Austin, Texas — the sprawling, new-age boom town with a distinctive eclectic flair — has earned the reputation as a city full of opportunity for young, ambitious creatives. This rapid influx of capital and residents into the city has created a sense of urgency for city officials. In order to accommodate everyone, the city must be willing to adapt and expand its current community model, all while being proactive with climate-conscious decisions. Austin has the rare opportunity to be a growing city at the apex of the climate crisis. Never before have we seen such a push for climate action, and the city of Austin has the chance to be a frontrunner for large-scale municipal climate mitigation.
The city appears to be on the right track in their efforts to tackle the waste issue — Austin officials set a “Zero Waste by 2040” goal a little over two decades ago, and infrastructure is in development to facilitate a circular economy. Yet, when these programs were in their infancy no one knew just how rapidly the city would grow. With 2040 looming on the horizon, it’s likely Austin will need to accelerate efforts towards this goal and adapt for the unexpected population boom of the past decade and its subsequent increase in waste.
What happens to waste in the city that just can’t seem to stop growing?
When talking about waste, it’s important that we understand what goes where. Most municipalities have infrastructure to handle solid waste — material such as wrappers, packaging, and most plastics that cannot be recycled or composted; and recycling — paper, aluminum, and specific plastics. Fewer cities have composting services, which allows residents to dispose of food scraps and yard clippings to be made into fertilizer by a local compost facility.
Currently in Austin, solid waste is collected once a week for single family homes and some small businesses. Recycling is offered only twice a month, and is collected in a single stream, meaning paper, plastic, and metal can all go in one bin. Curbside compost is collected once a week, but most residents generate considerably more garbage and recycling than they do compost. To any pro-recycling outsider, biweekly recycling collection might seem too infrequent to be effective, especially for a city looking to promote green initiatives. While the single stream model makes recycling more convenient for residents, biweekly pickup increases the chance that people will forget to take out their recycling bins or opt to just throw everything in the garbage.
Alternately, apartments and large businesses must contract private waste haulers to take care of garbage on a daily basis, and in 2017 the Universal Recycling Ordinance mandated that such properties must also provide ample access to recycling services. Composting services are still optional for landlords, which means that many tenants in Austin don’t have convenient access to this kind of waste diversion. Compared to other U.S. cities of similar size, Austin has a progressive set of environmental policies, so the fact that not all residents are provided convenient waste pickup options is a bit strange. Even more peculiar is that the residents who do get their waste managed by the city have to wait two weeks for recycling collection. While it can be argued that this gives residents time to accumulate recyclable material, the popularity of recycling in Austin and the fact that households create different amounts of waste at different rates, a biweekly pickup just isn’t advantageous for encouraging waste diversion from residents. Wouldn’t an equitable solution be for every Austin resident to have similar frequent access to waste solutions? Or better yet, reduce the waste being produced in the first place?
The delineation of municipal services to Austin residents seems unstructured, but there may actually be a method to the madness.
The city adopted their first official “Zero Waste” strategy in 2009, with the intent of pushing Austinites towards a new waste management system and establishing Austin as a zero waste city by 2040. Instead of encouraging more residents to recycle and compost, the city has created various technical and financial municipal programs to help Austin communities understand the alternatives. The plan is simple: educate residents and business owners on the best practices for waste reduction and material reuse, thus giving the other, less famous “R’s” (reduce and reuse) a new-found popularity, and providing tools to organically develop a circular economy.
Seems easy enough, right?
As of today, things appear to be going to plan. City-run programs such as the Reuse Directory, “Fix-It” clinics, and the Enterprise Resource Guide have been teaching residents the principles of a circular economy and showing them tangible ways to implement them into business models and lifestyles. And although Austin’s circular economy is still in its infancy, the program was able to generate 6,100 new jobs and add $616.2 million in revenue to the city in 2018 alone.
Still, the city has had to modify their zero waste strategy to account for the realities of resident behavior over the past decade. Despite the increased education about recycling and material reuse, about 58% of reusable material is still winding up in landfills. Even worse to note is that of the material that does get recycled, very low amounts actually get reused. Not all residents are avid participants in the Zero Waste program and with no incentives to make the change, it’s understandable that many people are not going out of their way to get involved. Many of the actions required for the zero waste shift are heavily intertwined with privilege, and the handful of Austin residents who have the time, money, and desire to engage in such programs have pulled weight to change the waste landscape of Austin. It’s situations such as these that call into question a cities role in providing accessible resources for services they’re looking to improve. Sure, a few of the top earners in downtown areas have been able to make sustainable switches, but what about the Austin residents that live far from centralized municipal resources?
How can the city begin to include residents that are not currently involved and have expressed little to no interest in joining the fray?
The key to addressing these questions of equity — and the waste issue in the urban south — might be found in the city’s past. Austin has an extensive history of segregation, a history that can be seen and felt throughout the metropolitan area even today. Back in 1928, city officials introduced a “Negro District” on the outskirts of town for Black and brown communties to live, work and go to school. This intentionally excluded these communities from opportunities and amenities in central areas of the city, and as Austin developed over time the physical and social exclusion became ingrained in the footprint of the city. Segregation efforts such as these still have a lingering effect on the city today. Black and brown communities continue to be pushed to the edges of the city to make way for gentrification. Additionally, years of being neglected by municipal services has left disadvantaged residents unable to trust city-led programs, and reluctant to adopt new municipal initiatives such as the one we are seeing now with waste management.
An example of this disconnect is seen clearly in restaurants around town. Many establishments in affluent neighborhoods take advantage of city programs that incentivise purchasing local, sustainable ingredients, using biodegradable to-go ware, and reducing waste via recycling and composting. In contrast, smaller minority-owned businesses with less investment and less desirable zip codes haven’t fully reaped the benefits of such assistance, and continue to operate as they always have. Comparing the two side by side it’s clear to see: minority communities in Austin are skeptical to participate in waste management programs because they don’t believe that they will actually benefit from them, nor will it be worth the buy-in. If Austin truly wants to succeed in creating a circular economy and tackling the waste problem, they’ll need to build relationships with marginalized communities and establish an equitable and coherent urban environment that helps everyone, not just those with the most money to spend.
Despite being known for its authentic energy, the city of Austin has done a mediocre job at keeping their waste management system straightforward and easily accessible. Variables such as proximity to central areas, education level, income, and race are all factors that influence residents’ access to waste management resources and education. Some people just haven’t heard about sustainability, nor do they have the resources or time to seek out city-endorsed programs. In order for the city to meet zero waste and circular economy milestones, they’ll need to spearhead educational initiatives that meet people where they’re at financially, socially, and temporally. Hosting learning workshops for low-income and unhoused individuals, ensuring equitable access to resources, and bringing services to the people instead of expecting residents to seek them out are all ways that the city can ensure everyone is made aware of the city’s goals.
When people don’t feel included in community decisions, it can damage qualities such as initiative and autonomy — qualities you need for a fully functioning community. The city of Austin would see an increased return on environmental investments if they first ensure that people are well taken care of and able to live comfortably. When people are focused on trying to survive, there’s no way they’ll be willing and able to spare the resources needed to save the planet.
There is quite a ways to go before the city of Austin reaches their goal of being zero waste and operating within a circular economy. Their plan is well thought out and full of beneficial tactics, but may be a bit premature for a full scale integration. If city officials can even the playing field, smooth out their current waste management program and ensure truly equitable solutions, I believe that Austin can grow to be a blueprint for the city of the future.