The Environmental Debate, Third Edition

230 The Environmental Debate

We have lost a lot of time that could have

been spent solving the crisis, because the oppo-

nents of action have thus far successfully politi-

cized the issue in the minds of many Americans.

We can’t afford inaction any longer, and,

frankly, there’s no excuse for it. We all want the

same thing: for our children and the generations

after them to inherit a clean and beautiful planet

capable of supporting a healthy human civiliza-

tion. That goal should transcend politics.

Source: Al Gore, An Inconvenient Truth (Emmaus, PA:

Rodale, 2006), pp. 285-87.

Part of the problem has to do with a long-
term structural change in the way America’s
marketplace of ideas now operates. The one-
way nature of our dominant communications
medium, television, has combined with the
increasing concentration of ownership over the
vast majority of media outlets by a smaller and
smaller number of large conglomerates that mix
entertainment values with journalism to seri-
ously damage the role of objectivity in Ameri-
ca’s public forum.

* * *

DOCUMENT 161: Oakland’s Zero Waste Resolution (2006)

As the concept of recycling takes hold around the country, waste materials that once would have been sent to the

local dump without a thought are now being reused, recycled, or composted. While recognizing that 25 percent

or more of their municipal solid waste will probably continue to end up as landfill in the foreseeable future,

numerous cities in California as well as Seattle, Washington; Boulder, Colorado; and Austin, Texas, have passed

resolutions promoting zero waste. The passage of these resolutions is driven in part by a growing environmental

consciousness and in part by the cost and difficulty of finding new dumpsites for the ever-increasing mounds of

waste produced by American consumers and industry.

The term “zero waste” was first used in the name of a company, Zero Waste Systems Inc. (ZWS), which

was started in Oakland, California, in the mid 1970s by the chemist Paul Palmer to find new uses for many

chemicals being excessed by the nascent California electronics industry.

Amendment), setting a requirement for the

County to reduce land filling by 75% by 2010;

and

WHEREAS, in 1990 the City Council adopted

Resolution #66253 C.M.S establishing solid waste

reduction goals, including returning discarded

materials to the local economy through reuse and

recycling; applying the waste management hier-

archy in priority order (reduce, reuse, recycle and

compost) to the maximum extent; and promoting

recycling market development; and

WHEREAS, in 2002 the City Council adopted

Resolution #77500 C.M.S. establishing the goal

of 75% reduction of waste disposal landfills by

2010 for the City of Oakland in alliance with the

countywide 75% waste reduction requirement;

and

RESOLUTION ADOPTING A ZERO WASTE

GOAL BY 2020 FOR THE CITY OF OAK-

LAND AND DIRECTING THE PUBLIC

WORKS AGENCY, IN CONCERT WITH THE

MAYOR’S OFFICE, TO DEVELOP A ZERO

WASTE STRATEGIC PLAN TO ACHIEVE

THE CITY’S ZERO WASTE GOAL

WHEREAS, the California Integrated Waste
Management Act of 1989 (AB 939) required that
all California jurisdictions achieve a landfill diver-
sion rate of 50% by the year 2000, and reduce,
reuse, recycle, and compost all discarded mate-
rials to the maximum extent feasible before any
landfilling or other destructive disposal method
is used; and

WHEREAS, in 1990 Alameda County’s voters
passed ballot Measure D (The Alameda County
Waste Reduction and Recycling Initiative Charter