The City of Oakland, California, adopted a Zero Waste Strategic Plan in 2006, detailing a road map for the city to follow toward the implementation of a Zero Waste System by 2020. As stated in a City Resolution, introduced by then Mayor Jerry Brown, Zero Waste principles:
"[P] romote the highest and best use of materials to eliminate waste and pollution, emphasizing a closed-loop system of production and consumption, moving in logical increments toward the goal of zero waste through the core principles of":
Zero Waste systems can be traced back to chemist Paul Palmer who developed and coined the concept in the 1970s (in Oakland, CA) in order to find a way to reuse the vast amount of chemicals produced by the electronics industry.[2] Today, cities like Oakland are adopting Zero Waste Systems to create a process that redirects all end-of-life products toward future applications in the marketplace, rather than to a landfill.[3]
Oakland's Zero Waste Strategic Plan
The city of Oakland's Zero Waste Strategic Plan set out in 2006 to reduce the annual tons of waste directed toward landfills from 400,000 tons to 40,000 annually by 2020. Chiefly, the city aimed to create comprehensive systems that transfer end-of-life products back into the economy. The city's Strategic Plan is based on five strategies that include recycling but also product and system design changes and policy revisions, as follows:
Expand and Improve Local and Regional Recycling and Composting
Greater engagement with the general public and particularly the business community is necessary, requiring the development of additional recovery services and initiatives, for example, to support businesses that utilize the Port of Oakland and produce construction and demolition materials.
Develop and Adopt New Rules and Incentives to Reduce Waste Disposal
Create stronger incentives to “reward reuse, repair, and reduced consumption” to replace the present incentive to use landfills.
Preserve Land for Sustainable Development and Green Industry Infrastructure
Expand industrial land for businesses that manufacture and make use of materials traditionally discarded. Create partnerships with StopWaste.Org, and East Bay Economic Alliance toward the development of policies that attract such businesses.
Advocate for Manufacturer Responsibility for Product Waste, Ban Problem Materials
Adopt California’s Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) created to require businesses to assume the responsibility for any environmental impacts resulting from their products (throughout the product’s life cycle).
Educate, Promote and Advocate a Zero Waste Sustainability Agenda
Since only 15% of Oakland homes compost, and 67% of waste continues to be produced by industries, stronger, though positive, messaging about Zero Waste and sustainability should be circulated and tailored for different audiences, situations and locations.[4]
Abiding by the system advocated by Zero Waste International Alliance, Oakland’s Zero Waste System follows “natural cycles, where all outputs are simply an input for another process.” Moreover, Zero Waste systems place the “highest priority on conserving resources and retaining their form and function without burning, burying, or otherwise destroying their form and function. “ This calls for “eliminating discharges to land, water or air that harm natural systems,” as well as, “preventing rather than managing, waste and pollution, and recommitting to the priority ordering of the waste reduction hierarchy: first reduce consumption; next, reuse what is left; and finally, recycle anything that is no longer usable and landfill any residual.”[5]
Oakland's Zero Waste System also examines each management of goods in accordance with specific criteria, such as:
“Customer Benefits,” such as opportunities for residents and businesses to reduce greenhouse gases and access to recycling services.
“Economic Development,” such as the creation of jobs and the development of a range of employment opportunities within organizations that process, manufacture or sell “discards-based” businesses.
“Financial,” such as cost to city and ratepayers, as well as pricing that incentivizes waste reduction and promotes recycling.
