Our readers speak! Taking “waste-not-want-not” beyond a cliché

As we are in one of the great seasons of eating – the Easter/Passover period — we wanted to follow up the last post about food waste with a post about not wasting food. This guest blogger has been dubbed the “leftover queen” by her husband. She works here at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars and tries her best to recycle and not waste food. She shares her home with two dogs and two cats. Here is her story (to see how professional chefs made feasts from dumpster ingredients follow this link):

It wasn’t supposed to be in our driveway, but it was.

A Peapod order [home delivery of food from a local, Washington, DC grocery store] containing six boxes was mistakenly left in our driveway while we were on vacation in the Dominican Republic. By the time we realized, the boxes had been sitting outside for a week.

After checking with Peapod, we were told that we could do whatever we wanted with the items.  We also checked with our neighbor across the street, who the order was actually intended for. After confirming that she didn’t want any of the items (she had already called for a reorder), we brought everything into the house.

I think most people would have immediately thrown out all of the perishable items, since we are conditioned to believe that perishable items not refrigerated properly will spoil.

does this food really deserve to be sent to waste?

Instead, my husband and I took it at as challenge to see what could be saved.

I think we did a good job since we only tossed the frozen shrimp (which had defrosted entirely) and two bags of frozen vegetables.

In general, my husband and I try to be conscientious about not wasting food. Ironically, we had also done a fairly large grocery shop that morning (we were on our way to the store when we discovered the Peapod order, but at that point we weren’t sure what to do with it) so in some cases we actually ended up with almost identical items. In that case, we made it our first priority to use the Peapod food.

The canned goods and non-perishable items were obviously not an issue.

While we were a little skeptical about eating the perishable items, we were confident that everything had been kept cold (due to the abundant freezer packs and the relatively cool temperatures the area had experienced). So, over the next few weeks we proceeded to deep fry the chicken, cook the ground beef and steaks and consume the shredded cheese and large tub of sour cream.

Presentation is everything!

The two gallons of milk were our biggest challenge since that is far more milk than we consume. In the end we drank one and used the other gallon to make ricotta cheese.

In recounting our experience at a happy hour later in the week, one of our friends exclaimed, “Not the chicken”, when told that we had indeed cooked and eaten the chicken.

think of the money you will save

To see another creative use of waste (and some reflections on waste in historical perspective), go to this link

food waste in the land of plenty

In the American land of plenty, disposal of food waste – and whether there is any productive use for that waste – is a frontier in the issues around recycling. For recycling of materials we ask, given the damage and cost of extracting resources from the earth, doesn’t it make sense to collect and reprocess them after their first use, rather than throw them away?

Food waste adds a complicated twist to these questions. In a world where many routinely go hungry (including in our own country), we also have the reality of high amounts of food waste. Like the other recycling, we should be addressing these issues on both the front and back end.  Waste reduction by more careful planning might mean less spoiled food.

But how should we be handling the inevitable food waste (which includes waste from those parts of fruits and vegetables that we don’t use, as well as food we simply let go bad)?  These materials have value –properly handled, they can be turned into fertilizer for gardens and farms, and can even be used to make renewable energy.   And when they are not well handled, and food rots in a landfill, it releases methane, a greenhouse gas that is 23 times more potent at warming the atmosphere than carbon dioxide.

Our guest blogger is Laura Moreno, an Environmental Scientist in U. S. EPA, Pacific Southwest Region’s Office of Pollution Prevention and Solid Waste

“What will I make myself for lunch?”

“The lasagna last night was delicious. I must make that again!”

Thoughts of food invade many people’s heads throughout the day, thinking of their last meal, their next meal, or daydreaming about a delicious culinary escape from reality. Rarely in our daydreams and musings about food do we think about the amount of food we waste. Despite the significant and emotional role that food plays in our culture, Americans are throwing away more food and sending it to landfills than any time since 1960 (when EPA recording started)!

A half pound of food waste per person per day may not seem like a lot, but when you add it up, it adds up to 34 million tons of food being wasted each year in the United States (source: EPA MSW Characterization). How much is 34 million tons? Jonathan Bloom estimates that it is enough to fill the Rose Bowl Stadium to the brim with wasted food each day. We send more food to landfills than any other single material, including paper or plastic.

