GreenYes Digest V97 #81

GreenYes Mailing List and Newsgroup (
Fri, 22 Jan 1999 16:55:55 -0500

GreenYes Digest Thu, 17 Apr 97 Volume 97 : Issue 81

Today's Topics:
Earth Day 2000
Letter to the editor to Waste News
looking for some prizes made from recycled material
Production Statistics vs Waste Composition Studies

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

Date: Wed, 16 Apr 97 20:13:37 PST

[Forwarded from Peter Hopper, Sydney, Australia]

Hi [Bill & Lance],

I was interested to read the "EARTH DAY ACTION ALERT! - PETITION COKE!"
e-mail I recently received and have subsequently subscribed to the GreenYes
e-mailing list.

Several years ago in Australia we launched a boycott of Coca Cola products
because of their hostility towards the use of refillable bottles. I have
attached copies of a couple of press releases which should be of interest
to you (I hope you can read them).

I've also attached a QuarkXPress file [and it's two resource files
containing the artwork] (which I guess could also be opened in PageMaker,
or in some other DTP programs) of a flyer that we use to promote the Coke
Boycott. Please let me know if you have any trouble accessing or reading
any of the files - I can try other formats or could fax them if necessary.

Also of interest to you would be the results of a survey we conducted. The
survey of 135 people at Manly Beach and on Coke's head office 'doorstep' at
Circular Quay in Sydney, asked four questions requiring a simple 'yes' or
'no' answer:

1. Are you a Coca-Cola drinker?
2. Do you think Coca-Cola should make their drinks available in
returnable refillable bottles?
3. Would you buy Coca-Cola in returnable refillable bottles?
4. If a deposit-refund system was introduced, would you return your
empty Coca-Cola container for a 20c refund?

The survey found that 90% of respondents thought Coke should use returnable
refillable bottles, and a similar number would return empties for a 20c

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.

I'd be happy to help you any further if I can - we have a good network of
waste activists in Australia, especially in Sydney and throughout New South
Wales where we were successful in having new waste legislation introduced
in 1996/7 which included such things as a requirement for the
reintroduction by the dairy industry of refillable milk bottles.

Unfortunately we have not managed to have Container Deposit Legislation
introduced in any other states of Australia (other than South Australia
where it has operated since 1977) despite the submission of petitions with
hundreds of thousands of signatures.

Finally, regarding PET recycling in Australia, as mentioned in your Earth
Day e-mail, it is rumoured that Coke is abandoning the use of (the minimial
amount of) reprocessed PET it has been using in a small percentage of its
new bottles ... and that the price being paid for collected PET is to drop
from over $500 per tonne to $50 per tonne.

Peter Hopper


Date: Wed, 16 Apr 1997 12:09:58 -0700
From: (Carolyn Chase)
Subject: Earth Day 2000

Ann Schneider <> said
>I like the Zero Population Growth aspect. It didn't fly very well when
>talking about federal subsidies down at the GRN in Atlanta though.
>Course it could have been my presentation.
++ I think people are just uncomfortable with the topic and what they are
afraid that it could imply. However, regardless of how squeamish we are, it
is the root of many troubles and there probably aren't too many that don't
support family planning via education. Without population growth there
would be less of a crisis in resource use and no need for potential
population crashes.

Carolyn Chase, Editor, San Diego Earth Times,
Please visit ;-)

Tel: (619)272-7423 (SDET)
FAX: (619)272-2933
P.O. Box 9827 / San Diego CA 92169

'You've got to conserve what you can't replace'

"Every citizen is involved in politics; it's just that some people do
politics, some have it done to them."


Date: Wed, 16 Apr 1997 14:53:48 -0600
From: George Dreckmann <>
Subject: Letter to the editor to Waste News


I sent the following letter to Waste News in response to the story on the
Coke protest. I received a call from them yesterday that indicated they
were going to run it.