“Innovation,” such as methods that allow for system upgrades and evolution over time.[6]
Motivations
In 2006, Oakland residents surpassed the state mandate of diverting 50% landfill waste from 580,000 to 400,000 tons, yet progress toward greater waste reduction was slowing down. Meanwhile, consumption of materials and products continued to grow. Widespread evidence indicated that every stage of production, transportation, use and disposal of materials and products negatively impacted ecosystems, the climate, public health and biodiversity. The quantity of toxic materials in the disposal process was increasing and Oakland was struggling to maintain cost effective waste management.[7]
Oakland's system of waste reduction in 2006 allowed businesses to determine how their products would be designed and packaged, without regulation. This practice left the consumers and local governments to bear the burden of disposing of material goods. Zero Waste Systems, on the other hand, call for businesses to develop not only recyclable packaging and product designs, but designs that could have endless new uses and applications. The Zero Waste System, therefore, offered Oakland an ambitious strategy to address waste and inefficiencies endemic to the city's structure, economy and practices.[7]
Causes/sources of excess waste
We commonly think of waste as garbage, or refuse; anything that becomes useless or a byproduct. In other words, waste has countless physical sources. Zero Waste Alliance (2011) describes waste in this way:
"In our industrial society waste results from the inefficient use of any resource and includes activities and products that generate by-products with no clear use, no market value, or hazardous properties and by-products that decrease their potential value. Waste takes many different forms: from solid and hazardous waste to wastes in energy and material use; wastes in manufacturing and administrative activities and wastes of human resources.[3]
When Oakland adopted its Zero Waste Strategic Plan in 2006, the actual 400,000 tons of waste consisted of the following:
Yard Trimmings
9%
Food Waste
12%
Clean Wood & Other Organics
9%
Metals
6%
Glass
1%
Plastic
5%
Paper
19%
Concrete, Asphalt, Roofing
6%
Non-recyclables
33%
100%
Oakland categorized the source of waste by the individual or group that submitted the waste to the city for disposal in landfills, (1) Non-residential or commercial sources and (2) Residential, including single family or multi-family sources. At the time, 67% of waste was generated by non-residential sources, and residents produced 33%. Of this non-residential group, 30% was being hauled to landfills by entities over which the city had minimal control (those that haul their own garbage to the landfill), such as Cal Trans, AC Transit, BART and independent contractors. Of the 400,000 tons of material transferred to landfills, 67% could be recycled using city operations already established. Regional recovery and diversion options existed in 2006 for paper, glass, metals, plastics, yard trimmings, food, clean wood, concrete, asphalt, and roofing. The City recognized that it could minimize the transfer of these materials with additional focus on improving separation of materials, messaging to businesses regarding diversion and recycling options and stronger incentives.[8]
Social and historical underpinnings
The need for incentives touches upon the social and historical forces that have led to excessive waste production. As scholars, historians, environmentalists, and even politicians have increasingly asserted, the American economic system has long prioritized economic growth over preserving the natural world.[9] This approach has often put nature at the bottom of our hierarchy of importance. As Porritt contends in Capitalism as if the World Matters, corporations focused on growth have not been held accountable for damages they cause to the environment; which has created very little incentive for industries to concern themselves with sustainability or environmental protection. With profit and growth as the ultimate goal, businesses have sought out the cheapest resources and environments lacking regulation.[10]
Unfortunately environmental concerns didn't come to the forefront until the 1970s when Congress passed a series of pro-environment policy changes in response to a wave of environmental passion flaring across the country.[11] Nonetheless, while policies have led to environmental progress in some areas, such as in air quality, governments have had a harder time implementing programs that regulate groundwatercontaminants. Meanwhile, landfills continue to contaminate ground and drinking water around the country.[12]
Indeed, as late as 2006, the City of Oakland offered incentives for businesses to haul garbage to a landfill, rather than consider reuse and recycling options. Additionally, Oakland recognized in 2006 that a lack of service providers for recycling and recovery efforts had prevented progress toward environmentally sustainable solutions. Also, the city had never set aside land needed for reuse and recycling business materials.[13] In this way, incentives and the marketplace were working against the city's environmental concerns. In fact, most product consumption serves to undermine a Zero Waste Policy because of the inherent negative “externalities,” or those factors outside the market transaction, which are not accounting for in the cost of producing and consuming an item. Historically, prices for toys, watches, cars, etc., have not covered the costs associated with disposing or recycling these items.[14] Oakland will remedy this flaw in the system by working toward shifting the responsibility of material disposal to the manufacturer instead of the government or the consumer. Further, rather than apply the tax base toward cleanup of contaminated landfills, the Zero Waste system will use the tax base to invest in recycling, composting and reuse facilities, called “Resource Recovery Parks.”[15]
Evolution of policy