Why is wasting food bad for the environment?

• Wasted food = Wasted resources! When you throw away a piece of chicken, you are also throwing away the water, energy, fertilizer, pesticide, and other resource inputs that went into making that plump and juicy chicken.
• 13% of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States are associated with the lifecycle of food, including from growing to manufacturing, packaging, transporting, and eventual disposal (source: EPA Opportunities to Reduce GHG Emissions through Materials and Land Management Practices).
• Wasted food ends up in landfills where it decomposes in the absence of oxygen to generate methane, a greenhouse gas 21 times more potent than carbon dioxide.

Why is wasting food bad for us?

Wasted food isn’t just an environmental issue. It’s an issue of equity and economics.
• We are throwing away a record amount of food, much of which is edible and safe to eat, while 50 million Americans are ”food insecure” meaning they don’t always have access to enough food to meet their needs (source: USDA). We should be feeding people, not landfills. Wasting food wastes money. USDA estimates that wasted food in the United States costs consumers and retailers $165 billion annually, equal to the GDP of Ukraine.
• According to the Natural Resources Defense Council, the average American family of 4 spends $1600/year on food it never eats.

As a consumer, what can I do?

As consumers, we have the capability to significantly reduce the amount of food that is sent to landfills. Here are a couple of ideas so you can take a stand against wasted food and save some money in the process:
1. Shop your refrigerator first – Before going to the store, look in your refrigerator, see what you already have, and plan your menu around those items.
2. Plan your menus before you go shopping – Before going to store, plan your menus so that you don’t buy more food than you need.
3. Know when food really goes bad – Most food products have a “best by” date. This is not an expiration date (except for infant formula), but a date to indicate when the food is at maximum quality. Learn more at http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/dgunders/use-by_and_best-by_dates_a_myt.html
4. Eat or share your leftovers – Don’t want to have the same meal two days in a row? Be creative and use your leftovers to make new and exciting meals. For instance, leftover pasta from one night can be turned into a delicious pasta salad to accompany your sandwich at lunch. Or use your vegetable trimmings, such as the skin or ends, to make a delicious vegetable stock. If you don’t think that you can get use the leftovers in time, put them in airtight container and freeze them for later use.
5. Use every part of your food, if possible – Just like you can use every part of an animal, the same is true for many fruits and vegetables. For instance, many people chop off and throw away beet tops. But, they are actually delicious — and can be sautéed or cooked up like any other green such as spinach or collard greens.
6. Encourage your local businesses to donate fresh food to local food banks – Do you know if your local grocers, restaurants, or other businesses donate their untouched, but edible food to local food banks? If not, ask them if they do and encourage them to start a food donation program.
(Note: People often worry about liability when donating food. Worry not. The Bill Emerson Good Samaritan Act, a Federal law, protects donors from liability if they donate food in good faith and follow food safety rules.)
7. Compost your food scraps – Some cities collect your food scraps along with other recyclables and trash. If you don’t have that option, you can start your own compost pile in your backyard) or a worm composting system if you don’t have a backyard.

Why and how large international law firms recycle

Jennifer Anduha, Managing Director of Office Service at a large, Washington-DC based international law firm, is the first guest blogger for the Recycling Chronicles. Here is her story:

Even big international law firms, and even lawyers, care about the environment- most care very much and I know this because I have seen the firm, that I work for grow an environmental program from nothing in 2008 to a robust and dynamic part of the firm’s culture in just 4 years.  As one of several careers that I have embarked, law firm management is the most challenging and by far the most rewarding.  I have been able to apply skills learned in the hotel and the executive suite business to my job- mostly how to multi-task, manage people, and keep a sense of humor at all times!

I never thought I would become the “green guru” as my boss likes to call me. Other than recycling my water bottles and newspapers at home, I came into co-chairing our firms’ Green Committee with very little knowledge about good business environmental practices (other than common sense) and what initiatives should be implemented.

