Today's Topics:
Composition of glass
Composition Thru Sales
Earth Day 2000
Glass composition from sales
GreenYes Digest V97 #79
I have rooms at CRRA conference
TOES
waste composition and glass
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 postmaster@ucsd.edu.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 97 23:40:51 PST
From: roger.diedrich@sfsierra.sierraclub.org
Subject: Composition of glass
John Reindl passed along this query:
>
>I've been asked by a state recycling official in Montana about the
>composition of glass collected by recycling programs -- how much is
>clear, green and brown. She is interested in data from all over the
>US, so if you have these types of data, I would appreciate hearing from
>you.
>
*And on 4/14, Helen Spiegleman said:
Maybe someone could explain something I've always wondered: why doesn't it
make more sense to determine the composition of waste by looking at SALES of
the materials, rather than through waste comp studies. . . . .
Helen,
You make some interesting points, the approach you suggest should help support
the view we are trying to promote. But I suspect that may be its only
advantage. Using manufacturing data, and adding lag factors, etc. is just
what the Franklin's did for EPA in their Waste Characterization, which
seriously undercounts the U.S. waste stream. I think in addition to the
problem of time lags for different materials, there is an equally large
problem of geographic distribution, especially if you want to look at a state
or Provence. By this I mean, can we expect consumption and disposal
to occur close to the point of sale? The other approach should not rely on a
single waste composition survey. I suspect either approach could be valid,
with sufficient data and analytical rigor, which is often missing.
Roger Diedrich
Virginia
--------------------------------
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 97 12:04:00 PDT From: <chris.cloutier@moea.state.mn.us> Subject: Composition Thru Sales
It is a good idea, but it is fraught with the same statistical inaccuracies of waste comp data. Having done numerous packaging discard studies, MN is very aware of the statistical vaguaries of counting the stuff. We continue to err on the side of counting (as best we can) what is discarded and using those numbers. They ain't the Holy Grail, but as far as garbage #'s go, they are pretty good.
For instance, Minnesota's plastic stream has a huge percentage of green PETE in it. Well-above any national norm. If we simply looked at sales data and extrapolated to MN then we would have an inaccurate and distrorted view of our PET stream. The stuff is hard enough to market w/o knowing what you have and what to expect.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 21:05:06 -0700 (PDT) From: Ann Schneider <aschneid@cats.ucsc.edu> Subject: Earth Day 2000
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.
On Fri, 11 Apr 1997, Carolyn Chase wrote:
> Tedd Ward said: > >Alicia Culver and I had an idea for a theme for Earth Day 2000: Zero Cut, > >Zero Discharge, Zero Waste, with all the zeroes in "2000" replaced by > >recycling symbols. John Young thinks we could put together a killer Zero > >Waste Earth Day concert. Whaddya think? > ++ I think Zero Cut, Zero Waste, Zero Population Growth 8-) > > > >
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 08:26:44 -0600 From: "John Reindl 608-267-8815" <reindl@co.dane.wi.us> Subject: Glass composition from sales
In response to the comment below, the composition data that I provided are indeed from the sales amounts from all of 1996 -- not from a sorting through the material.
Sorry for any confusion.
John Reindl, Recycling Manager Dane County, WI
PS - BTW, a sample of our mixed color cullet (which we also market) was sorted by some researchers in Indiana. The composition was much different than the glass that was color sorted.
