink containers, an
increase of 500 million over the previous year. Aluminum cans were recycled at a rate of 63% in

2. FUTURE TRENDS – ZERO WASTE
Page 2 of 7
the U.S. with the highest state-wide rate in California at 80%.There were more than 10,000
recycling centers nationwide and at least 4,000 curbside collection programs.
In 2000, the EPA confirmed a link between global warming and waste, showing that reducing our
garbage and recycling would cut down on greenhouse gas emissions. In 2006, Dell Computer
began offering a free recycling service for their products sparking the movement of e-waste
recycling. In 2007, five states passed laws requiring that unwanted electronics be recycled. San
Francisco became the first U.S. city to prohibit the distribution of plastic bags by grocery stores.
In 2012, more than 585 million pounds of consumer electronics were recycled—an increase of
125 million pounds (more than 25 percent) over 2011. In 2015, California enacted the first ever
state-wide ban on plastic bags in grocery and convenience stores.
Such progress! It all sounds wonderful, doesn’t it? The concept of recycling has been the leading
edge of this at first unintentional zero waste movement. From “The History of Recycling in
America Is More Complicated Than You May Think” by Olivia B. Waxman, November 15, 2016:
What happened in the 1960s and ’70s wasn’t that recycling was invented, but that the reasons for
it changed. Rather than recycle in order to get the most out of the materials (and maybe get a
small cash refund), Americans began to recycle in order to deal with the massive amounts of
waste produced during the second half of the 20th century.
Americans were definitely losing the battle against waste by the 1970s.
In short, recycling stopped being a way for consumers to get more from their purchases and
became something that cost people money or at least time.
The shift in the framing of recycling can also be seen in bottle-return deposits, says Elmore. In the
first half of the 20th century, they were widespread and consumers saw getting their money back
as a normal part of purchasing something in a bottle. “Putting a price on these thing would mean
people would bring it back, and even early trade journals for soft drink industry at that time were
constantly chastising bottlers who weren’t putting a price on the container,” he says. “Back in the
early period, containers are doing 20 trips back and forth between bottler and consumer, largely
because people wanted to get their deposit back.”
That system faded away over time, replaced by the idea that consumers should recycle for
altruistic reasons, with the fate of the Earth in mind. (They never stop to think that they will
disappear long before Earth does). As of April 2016, just 10 states plus Guam have a deposit-
refund system for beverage containers. Elmore says it’s unsurprising that the widespread culture
of automatically returning bottles faded too, once the economic incentives were gone.
Therefore, he argues that—even as environmentalism has become more mainstream—recycling
advocacy efforts have failed in the last 25 years, given the recycling rate for items like bottled
water may be around 30%.

3. FUTURE TRENDS – ZERO WASTE
Page 3 of 7
“I think history shows us why it didn’t work,” he says. “Listen to industry itself in the early 20th
century: If you do not put a price on packaging waste, then that stuff is going to be wasted, and it
won’t comeback.”
However, there is more to it than that. Stuff, new stuff is still relatively cheap in the land of Joe
Sixpack and Mary Spend-a-Lots. Why go through all the trouble of recycling when the Garbage
Man comes every week and our leaders tell us that a new age of whatever is just around the
corner. It is all too easy, and still too inexpensive, in the U.S. That’s why even the “haters” want to
come here. You get freebies from Uncle Sammy too.
Moreover, the concept of recycling has been pushed by some as another way of promoting the
idea that the past non-stop growth and waste society can continue unabated in a “green” way. The
profit of everlasting riches was the late Julian Simon. From Wikipedia:
Julian Lincoln Simon (February 12, 1932 –February 8, 1998) was a professor of business
administration at the University of Maryland and a Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute at the time of
his death, after previously serving as a long time economics and business professor at the
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
Simon wrote many books and articles, mostly on economic subjects. He is best known for his
work on population, natural resources, and immigration. His work covers cornucopian views on
lasting economic benefits from natural resources and continuous population growth, even despite
limited or finite physical resources, empowered by human ingenuity, substitutes, and technological
progress. His works are also cited by libertarians against government regulation.
His works aren’t cited by this Libertarian. I have a better understanding of physics and
mathematics than that. I just think that my fellow Humans should learn the hard way. It’s good for
the soul.
Now another concept that has been discussed is waste to energy. Here we are going to take
waste and produce energy so we can continue our past profligate ways. It’s a win-win situation.
I’m sure the do-gooder, liberal politicians looking for ways to save Humanity and the waste to
energy salesmen looking for a market will tell you so. We can eliminate waste in our time! Waste
is not what will be eliminated, Pilgrims.
There are some that have caught on to the issue of waste to energy and think that somehow
recycling is the answer. They can’t be economists or politicians? No, but they still don’t seem to
understand the Second Law of Thermodynamics. From “Technologies for Sustainable Systems”:
5.2. Recycling: open-loop versus closed-loop thinking
As we can see from the previous page of this lesson, there are a number of conventional
methods of waste treatment which depend on the system scale and type of waste. However,
not all of them fit in the sustainability picture. For example, such common methods as
incineration or landfilling are not sustainable solutions because, while eliminating problem in

