ASU’s waste diversion goal is 90% by the fiscal year 2025 and will require collaboration across many departments and programs to be successful. Reducing plastic use, especially single-use plastic, is critical in reaching 90% waste diversion in the supply chain. To reduce supply chain single-use plastics, ASU will need the cooperation of suppliers on efforts like piloting plastic free packaging programs, packaging take back programs, alternative packaging opportunities, or promoting alternative products that contain little-to-no single-use plastic. Creating a proposed approach through identifying strategic external partners, a high-level approach to implementation, and obstacles will impact how future goals and policies are set. Determining impact and added value of the project will help cultivate support from leadership, internal stakeholders, and suppliers. The project focus will include multiple deliverables, but the final output will be a timeline that maps out what plastic streams to eliminate and when to help ASU reach their waste diversion goals. It begins with “low-hanging fruit” like straws and plastic bags and ends with a university free from all non-essential single-use plastic.

Globally we are struggling to match the need for development with the available resources. Kate Raworth’s (2012) developed the idea of a “safe and just space” as a balance between the planetary boundary approach and ensuring a level of basic needs satisfaction for everyone. O’Neill et al. (2018) argue that countries are currently not able to provide their populations with basic needs without concurrently exceeding planetary boundary measures. While attempts have been made to get people to change their habits through moral self-sacrifice, this has not been successful. Kate Soper (2008) argues that a change towards sustainability will only be possible if an alternative to high consumption is offered, without trade-offs in well-being. Technological improvements are often thought to end up providing solutions to the problem of overconsumption, but as Jackson (2005) shows convincingly, this is highly unlikely due to the overwhelming scale of changes required.

‘Alternative hedonism’ (Soper 2008) is a philosophical approach that has been proposed to solve this dilemma. By changing what humanity pursues to be less focused on consumption and more linked to community interaction and living healthy, fulfilling lives, we would simultaneously reduce stress on the globally limited resources and sinks. By developing and understanding satiation points – the point beyond which well-being no longer increases because of increased consumption - affluence that wastes resources without improving well-being could be reduced. This paper explores how ‘alternative hedonism’ and the development of ‘satiation points’ could be helpful in getting humanity closer to the ‘safe and just space’. The paper concludes with a discussion of some of the challenges that taking up of ‘alternative hedonism’ would entail.