Wow.  Bill, do you remember John? No, not that John.  John Hall, the guy who started Goose Island Brewery.  You’re not going to believe this, but I ran into John during the holidays. I had stopped to have a beer and a brat at his original brewery off of Clybourn here in Chicago. By chance John was there and we spent an hour getting up to date, and he told me about all the changes in his life. Sure, he sold Goose Island to Budweiser (now Ambev). Sure, he made millions. But he’s the same old John, working harder than hell for AB. He was on his way to China to tell the AB board how they should grow craft beer in China. Then hopping to the UK to participate in a beer show. But that’s only part of the story. Talk about change: John has developed a “vertical” farming business right in downtown Chicago. His story and pictures were fascinating. He’s growing, cultivating and harvesting eight different vegetables, hydroponically and with LED lighting, in vacant warehouses in downtown Chicago. All seeds are 100% natural, no GMO and sold to grocers like Whole Foods. He told me he can’t keep up with the demand, and they will expand exponentially in 2015. Talk about change: beer to naturally grown lettuce, seed to finished product in 7½ days. What is that saying? Gold begets gold. Go, John!

On Sunday of that same weekend, the Chicago Tribune’s lead story was “Across the Seas, for Water’s Sake.” This wasn’t so much about vertical farming and hydroponics as it was about water scarcity and the new relationship that the University of Chicago has developed with Ben-Gurion University in Israel. They want to look at a variety of solutions that make economic and environmental sense in solving our fresh water crisis.

The timing was right to run into John because this column is about choice and change and how we make choices that effect change. For example, as this column will go to press, congress is about to debate, again, the massive Keystone XL Tar Sand Pipeline. In a hotly contested vote, Congress in 2014 voted against the Keystone. It was rejected by one vote. The elections in November, however, have changed the landscape and the project will once again be debated and eventually voted on by Congress. This time, because of changes in political parties, big business and the fossil industry will be successful. It is my prediction that the US Congress will vote to approve the project. I just can’t believe it. Our Congress, for the most part, is making an uneducated choice to add tar sand oil as a feedstock for our refineries. Here are a few facts:
Tar sand is mined in Alberta, Canada.

The process is invasive, ugly and leaves scars for decades.

The unprocessed fuel needs to be transported 2,000 miles to the US refineries in Houston, TX.

The pipeline will carry 830,000 barrels of crude per day.

Production of tar sand oil requires more energy than the production of any other fossil fuel.

Tar sand oil production generates three times the carbon pollution of conventional crude.

Further, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Control has long stated that increases of carbon can be catastrophic to our climate balance. There has been a groundswell of scientific leadership asking Congress to reject the project.

Well, it won’t happen. Business has made a choice: jobs versus environment. Jobs win! The bottom line, from my point of view, is a very bad choice that can cause irreversible and catastrophic change.  The industry estimate is that once the pipeline is complete, there will be fewer than 200 new full time jobs. Just think how many full time jobs would be created by supporting energy like wind, solar, waste-to-energy, geothermal and so on. Thousands. If we go forward, and as I have predicted, we will, we will have short-changed America for a short term gain and a far larger loss. 

Making choices on how to handle waste can create all kinds of changes. While we preach “zero landfill” and “extended producer responsibility (EPR)” and “green,” it seems to me that many of our choices for change are driven by economics. Let’s face it, true zero waste isn’t possible and that’s why we still need landfills. Anyone who thinks differently just isn’t being realistic.

The slogan “reduce, reuse, recycle” has been pounded into our heads for years. Landfills are bad and recycling and composting are good.  Waste-to-energy has all kinds of correlations, some good and some bad, depending on where you live. What about landfills?  Are they a relic or is there a place for them in our circular economy?

Bryan Staley, president of the Environmental Research and Education Foundations is spot on when he says:
“An even larger consideration relates to how materials that are ultimately destined for the waste stream, like packaging material, are manufactured. If these materials are not fully reusable, recyclable or compostable, then our ability to return them to the economic cycle is limited with current technology. For example, materials like rigid plastics are not recyclable because of certain additives that are placed into the resin when the plastic is made. For similar reasons, other plastic types are less desirable to recycle and thus have limited demand.  This suggests that what manufacturers do upstream before a material becomes something to discard has significant bearing on what happens to that material. Additionally, some materials are simply not recyclable, including hazardous household wastes, and most of these materials wind up going to landfills.”

Of course, EPR is the obvious antidote for end of life. Is it an economic reality? I’m afraid not, hence landfills.

So, back to the question, “where does the landfill fit into the sustainability equation?”  The answer is it plays a pivotal role as a repository, a solution if you will, for waste materials that can’t be recycled or used in W-T-E such as high chlorine content materials. Again, we create materials to provide better quality of life, better efficiencies and economies of scale and have to use additives that are just plain not friendly.  Balance, harmony, that’s the choice and also the conundrum! Really, zero waste isn’t possible. From a sustainability perspective, our objective is to keep the waste stream as small as possible, knowing that effective, environmentally acceptable landfilling is also part of the solution.

Finally, a change in Seattle that is really on the edge. Seattle’s City Council passed an ordinance stating that it will fine anyone throwing away too many table scraps one dollar. The current Seattle Public Utility Rules require everyone living in a single family dwelling to dispose of food waste and compostable paper products in compost bins. 

Garbage men have been empowered to peek into your garbage can to see if compostable items are over 10% of your trash. If so, they can enter a violation into an onboard computer system and you will be sent a fine for $1. They can also write $1 tickets and leave it on your garbage can. Apartment buildings and businesses must also comply, but they get two warnings. If there is a third, the fine will be $50.

This change is almost Orwellian, a sense of big brother watching.

Our decision for change and choice need to be practical and create not only balance but opportunity. Change and choice are healthy. They are dynamic and bring challenges and solutions. John Hall made a change in his career years and years ago. He moved from the corrugated manufacturing industry to beer. A fantastic decision. And now he is moving into vertical farming. The point, of course, is not to get bogged down in minutiae. Make change because of thorough, complete, strategic thinking. If you do, 2015 will be a banner year.

Another Letter from the Earth.




Calvin Frost is chairman of Channeled Resources Group, headquartered in Chicago, the parent company of Maratech International and GMC Coating. His email address is [email protected].