Waste pickers are the victims of harsh economic and social factors that have hurt many developing countries and billions of people around the world. Due to the rise of industrialization since the 19th century, waste and disposable resources have been discarded around the world to provide more resources, products, and services to wealthy countries. This has put developing countries in a precarious position where people have had very few economic opportunities besides taking on the role of waste pickers, who not only face physical health consequences due to the work they do but also face exclusion from society due to the negative views of waste pickers. Many people view waste pickers as scavengers and people who survive off of doing dirty work, which creates tensions between waste pickers and others in society. This even leads to many countries outlawing waste picking and has led to the brutal treatment of waste pickers throughout the world and has even led to thousands of waste pickers being killed by anti-waste picker groups and law enforcement organizations in many countries. <br/> Waste pickers are often at the bottom of supply-chains as they take resources that have been used and discarded, and provide them to recyclers, waste management organizations, and others who are able to turn these resources into usable materials again. Waste pickers do not have many opportunities to rise above the situation they are in as waste picking has become the only option for many people who need to provide for themselves and their families. They are not compensated very well for the work they do, which also contributes to the situation where waste pickers are forced into a position of severe health risks, backlash from society and governments, not being able to seek better opportunities due to a lack of earning potential, and not being connected with end-users. Now is the time to create new business models that solve these large problems in our global society and create a sustainable way to ensure that waste pickers are treated properly around the world.
Before the COVID-19 pandemic, there was a great need for United States’ restaurants to “go green” due to consumers’ habits of frequently eating out. Unfortunately, COVID-19 has caused this initiative to lose traction. While the amount of customers ordering takeout has increased, there is less emphasis on sustainability.<br/>Plastic is known for its harmful effects on the environment and the extreme length of time it takes to decompose. According to the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), almost 8 million tons of plastic end up in the oceans at an annual rate, threatening not only the safety of marine species, but also human health. Modern food packaging materials have included a blend of synthetic ingredients, trickling into our daily lives and polluting the air, water, and land. Single-use plastic items slowly degrade into microplastics and can take up to hundreds of years to biodegrade.<br/>Due to COVID-19, restaurants have switched to takeout and delivery options to adapt to the new business environment and guidelines enforced by the Center of Disease Control (CDC) mandated guidelines.<br/>Some of these guidelines include: notices encouraging social distancing and mask-wearing, mandated masks for employees, and easy access to sanitary supplies.<br/>This cultural shift is motivating restaurants to search for a quick, cheap, and easy fix to adapt to the increased demand of take-out and delivery methods. This increases their plastic consumption of items such as plastic bags/paper bags, styrofoam containers, and beverage cups. Plastic is the most popular takeout material because of its price and durability as well as allowing for limited contamination and easy disposability.<br/>Almost all food products come in packaging and this, more often than not, is single use. Food is the largest market out of all the packaging industry, maintaining roughly two thirds of material going to food. The US Environmental Protection Agency reports that almost half of all municipal solid waste is made up of food and food packaging materials. In 2014, over 162 million tons of packaging material waste were generated in the states. This typically contains toxic inks and dyes that leach into groundwater and soil. When degrading, pieces of plastic absorb toxins like PCBs and pesticides, and then each piece will in turn release toxic chemicals like Bisphenol A. Even before being thrown away, it causes negative effects for the environment. The creation of packaging materials uses many resources such as petroleum and chemicals and then releases toxic byproducts. Such byproducts include sludge containing contaminants, greenhouse gases, and heavy metal and particulate matter emissions. Unlike many other industries, plastic manufacturing has actually increased production. Demand has increased and especially in the food industry to keep things sanitary. This increase in production is reflective of the increase in waste. <br/>Although restaurants have implemented their own sustainable initiatives to combat their carbon footprint, the pandemic has unfortunately forced restaurants to digress. For example, Just Salad, a fast-food restaurant chain, incentivized customers with discounted meals to use reusable bowls which saved over 75,000 pounds of plastic per year. However, when the pandemic hit, the company halted the program to pivot towards takeout and delivery. This effect is apparent on an international scale. Singapore was in lock-down for eight weeks and during that time, 1,470 tons of takeout and food delivery plastic waste was thrown out. In addition, the Hong Kong environmental group Greeners Action surveyed 2,000 people in April and the results showed that people are ordering out twice as much as last year, doubling the use of plastic.<br/>However, is this surge of plastic usage necessary in the food industry, or are there methods that can be used to reduce the amount of waste production? The COVID-19 pandemic caused a fracture in the food system’s supply chain, involving food, factory, and farm. This thesis will strive to tackle such topics by analyzing the supply chains of the food industry and identify areas for sustainable opportunities. These recommendations will help to identify areas for green improvement.
Food waste is a crucial issue in stores, restaurants and other institutions. Specifically, there is a high amount of food waste in grocery stores, especially in the produce section. As a result, environmental damage occurs, and many individuals struggle to have food in their homes. This thesis will analyze the cause, quantity, and effect of this waste, and how it can be changed or mitigated. An overarching question was posed to analyze these causes and effects of waste, asking how does the amount of produce waste that occurs in Scottsdale, Arizona contribute to environmental issues and what is being done to remedy this issue? As this is a difficult question to answer on its own, the research was broken down into two more answerable questions, which are Why does produce get wasted in grocery stores? How much of this occurs? and What remedies already exist to limit/reduce this waste? These questions are important because they contribute to knowledge and understanding about food waste, consumer waste, as well as the overall environmental impact of being wasteful. It is also important for both retailers and consumers to understand that waste has an immense and negative impact on the environment and contributes to climate change, and that taking steps to reduce this waste is essential.
Characterization and Manipulation of Microbiomes From Arid Landfills for Improved Methane Production
Historically, Life Cycle Assessments (LCA) guided companies to make better decisions to improve the environmental impacts of their products. However, as new Circular Economy (CE) tools emerge, the usefulness of LCA in assessing linear products grow more and more obsolete. Research Question: How do LCA-based tools account for reuse/multiple life cycles of products verses CE-based tools?
The Kaiteki Innovation Framework (KIF) was used to address the question of circularity of two packaging materials using an Environmental LCA to populate its 12 CE dimensions. Any gaps were evaluated with 2 LCA- based and 2 CE-based tools to see which could address the leftover CE dimensions.
Results showed that to complete the KIF template, LCA data required one of the LCA-based tools: Social Life Cycle Assessment (SLCA) and both CE-based tools: Circular Transition Indicators (CTI) and Material Circularity Indicator (MCI) to supplement gaps in the KIF. The LCA addressed 5 of the KIF dimensions: Innovation Category Name, Description, GHG Impact, Other Environmental Impacts, and Value Chain Position. 3 analytical tools addressed 5 more:: Effect on Circularity, Social Impacts, Enabling Technologies, Tier 2 and 3 Requirements, and Value Chain Synergies. None of the tools could address the KIF Dimensions: State of Development or Scale Requirements. All in all, the KIF required both LCA-based and CE-based tools to cover social and socio-economic impacts from a cradle-to-cradle perspective with multiple circular loops in mind. These results can help in the research and development of innovative, circular products that can lead to a more environmentally preferred future.