John Trotti

The present-day hierarchy has had a profound effect on waste management strategies, structure, politics, and certified authority–a self-perpetuating aristocracy claiming a sort of moral high ground that, until recently, has held at bay those who would challenge that authority. It would be misleading to suggest that no good has resulted from the hierarchy and its adherents, but it would be equally wrong to ignore the damage its institutionalization has wrought.

What damage, you ask? The continuing decline in container recycling despite the maturity of the programs to accomplish it is one case in point, though the trend is often (and perhaps correctly) dismissed as the result of a strong economy. But aside from questions about the effectiveness of "one-size-fits-all" approaches to any aspect of human activity, the real damage of the hierarchy lies not in its inability to align waste management with the larger issues of social responsibility and resource sustainability but, rather, the institutionalization process itself.

This column has devoted a lot of time and energy to the support of new technologies and our need to look for ways to employ them in our daily activities. But more often than not, changes to the way we do business have run afoul of the most pragmatic of issues: "We can’t afford it." Just once I’d like to see the dialog opened with the question, "Can we afford not to explore and make use of new approaches even when the dollars-and-cents part of the equation doesn’t seem to work out?" Viewed from that perspective–and in the context of slightly tangential issues such as human resource recruiting and retention challenges–it might be easier to see where accommodations can and should be made.

In the July/August Editor’s Comments, I suggested that we "face hard questions that will not go away through the espousal of politically correct doctrine or continued pleas for what ought to be, because when push comes to shove the only effective actions will be those that deal with what society does." This to me is most important because I have seen no evidence that Americans are inclined to make radical changes in their behavior just because people in high places say they must, particularly when those changes appear to them to be a retreat from greatness rather than an advance to a better future.

No nation on Earth has been quicker to embrace change when it makes sense…and why not since we’re the first nation in history whose underlying institutions are geared to adopt rather than resist it. It’s been part of the magic of our success, yet today we see authority becoming increasingly resistant to the development and exploration of new ideas, and nowhere is this more evident than in the viselike grip of the hierarchy on waste management. Instead of open dialog, we have heel digging at every turn on the part of groups that feel that waste management boils down to a moral issue in which, if you don’t believe in a particular group’s solution, you’re wrong.

I think part of the problem in getting people to lend their wholehearted support to waste management solutions–even those that are demonstrably in the public’s best interests–lies in too much centralization. While many believe that this lack of commitment reflects the public’s ignorance of programs and their intent, I’d like to suggest that there’s something in the relationship of Americans and authority at play as well. Not only are we suspect of authority, but we will go to great lengths to subvert what we consider to be its illegitimate exercise, even to the point of cutting off our nose to spite our face.

This brings me back once again to technology and its role in supporting dialog. I’m going to propose that the less authoritarian we are in developing and implementing waste management solutions designed to meet longer range goals of sustainability, the more support we’re going to get from the public. Rather than insisting on adherence to a fixed list of solutions, we should fight to increase the number and flexibility of options in order to take advantage of, rather than fly in the teeth of, what are the strongest features of our national character.

When I set about thinking about the subject, my thought was to draw a great distinction between the elements of the hierarchy and its institutional underpinnings, but I’ve since changed my mind. I think it’s time to dump the hierarchy and its entire list of assumptions and instead start with a fresh sheet of paper. Next, rather than allow a small group of people to dictate what waste management strategies and programs are appropriate for all of us, we need to open up the dialog to the widest extent possible, focusing not just on the substantive issues of diversion and disposal but also on how waste management fits into larger societal issues. If somehow we end up back at the same place we started, we’ll at least be a lot wiser for the adventure.

Send John an email