Then there was the added challenge of trying to identify those staff and attorneys in the firm that were passionate (or at least mildly interested and intrigued to commit the time to become part of a formalized committee) and doing it all without a budget.  It has been an incredible learning experience so far!

We have approximately 500 lawyers just in DC and worldwide our lawyer count approaches 2,400.  We operate out of over 40 offices across the US and abroad, including Asia, Europe, Middle East, and South America.

Culturally there are varying degrees of participation in firm environmental programs across the globe with our US and European offices being more involved and experienced overall than our Asian offices.   But there is certainly a level of engagement in all offices and the Environment has become a cornerstone of our firm culture.

turn out the lights sign in German law office

In the last couple years we have seen an uptick in the number of potential clients that specifically ask, as part of the bidding process, about our environmental programs- this definitely got the attention of our attorneys.   I feel that the driving force for this, in most organizations, is that it is the right thing to do in a society so entrenched in consumerism and the waste that goes along with it.  Organizations then expect to do business with and partner with vendors and professional services firms that share the “it’s the right thing” philosophy.

The first “green” committee was formed in August of 2008 and consisted of lawyers, managers, and support staff across the firm’s US offices.  The committee’s initial goals were to understand how all the offices recycled (if they recycled) and how we could work together to promote reducing our carbon footprint.

We were successful!   In the 4 years since, all of the US offices recycle on some level and most recycle everything- paper, cans, glass and plastic.  We encourage recycling by providing desk side bins, centrally located bins in copy rooms, pantry areas (see example below),

Pantry area recycling bins

large departments, and conference rooms.

I thought that putting recycling in the conference rooms would meet with some resistance, but I feel it is quite the opposite.  Attorneys and staff using these rooms find it convenient (as those really good citizens were taking empty plastic bottles with them to recycle) and visitors can see that we practice what we preach.  In all of our new construction we are incorporating slide out recycle bins in all conference rooms.

conference room recycling bin

We post information in our cafeteria with examples of items that are recyclable or compostable.

recycling examples posted in cafeteria of major international law firm

We instituted the use of an email signature, “to consider the environment before you print”, tag line 2 years ago; and we partner with our building each spring for an informative Earth Day event in our lobby.

Earth Day Recycling event

The firm has a robust e-waste program and recycles approx. 50,000 pounds of electronic waste per year.

We pursue LEED certification through the US Green Building Council in all of our new office build out projects (and two of our projects have been awarded LEED Silver status in the last 3 years, and we are working on 2 more in the next 15 months.

The firm has made the cultural switch to default all high speed copiers and printers to double sided- and I have to say the push back was a minuscule blip on the radar so all in all very successful!

The newest challenge we face is trying to actually quantify our results.  How much are we recycling; how much paper are we saving every year; what is the resulting save to our planet and OUR impact on OUR carbon footprint?  Fortunately, law firms understand that our clients want to know and our clients are asking therefore, slowly support for calculating and organizing this information is coming to fruition through organizations like the Legal Sector Alliance in the UK and the newly forming Law Firm Sustainability Network in the US: 
http://www.ecoanalyze.com/resources/LawFirmSustainabilityNetwork.aspx

On a personal level and to give the reader an idea of how wasteful we really are (and most of us are to a fault); I suggest doing the carbon footprint quiz.  We did this a couple years during out Earth Day event and it was eye opening- and fun.  Here is the link:  http://www.myfootprint.org/en/visitor_information

I was particularly interested that the firm located recycling bins in its elegant conference rooms. I have heard concerns elsewhere (including here at Wilson Center) that outside visitors to meetings might be offended by recycling bins.  Apparently, however, it is a business plus.

If everything –paper, cans, bottles, books and cardboard — all goes into one bin, isn’t that trash?

Some buildings ask you to separate your recycling into paper, bottles and cans.  Others have a single bin.  Doesn’t co-mingling make recyclables into trash?  Chris Philpot did a great graphic for the Washingtonian Magazine, which we copy here with permission, explaining how it all gets sorted out (thanks to Thomas White of the Magazine for allowing us to blog it).

Are we in agreement: What does the behavioral social science research literature say about recycling?