Oakland's Zero Waste Policy evolved out of a series of mandates originating with the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989, which required every city and county in California to reduce their solid waste disposal amounts by 50% by year 2000. Soon after, in 1990, the Alameda County Waste Reduction and Recycling Initiative Charter Amendment (Measure D) mandated a 75% reduction in waste disposal countywide, allowing the Alameda County Source Reduction and Recycling Board to set a deadline for the goal. This board set 2010 as the deadline date. In 2002, the City of Oakland advocated for this goal by adopting a 75% reduction waste goal through Resolution 77500. This resolution called upon the Environmental Service Division of the City of Oakland's Public Works Agency to identify strategies to accomplish this goal. The city also amended the Oakland Municipal Code to establish requirements for construction and demolition debris waste reduction in 2002 through Ordinance #612253.[13]
Marking another milestone in the evolution toward Zero Waste, San Francisco hosted the United Nations World Environment meeting of 2005, bringing together mayors across the country for a strategy session on waste disposal. Governor Jerry Brown's Sustainability Director at the time, Randy Hayes, played a pivotal role in Oakland's participation in the Accords and in creating momentum supporting Zero Waste systems within the Mayor's office. Brown signed the United Nations World Environment Day Urban Environmental Accords, pledging that Oakland would implement 21 action steps toward sustainability, which included a Zero Waste Goal. This accord meeting and related efforts spurred Oakland in 2006 to adopt a Zero Waste Strategic Plan, calling for 90% reduction in annual tons sent to landfills by 2020.[13]
Policy tools
What policies are aiding Oakland's in advancing toward Zero Waste? Oakland's Zero Waste Economy document, created in 2006, presents a multifaceted approach that incorporates prescriptive regulation, incentive-based or financial payments, penalties, and capacity policy tools directing the City toward a more “environmentally and economically sustainable system where resources are kept in the production cycle”, as described below.[16]
Ban toxic products from landfills or incinerators.
Prohibit sale of “unnecessarily toxic or polluting products.”
Financial Penalties, or those tools designed to mitigate environmental harm by charging the offending party taxes or fees:
Require that the manufacturer be held financially responsible for the product's end-cycle.
Incentive-based actions or financial payment encourage behavior by subsidizing certain actions or methods:
Build incentives for product designers to develop packaging with the use of non-toxic materials and opt for designs that promote reuse, recycle, or composting.
Create incentives for businesses to abide by environmental and worker protection standards, rather than choose the least expensive production methods and hiring workers outside the United States.
Establish financial incentives for businesses and residents to recycle more and create less waste. (Federal tax subsidies at the time provided financial incentives to industries that make products from virgin materials).
Build incentives for consumers to voice their interest in non-toxic, reusable, and recyclable products by only purchasing items that meet these standards.
Persuasion techniques offer soft approaches urging behavior to change by distributing or publicizing information about the environmental issue.
Require distributors and retailers to become education centers to inform consumers about proper disposal and work with manufacturers to build reusable packaging and crates and reduce any packaging where possible.[17]
Status in 2011
Oakland is no longer measuring progress in terms of diversion rates, which allows credits for recycling, population and economic factors, but evaluates waste reduction more ambitiously, in terms of total disposal tonnage. The 90% reduction rate it seeks by 2020 will require Oakland to double the waste reduction it had achieved over the past 15 years. After 2002, when the City adopted the 75% reduction rate goal, Oakland's Public Works Agency realized that the systems that enabled Oakland to reach a 50% reduction rate would not be sufficient for Oakland to reach a 75% reduction rate. Hence, improving the systems has been a primary focus since 2006, which are outlined in Strategies #2 and #4 of the Strategic Plan. These strategies aim to build an end to incentives to continue disposing in landfills, instead calling for manufacturers to take responsibility for the products and their materials through the entire duration of product life cycles.[18]
One third of the materials that were winding up at city landfills in 2002 did not have recovery possibilities, leaving landfills as the only option. Much of this had to do with factors outside of the city's control, for reaching the 75% reduction rate would require changes at the state and/or federal level where manufacturing decisions are made. In fact, within the Zero Waste Strategic Plan, strategies 4 and 5 largely depend on behaviors and regulations outside municipal boundaries.[19]
This realization led the City toward a stronger advocacy role, beginning when Jerry Brown was governor in 2002. Since that time, Oakland has been working with numerous regulatory and implementing agencies to advance legislation favoring system changes that allow for a Zero Waste goal to be achieved, including (to name a few):
Oakland also worked in a national group to develop a Zero Waste Toolkit designed to aid governments in implementing an Energy & Climate Action Plan (ECAP) for the reduction of greenhouse gases through materials management.[20]
Moreover, while advocating for systemic changes at the state and regional level, the City recognized a need for assistance in implementing system changes at the local level. In 2009, Oakland's Public Works Agency entered into contract with R3 Consulting for support with system analysis, planning and implementation of Oakland's Zero Waste Strategic Plan. R3 Consulting was chosen as the most highly experienced agency in system design for municipal governments, having formerly completed projects with the Cities of Dublin, San Jose, Sacramento, and Los Angeles, as well as with StopWaste.org. R3's work plan was split into two phases with an estimated project end date in 2011, including:
Phase 1—Assessing and testing models and Zero Waste system designs to identify best options.
