Today's Topics:
National Boycott of PETE
The power to tax, vs. user fees -Reply
Send Replies or notes for publication to: <greenyes@UCSD.Edu>
Send subscription requests to: <greenyes-Digest-Request@UCSD.Edu>
Problems you can't solve otherwise to postmaster@ucsd.edu.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------=
--- ----------------------------------------------------------------------Date: Wed, 11 Dec 1996 15:41:41 -0800 From: GEORGE DRECKMANN <gdreckmann@ci.madison.wi.us> Subject: National Boycott of PETE
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------1064458AFC3 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3Dus-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Hi,
My previous attempt to send this attachment on the current PETE situation did not get through to most folks. I'm making another attempt.
Thanks,
George Dreckmann
--------------1064458AFC3 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3Dus-ascii; name=3D"MOREPETE.DOC" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline; filename=3D"MOREPETE.DOC"
=D0=CF=11=E0=A1=B1=1A=E14=14@=04=D4 =01Its Time To Push Alternative Containers by George Dreckmann
PETE, once the star of plastic recycling, has fallen upon hard times. Prices have plummeted, markets are disappearing, and some recyclers are stuck with loads of material that they cannot move. While this sounds suspiciously like the problems that plagued newspaper recycling a few months ago, the problem with PETE runs much deeper and its implication for recycling programs that accept plast ic containers are greater.
Why has happened to PETE? Its not the economy, stupid. Its the stupid actions of major chemical companies who are flooding the market with virgin resin and destroying the markets for recycled PETE. This was the message that four plastic industry insiders brought to a forum on PETE recycling sponsored by the Minnesota Office of Environmental Assistance on December 5th in St. Paul.
=93Please wait until I go through my entire presentation before you= slit your wrists.=94 Dennis Sabourin, Wellman Inc.
During 1996 major chemical companies including, DOW, Shell, Eastman and Hoechst Celanese have greatly increased their production of virgin PETE. This increase in production has far outpaced the growing demand for their material. Rather than reduce production, these multi-billion dollar giants have continued to produce millions of pounds of excess resin. =20
=93The chemical companies aren=92t slowing down,=94 said Peter Lobin of= RIB Corporation, a plastic recycler in Jefferson Wisconsin. =93They are dumping trainloads of material on the market.=94
The virgin PETE that is being dumped on the market is being sold at rock bottom prices. Prices usually reserved for resin that did not meet specifications, so called =93off spec=94 or =93wide spec=94 resin. Where= virgin resin may cost $.30-.45 per pound to produce, the chemical companies are now dumping perfectly good resin on the market at =93off spec=94 prices of= $.18-.25 per pound. =20
Since it cost $.25 -.35 per pound to convert post consumer PETE bottles into flake or pellets, PETE recyclers cannot compete with the resin being dumped on the market. A practice which is likely to continue through 1997.
Markets Are Vanishing
The new economics of PETE have forced most PETE processors, like RIB Corp., out of the PETE business. According to Lobin there used to be 50-60 reclaimers like RIB in PETE. That number has dropped to 20 at least 8 of those firms may not be in business long.
In addition to the loss of reclaimers, recycled PETE has lost most of the strapping market. According to Larry Koester of PETCO USA, the producers of strapping have started using virgin resin and stopped taking almost all recycled PETE. The strapping market was the primary market for green PETE bottles. Without the strapping market, it won=92t be long before green PETE bottles begin to pile up on the loading dock of recyclers around the country.
The Pile of PETE Bottles Is Getting Bigger
As recycling markets are disappearing, the volume of PETE plastic bottles is growing. There will be some 8.5 billion single serve PETE bottles sold in 1996 and billions more larger bottles. The volume of single serve PETE containers is expected to grow by 78% annually according to Mr.= Sabourin.
These single serve containers are replacing the more easily recyclable aluminum can and glass bottle. The small PETE bottle is also being sold at venues such as ball parks where collection can be difficult and costly. However, since the plastic industry has created the expectation n the part of consumers that we can recycle PETE, communities will be under pressure to recycle PETE at these p ublic locations.
Time For Minimum Content Legislation
One answer to the problems of PETE recycling is for recyclers and consumers to push for minimum content laws for PETE. Among targets for minimum content legislation are strapping, carpeting, and beverage containers. The technology for adding recycled materials to all of these items exists and was price competitive prior to the current overproduction binge.
In fact, Coca-Cola is using recycled content bottles in a number of international markets including Australia, New Zealand, Sweden and Switzerland. However, the soft drink giant has no recycled content bottles on the shelves in the US at this time. Neither does Pepsi, which combined with Coke is responsible for using over half of all PETE bottles in the US.
( In addition to pushing to minimum content laws, recyclers should contact their members of Congress and the US Senate and ask them to prod the FDA to speed up its process for approving recycled content PETE food packaging. This will assist packagers in meeting minimum content requirements and provide some lower costs recycled PETE alternatives.)