In posts 1-6, I explained our recycling goals here at the Wilson Center, and some of the challenges we encountered.

Today, we propose to get slightly more analytic and compare what we learned to some of the academic literature.  Schultz, Oskamp and Mainieri’s 1995 literature review consolidated what has been learned about recycling.  Some of it is a bit old, but it’s not so far off.

Here is a brief report, supplemented a bit with our own Woodrow Wilson Center experience.

• Barriers make a difference.   If it’s a nuisance to recycle, most people just are not going to do it.  Nuisances include it doesn’t pay, it’s just too much trouble, or it is too messy.  Location and proximity also are important.  If you have to get in the car and take things to the recycling center, few people will be motivated. Most cities have fixed this problem by providing curbside recycling.

But, to digress for a moment:  remember back in 1967, Arlo Guthrie’s immortal tale of his arrest for illegally dumping post-Thanksgiving rubbish after discovering that the Stockbridge, Massachusetts town dump was closed for the holiday.  Arlo was motivated to truck his trash but he hit one barrier too much.

Just to remind, here is the whole story:

Eighteen year old Arlo and his friend pleaded guilty before a blind judge, were fined $50 and told to pick up their garbage. But not before Arlo was introduced to some of the absurdities of siccing the criminal justice system on teenagers trying to get rid of trash. The arresting officer was prepared to present “27 8×10 color glossy pictures with circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one explaining what each one was to be used as evidence against us.”

Having to transport your trash is definitely not motivating for people otherwise indifferent to recycling or those who are just plain busy.

Proximity might even be important on a smaller scale.   At Wilson Center, some people were throwing their trash in the first available bin.  If we switched the position of the recycle bin so it was a bit closer to an office door, we noticed that recycle materials magically found their way into the correct bin.

• Knowledge is important.  It may not surprise you to know that experienced recyclers have significantly more  knowledge about recycling than non-recyclers.  They have a pretty good sense of what can and cannot be recycled.  This knowledge gives them a sense of confidence that guides their actions.

We saw that here at Wilson Center, both positively and negatively.  It is very helpful to know the rules.  But sometimes, knowing the rules can be counterproductive.  What if the rules are different in your office and your apartment building, or between your old office building and the new one?

People may be justifiably confused because their city or county recycles one way and their office space, another.  People may bring knowledge that was valid a few years ago, but has been superseded. And because recycling isn’t their highest daily priority, it is unlikely most people will take the time to update all this confusing information and act accordingly.

• Demographics:  Schultz’s  1995 review of the literature review found that people with the highest levels of environmental concern tended to be young, more educated, urban, and liberal in ideology. However,  Hilary Nixon and Jean-Daniel M. Saphores reported on a 2008 survey that, while age and ethnicity are statistically significant, income or education are not.  All we can say is:  go figure….
• Personality variables:  interestingly, the research suggests that recyclers are people who tend to believe that they can determine their own destinies. Apparently, these are take-charge as opposed to passive people.
•  What about interventions and situational factors?
  • Prompting, whether it is through a brochure, newspaper ads or oral pleas, was found to be effective, to a point.
  • But, it is more effective to combine prompts with proximity.  So, post your guide to recycling above the recycling bin.  Use communication tools to connect with people but also minimize how much effort they must expend to follow through.  And try to avoid the kinds of frustration people feel when things don’t work.  Think about Arlo Guthrie’s famous song, and plan curbside, not drop-off.

If people are required to sort their recycling, is that enough burden to discourage the activity?  According to Schultz, Oskamp and Mainieri, the research is unclear.

• Eliciting commitments and other kinds of interventions.  When people make a commitment, they are more likely to follow through. Commitments can be oral or written; they can be public or private; they can be made as a group or individually.

Interestingly, this approach is being picked up in other contexts.  When I recently did some political canvassing, the campaign was asking committed voters to sign an informal pledge to remember to vote.