Phase 2—Implement selected system design options by supporting City staff in building work plans for “collection, processing, transfer, and disposal of discarded products and materials.”
The City of Oakland's Public Works Agency is named as the primary administrator of the program.[21] According to Oakland's Public Works Agency Web site (April, 2011), Oakland has steadily advanced its progress toward Zero Waste in recent years. Residents have reduced their landfill disposal by 27% since 2000, down to approximately 100,000 tons, bringing the City markedly closer to its goal of minimizing waste to 40,000 tons.[22]
Oakland residents have played an important role in moving the City toward Zero Waste. Indeed, the “empowered consumer” is critical in the Zero Waste Economy. In our society, all systems circle back to money and sales (Gore, 2006). Using their buying-power, consumers can tell industries that products must be non-toxic, reusable, recyclable or compostable or they will stay on the shelf. Following this directive, manufacturers and products designers will ultimately have no choice but to create or distribute sustainable products that drive the economy toward a paradigm that views production cycles as they do in nature, where “waste” is repurposed in the cycle of life.[23]
Recycling is the process of converting waste materials into new materials and objects. This concept often includes the recovery of energy from waste materials. The recyclability of a material depends on its ability to reacquire the properties it had in its original state. It is an alternative to "conventional" waste disposal that can save material and help lower greenhouse gas emissions. It can also prevent the waste of potentially useful materials and reduce the consumption of fresh raw materials, reducing energy use, air pollution and water pollution.
Waste management or waste disposal includes the processes and actions required to manage waste from its inception to its final disposal. This includes the collection, transport, treatment, and disposal of waste, together with monitoring and regulation of the waste management process and waste-related laws, technologies, and economic mechanisms.
Extended producer responsibility (EPR) is a strategy to add all of the estimated environmental costs associated with a product throughout the product life cycle to the market price of that product, contemporarily mainly applied in the field of waste management. Such societal costs are typically externalities to market mechanisms, with a common example being the impact of cars.
Zero waste, or waste minimization, is a set of principles focused on waste prevention that encourages redesigning resource life cycles so that all products are repurposed and/or reused. The goal of the movement is to avoid sending trash to landfills, incinerators, oceans, or any other part of the environment. Currently 9% of global plastic is recycled. In a zero waste system, all materials are reused until the optimum level of consumption is reached.
Waste (management) hierarchy is a tool used in the evaluation of processes that protect the environment alongside resource and energy consumption from most favourable to least favourable actions. The hierarchy establishes preferred program priorities based on sustainability. To be sustainable, waste management cannot be solved only with technical end-of-pipe solutions and an integrated approach is necessary.
Municipal solid waste (MSW), commonly known as trash or garbage in the United States and rubbish in Britain, is a waste type consisting of everyday items that are discarded by the public. "Garbage" can also refer specifically to food waste, as in a garbage disposal; the two are sometimes collected separately. In the European Union, the semantic definition is 'mixed municipal waste,' given waste code 20 03 01 in the European Waste Catalog. Although the waste may originate from a number of sources that has nothing to do with a municipality, the traditional role of municipalities in collecting and managing these kinds of waste have produced the particular etymology 'municipal.'
Waste minimisation is a set of processes and practices intended to reduce the amount of waste produced. By reducing or eliminating the generation of harmful and persistent wastes, waste minimisation supports efforts to promote a more sustainable society. Waste minimisation involves redesigning products and processes and/or changing societal patterns of consumption and production.
