The focus of this lesson is on ways to sustainably manage natural resources.

Learning Outcomes

By the end of this lesson, you should be able to:

• define natural resources;
• describe why the term "natural resources" is anthropocentric;
• analyze the difference between linear and circular resource flows;
• describe the differences between reduction, reuse, and recycling; and
• identify components of the circular economy and cradle to cradle certification.

Lesson Roadmap

Questions?

If you have any general course questions, please post them to our HAVE A QUESTION discussion forum located under the Discussions tab in Canvas. I will check that discussion forum regularly to respond as appropriate. While you are there, feel free to post your own responses and comments if you are able to help out a classmate. If you have a question but would like to remain anonymous to the other students, email me through Canvas.

If you have something related to the material that you'd like to share, feel free to post to the Coffee Shop forum, also under the Discussions tab in Canvas.

I'm sure you've heard the term "natural resources" used many times, e.g., when someone talks about "preserving natural resources" or when you hear about "natural resource management." It's a pretty innocuous term, and seemingly straightforward. If you asked someone what natural resources are, they would probably say something about "resources provided by nature, such as trees, minerals, and food" or something to that effect. (This is actually a pretty good definition, by the way!) When thinking about the definition, it's easy to focus on the "nature" component and look past the "resources" part. Specifically, it is important to note that "natural resources" is an anthropocentric (human-centered or focused) term. It is a concept that only exists because of humans because it refers to things that impact humans. To demonstrate this, let's look at a few definitions of natural resources:

things such as minerals, forests, coal, etc. that exist in a place and can be used by people
~Cambridge Dictionary [1]

industrial materials and capacities (such as mineral deposits and waterpoer) supplied by nature
~Merriam-Webster [2]

a naturally occurring source of wealth, as land or water; the natural wealth of a country, consisting of land, forests, mineral deposits, water, etc.
~dictionary.com [3]

Any way you slice it, without humans natural resources don't exist, they would just "be" or just be "nature." This is important to keep in mind as we go over this lesson: by definition, natural resources only exist as a concept because they can be used by humans.

Hidden Resource Use

Personal consumption expenditures (household spending on goods and services) constitutes nearly 70% of U.S. GDP [4]. Much of this is on services, but Americans now spend nearly 4.5 trillion dollars on "goods," which includes everything from food, to energy, to cars, houses, clothing, and other goods. See the charts below from the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis [5] for these consumption trends over the past 60+ years. They are an excellent, reliable resource for economic data. (For a good explanation of goods and services, see this explanation [6]from thebalance.com.)

The moral of the story: Americans buy a lot of stuff! This has many implications, but one is particularly important with respect to this lesson. Namely, almost all of this spending requires the use of natural resources. Obviously, things like cars and clothes require raw natural resources to produce, though you may be surprised at how many. Take a look at the infographic below from Allianz to get some idea of how many different natural resources from all over the world are needed to make a car.

[8]

Figure 8.3. Materials used to make a car. Click on the image above for a resizable version. 

Infographic by: Allianz Australia Car Insurance [9]

All goods require some mixture of raw natural resource extraction, manufacturing, processing, shipping, packaging, use, and disposal. All of this requires energy and resources. Most of this use, as indicated in the infographic above, is hidden. I will give you one more quick example: I used to assist with industrial energy audits on a part-time basis while in college. One of the places we audited was a "feed mill," which is essentially a factory that produces chicken feed. (Related note: Delaware is considered the poultry capital of the U.S.) The facility looked a lot like the one in the image below.

Figure 8.4. Chicken feed mill in Greenville, Texas. 

Credit: Michael Barera [10], CC BY-SA 4.0 [11] 

I was dumbfounded at how much energy and resources went into just producing feed for chickens! While I was there, there was a constant arrival of tractor trailers hauling raw ingredients - corn, soybean, nutrient mixes, and other things - and the machinery was massive and energy-intensive. According to Delmarva Poulty Industry, Inc. [12] (Delmarva includes parts of Delaware and the eastern shores of Virginia and Maryland), the Delmarva chicken industry had the following specifics in 2017:

• 605 million chickens (4.2 billion pounds) produced
• They purchased "87 million bushels of corn, 36 million bushels of soybeans, 1.6 million bushels of wheat," all for chicken feed. Imagine all of the water, fertilizer, and energy that went into the production of these crops.
• They "purchased $240 million in packaging and processing supplies."