Putting On The Pressure
In the late 1980=92s we were able to hold a political gun to the head= of the plastic industry they responded with some efforts to make their products recyclable. However, now that the gun is back in the holster, we are seeing the plastic industry in full retreat from its recycling commitment.
The national recycling goal of 25% has been abandoned. Heavy lobbying has killed California=92s minimum content law. The PETE recycling market= has been destroyed by a gross oversupply of virgin resin with no change in sight. The plastic public relations blitz that created the public impression that plastic could and should be recycled has been dropped in favor of ads that simply state, =93Ain=92 t plastic great.=94
Well, I=92ve had it with low prices, bulky bottles that take up space= on my trucks, chemical companies dumping resin and high paid, industry funded lobbyists out to stifle our efforts. Think the only way to put pressure on the plastic industry is to call for a consumer boycott of plastic soft drink and water bottles until minimum content laws have been enacted.
There are currently recycling friendly alternatives to plastic bottles on store shelves throughout the country. We should encourage consumers to purchase aluminum cans and glass bottles while leaving plastic bottles on the shelve.
The Time to start the consumer boycott and call for minimum content laws is NOW. I=92ve lined up several people in Wisconsin who are willing to call for action and I=92d like to see people involved from all over the country. It might be nice for us to all act together and call for the boycott on December 20th, at the height of the holiday buying period. =20
Please contact me and let me know what you think. You can reach me at 608-267-2626 or e-mail to gdreckmann@ci.madison.wi.us. =D0=CF=11=E0=A1=B1=1A=E1=C0! =01=FE=03=13=03=13=B4J=0C&=B4J=0C&4=14@=04=D4 =FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF= =FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF= =FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF= =FF =FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF= =FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=1D=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF= =FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=05=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF= =FF =FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF= =FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF= =FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF= =FF =FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF= =FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=BF=E5=BB=01icrosoft Word 6.0=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF= =FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF= =FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF =FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=01L.DOT Madison=95%=10=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF= =FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF =FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF= =FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=DC=A5eIts Time To Push Alternative= Containers by George Dreckmann
PETE, once the star of plastic recycling, has fallen upon hard times. Prices have plummeted, markets are disappearing, and some recyclers are stuck with loads of material that they cannot move. While this sounds suspiciously like the problems that plagued newspaper recycling a few months ago, the problem with PETE runs much deeper and its implication for recycling programs that accept plast ic containers are greater.
Why has happened to PETE? Its not the economy, stupid. Its the stupid actions of major chemical companies who are flooding the market with virgin resin and destroying the markets for recycled PETE. This was the message that four plastic industry insiders brought to a forum on PETE recycling sponsored by the Minnesota Office of Environmental Assistance on December 5th in St. Paul.
=93Please wait until I go through my entire presentation before you= slit your wrists.=94 Dennis Sabourin, Wellman Inc.
During 1996 major chemical companies including, DOW, Shell, Eastman and Hoechst Celanese have greatly increased their production of virgin PETE. This increase in production has far outpaced the growing demand for their material. Rather than reduce production, these multi-billion dollar giants have continued to produce millions of pounds of excess resin. =20
=93The chemical companies aren=92t slowing down,=94 said Peter Lobin of= RIB Corporation, a plastic recycler in Jefferson Wisconsin. =93They are dumping trainloads of material on the market.=94
The virgin PETE that is being dumped on the market is being sold at rock bottom prices. Prices usually reserved for resin that did not meet specifications, so called =93off spec=94 or =93wide spec=94 resin. Where= virgin resin may cost $.30-.45 per pound to produce, the chemical companies are now dumping perfectly good resin on the market at =93off spec=94 prices of= $.18-.25 per pound. =20
Since it cost $.25 -.35 per pound to convert post consumer PETE bottles into flake or pellets, PETE recyclers cannot compete with the resin being dumped on the market. A practice which is likely to continue through 1997.
Markets Are Vanishing
The new economics of PETE have forced most PETE processors, like RIB Corp., out of the PETE business. According to Lobin there used to be 50-60 reclaimers like RIB in PETE. That number has dropped to 20 at least 8 of those firms may not be in business long.
In addition to the loss of reclaimers, recycled PETE has lost most of the strapping market. According to Larry Koester of PETCO USA, the producers of strapping have started using virgin resin and stopped taking almost all recycled PETE. The strapping market was the primary market for green PETE bottles. Without the strapping market, it won=92t be long before green PETE bottles begin to pile up on the loading dock of recyclers around the country.
The Pile of PETE Bottles Is Getting Bigger
As recycling markets are disappearing, the volume of PETE plastic bottles is growing. There will be some 8.5 billion single serve PETE bottles sold in 1996 and billions more larger bottles. The volume of single serve PETE containers is expected to grow by 78% annually according to Mr.= Sabourin.
