Today's Topics:
AB 1512
Fwd: Coke Recycling
Fwd: RECYCLE digest 456
GRRN not GRN!
Letter to the editor (2 msgs)
Manufacturer Responsibility
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: Sun, 20 Apr 1997 02:21:49, -0500
From: david_reynolds@prodigy.com ( DAVID B REYNOLDS)
Subject: AB 1512
Note to list members outside of California: AB 1512, sponsored by
Californians Against Waste and introduced by California Assembly
Member Shelley , would expand the "Bottle Bill" in California to
include containers that house the newer beverages that have entered
the market (e.g., sports drinks, waters, iced teas, juices). Below
is what I am submitting for Mr. Rick Best's (of Californians Against
Waste) consideration. I also welcome comments from others.
-------------------------------------------------------
Dear Rick,
In general, I applaud your efforts regarding AB 1512. However, I am
worried that by focusing solely within the "beverage container
paradigm" we are introducing some hard-to-recycle materials (coated
paperboard, aseptic packages, flexible drink bag packages, LDPE
(fruit drink containers)), while excluding containers that are made
of readily recyclable materials (e.g., ferrous and aluminum food and
pet food containers). The Bill Analysis and the Department of
Conservation's earlier recommendations on expanding containers within
the program mention the same type of things. Just because the
original statute was titled "Beverage Container Recycling and Litter
Reduction Act" does not mean we can not look outside the realm of
beverage containers. I personally feel that some
revisions/amendments that are sensitive to this will increase the
bill's chance of passage.
Have you considered companion legislation that will increase recycled
content requirements? I have heard some talk about stepping above
35% for glass again (is this in a bill?).
Thanks and I look forward to your response.
Best regards,
Dave Reynolds
Enviro-nomics
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 19 Apr 97 14:00:18 PST
From: jennie.alvernaz@sfsierra.sierraclub.org
Subject: Fwd: Coke Recycling
[forwarded]
To: <recycle@envirolink.org>
Subject: Coke Recycling
Mr. Irvine,
Yet again the only response you can muster is a
confrontational, negative one. This list is about expressing our
opinions, but please do so in a less negative manner.
In regards to your comments:
>Don't you realize they are only part of the soft drink industry ..... they
have
competitors .... I'm sure that does not mean anything to you ..... they also
have stockholders, including many retirement funds [teachers, unions, State >
employees, etc., etc.]
Why does it matter that they are 'only' a part of the soft drink industry?
They
are producing incredible quantities of waste, and GRN wanted them to reduce
that
waste. Also, according to the survey I just recieved, making the change to
reusable bottles would not hurt their productivity. I believe you recieved
this
email as well:
'The survey found that 90% of respondents thought Coke
should use returnable refillable bottles, and a similar
number would return empties for a 20c refund.
Sixty two percent of those surveyed were Coke consumers.
Only 5% of existing Coke consumers would not buy Coke
in returnable refillable containers. However, more than 50%
of non-Coke-consumers would buy Coke if it were
available in refillable bottles.'
>Why don't you get off it. Get a life and do something usefull for a change!!!
These people ARE doing something. They are working for a major change in the
way bottles are recycled. Why don't you stop attacking other people's efforts
and do something useful' yourself?
Greg Westin
westin@inreach.com
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 19 Apr 1997 15:51:57 -0600
From: swally@earthlink.net (Wally)
Subject: Fwd: RECYCLE digest 456
I'm sure you had many other replies to this. Sure coke has competitors who
share some blame, but coke seems to have been more greedy and more of a
bully in disregarding common sense.
As for the retirement funds, I do feel sorry for the retiree's, but who is
to blame? The retirement fund managers and coke management.
>---------------------
>Forwarded message:
>From: 75010.567@CompuServe.COM (Chuck Irvine)
>Sender: owner-recycle@envirolink.org
>Reply-to: recycle@envirolink.org
>To: recycle@envirolink.org (INTERNET:recycle@envirolink.org)
>Date: 97-04-18 18:59:33 EDT
>
>Regarding the call to boycott Coke...........I do not understand you people
>blasting an American icon like Coke simply because they are high profile and
>easy to castigate. Don't you realize they are only part of the soft drink
>industry.....they have competitors....I'm sure that does not mean anything to
>you.....they also have stockholders, including many retirement funds
>[teachers,
>unions, State employees, etc . etc.] All you people are going to accomplish
>is
>to bring more acrimony down upon yourselves and the environmental movement as
>a
>whole. Why don't you get off it. Get a life and do something usefull for a
>change!!!