The point here is not to go in-depth into the poultry or automobile industries, but to indicate that nearly everything you purchase is the product of a tremendous use of resources, much of which is hidden. But services such as healthcare and education also require the use of resources. Medical facilities need chairs, tables, x-ray machines, paper, and so forth, and use a lot of energy. Even an online class requires physical resources, in particular, electricity and all of the lifecycle resources used to generate that energy (mines, power plants, power lines, equipment to manage it all, etc.), but also the device you are viewing this on is the result of a global supply chain of goods. This type of lifecycle resource use and our consumption-driven economy are major contributors to the fact that we would need nearly 5 planet earths to satisfy humanity's needs if everyone lived like the average American.

Linear Resource Flow

The problems associated with the massive amount of resources used to produce everyday goods and services is compounded by the fact that this system is based mostly on linear resource use. This is often referred to as "take, make, waste." An illustration of the basic resource flow is shown below.

Figure 8.5. Linear resource flow model. Note that the width of the arrows gets smaller throughout the process due to losses (pollution and waste) along the way. 

Credit: D. Kasper, based on image [13]by Ecocycle.

This linear model typically goes something like the following:

• Natural resources are extracted through mining, growing, gathering, etc. They are often shipped all over the world, e.g., as indicated in the automobile infographic above.
• These raw resources are then manufactured into final goods, both perishable and non-perishable. This almost always occurs on an industrial scale (think of the massive factory farms, manufacturing plants, and even the feed mill illustrated above).
• These goods are then distributed, usually globally. Take a look at the label on your clothes (Bangladesh and Vietnam are common), electronics (China, most often), and food (could be anywhere - Chile, Mexico, New Zealand, etc.). 
• They are then used by the end user.
• Most of the time, they are then disposed of in a landfill.
• Note that all along the way there are waste and emissions being generated, most of which are emitted or landfilled.

This model requires the constant input of raw natural resources because of the waste and emissions along the way, and because most of the "waste" is dumped in a landfill (and possibly incinerated), and all of this is done primarily with the use of non-renewable energy. This is a major reason why our ecological footprint is so large and we are using natural resources at such a high rate. Globally, only about 14% [14] of the primary energy used is renewable. In the U.S., over half of municipal solid waste (MSW) ends up in a landfill. Keep in mind that municipal solid waste is basically household garbage, and does not include construction, industrial, or farming waste, which make up a large portion of the waste stream. All of this adds up to 262.4 million short tons of MSW generated (about 4.5 pounds per person per day), of which about 138 million tons ends up in a landfill, according to the U.S. EPA [15].

Figure 8.6. What happens to municipal solid waste in the U.S. Approximately 138 million tons of MSW end up the landfill every year.

Credit: U.S. EPA [15]

Circular Resource Flow

Contrast this with a circular resource flow model, in which there is almost no waste. Any resources that are unused in each step are reintegrated back into the system. Manufacturing "waste" is reused or recycled, as are final products used by the end user. If this could all be run using renewable resources, then much of the pollution would be eliminated as well. In fact, in an ideal circular resource system, the idea of "waste" does not exist. This is the philosophy behind "zero waste" initiatives. Note that because of thermodynamics, there will be some inefficiency, and thus some loss. This is why there will still be some natural resource input required. 

Figure 8.7. Circular resource flow model. Note that the width of the resource extraction arrow is much smaller due to the reintegration of what would otherwise be considered "waste" back into the system.

Credit: D. Kasper

It is worth noting that nature utilizes circular resource flow. Recall that it was stated above that the concept of natural resources is anthropocentric. There is no waste in nature - everything is a resource for some other process. Resources move around in continuous flows, and all "waste" is reintegrated back into the system, with the exception of some heat loss that is radiated back to space. All of this is of course driven by renewable energy, and any energy lost to space is offset by energy coming in from the sun. This is why many zero waste (and other sustainability) advocates say that the more we can design human systems to mimic natural systems, the more sustainable those systems will be. As you will see in a future lesson, this is the fundamental philosophy of permaculture.

The Zero Waste Alliance provides an excellent visualization of what such a system could look like. The images below show natural resource flows. The thickness of the flows indicates the relative amount of resources flowing through that part of the system. As you can see, by recovering most of the "waste" throughout, the raw materials flow (at the far left of each diagram) is greatly reduced. Note that the second image shows an idealized flow - there will be some loss due to thermodynamics. Even without thermodynamic loss, some natural resource extraction is required because some resources cannot be directly reused in the manufacturing process. 

Figures 8.8 and 8.9. Models of current resource flow vs. improved resource flows. Note that the thickness of the line indicates the relative amount of resources flowing through each part of the system.