> > ------------------------------ > > Date: Mon, 14 Apr 1997 20:31:30 -0700 > From: helens@axionet.com (Helen Spiegelman) > Subject: Composition of glass > > John Reindl passed along this query: > > > >I've been asked by a state recycling official in Montana about the > >composition of glass collected by recycling programs -- how much is > >clear, green and brown. She is interested in data from all over the > >US, so if you have these types of data, I would appreciate hearing from > >you. > > > >As a kickoff, in our program the composition of the color sorted glass > >at our MRF in 1996 was: > > > > clear 48.7% > > green 22.7% > > brown 28.6% > > > > > Maybe someone could explain something I've always wondered: why doesn't it > make more sense to determine the composition of waste by looking at SALES of > the materials, rather than through waste comp studies. > > ------------------------------ > > Date: (null) > From: (null) > > When I see decimal points on the percentages above, I can't help but think > that we're seeing precision masquerading as accuracy... (I appreciate that > measurements of materials collected source-separated for recycling may be > more meaningful.) > > But I also seem to remember a very old publication by the EPA that talked > about the "materials flow methodology" where sales figures are factored in > with life-expectancy of the item, in order to arrive at what seems like much > more meaningful end results. > > It puzzles me that progressive states like OR and CA are basing their > "measurements" of compliance with rigid plastic container mandates on waste > comp studies (factored somehow with even more specious results from > "surveys" of recyclers). The OR contact told me it was because the sales > figures for OR were not available -- sales figures are nation-wide. Doesn't > it seem that a pro-rated per-capita estimate would be do-able? > > The reason I make this point is that measurements at the waste end seem to > reinforce the mind-set that waste is a "stream" emanating from some > mysterious source. Eighty seven percent of the waste flow is MANUFACTURED > PRODUCTS that have been abandoned by their makers, who abjure responsibility > for them as soon as they are passed on to the consumer. You can be sure that > the makers of those products knew EXACTLY how much material they produced, > and it should be their social responsibility to account precisely for what > happens to it "cradle-to-cradle". > > Helen Spiegelman > RCBC > > > > > > -- > > ------------------------------ > > End of GreenYes Digest V97 #79 > ****************************** > reindl@co.dane.wi.us (608)267-1533 - fax (608)267-8815 - phone
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 08:22:49 -0600 From: "John Reindl 608-267-8815" <reindl@co.dane.wi.us> Subject: GreenYes Digest V97 #79
> ------------------------------ > > Date: Mon, 14 Apr 1997 20:31:30 -0700 > From: helens@axionet.com (Helen Spiegelman) > Subject: Composition of glass > >As a kickoff, in our program the composition of the color sorted glass > >at our MRF in 1996 was: > > > > clear 48.7% > > green 22.7% > > brown 28.6% > > > > > Maybe someone could explain something I've always wondered: why doesn't it > make more sense to determine the composition of waste by looking at SALES of > the materials, rather than through waste comp studies. > > ------------------------------ > > Date: (null) > From: (null) > > When I see decimal points on the percentages above, I can't help but think > that we're seeing precision masquerading as accuracy... (I appreciate that > measurements of materials collected source-separated for recycling may be > more meaningful.) > > But I also seem to remember a very old publication by the EPA that talked > about the "materials flow methodology" where sales figures are factored in > with life-expectancy of the item, in order to arrive at what seems like much > more meaningful end results. > > It puzzles me that progressive states like OR and CA are basing their > "measurements" of compliance with rigid plastic container mandates on waste > comp studies (factored somehow with even more specious results from > "surveys" of recyclers). The OR contact told me it was because the sales > figures for OR were not available -- sales figures are nation-wide. Doesn't > it seem that a pro-rated per-capita estimate would be do-able? > > The reason I make this point is that measurements at the waste end seem to > reinforce the mind-set that waste is a "stream" emanating from some > mysterious source. Eighty seven percent of the waste flow is MANUFACTURED > PRODUCTS that have been abandoned by their makers, who abjure responsibility > for them as soon as they are passed on to the consumer. You can be sure that > the makers of those products knew EXACTLY how much material they produced, > and it should be their social responsibility to account precisely for what > happens to it "cradle-to-cradle". > > Helen Spiegelman > RCBC > > > > > > -- > > ------------------------------ > > End of GreenYes Digest V97 #79 > ****************************** > reindl@co.dane.wi.us (608)267-1533 - fax (608)267-8815 - phone
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 14:59:34 -0700 From: lrecycle@sonic.net (Linda Christopher) Subject: I have rooms at CRRA conference
Apolgogies in advance to non-Californians:
I am relinquishing three rooms at the now-booked-up Doubletree at the CRRA block rate of $97.00 per night. The rooms are for Sunday night June 1 and Monday June 2 only. If anyone would like them, please e-mail me or call and I will give you the confirmation numbers.
In return, Pavitra Crimmel and I are looking for a cheap, cheap place to stay on Saturday night May 31 so we can attend the Sunday Grassroots Recycling Network and CRRA meetings. All offers and advice gladly accepted.
Linda Christopher Education Director Garbage Reincarnation Inc 707-584-8666 x11 707-584-8291 Fax Snail Mail PO Box 1375 Santa Rosa, CA 95402
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 09:35:42 -0400 From: LAWRENCE MARTIN <MARTIN.LAWRENCE@EPAMAIL.EPA.GOV> Subject: TOES
The Other Economic Summit=20 *Working Alternatives: A World that Works*=20 Denver, Colorado USA * June 20-22, 1997 =20 Registration Announcement
DENVER CHALLENGES THE G-7:=20 *WHAT IS REAL WEALTH?*=20 Colorado community members are preparing a range of program and community = expression called the Peoples* Summit to challenge the prevailing Group of = 7 largest industrialized countries (G-7.) policy - also termed *G-8* to = include Russia. For weeks preceding the G-7 Summit Coloradoans will = conduct public education, culminating with actions, cultural events, = workshops and participation in The Other Economic Summit - convened at the = same time as the G-7. Not invited to the G-7? Come to the Peoples* = Summit=21
Since 1984 The Other Economic Summit (TOES) has convened annually as a = popular expression of discontent with the limitations of economic policy = advanced by the G-7. Held each year concurrently with the G-7 meeting = in each of the respective G-7 countries in turn, The Other Economic Summit = both takes on the character of the host country=27s social justice, = economic democracy and environmental advocacy concerns, and reflects the = larger international community. TOES =2790 in Texas drew 1000 people from = 40 countries.