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 19 Apr 1997 08:05:34 -0400 (EDT)
From: Infinrecy@aol.com
Subject: GRRN not GRN!
There might be some people who think of it as....
GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRn
(which still brings a grin;)
ford
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 19 Apr 1997 20:50:29 -0400
From: RJ Herman <rjh1@christa.unh.edu>
Subject: Letter to the editor
To whom it may concern:
The following was written by a national organization I belong to, and I
would like to know if it could be included in this coming Tuesday or
Friday's TNH as a "letter to the editor." Thanks in advance for your time
and consideration.
-Becky Herman, UNH Recycling
=======================
EARTH DAY
April 22, 1997
The enclosed Recycling Alert article was written and prepared by the
College and University Recycling Council in response to the a lack of
Environmental concern about PLASTICS. Please print this article in your
student newspaper tto inform the student body, your readers of the excesses
of industry in the search for profit t the cost of our environment.
RECYCLING ALERT
EARTH DAY APRIL 22, 1997
Students, Faculty, and Staff should be aware of an impending Recycling and
Environmental debacle which can be addressed by you as individuals. This
debacle is the steadily increasing use of virgin PLASTIC in soda, juice and
water beverage containers. This increased use of virgin plastic is
replacing recycled aluminum, glass, and steel containers.
The facts are as follows: Aluminum, steel and glass containers are
recycled daily and enjoy a reasonably stable secondary market. This is the
result of commitments by those respective industries to reduce energy use
and their impacts on the environment. Through each purchase of a beverage,
packaged in aluminum containing 70% post consumer content or glass
containing 40% post consumer content, you help to support the recycling of
that container and the recycling industry. Additionally you help close the
recycling loop. By purchasing and recycling of that container you ensure
that the container is used as feed stock for it's re manufacture. (And
lower pollution, minimize the need for new landfills, and support efficient
use of resources and clean industry?) This is what Recycling is all about.
However PLASTIC does not enjoy the same secondary market support as does
aluminum and glass. In fact, by not using any post consumer content in
the production of container plastics, plastic manufacturers demonstrate
disdain and disregard for consumers, recycling, and the environment.
By excluding the secondary or post consumer recycled content
market,plastic packages are crushing markets for recycled plastics.
recycling. This leads to hidden cost to the consumer in increased waste
and continued environmental degradation. Current information from the
American Plastics Council and the Institute for Local Self Reliance
indicate that there is No post consumer or recycled content in plastic
beverage containers manufactured in the USA, in spite of Food and Drug
Administration's unilateral allowance for post consumer content
production.
To illustrate this point, just three years ago Coca Cola was using 25%
post consumer content in their containers. The stoppage in the practice of
using recycled content has become an issue of price and profit. As a
result the current manufacturing of plastic containers uses only virgin
plastic feed stock currently costing less than post consumer or recycled
plastic. Coca Cola has abandoned their commitment to recycling and the
consumer by not using post consumer content in it's containers.
You as the consumer do not realize a savings but instead subsidize
inexpensive environmentally offensive packaging and its disposal rather
than recycling. Of course Coca Cola is realizing a savings in production
costs and the additional profit as the result of your purchase costs.
Coca Cola has decided that it is not worth investing in recycling or the
planet's future by using virgin plastic containers and allowing you the
consumer to finance their profitable decision against recycling and
environmental concern.
In addition, CocaCola and all major bottlers have voiced a commitment to
continue the use of virgin plastic in favor of highly recyclable aluminum
and glass containers. The end result is a dead end for recovered plastic
bottles which can only be down cycled into lower grade plastic items. As
the direct result of the beverage industries' anti recycling policy, the
current market for recycled plastic is dying at best, with little hope for
the future. This leaves the plastic manufacturers in a very profitable and
controlling position while ensuring increased waste and environmental
degradation. As the cost for recycling plastics increases in a shrinking
market, more plastic is destined for landfills and incinerators. This
trend directly effects your University Recycling program not to mention
having devastating effects on the environment as well. The increase in
plastic containers has reduced the quantity of aluminum and glass
containers collected by your recycling program. This in turn reduces the
income your program generates to help fund and justify your program while
increasing the costs of your waste disposal.