Credit: Zero Waste Alliance [16]

The Three Rs

No doubt you have seen some variation of the image below. Most recyclable packaging has a triangle design, which indicates that it is recyclable. You are probably familiar with the phrase "reduce, reuse, recycle," which is hammered home to (most) kids at a very early age in the U.S. The image clearly gives a nod to circular resource use (follow the arrows!). Each term refers to a slightly different way to manage waste. I provide an example of each in parentheses as it relates to a plastic water bottle:

• "Reduce" refers to not creating the item/material in the first place. (Don't buy or use the plastic bottle in the first place.)
• "Reuse" refers to reusing the item (or at least part of the item) for another purpose. (Examples include refilling it with water and using it again, using the plastic bottle to start a seedling or make a small bird feeder. If you make a new, useful product out of it - such as the bird feeder - it is sometimes considered "upcycling.") 
• "Recycle" refers to breaking the item down into smaller components and using these materials as a replacement for materials in newly manufactured goods. (A plastic bottle can be recycled and made into a different plastic product.)

Figure 8.10. The 3 Rs of waste management. 

Credit: D. Kasper, modified public domain image from Max Pixel [17].

However, what most people do not know is that "reduce, reuse, recycle" is actually a priority list. In other words, the best way to minimize the impact of waste is to not use it in the first place (reduce), the second best way is to reuse it, and the third best way is to recycle it. Recycling requires a lot of inputs: inefficient trucks to pick it up and transport it, massive machinery to sort it and break it down, more machinery to produce the new good (often after shipping the raw resource far away), then more energy and resources to distribute the good. This entire process uses energy and generates waste. Reuse is less impactful because it cuts out all of the downstream impacts of recycling, but it does not eliminate all of the upstream impacts that resulted from producing the good in the first place.   

Figure 8.11. Waste management priority list. The best way to minimize the impact of waste is to not produce it in the first place. The image to the right is from the U.S. EPA and expands this priority list to include energy recovery (burning and using to generate heat and/or electricity) and disposal.

Credit: D. Kasper and U.S. EPA [15].

While all of this is true, recycling is still much more beneficial than landfilling! The following are some statistics from the EPA [18]. All information was taken from WARM, the Waste Reduction Model. (Click here to download the Excel file [19] and do your own analysis, or just explore the data.) Note that MMBTU is one million BTUs of energy, and MTCO2e refers to one megaton of carbon dioxide equivalent:

Notice that with the exception of aluminum cans, the energy and emissions reductions are always greater when you reduce than when you recycle. Based on what I could see in the WARM spreadsheet, aluminum cans are the only material for which recycling is more impactful. Also note that some materials require more energy to burn than they do to landfill (see the negative numbers), and for ALL materials listed, combustion is worse for emissions than recycling or reducing.

The Circular Economy

The circular economy, as you will see below, utilizes circular resource use. 

There are a few ideas underlying the circular economy concept, as described in the videos:

• The current model is take, make, dispose of. (This should sound familiar!) As they indicate, nature does not operate this way - there is no "waste" in nature - and in order for society to be sustainable, we should follow the natural model.
• As CNBC notes in the video: "For a light bulb company to make money in the linear economy, it tries to buy materials for the lowest cost possible and to sell as many bulbs as possible. This model operates as if there are infinite resources, like glass or metal, in the world." They recognize that we cannot continue to use natural resources at an unsustainable rate. (Again, this should sound familiar.)
• People do not actually need to own things, they need/want the service provided by those things. Is the point of purchasing a light bulb to own the light bulb? For most people, no. They just need light. Do you really need a washing machine? Again, the answer is "no." You just need clean clothes. There are innumerable examples of this - cars, microwaves, cell phones, refrigerators, furnaces, even clothes. 
• If ownership is retained by companies, then it is in their best interest to make the products last as long as possible by making long-lasting products that can be repaired. It is also often beneficial to them to be able to reuse components from products that are no longer in use.
• The first video (from the Ellen MacArthur Foundation), sums up the concept very nicely: "Now let's put these two cycles together. Imagine if we could design products to come back to their makers, their technical materials being reused and their biological parts increasing agricultural value? And imagine that these products are made and transported using renewable energy? Here we have a model that builds prosperity long-term."

The MacArthur Foundation notes that the circular economy is "about a rethinking of the operating system itself." This is a very important point! The take-make-dispose process is systemic, and is deeply ingrained in society. If we are to get past this mindset, systemic change is required.