• Social norms.  It does make a difference if your friends and neighbors recycle –  that means you are more likely to do so.  Why? If you are the only person recycling, it’s hard to believe your lone action can make a difference.  Working as a community, in groups and with leaders (whether in blocks, floors or hallways), gives me a higher degree of confidence in ultimate results. And, everyone wants to feel like part of some community and is likely to at least consider doing what the community expects.    

• Goal setting.  Schultz, Oskamp and Mainieri reported that cities that established a recycling goal (say, a percentage of total waste stream) reported “significantly” higher levels of citizen participation than cities without such goals.  This was true also in an elementary school elementary school and a college.  The researchers did not know whether the recycling behavior persisted beyond the period of goal setting.

• What about rewards, especially monetary rewards?  Here is where things get really interesting.

Contrary to what we all assume will motivate people, there is some evidence rewards can be counter-productive.  Schultz, Oskamp and Mainieri quote research on “over-justification effects”.  This is the phrase social psychologists use to explain that offering external incentives (for example, money or prizes) for a previously unrewarded activity undermines internal motivation.  Sadly, when rewards are ended, people often lose interest in the activity.  Worse yet, prior intrinsic motivation does not return.  Once set in motion, extrinsic rewards must be continuously offered as motivation to sustain the activity.

A 2010 paper  by Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute economist, John Gowdy, mined some tantalizing research.

• As noted above, monetary incentives can “crowd out”pro-social behavior. When people are paid to donate blood, for example, contributions drop sharply.
• Gowdy cites another study in which the brain activity of two male players receiving a substantial monetary reward for correctly estimating the number of dots on a computer screen was scanned. As expected the ventral striatum (a part of the brain associated with reward) was activated when the participants received payment for a good guess.  Surprisingly, the reward system was substantially more active when participants were told that the other player was unsuccessful.
• Gowdy cites still other experiments suggesting that although both men and women are motivated by anticipation of both monetary and social rewards, women are more responsive to social rewards than are men.

What are the lessons from this?

• make it clear (what goes where, how)
• make it simple (all in one bin is good, saves space in homes)
• make it easy
• make it a habit

In the next Recycling Chronicles, we will hear from the facilities manager of a larger international law firm – what they have learned about recycling, environmental stewardship and client relationships.  And still later, we will talk about what all this says about human capacity to manage other environmental challenges including the biggest of all, climate change.

More outreach: Writing a new notice to send around the Wilson Center and mounting a demonstration poster for the dining room.

After non-productive venting with interns who dropped aluminum cans in the trash, I tried to channel frustration, rather than express it.

Here was the plan:   After some negotiation with management – they were worried about aesthetics in a building that draws daily visitors including often Ambassadors and world leaders – it was agreed that we would put a poster in a non-public part of the Wilson Center dining room.  The wall is directly next to the place where daily users of the dining room bus their dishes for cleaning.  It is an area that would never be seen during an official Wilson Center function.

The poster would have actual physical examples of what can and should be recycled.  A picture is below – items included plastics of various kinds including water bottles, knives and forks, take-away lunch containers, bags and temporary use plates;  aluminum cans; and waste paper small and large – for example, paper packaging for single-use tea bags).  The arrow at the bottom of the poster pointed to the recycle bin.  We would put photographs of the poster in the smaller kitchens on the 3^rd and 4^th floor.

Physical examples proved to be useful when Ruth did her Wilson Center town hall presentation, and – frankly – it was an idea we stole from a major law firm located a few blocks from Wilson Center.  In their dining room, for everyone to see, is a demonstration poster.  Here is ours:

We accompanied the installation of the poster with another outreach email to the entire Wilson Center community.  The challenge became:  how to word another email to get people’s attention – and to maximize the chances a large number of people would open it; how not look like a scold; and, how to get the message out.

To show how this notice evolved, below is the first version.  Note the image of money thrown in a trash can.  And note the fairly dull, uninspired prose Ruth offered.

Just a reminder that high value recycle material can all be deposited in the same blue recycle bins.

