11.4: At Home and Abroad - Understanding Waste from the Bottom, Up

Learning Objectives

By the end of this section, you will be able to:

•  Evaluate the role that international treaties and environmental organizations play in the transnational movement of waste

Where Does All That Waste Go?

Because most waste disposal sites are located next to marginalized communities, many Americans pay little attention to the amount of waste they generate, where it ends up, or how it impacts such communities. Since the publication of the 1987 United Church of Christ report, environmental justice movements in the U.S. have been remarkably successful in defeating plans to construct polluting waste sites in or near their communities (Pellow 2007). Despite these victories, with the growth in global free trade agreements, solid waste and its associated management have become global and a highly profitable commodity (Crooks 1993, 35). In order to maximize profits, or reduce costs, industry efforts have been increased to locate host communities abroad. Although pollution controls associated with landfills and waste incinerators have improved since the 1990s, they still entail the release of toxic substances few communities are willing to accept (Connett 2013). Indeed, based on production and disposal practices, especially associated with electronics, waste streams continue to become increasingly toxic (Surrak 2016). Thus, in countries with more stringent environmental regulations and informed communities, the disposal of toxic materials continues to become more costly. 

Even when “e-waste,” plastics, and other “recyclables” with toxic elements are captured before reaching landfills and incinerators, they are not necessarily recycled properly. For instance, cities that pride themselves on high recycling rates, such as San Francisco, often export such items to countries in Africa and Asia for processing, which frequently lack adequate environmental and labor conditions (MacBride 2011). The free market logic animating this practice is captured in Lawrence Summers’ now infamous internal World Bank memo, which reads: "I think the economic logic behind dumping a load of toxic waste in the lowest wage country is impeccable and we should face up to that ... I've always thought that underpopulated countries in Africa are vastly under-polluted" (New York Times, 1992).

Figure 11.4.1: Young person sorting discarded electronics in rural West Bengal, India (CC BY-NC-SA 2.0; UNESCO-UNEVOC via Flickr) 

Greenpeace and grassroots activists have brought important international attention to the problem of MDCs shipping their waste to LDCs. Indeed, the growing awareness of the environmental and health impact associated with the export of toxics, plastics, and e-waste to LDCs provided the impetus for the creation and ratification of the Basel Convention in 1992. The overarching objective of the Convention is to protect human health and the environment against the adverse effects of hazardous wastes by promoting the reduction of hazardous waste generation and restricting its transboundary movement, “except where it is perceived to be in accordance with the principles of environmentally sound management” (Basel Convention 2017). 

It is important to note that states are primarily responsible for enforcing what the Basel Convention mandates, yet transnational environmental organizations remain critical for several reasons. For example, they use the language of the Convention to target and bring attention to violators. Such advocacy also provides local movements with sources of institutional and symbolic leverage, like naming and shaming, establishing moral high ground, and threatening outside intervention against opponents (Keck and Sikkink 1998). What makes transnational environmental organizations even more critical in this realm is the fact that the United States has failed to ratify the Convention—the world’s largest generator of hazardous waste and the only MDC that has yet to do so. Moreover, national and transnational courts generally lack the independence, resources, or will to enforce judgments against powerful waste management stakeholders in government and society, allowing the process of dumping waste in LDCs to continue (McCann 2006).

Activism at the Grassroots

Consequently, recognizing that international treaties alone are often insufficient, the Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives (GAIA) network has responded by organizing a transnational movement that applies pressure primarily at the local level by empowering communities to monitor the enforcement of international conventions, such as Basel. Additionally, GAIA’s approach is centered on “Zero Waste” principles, which include formalizing and respecting the work of “waste pickers,” remanufacturing using recycled inputs, and a growing involvement in the politics that influence one’s waste stream and its disposal. In such cases, Zero Waste projects “seek to redress generations of harm wrought by waste-disposal industries and allied governments on populations who have had no other choice but to live and work amid waste and waste facilities” (MacBride 2011 126). 

For example, with the help of the GAIA network, the Philippines was the first country to pass a state-wide ban on waste incineration. However, at the local scale, many villages (barangays) and municipalities struggle with enforcement due to a lack of capacity, corruption, and oppression. Conversely, communities trained in Zero Waste and organized through GAIA are not only in a better position to resist, but also transition to just and equitable waste management practices. Indeed, the barangay Fort Bonifacio has achieved the highest waste diversion rate (85 percent) in Metro Manila—well above global averages (San Francisco is currently around 80 percent). The intensive training in the GAIA network has helped build up and formalize the work of waste workers, tripled their average income, and changed the mindset of a community that was once the informal dumping ground of Manila and the world. Moreover, acknowledging the expertise and incorporating the participation of waste pickers within the local government structure has not only been a cost-effective means of waste management, but also enhanced the political capacity, respect, and health of the community members as well. Nevertheless, from the perspective of such communities in the Philippines, many funders, foundations, and therefore large environmental organizations, tend to focus on “deliverables,” such as policies passed, pounds of plastic pulled from oceans, etc., while overlooking the significance, albeit complementary outcomes, of a communities’ cultivation of respect, experience, and solidarity at the local scale. 

Figure 11.4.2: Fort Bonifacio MRF, the Philippines (CC BY-NC-SA 2.0; Steven Cauchon) 

Indeed, even though waste has become a global commodity, its generation, disposal, and associated ills are still largely municipal issues, giving local stakeholders like those in Fort Bonifacio the potential to realize meaningful change. Therefore, confronting the injustices associated with the transnational movement of waste requires action not only at the international and national scale, but also a significant engagement with the local as well. The story of waste, one’s role in it, and how one can effectively address it has many lessons for the global environmental challenges we have covered in this chapter. As the world grapples with plastic pollution, loss of biodiversity, and ecosystem degradation, the story of waste shows us how approaching environmental challenges through a global studies lens provides us not only with critical insights, but also an opportunity to become local agents of change at home. So, the next time you throw something away and want to understand the environmental, political, and ethical questions associated with where that away is, your global studies tool kit can shed light on these important questions.