Please help to stop this assault on recycling by not buying beverages
packaged in plastic. Make it known to your University Administration,
University Store, Food Service Supplier, Student Store and outside
businesses that you want and will only purchase beverages packaged
in aluminum and glass (Post Consumer Content/Recycled Containers). Let
Coke, Pepsi and other bottlers know of your desire for them to be
environmentally responsible through changes in your buying habits, calls
and letters. Please help to continue the progress your Recycling program
has made by challenging those who disregard the vitality of the planet this
day, Earth Day and every day.
The College and University Recycling Council
For further information about CURC see our WEB page at:
http://ecosys.drdr.virginia.edu/curc.html
-=-=-=-==-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
R.J. Herman
Recycling Coordinator
University of New Hampshire
Grounds and Roads Dept.
21 Waterworks Rd.
U niversity of New Hampshire
Durham, NH 03824-3519
PHONE: (603) 862-3100
FAX: (603) 862-0139
E-MAIL: rjh1@christa.unh.edu
UNH Information:
http://unhinfo.unh.edu/
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 19 Apr 1997 20:58:50 -0400
From: RJ Herman <rjh1@christa.unh.edu>
Subject: Letter to the editor
Sorry to all that received my last posting, "Letter to the editor." I'm
using a new mail editor and it looks like I need to re-read the directions.
-Becky
-=-=-=-==-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
R.J. Herman
Recycling Coordinator
University of New Hampshire
Grounds and Roads Dept.
21 Waterworks Rd.
U niversity of New Hampshire
Durham, NH 03824-3519
PHONE: (603) 862-3100
FAX: (603) 862-0139
E-MAIL: rjh1@christa.unh.edu
UNH Information:
http://unhinfo.unh.edu/
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 19 Apr 1997 18:37:15, -0500
From: david_reynolds@prodigy.com ( DAVID B REYNOLDS)
Subject: Manufacturer Responsibility
Hello Hop,
Pulling the following comment from one of your earlier messages:
Hop says:
"The later (ie. relying on waste composition studies) will frustrate
efforts to achieve greater industry responsibility and, as a result,
reprocessing / open-loop recycling activities (happily promoted, to
a
limited extent, by industry as 'best practice') will be the best we
achieve. Waste-conscious citizens will remain frustrated."
Reynolds responds:
Manufacturer responsibility should not be limited to "closed loop"
recycling. In fact, 100% post-consumer content in most packaging is
either not technically feasible or cost effective at this time. If
there is a higher value application for a given recovered material
outside of its original use (i.e., "open loop" recycling), then
utilizing the material for that purpose would be better for recycling
and the economy. If we want manufacturers to take
responsibility/ownership for their products/packaging, then along
with that ownership comes the right to work within the free
enterprise system to find the highest value outlet for the materials
(with the only requirement that they not be disposed). This could be
worked through a manifest system, where a manufacturer's packaging
output is documented, and the manufacturer could meet its
responsibility through a given approach or combination of approaches
including source reduction, post-consumer content in manufacturer's
product/packaging, or sale of the materials for utilization in other
markets.
Too often we see limiting, mandated approaches being incorporated
into statutes and regulations, and later we discover unintended
consequences. I do not like to use the label extremists. What is
labelled extremism is normally a result of well-intentioned people
who do not open their minds to all of the alternatives, or do not
think about how their "solution" will be implemented (i.e., just
mandate it and let someone else worry about implementing it). This
normally comes from either a lack of experience with or sensitivity
to technology, business operations, and economics.
In the name of sustainable resource conservation and recycling,
Sincerely,
David B. Reynolds
Enviro-nomics
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 19 Apr 1997 20:54:00 -0400
From: RJ Herman <rjh1@christa.unh.edu>
To the editor:
I just realized I sent you a copy of RECYCLING ALERT that wasn't put
through spell check. If it's not too much trouble, please exchange the
previous copy for the following one, which has been edited. Thankyou!
-Becky
===========
EARTH DAY
April 22, 1997
The enclosed Recycling Alert article was written and prepared
by the College and University Recycling Council
in response to the a lack of Environmental concern about
PLASTICS.
Please print this article in your student newspaper tto inform
the student body, your readers of the excesses of industry in
the search for profit t the cost of our environment.
