Oneida Nation & Green Bay ban the burning of waste

Kristen A. Johnson | Ananda Lee Tan

Last month, members of the Oneida Tribe of Indians of Wisconsin hammered the final nail in the coffin for waste incinerator proposals on the Oneida lands, including parts of Brown and Outagamie Counties.

On May 5, more than 1800 Oneida General Tribal Council members overwhelmingly voted to reject the Oneida Seven Generations Corporation’s bid to build a pyrolysis gasification incinerator. Despite millions of dollars of subsidies offered by the U.S. Department of Energy, the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Wisconsin Economic Development Corporation, the Green Bay City Council and now the Oneida Nation have sent a clear message to all extreme energy and waste corporations that burners are not welcome in their backyards, or those of their neighbors.

This facility fight has been at the center of public debate for more than two years, and numerous environmental groups, health experts and advocates from around the state and across the U.S. provided support for this protracted community battle. However, the most inspiring, and instructive stories are those of grassroots, community organizing that led these victories. The following are reflections from parallel organizing efforts in the communities of Oneida and Green Bay.

Incinerator Free Brown County: Persistent and Adaptive Organizing

Incinerator Free Brown County came together in the fall of 2010, when an article appeared in the Green Bay newspaper announcing that a waste-to-energy plant would be built by the Oneida Seven Generations Corporation (OSGC). The proposed site was near a residential area in the Village of Hobart. Alarmed by the potential health, economic, and environmental hazards posed by this plant, residents banded together, posting flyers door-to-door, in an effort to galvanize awareness and concern. They formed the Biomass Opposition Committee (BOC), and after the site was relocated to the city of Green Bay, they changed their name to Incinerator Free Brown County (IFBC) to promote a countywide campaign.

Everyone within a 2-mile radius of the incinerator site was made aware of the proposal and community members joined meetings to discuss organizing plans. At each meeting core members volunteered to raise funds to cover organizing expenses. These funds were used to share information about waste incineration through local signature petitions, fact sheets and media.

IFBC reached out to groups such as GAIA, Indigenous Environmental Network, Greenaction for Health and Environmental Justice, Waukesha Environmental Action League, Clean Water Action, and the Wisconsin Sierra Club for support. A number of health professionals also responded, experts who testify in support of communities opposing polluting industries. In March 2013, Dr. Paul Connett and Bradley Angel of Greenaction gave public presentations on the danger of incinerators and the benefits of zero waste. DVD recordings of their presentations were used to deepen community awareness.

Opposition to the incinerator grew in the spring of 2011 when Clean Water Action financed and—with community input—designed 4 billboards and numerous yard signs that broadcast their message to the general public, attracting the attention of the Mayor, local media, and the OSGC.

However, the fight was not without its challenges. For months, the Mayor, City Council and elected officials of the Oneida Nation avoided meeting with organizers.

IFBC kept detailed records of all documents produced by the OSGC and used these to strategically expose contradictions in the company’s technology claims. Organizers met with local officials, educating Green Bay’s elected leaders on the environmental, health, and economic impacts of the incinerator. Local residents were encouraged to contact officials to ensure that public opposition remained on the agenda.

Finally, in October 2012, after a legal challenge highlighting misleading claims by the incinerator company, IFBC and allies convinced the Green Bay Council to revoke the incinerator’s conditional use permit.  After the Mayor decided not to veto the council’s vote, the City Attorney officiated revoking of the permit.

Organizers with IFBC have shared their insights in their Incinerator Resistance Guide—so that other grassroots groups can learn from their lessons, mistakes, and successes as well as ways to maintain good humor during such protracted battles, where persistence and perseverance win.

Organizing the Oneida Nation with Traditional Ecological Knowledge

Leah Sue Dodge is a member of the Oneida Tribe of Wisconsin, one of six Indigenous Nations that make up the Haudenosaunee (Iroquois) Confederacy. Leah first learned of the waste burner from an opinion piece in the Oneida Tribal newspaper. Her community was already wary of the toxic threats posed by this facility, as well as the prospect of thousands of diesel trucks transporting garbage through the community on route to the incinerator.