Waste diversion or landfill diversion is the process of diverting waste from landfills. The success of landfill diversion can be measured by comparison of the size of the landfill from one year to the next. If the landfill grows minimally or remains the same, then policies covering landfill diversion are successful. For example, currently in the United States there are 3000 landfills. A measure of the success of landfill diversion would be if that number remains the same or is reduced. In 2015 it was recorded that the national average of landfill diversion in the United States was 33.8%, while San Francisco had implemented the most effective policies and had recorded a landfill diversion rate of 77%.
Construction waste or debris is any kind of debris from the construction process. Different government agencies have clear definitions. For example, the United States Environmental Protection Agency EPA defines construction and demolition materials as “debris generated during the construction, renovation and demolition of buildings, roads, and bridges.” Additionally, the EPA has categorized Construction and Demolition (C&D) waste into three categories: non-dangerous, hazardous, and semi-hazardous.
There is no national law in the United States that mandates recycling. State and local governments often introduce their own recycling requirements. In 2014, the recycling/composting rate for municipal solid waste in the U.S. was 34.6%. A number of U.S. states, including California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, New York, Oregon, and Vermont have passed laws that establish deposits or refund values on beverage containers while other jurisdictions rely on recycling goals or landfill bans of recyclable materials.
In 2015, 43.5% of the United Kingdom's municipal waste was recycled, composted or broken down by anaerobic digestion. The majority of recycling undertaken in the United Kingdom is done by statutory authorities, although commercial and industrial waste is chiefly processed by private companies. Local Authorities are responsible for the collection of municipal waste and operate contracts which are usually kerbside collection schemes. The Household Waste Recycling Act 2003 required local authorities in England to provide every household with a separate collection of at least two types of recyclable materials by 2010. Recycling policy is devolved to the administrations of Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales who set their own targets, but all statistics are reported to Eurostat.
The National Waste Strategy is a policy of the Parliament of the United Kingdom as well as the devolved administrations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. The development of national waste strategies is intended to foster a move to sustainability in waste management within the United Kingdom.
The California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery is a branch of the California Environmental Protection Agency that oversees the state's waste management, recycling, and waste reduction programs. CalRecycle was established in 2010 to replace the California Integrated Waste Management Board. It is known for administering the California Redemption Value (CRV) program, among other responsibilities.
Waste management in Japan today emphasizes not just the efficient and sanitary collection of waste, but also reduction in waste produced and recycling of waste when possible. This has been influenced by its history, particularly periods of significant economic expansion, as well as its geography as a mountainous country with limited space for landfills. Important forms of waste disposal include incineration, recycling and, to a smaller extent, landfills and land reclamation. Although Japan has made progress since the 1990s in reducing waste produced and encouraging recycling, there is still further progress to be made in reducing reliance on incinerators and the garbage sent to landfills. Challenges also exist in the processing of electronic waste and debris left after natural disasters.
Solid waste policy in the United States is aimed at developing and implementing proper mechanisms to effectively manage solid waste. For solid waste policy to be effective, inputs should come from stakeholders, including citizens, businesses, community-based organizations, non-governmental organizations, government agencies, universities, and other research organizations. These inputs form the basis of policy frameworks that influence solid waste management decisions. In the United States, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulates household, industrial, manufacturing, and commercial solid and hazardous wastes under the 1976 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). Effective solid waste management is a cooperative effort involving federal, state, regional, and local entities. Thus, the RCRA's Solid Waste program section D encourages the environmental departments of each state to develop comprehensive plans to manage nonhazardous industrial and municipal solid waste.
The San Francisco Mandatory Recycling and Composting Ordinance is a local municipal ordinance requiring all persons located in San Francisco to separate their recyclables, compostables and landfilled trash and to participate in recycling and composting programs. Passed by the San Francisco Board of Supervisors in 2009, it became the first local municipal ordinance in the United States to universally require source separation of all organic material, including food residuals.
Sustainable Materials Management is a systemic approach to using and reusing materials more productively over their entire lifecycles. It represents a change in how a society thinks about the use of natural resources and environmental protection. By looking at a product's entire lifecycle new opportunities can be found to reduce environmental impacts, conserve resources, and reduce costs.