RECYCLING ALERT
EARTH DAY APRIL 22, 1997
Students, Faculty, and Staff should be aware of an impending
Recycling and Environmental debacle which can be addressed by you
as individuals. This debacle is the steadily increasing use of virgin
PLASTIC in soda, juice and water beverage containers. This increased
use of virgin plastic is replacing recycled aluminum, glass, and steel
containers.
The facts are as follows: Aluminum, steel and glass containers are
recycled daily and enjoy a reasonably stable secondary market. This is
the result of commitments by those respective industries to reduce
energy use and their impacts on the environment. Through each
purchase of a beverage, packaged in aluminum containing 70% post
consumer content or glass containing 40% post consumer content, you
help to support the recycling of that container and the recycling industry.
Additionally you help close the recycling loop. By purchasing and
recycling of that container you ensure that the container is used as feed
stock for it's re manufacture. (And lower pollution, minimize the need for
new landfills, and support efficient use of resources and clean
industry?) This is what Recycling is all about.
However PLASTIC does not enjoy the same secondary market support
as does aluminum and glass. In fact, by not using any post consumer
content in the production of container plastics, plastic manufacturers
demonstrate disdain and disregard for consumers, recycling, and the
environment.
By excluding the secondary or post consumer recycled content
market,plastic packages are crushing markets for recycled plastics.
recycling. This leads to hidden cost to the consumer in increased waste
and continued environmental degradation. Current information from the
American Plastics Council and the Institute for Local Self Reliance
indicate that there is No post consumer or recycled content in plastic
beverage containers manufactured in the USA, in spite of Food and Drug
Administration's unilateral allowance for post consumer content
production.
To illustrate this point, just three years ago Coca-Cola was using 25%
post consumer content in their containers. The stoppage in the practice
of using recycled content has become an issue of price and profit. As a
result the current manufacturing of plastic containers uses only virgin
plastic feed stock currently costing less than post consumer or recycled
plastic. Coca-Cola has abandoned their commitment to recycling and the
consumer by not using post consumer content in it's containers.
P. 2
You as the consumer do not realize a savings but instead subsidize
inexpensive environmentally offensive packaging and its disposal rather
than recycling. Of course Coca-Cola is realizing a savings in production
costs and the additional profit as the result of your purchase costs.
Coca-Cola has decided that it is not worth investing in recycling or the
planet's future by using virgin plastic containers and allowing you the
consumer to finance their profitable decision against recycling and
environmental concern.
In addition, Coca-Cola and all major bottlers have voiced a commitment to
continue the use of virgin plastic in favor of highly recyclable aluminum
and glass containers. The end result is a dead end for recovered plastic
bottles which can only be down cycled into lower grade plastic items.
As the direct result of the beverage industries' anti-recycling policy, the
current market for recycled plastic is dying at best, with little hope for the
future. This leaves the plastic manufacturers in a very profitable and
controlling position while ensuring increased waste and environmental
degradation. As the cost for recycling plastics increases in a shrinking
market, more plastic is destined for landfills and incinerators. This trend
directly effects your University Recycling program not to mention having
devastating effects on the environment as well. The increase in plastic
containers has reduced the quantity of aluminum and glass containers
collected by your recycling program. This in turn reduces the income
your program generates to help fund and justify your program while
increasing the costs of your waste disposal.
Please help to stop this assault on recycling by not buying beverages
packaged in plastic. Make it known to your University Administration,
University Store, Food Service Supplier, Student Store and outside
businesses that you want and will only purchase beverages packaged
in aluminum and glass (Post Consumer Content/Recycled Containers).
Let Coke, Pepsi and other bottlers know of your desire for them to be
environmentally responsible through changes in your buying habits, calls
and letters. Please help to continue the progress your Recycling program
has made by challenging those who disregard the vitality of the planet
this day, Earth Day and every day.
The College and University Recycling Council
For further information about CURC see our WEB page at:
http://ecosys.drdr.virginia.edu/curc.html
-=-=-=-==-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
R.J. Herman
Recycling Coordinator
University of New Hampshire
Grounds and Roads Dept.
21 Waterworks Rd.
U niversity of New Hampshire
Durham, NH 03824-3519
PHONE: (603) 862-3100
FAX: (603) 862-0139
E-MAIL: rjh1@christa.unh.edu
UNH Information:
http://unhinfo.unh.edu/
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
------------------------------
End of GreenYes Digest V97 #85
******************************