With the emerging debate in neighboring Green Bay, and news that the incinerator company had made claims there would be no harmful emissions, not even smokestacks, associated with this untested waste gasification technology, members of Leah’s community grew increasingly concerned.

After the Green Bay City Council revoked the incinerator permit, OSGC followed with legal action. On January 9th, 2013 a Brown County circuit court judge decided to uphold the Green Bay decision, finding that the company had indeed misrepresented the facts: “(OSGC) indicated that there are no smoke stacks, no oxygen, and no ash. I am satisfied that is a misstatement.”

The decision prompted OSGC to look at siting a smaller “plastics-to-fuel” incinerator on tribal lands—as a stepping-stone towards a “full size” facility. Learning this news Leah decided to get more involved. As an Oneida member, Leah felt a responsibility to warn her community about Oneida money being invested in this project, and that her Tribe’s reputation was at stake, despite personal concerns about how her actions could affect her Tribal employment due to the powerful and moneyed interests involved. However, in her words, “The risk of my home being poisoned was greater than these fears.”

To start her inquiry, Leah decided to meet with key Oneida decision-makers: Oneida Business Committee Chair Ed Delgado and Yvonne Metivier, Oneida Elder Advisor to the Chairperson. Metivier suggested Leah draft a petition to demonstrate broad community opposition, and bring the matter before the General Tribal Council for a vote. She advised Dodge to keep the petition focused, and achievable in scope: a) aimed at stopping the incinerator from being approved for all Oneida lands, and, b) worded in a manner that did not require extensive legislative or financial analysis.

Leah promptly went to work, drafting and seeking signatures for the petition, which read: The General Tribal Council directs the Oneida Business Committee to stop Oneida Seven Generations Corporation (OSGC) from building any “gasification” or “waste-to-energy” or “plastics recycling” plant at N7239 Water Circle Place, Oneida, WI or any other location on the Oneida Reservation.

Over the next 10 days, Leah gathered names on the petition, ensuring they were all Oneida members of voting age. Signatures of Oneida members of all ages, as well as members of other tribes were also presented to the Oneida Land Commission in opposition to a land-use permit for the facility. Despite the proposed site being in ecologically sensitive wetlands, and less than a mile from the Turtle Elementary School, the high school and Oneida legislative offices, the Commission decided in favor of the facility.

At this stage, Leah decided to seek broader community engagement. Leading into the May 2013 general assembly of the Oneida Tribal Council, Leah purchased ads in the Tribal newspaper, distributed information for concerned Oneidas to share via social networks. Leah worked with others to develop a community action for two days at an intersection near the incinerator site. Deliberately choosing not to label the action a “protest”, they called it a Fun Action of Conscience & Teaching (FACT). “This was about supporting what we are for, rather than focusing solely on what we are against.”

Oneida artist Scott Hill recommended using visuals emphasizing traditional Oneida beliefs about the teaching spirits of animals, including the guiding stories of the clan animals, Turtle, Bear and Wolf:

  • The Turtle symbolizes Mother Earth, turtle island – the caretakers of the land
  • The Bear is a symbol of the Earth’s natural medicines and plants, healers
  • The Wolf clans are the peacekeepers, pathfinders – guarding and guiding communities against harm. I am of the wolf clan….

In sharing the principles embedded in these stories with community members, families and friends driving and walking by; stopping, listening, and engaging in discussion—dozens of new community members resolved to oppose the toxic threat to their lands, their families and their community.

art

Visually communicating these stories was a key element of the FACT action, with artistry by Hill helping illustrate the philosophy of caring for earth’s precious resources—because the Great Law of Peace teaches that in all actions we must consider how we affect the next seven generations. Leah noted this philosophy was clearly at odds with the business model of any company planning to waste and burn earth’s resources, despite their attempts at green branding.