4. FUTURE TRENDS – ZERO WASTE
Page 4 of 7
one zone (for example, human residence or industrial facility), they create additional pollution
in the other (atmosphere, soil, aquifers, natural habitat). The purpose of recycling is to
minimize or completely avoid sending waste to landfill or incinerator.
Is this possible? Only if you don’t produce the waste in the first place! There is going to be
something left over. Either it goes to the landfill, the waterways, or in the air we breathe. But
let’s think some more about how to get the best out of a bad scenario, which is too many
Humans all wanting to consume the same things.
At this point, it would be appropriate to look at different concepts in material recycling.
Open-loop Recycling
Open-loop recycling basically means that a material is not recycled indefinitely and is
eventually excluded from the utilization loop and becomes waste. The diagram in Figure (1)
shows a material flow through the linear (open-loop) system. In this representation, stocks are
shown with rectangular boxes, and transforming processes are shown by hexagon boxes.
In Figure (1), we see that natural resources extracted from the environment are transformed
into a product via manufacturing process. After its use, the product may be discarded as one
of the outputs: (a) whole product that is not needed anymore, (b) whole product that became
obsolete (although still functional), (c) non- functional or old product because of its limited
lifetime, (d) recyclable / reusable parts or scrapped materials, and (e) non-recyclable refuse.
Those outputs enter one of the post-use channels – reuse, recycle, and garbage disposal, the
latter contributing to the landfill. Reuse channel is usually limited, just postponing garbage
disposal. Recycling loop results in producing another material, which is typically of lower
grade and purity than the original material. It may be transformed further into a different
product, which after use creates similar outputs. In the long run, a small part of the original
resource may be stuck in the loop, but the majority of it becomes disposed of.
The bottom line is: even if recycling and reuse are involved, eventual down-grading renders
material non-usable, and it contributes to waste generation in the end of the lifecycle. Open-
loop recycling postpones disposal and slows down extraction of new natural resources, but
does not provide ultimate solution to the problem.
That’s right!!!
Closed-loop Recycling
Closed-loop recycling is a more sustainable concept, which means that recycling of a material
can be done indefinitely without degradation of properties. Huh!!! In this case, conversion of
the used product back to raw material allows repeated making of the same product over and
over again.

5. FUTURE TRENDS – ZERO WASTE
Page 5 of 7
A few things to consider:
• The recycled materials should provide the same quality of the product (no
deterioration). For example, almost all recycled aluminum from soda cans is suitable to
produce the same cans.
• There should be no accumulation of contaminants or toxins in the multiple recycling
loop, which can make the secondary product less safe.
• The recycled material can also feed manufacturing process for a different product or
industry, which may require different type of recycling.
The other part of closed-loop recycling concept is bio-degradable disposal. Everything that
cannot be recycled or comes as a by-product in manufacturing process should return to the
environment with no harm. Diagram in Figure (2) summarizes the above considerations. While
starting from the same extraction, manufacturing, and use stages, the outputs in the closed-
loop scheme become equally usable resource for the manufacturing chain. Greater fraction of
materials should be designed for recycling and reuse. The refuse that is inevitable is
biodegradable and brings no harm when returned to the environment.
You forgot something! Energy is still being consumed to return that recycled whatever back
into the economy. And no material loss in the process? They must be economists or
businessmen trying to stay in business. We gotta make a living!
To a greater extent, this closed loop thinking is advocated in the book of William McDonough and
Michael Braungart “Cradle-to-Cradle”. The authors suggest that every product and all packaging
should have a complete closed-loop cycle mapped out for each component, i.e., pathways should be
identified for each component to either be recycled indefinitely or to return to the natural ecosystem.
And all through the miracle of new laws of Physics! They must be talking to the Aliens about getting in
on the ground floor; however, I don’t think they are interested. This is the kind of Julian Simon thinking
that comes even from a faculty member of the Department of Mechanical and Nuclear Engineering at
Pennsylvania State University. Pilgrims, the past way of life cannot be continued through any
combination of solar, wind, nuclear, fossil fuels, closed-loop recycling, or Abracadabra engineering.
Energy conservation is inevitable, and that means less users of energy. That way, the available
energy last longer, at least until you can travel somewhere else to find it.
Since the inevitable will not happen voluntarily, I will discuss in the next reports what might be the best
of the worst recycling and waste handling scenarios, and ways to make a living, for future generations.

6. FUTURE TRENDS – ZERO WASTE
Page 6 of 7
FIGURE 1
OPEN LOOP RECYCLING

7. FUTURE TRENDS – ZERO WASTE
Page 7 of 7
FUTURE 2
CLOSED LOOP RECYCLING
(It may not be going to a landfill, but it’s going somewhere. Plus it takes energy to move it
through the loop)