A circular economy is an alternative way countries manage their resources, in which usage of products in the traditional linear make, use, and dispose method is not implemented. Instead, resources are used for their maximum utility throughout their life cycle and regenerated in a cyclical pattern minimizing waste. They strive to create economic development through environmental and resource protection. The ideas of a circular economy were officially adopted by China in 2002, when the 16th National Congress of the Chinese Communist Party legislated it as a national endeavor though the various sustainability initiatives which were implemented in the previous decades starting in 1973. China adopted the circular economy due to the environmental damage and resource depletion that was occurring from going through its industrialization process. China is currently a world leader in the production of resources, where it produces 46% of the world's aluminum, 50% of steel and 60% of cement, while it has consumed more raw materials than all the countries a part of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) combined. In 2014, China created 3.2 billion tonnes of industrial solid waste, where 2 billion tonnes were recovered using recycling, incineration, reusing and composting. By 2025, China is anticipated to produce up to one quarter of the world's municipal solid waste.
A take-back system or simply takeback is one of the primary channels of waste collection, especially for e-waste, besides municipal sites. Take-back is the idea that manufacturers and sellers "take back" the products that are at the end of their lives. Take-back is aimed to reduce a business' environmental impacts on the earth and also increase efficiency and lower costs for their business models. "Take-back regulations have targeted a wide array of products including packaging, batteries, automobiles, and electronics", and economic value can be found from recycling or re-manufacturing such products. "The programs benefit municipalities by lowering their overall waste disposal costs and reducing the burden on landfill sites". Although for certain companies, the take-back system is mandatory under legislation, many do it voluntarily.
Closed Loop Box Reuse, is the process by which boxes or other containers are reused many times. It is a form of reusable packaging.
↑ City of Oakland. "Zero waste strategic plan".{{cite web}}: Missing or empty |url= (help) p. 3
↑ City of Oakland. "Resolution adopting evaluative criteria for assessing solid waste management system designs responsive to the zero waste by 2020 goal".
1 2 City of Oakland. "Zero waste strategic plan, p. 1".{{cite web}}: Missing or empty |url= (help)
↑ City of Oakland. "Zero waste strategic plan, p. 8".{{cite web}}: Missing or empty |url= (help)
↑ Gore, A. (2006). Earth in the balance: Ecology and the human spirit. New York: Rodale. p.184.
↑ Porritt, J. (2005). Capitalism as if the world matters. London: Earthscan. p.72.
↑ Vig, N. (2010). Environmental policy: New directions for the twenty-first century. Washington: CQ Press. p.11.
↑ Vig. Environmental policy: New directions for the twenty-first century. p.20.
1 2 3 City of Oakland. "Zero waste strategic plan".{{cite web}}: Missing or empty |url= (help)
↑ Salzman, J. (2010). Environmental law and policy. New York: Thomson Reuters/Foundation Press. p.199.
↑ City of Oakland. Resolution adopting evaluative criteria for assessing solid waste management system designs responsive to the zero waste by 2020 goal.
↑ City of Oakland. "Resolution 79774, Adopting a zero waste goal by 2020. Attachment A: Zero Waste Economy".{{cite web}}: Missing or empty |url= (help)
Sources
City of Oakland, Oakland City Council. (2002). Resolution 77500, Resolution of waste going to landfills by 2010 for the city of Oakland in alliance with the countywide 75% reduction goal. Oakland, CA.
City of Oakland. Public Works Agency. (2006a). Resolution 79774, Adopting a zero waste goal by 2020. Oakland, CA. Retrieved March 6, 2011 from
City of Oakland. Public Works Agency. (2006b). Resolution 79774, Adopting a zero waste goal by 2020. Attachment A: Zero Waste Economy. Oakland, CA. Retrieved April 26, 2011 from
City of Oakland, Public Works Committee. (2009a). Resolution adopting evaluative criteria for assessing solid waste management system designs responsive to the zero waste by 2020 goal. Oakland, CA.
City of Oakland, Public Works Agency. (2009b). Resolution authorizing the city Administrator to enter into four-year agreement. . . Oakland, CA.
Gagliardi, M., Allaway, D., Davis, S., Brady, J., Cioci, M. et al. (2011). Materials Management Approaches for State and County Government. Retrieved April 28, 2011 from http://captoolkit.wikispaces.com/Home.
Gore, A. (2006). Earth in the balance: Ecology and the human spirit. New York: Rodale, Inc.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply. Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.