Hill also painted posters combining tribal icons with gas masks because, “everybody understands poison”. Scott’s grandson, Talyn Metoxen, enjoyed taking part as well, wearing a gas mask and holding his grandfather’s artwork.

The FACT action coupled with strong presentations to the Oneida General Tribal Council served to unite the Oneida community against the burners, going to show how community-led organizing can be irresistible when coupled with place-based culture and ecosystems knowledge.

Leah Sue Dodge acknowledges the support received from the Clean Water Action Council of Northeast Wisconsin, IFBC and their neighbors of the Mather Heights Neighborhood Association, who all valiantly and victoriously fought the incinerator proposal outside the Oneida Reservation. She hopes that, moving forward, Tribal leadership will work with these organizations to challenge environmental and health threats for the benefit of everyone.

Life in most urban poor communities in poor and developing countries is intimately tied to activities and issues related to waste. Trash tends to be ubiquitous and very visible; basic waste management services tend to be inadequate, if not completely lacking. For many in these communities, waste is a problem but it is also a source of income. And when waste disposal facilities, including unofficial open dumps, are located beside or within city limits, even more people have access to the waste and frequently come to rely on it for their livelihoods.

If you are a promoter of zero waste, where do you begin to work in these communities?

GAIA sought to understand the attitudes and behaviours of residents towards waste through participatory research in three urban poor communities in the Philippines. We wanted to learn how waste issues shape people’s dreams and aspirations for themselves and their families, and to document the effect of these issues on the general well-being of the community. The intention was for the communities to see more clearly how concerns relating to waste and issues relating to overall development overlap, and to identify practical solutions or ways forward. Through the study GAIA also hoped to discover strategies in zero waste advocacy that could be useful in rapidly urbanizing cities in poor and developing countries, where the urban poor almost always make up a large and important constituency from a social and environmental justice perspective.

The three communities selected for the study (Barangay Aguado, Cavite; Barangay 128, Manila; and Barangay Tatalon, Quezon City) have long standing experiences in addressing issues that concern their development. All three are also urban poor communities where waste has played and continues to play an important role in the lives of the residents. All three have a common history of being home to informal settlers who have come to the cities in the hope of improving their lives.

Aguado is home to a toxic waste treatment facility that has seen years of grass-roots protests against its release of extremely toxic emissions containing dioxin, polychlorinated biphenyls, and hexachloro-benzene. In Barangay 128, on the other hand, Smokey Mountain, once the biggest dumpsite in the country, can be found right smack in the middle of the village. About 2.5 million cubic meters of hazardous waste remains in the former dump, towering more than 20 feet skyward and releasing heavy metals and a thick cloud of smoke and ash every day. Tatalon is a riverside community that is inundated regularly with flooding water laden with trash. Waste continues to be dumped in the river, even though it is a known contributor to the flooding.

The study clearly shows that in order to promote proper waste management so that it becomes a way of life, it is necessary to take into account  the unique web of challenges and opportunities faced by the community. For example in Barangay 128, there is an area with 21 5-story buildings that house at least 600 residents. Each building is governed by a homeowners association that has its own set of rules on sanitation, water use, and waste management. The building rules are different from, although in theory should be supportive of, the village’s official rules on waste management. In reality however, proper waste management is practically non-existent in almost all of the buildings, and it is common to find mounds of trash in spaces between buildings, which have been dumped either from the upper floor units’ windows or by passing residents from other buildings. With overlapping responsibilities, no one has been able to successfully figure out how to manage waste properly in the entire neighbourhood.

For many communities, whether urban-poor, middle-class, or wealthy, daily pickup of trash is the yardstick of efficient waste management. Without that service, a pervasive way of thinking was identified in these 3 locations: once it is out of the house, it becomes the government’s problem. At the same time, the study also found an acknowledgement by many that everyone has a role to play in either furthering the problem or finding a solution.

The study shows that there is potential for broadening waste advocacy by linking and working with community organizations and NGOs that are sometimes outside the environmental movement. Locating waste advocacy in the broader development movement might be the answer to mainstreaming zero waste.