• empty plastic and glass bottles and aluminum cans;
• envelopes including with some level of plastic;
• notebooks with metal spirals holding them together;
• books;
• magazines;
• paper of any color;
• the paper bag that you carry your lunch in or that Starbucks give you to carry your cookie out of the store;
• scrap paper (the paper that held your tea bag, for example, and post-its);
• cardboard

Your small recycling gesture helps support the building’s day care.  If you have questions about particular items, either see the board in the service area of the dining room or check with Ruth

Recognizing how boring and dry this was, we then enlisted a WWC staff member with a proven track record of sending staff emails that are actually opened.  His subject line is always amusing, and usually only very tangentially related to the subject matter in the email text.  We asked Michael for a smoother, more compelling text.

With Michael’s help, here is the next version.

Unless you planned to give your local garbage collector a generous tip, you probably would not do this.

But when we place high-value recycle material in the trash, we are effectively throwing money away.

High-value recycle material can all be deposited in the same blue recycle bins. This includes:

• empty plastic and glass bottles and aluminum cans;
• envelopes including with some level of plastic;
• notebooks with metal spirals holding them together;
• books;
• magazines;
• paper of any color;
• the paper bag that you carry your lunch in or that Starbucks give you to carry your cookie out of the store;
• scrap paper (the paper that held your tea bag, for example, and post-its);
• cardboard

And remember that your small recycling gesture helps support the Reagan Building’s day care.

Questions about particular items? See the board in the service area of the dining room or check with Ruth.

Subject lines we are thinking about:  “free food,” and “lose something lately?”

Our question:  will a spoon full of sugar make the medicine go down?  Stay tuned.

Further steps, Further learning. Will shame motivate recycling?

Although I never expected 100% recycling, the results we were getting were frustrating. And my concern grew when I saw building-wide results (results from the whole Reagan Building complex, not just the Wilson Center).

I’ve copied below the essence of the report.  The bottom line was:  this mixed-use building (it houses offices, meeting sites and a food court that attracts tourists as well as office workers) could do a lot better.

The report set goals of increasing recycling by an additional 10% by September 2012 to 26.5%.  26.5% is less than what EPA reports as the national average, 34.1% for 2011.

The report also pointed out various mechanical, but important challenges to effective recycling.  For example, there were problems with collection of co-mingled containers and with the efficiency of pick-ups (compactors could have been better utilized to reduce the number of actual pick-ups).  Since food waste constituted an imposing almost one-third of the waste stream, the report recommended investigating off-site composting.

Perhaps I was primed by this report, but — I had a small temper tantrum when I saw aluminum cans in waste bins in the area where Wilson Center interns work, as I walked over to get my printing. 

Aluminum is the highest value recycling material and there should be nothing ambiguous about whether aluminum can be recycled!  How could young people, undergraduates who presumably were taught to recycle from a very young age, do this?

This led to an email to interns which, while not ballistic, probably was intemperate.

(c) <a href=’http://www.123rf.com’>123RF Stock Photos</a>

It read:

Of all people here, you should be the folks who do the best job of recycling.  You are young.  You have been taught this all your lives.  And it matters for your future.

But when I walk to the printer, I find all sorts of valuable materials in the waste baskets – not in the recycle bins.  Today is was aluminum cans; the day before it was glass bottles.

Recycling scrap aluminum requires only 5% of the energy used to make new aluminum.

How can I convince all of you to take a moment and move your hand toward the blue recycle bin?   I attach a photo of a board in the dining room of a very fancy law firm up the street, showing people what can be recycled.  We hope soon to install similar boards here at Wilson Center.

Please give me feedback.  The project that brought me to Wilson Center is an effort to use demonstrate how to make social science research actionable in specific domains, such as its potential for improving efficiency commitments and developing smarter ways to resolve the many behavioral obstacles to energy efficiency.  I want to hear from you about what you think will persuade you to make that extra recycling effort.

Ruth

Some say that shame is a behavioral motivator, but I am not sure this message produced that result. For one thing, it was essentially a private message to each intern.  It didn’t create  public exposure and disapproval in the way, for example, huddled smokers in designated smoking areas might.  I didn’t get a single response; and no wonder –.  I don’t think it motivated any change, but I also had no metric beyond personally watching the trash and recycling bins. 

So, back again, to the drawing board, which is the subject of the next post.