These single serve containers are replacing the more easily recyclable aluminum can and glass bottle. The small PETE bottle is also being sold at venues such as ball parks where collection can be difficult and costly. However, since the plastic industry has created the expectation n the part of consumers that we can recycle PETE, communities will be under pressure to recycle PETE at these p ublic locations.
Time For Minimum Content Legislation
One answer to the problems of PETE recycling is for recyclers and consumers to push for minimum content laws for PETE. Among targets for minimum content legislation are strapping, carpeting, and beverage containers. The technology for adding recycled materials to all of these items exists and was price competitive prior to the current overproduction binge.
In fact, Coca-Cola is using recycled content bottles in a number of international markets including Australia, New Zealand, Sweden and Switzerland. However, the soft drink giant has no recycled content bottles on the shelves in the US at this time. Neither does Pepsi, which combined with Coke is responsible for using over half of all PETE bottles in the US.
( In addition to pushing to minimum content laws, recyclers should contact their members of Congress and the US Senate and ask them to prod the FDA to speed up its process for approving recycled content PETE food packaging. This will assist packagers in meeting minimum content requirements and provide some lower costs recycled PETE alternatives.)
Putting On The Pressure
In the late 1980=92s we were able to hold a political gun to the head= of the plastic industry they responded with some efforts to make their products recyclable. However, now that the gun is back in the holster, we are seeing the plastic industry in full retreat from its recycling commitment.
The national recycling goal of 25% has been abandoned. Heavy lobbying has killed California=92s minimum content law. The PETE recycling market= has been destroyed by a gross oversupply of virgin resin with no change in sight. The plastic public relations blitz that created the public impression that plastic could and should be recycled has been dropped in favor of ads that simply state, =93Ain=92 t plastic great.=94
Well, I=92ve had it with low prices, bulky bottles that take up space= on my trucks, chemical companies dumping resin and high paid, industry funded lobbyists out to stifle our efforts. Think the only way to put pressure on the plastic industry is to call for a consumer boycott of plastic soft drink and water bottles until minimum content laws have been enacted.
There are currently recycling friendly alternatives to plastic bottles on store shelves throughout the country. We should encourage consumers to purchase aluminum cans and glass bottles while leaving plastic bottles on the shelve.
The Time to start the consumer boycott and call for minimum content laws is NOW. I=92ve lined up several people in Wisconsin who are willing to call for action and I=92d like to see people involved from all over the country. It might be nice for us to all act together and call for the boycott on December 20th, at the height of the holiday buying period. =20
Please contact me and let me know what you think. You can reach me at 608-267-2626 or e-mail to gdreckmann@ci.madison.wi.us.
We also need to prod the Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade, and Consumer Protection (DATCAP) to enforce the plastic minimum content law already on the books. Wisconsin=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF= =FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF=FF= =FF=FF=FFrecycling laws call for all plastic containers to have a 10% minimum recycled content. DATCAP has been dragging its feet on enforcing these requirements. Let you= loca l state officials know that we need to enforce the law we already have on the book and increase the current 10% minimum to 30% or 40%. Shave already expressed a willingness to call for a PETE boycott. There are also some other folks from around the nation who would like to participate. =20 If you are interested, p to gdreckmann@ci.madison.wi.us.=03=13=03=13--------------1064458AFC3--
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 11 Dec 1996 16:45:53 -0400 From: rjh1@kepler.unh.edu (Becky Herman) Subject: The power to tax, vs. user fees -Reply
George Dreckmann wrote: >Do I support volume based fees, in practice yes. However, they are not >a universal solution and I don't know how they can be advocated in large >urban areas with significant poor populations.
Just a thought: is it really true that volume based fees can't work in large urban areas, with poor populations? Worchester, MA does it, and it appears to be working fine (anyone, correct me if I'm wrong), and they do have some poor neighborhoods. In NH, several communities use volume based fees for trash, and it also works well. These communities charge $1.00 per trash bag, and $0.00 for recycling, which is placed into blue boxes. In fact, some towns work extensively with their social services divisions to help the poor community. In one town where I used to live, bags were given free to families in need, ALTHOUGH, it was determined ahead of time, how many bags/week that family should need, if they recycle. If the family chose not to recycle, it was their choice: they would have to spend money on the extra bags. The volume based fees have worked well around here: there's not much burning, nor is their much illegal dumping. There was some illegal dumping at first (especially here at the University, where there are 80 dumpsters <locked now>), and alot of complaining at first, but now, years later, the complaining, the burning, and the illegal dumping are gone.
-Becky
-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D R.J. HERMAN Recycling Coordinator Grounds and Roads Dept. 21 Waterworks Rd. University of New Hampshire Durham, NH 03824-3519 PHONE: (603)862-3100 FAX: (603) 862-0139 EMAIL: rjh1@christa.unh.edu
http://unhinfo.unh.edu/ -=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D
------------------------------
End of GreenYes Digest V96 #46 ******************************
$*$*$*$*$ 10 LINES REFORMATTED BY POPPER AT igc.apc.org $*$*$*$*$