For many of us who were involved in this research and who have been working on waste issues for years, the experience yielded both a revelation and a confirmation of what we already knew. It was a revelation that these urban-poor communities consider waste to be one of their biggest concerns. In fact, all three communities overwhelmingly voted garbage as the number one environmental problem in their areas, and ranked it just below poverty as the most important issue that they struggle with every day.

But the study also confirmed what many of us have always known: that even in some of the bleakest places on the planet, there is a fierce resistance to losing hope and a strong core of community folks who refuse to accept things as they are. For instance, an average of 83% of residents in the three communities believes that something can still be done to solve their waste problems. A majority from each community also believe that, given the right tools and information, they personally could be an important part of the solution for their waste problems, and they are willing to support and participate in their village’s waste management programs.

The full results of the research will be presented on July 16 by GAIA’s Asia Pacific team to concerned national government agencies, local government officials, groups working on development and environmental justice issues and urban poor community representatives. On this day we hope to start conversations among these stakeholders and create opportunities for future work together between ZW advocates and community development service providers.

Originally published in the Huffington Post a few months ago, this introduction to the zero waste case studies in GAIA’s On the Road to Zero Waste: Successes and Lessons from Around the World contains some crucial ideas about moving beyond recycling.

Zero waste is both a goal and a plan of action. The goal is to protect and recover scarce natural resources by ending waste disposal in incinerators, dumps, and landfills. The plan encompasses waste reduction, composting, recycling and reuse, changes in consumption habits, and industrial redesign. The premise is that if a product cannot be reused, composted, or recycled, it just should not be produced in the first place.

Just as importantly, zero waste is a revolution in the relationship between waste and people. It is a new way of thinking about safeguarding the health and improving the lives of everyone who produces, handles, works with, or is affected by waste — in other words, all of us.

Zero waste strategies help societies to produce and consume goods while respecting ecological limits and the rights of communities. The strategies ensure that all discarded materials are safely and sustainably returned to nature or to manufacturing in place of raw materials. In a zero waste approach, waste management is not left only to politicians and technical experts; rather, everyone impacted — from residents of wealthy neighborhoods to the public, private, and informal sector workers who handle waste — has a voice.

Practicing zero waste means moving toward a world in which all materials are used to their utmost potential, in a system that simultaneously prioritizes the needs of workers, communities, and the environment. It is much like establishing zero defect goals for manufacturing, or zero injury goals in the workplace.

Zero waste is ambitious, but it is not impossible. Nor is it part of some far-off future. Today, in small towns and big cities, in areas rich and poor, in the global North and South, innovative communities are making real progress toward the goal of zero waste. Every community is different, so no two zero waste programs are identical, but the various approaches are together creating something bigger than the sum of their parts: protection of the earth and the natural riches which lie under, on, and over it. Here are a few examples of what is working:

* Through incentives and extensive public outreach, San Francisco has reduced its waste to landfill by 77 percent — the highest diversion rate in the United States — and is on track to reach 90 percent by 2020;

* A door-to-door collection service operated by a cooperative of almost 2,000 grassroots recyclers in Pune, India — now part of the city’s waste management system — diverts enough waste to avoid 640,000 tons of greenhouse gas emissions annually;

* Aggressive standards and incentives for both individuals and businesses in the Flanders region of Belgium have achieved 73 percent diversion of residential waste, the highest regional rate in Europe;

* In Taiwan, community opposition to incineration pushed the government to adopt goals and programs for waste prevention and recycling. The programs were so successful that the quantity of waste decreased significantly, even as the population increased and the economy grew;

* An anti-incinerator movement in the Spanish province of Gipuzkoa led to the adoption of door-to-door waste collection services in several small cities, which have since reduced the amount of waste going to landfills by 80 percent;

* In the Philippines, a participatory, bottom-up approach has proven that communities have the ability to solve their own waste management problems;

* A focus on organics in Mumbai, India and La Pintana, Chile has produced real value from the cities’ largest and most problematic portion of municipal waste;

* In Buenos Aires, Argentina, grassroots recyclers focused on cooperatives and took collective political action. As a result, the city began separating waste at the source, an essential step toward its goal of 75 percent diversion by 2017.