Of course, we are socialized to believe that ownership is important (Americans in particular love buying stuff), so the establishment of a circular economy will require social change. This may seem a difficult hill to climb. Well, it is, actually, but allow me to provide one example of why it may be more feasible than you think. Consider the ubiquity of Uber and Lyft. It may be difficult to imagine, but try to think back 10 years ago, before ridesharing existed. Treating automobile transportation as a service was mainly reserved for taking cab rides in cities. Now you can take an Uber in over 60 countries [20] across the world, and the service is available even in rural areas of the U.S. The point here is not that Uber and Lyft are examples of the circular economy (though they do minimize the necessity of automobile production), but that personal transportation is increasingly being viewed as a service. It is a rather commonly held belief [21] that autonomous vehicles will reduce vehicle ownership. Rideshare and car companies are already testing driverless vehicles, and in the not-too-distant future, they will increasingly own their own vehicle fleet instead of paying others to drive, or in the case of car companies, expecting consumers to buy their cars. If/when that happens, it will be to their benefit to extend the use of their fleet as long as possible.

Cradle to Cradle Design

Please watch the video below for some insight into an application of the circular economy called Cradle to Cradle Design.

As you can see, cradle to cradle (C2C) concept is an application of the circular economy. The concept is summed up rather well in the video when they state that C2C is all about "keeping all materials in continuous cycles, stimulating the use of renewable energy only, and celebrating diversity," though there is more to it, as you will see below. The following are some of the key points from the video above:

• They characterize the concept of reduce, reuse, recycle as "less bad" and the goal of C2C as "100% good." They acknowledge that the 3 Rs are better than the linear resource use model, but that they will not solve our long term resource and waste problems because there is still some waste, and because the global population is still growing. If C2C were fully implemented, the entire system of design and manufacturing of goods would be reconfigured. In other words, it requires systemic change. 
• I remember watching a TED Talk by one of the creators of the C2C concept, William McDonough, and he characterized the 3 Rs as "an efficient pursuit of the wrong goals." In other words, doing things like recycling plastic bottles is better than just throwing them away, but a properly designed container would be designed with the intent of fully reintegrating all of the materials back into the original process. As they state in the video: “The design is thought through on how to disassemble it and how the used materials are valuable to nature or as resources for the production of new products.”
• They note that one of the primary tenets of C2C is "waste = food." They think that the concept of "waste" should not exist. They describe two cycles that should be utilized when products are no longer used: Organic materials should be returned to the biological cycle (compostable packing, etc.) and non-organic materials (metals, etc.) should be reintegrated into the technical cycle. They often refer to these non-organic components as technical nutrients. Just as biological nutrients are used by natural processes, technical nutrients should be reused in technical processes.

The Cradle to Cradle Products Innovation Institute [22] has taken this concept beyond the conceptual phase and created a process to certify products using their Cradle to Cradle Certified^TM product standard [23]. The standard is described as follows:

The Cradle to Cradle Certified [24]™ Product Standard [24] guides designers and manufacturers through a continual improvement process that looks at a product through five quality categories — material health, material reutilization, renewable energy and carbon management, water stewardship, and social fairness. A product receives an achievement level in each category — Basic, Bronze, Silver, Gold, or Platinum — with the lowest achievement level representing the product’s overall mark.

Product assessments are performed by a qualified independent organization trained by the Institute [25]. Assessment Summary Reports are reviewed by the Institute, which certifies products meeting the Standard requirements, and licenses the use of the Cradle to Cradle Certified™ word and design marks to the product manufacturer. Every two years, manufacturers must demonstrate good faith efforts to improve their products in order to have their products recertified.

The five quality categories [26] are as follows:

Material Health: Knowing the chemical ingredients of every material in a product, and optimizing towards safer materials.

Material Reutilization: Designing products made with materials that come from and can safely return to nature or industry.

Renewable Energy & Carbon Management: Envisioning a future in which all manufacturing is powered by 100% clean renewable energy.

Water Stewardship: Manage clean water as a precious resource and an essential human right.

Social Fairness: Design operations to honor all people and natural systems affected by the creation, use, disposal or reuse of a product.

If a product would like to go for C2C certification, it is evaluated based on these five categories. It receives a score in each category - basic, bronze, silver, gold, or platinum. These are also the five levels of cradle to cradle certification. The certification level is based on the lowest score that the product receives in these categories. For example, if a product earns a "gold" score in material health, material reutilization, renewable energy & carbon management, and water stewardship, but only earns a "basic" score in social fairness, then the product is certified as "basic." Another important aspect to point out is that all products must be recertified every two years, and in that time, must demonstrate good faith efforts to improve the products.

Here are some more site visits! Again, this is not required reading. I suggest browsing through them if/when you have time. This may help inspire your final project proposals!

• Ecocycle [27], Boulder
• Great Divide Brewery [28], Denver
• Desert Weyr [29], Paonia
• The Growhaus [30], Denver