Dear Editor,

In Ann Marie Halal's artilce on the Grass Roots Recycling Network's
action against the Coca-Cola Company Bill florence of the Georgia Soft
Drink Association was quoted as calling the GRN an extremist group. As
a member of the GRN I can state that nothing could be further from the

I have over seven years experience in running a curbside recycling
program in a city of over 200,000. In that capacity I have seen the
markets for PETE plastic disappear and prices for the material plummet.
This drop in prices has nothing to do with falling demand for material,
rather is has to do with the gross overproduction of virgin resin and the
dumping of the virgin resin on the market by its producers.

Mr. Florence also states that GRN's "scheme" doesn't make sense. Let's
look at the facts. The soft drink industry promised to use recycled
content in their plastic bottles back in December of 1990. (New York
Times 12/5/90) A promise they have failed to keep. While Coke and
Pepsi market plastic containers with recycled content overseas, they do
not sell the material in the USA.

Coke and Pepsi are offering more and more soft drinks in PETE bottles. In
fact the single serve plastic bottle is being credited with bringing new,
record profits to the soft drink industry. (Beverage World, September,
1996) Yet these industry profit makers are costing recycling programs
hundreds of thousands of dollars as they replace aluminum cans and
drive up the cost of collection and processing of containers.

According to the American Plastic Council, plastic collection cost
between $600 and $700 per ton. Waste Management, which operates
the MRF which processes the City of Madison's material estimates that it
costs them $510 per ton to sort and process plastic. That would put the
combined cost of PETE recycling in my program at $1,100-$1,210 per ton.
The revenue for selling PETE gfor our program has been between $30
and $80 per ton this year. With that wide disparity I think that recyclers
have a right to be concerned.

Other factors that concern GRN members include; the decling rate of
PETE recycling as the new single serve containers are heading for the
landfill instead of the recycling bin, the beverage insudtries knee jerk
opposition to bottle bills which have shown to be an effective way to
reduce litter and recycle high percentages of material, and the failure of
the industry to even experiment with refillable plastic bottles, bottles they
use in europe today.

I do agree with one statement Mr. Florence made. He said that the
situation is an industry problem, not a Coke problem. he is correct, that is
why, in Wisconsin, Rep. Duwayne Johnsrud (R-Eastman) is introducing
a bill that will call for all plastic soft drink and water bottles sold in
Wisconsin to have a minimum of 20% post consumer content. I've
waited too long for the beverage industry to keep its promises. It's time
to force the issue.


George P. Dreckmann
Recycling Coordinator
City of Madison, WI


Date: 16 Apr 97 15:58:21 EDT
From: Myra Nissen <76275.1032@CompuServe.COM>
Subject: looking for some prizes made from recycled material

The City of Fremont is looking for 3 nice prize ($100 to $200/ea) for Earth Day
Raffel that is made from recycled/reclaimed material (hopefully from a San
Francisco Bay Area business) for Tues., April 22. The prize will go to City
staff for "Clean Your Files" campaign.

If you have ideas or suggestions, it would be best to call Forest Frasieur at
(510) 494-4693 rather than return the e-mail.

Thank you.


Date: Thu, 17 Apr 1997 15:33:37 +0900
From: (Hop)
Subject: Production Statistics vs Waste Composition Studies

Hi all,

I've just joined the list. I'm from Sydney, Australia, where we have a very
active and successful "Waste Crisis Network", but I'm currently living in
Tokyo, Japan.

In response to the discussion on 'production statistics vs waste
composition studies' ... I agree that there is a great need to measure
product and material flows from the point of production rather than 'us'
having to try to sort out the waste stream for industry.

* The former is in-keeping with the aim of greater industry responsibility
and accountability and (with take-back provisions) is more likely to result
in product and packaging redesign, reuse, and closed-loop recycling.

* 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.

Could someone provide more detail of the Franklin Associates 'production ->
waste' analysis (eg. is it accessible via the net) mentionaed at the end of
GreenYes Digest V97 #80? It would be helpful in our moves in this direction
in Australia.



End of GreenYes Digest V97 #81