While few locations are bringing together all the elements of a comprehensive zero waste plan, many have in common a philosophy driven by four core strategies:

1. Moving away from waste disposal: Zero waste moves societies away from waste disposal by setting goals and target dates to reduce waste going to landfills, abolishing waste incineration, establishing or raising landfill fees, shifting subsidies away from waste disposal, banning disposable products, and other actions. Government policies that promote these interventions are strongest when they incentivize community participation and incorporate the interests of waste workers.

2. Supporting comprehensive reuse, recycling, and organics treatment programs: Zero waste is about creating a closed cycle for all the materials we use — paper, glass, metals, plastic, and food among them. Such a system operates through separating waste at its source in order to reuse, repair, and recycle inorganic materials, and compost or digest organic materials. Separate organics collection ensures a stream of clean, high-quality material which in turn enables the creation of useful products (compost and biogas) from the largest portion of municipal waste.

3. Engaging communities: Zero waste relies on democracy and strong community action in shaping waste management. A lengthy initial consultation process can pay off with better design and higher participation rates. Residents must actively participate in the programs by consuming sustainably, minimizing waste, separating discards, and composting at home.

A successful zero waste program must also be an inclusive one. Inclusive zero waste systems make sure that resource recovery programs include and respect all those involved in resource conservation, especially informal recyclers whose livelihoods depend on discarded materials. The workers who handle waste should be fully integrated into the design, implementation, and monitoring processes, as they ultimately make the system function. In some communities, where waste workers come from historically excluded populations, this may require ending long-standing discriminatory practices.

4. Designing for the future: Zero waste emphasizes efficient use of resources; safe manufacturing and recycling processes to protect workers; product durability; and design for disassembly, repair, and recycling. Once communities begin to put zero waste practices in place, the residual fraction — that which is left over because it is either too toxic to be safely recycled or is made out of non-recyclable materials — becomes evident, and industrial design mistakes and inefficiencies can be studied and corrected.

Reducing or substituting toxic materials, reducing packaging, and environmentally preferable purchasing are some important strategies.

Each of the communities discussed in these case studies is enjoying significant environmental, climatic, social, economic, and sanitation benefits as a result of its moves to zero waste. Together, the successes offer models we can all build from, regardless of context. Let us all learn what is environmentally possible, and begin turning the possibilities into reality.

This week Other Worlds launches the blog series “Environmental Possibilities: Zero Waste,” featuring new ways of thinking, acting, and shaping government policy. Each week, we highlight a success story in the zero waste movement, excerpted from the report On the Road to Zero Waste: Successes and Lessons from Around the World by the Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives (GAIA). GAIA is a powerful worldwide alliance of more than 650 grassroots groups, non-governmental organizations, and individuals in over 90 countries. Their collective goal is a just, toxic-free world without incineration. Other Worlds is excited to promote the work of GAIA and the organized communities it works with, and hopes that the stories inspire you and others to begin moving your home, town or city, nation, and planet toward zero waste. This introduction to zero waste is the first in a ten-part series on zero waste successes and lessons. The following weeks will feature inspiring stories about zero waste achievements in San Francisco and waste pickers in India, to be followed by additional stories from around the globe.

This introduction to zero waste is the first in a 10-part series on zero waste successes and lessons. Following weeks feature inspiring stories from around the globe. Check back regularly for the latest blogs!

Check out GAIA’s website here and download the full report here.
Read more from Other Worlds here, and follow us on Facebook and Twitter!

Copyleft GAIA. You may reprint this article in whole or in part. Please credit any text or original research you use to GAIA.Follow Beverly Bell on Twitter: www.twitter.com/Other_Worlds

Our Work
Global Community
Donate