COME TO DENVER THIS SUMMER In 1997, TOES has chosen the theme *Working Alternatives: A World That = Works* expressing America*s advocacy community*s desire to advance a = positive alternative to the *big business as usual* of the G-7. People = around the world have significant and often moving stories to tell about = their efforts to create alternatives that are working in their communities,= businesses and lives. For some, their work is a matter of immediate = survival; for others, it is the intellectual and social challenge of this = era. TOES `97 provides the venue to share these experiences and to = examine together how we can strengthen the forms, connections and power of = the vast mosaic our separate efforts are building.=20
In 1996, 50,000 people marched in France to tell the G-7 leaders their = policies of structural adjustment and corporate globalism were not = satisfactory. In 1997 we look forward to your participation in TOES and = the Peoples Summit to send this message again. Come help build a politics = and economics that values persons, communities and the Earth=27s ecology = locally, nationally and globally. Come learn, educate and show your = support for : WORKING ALTERNATIVES: A WORLD THAT WORKS=21=20
The most recent program is available for viewing at http://pender.ee= .upenn.edu/=7Erabii/toes/ if you can*t access it email request for copy to toesdc.ipc.apc.org Questions? or for info: toesdc.ipc.apc.org or fax to 212.972.9878
THE DETAILS =20 WHEN: June 20 to 22 - arrive the 19th for a reception and an early start = Friday=21
Summit registration is a sliding fee from =240 to =24150. We project an = average cost of =2495 per registrant to support the expense of the = program. The Peoples* Summit depends upon registration fees to meet the = majority of Summit expenses. Registrations above =2495 and contributions = will support the participation of others unable to pay as much, but whose = participation is essential. These tax deductible contributions toward = scholarships are welcome. Volunteer assistance during the Summit is = appreciated. On site registrations will also be accepted for single days. = There are no paid staff for the presentation of TOES `97.
Registration includes admittance to all day programs, and a reception on = the 19th, but does not include meals. A preconference confirmation = mailing, conference materials, and the conference newsletters are included = in all registrations. The TOES book *Working Alternatives: A World that = Works* is included as a premium with all registrations of =2495 or more. = Fees go entirely towards Summit production and scholarships. Transportatio= n and other events, such as dinners with speakers, or evening speakers may = carry additional fees.
Lodging will be provided at the University of Denver Campus on a first = come first served basis for those who pay in advance with this registration= . 70 single accommodations and 220 double accommodations are available. = Prices are =2420 per night/person for doubles and =2427 for singles. Note = your double partner, or we*ll lodge you with same sex. Bedding & towels = are provided, but not washcloths. Reimbursements on lodging not guaranteed= .
Reimbursements on registration, minus =2425 handling, if made before June = 10. =20
Transportation and other motel lodging arrangements (not dorms) can be = made with Colorado World Travel. 1901 Clarkson Street, Denver, CO 80218; = TEL (800) 274-1228; FAX (303) 830 7910; email: *cwtravel1=40aol.com* = Hours: M-F 9am-7pm Mtn.Time, Sa 11am-3pm. Ask for Carol or Josephine, and = be sure to mention TOES. Travelers are encouraged to make reservations = early to arrange for the best rates available. June weather in Denver can = include rain with highs in the 90s and lows in the 60s.
SUMMIT REGISTRATION - SEND TO TOES, 6612 PINEY BRANCH, NW WASHINGTON DC = 20012. MAKE CHECKS TO *TOES* =20 ADDITIONAL CONTRIBUTIONS ARE TAX DEDUCTIBLE.
The Other Economic Summit *Working Alternatives: A World that Works*=20 Denver, Colorado USA * June 20-22, 1997 =20
Name Address/ZIP phone fax email Registration: =24150_____ =2495_____ =2450_____ =24_____ =20 I*d like to make a tax deductible contribution for scholarships of = =24_________
Please register me for lodging at the University of Denver ___yes =20 Indicate below *s* for single or *d* for double (partner?______________) evening of 19th____, 20th____, 21st____ total lodging =24_____ =20 Total enclosed (registration and lodging) =24_____ =20 Please contact me about a table in the Exposition____ = =20 Please send literature on backpacking with others after the Summit ____ Please send info on other non-workshop Denver activity____ =20 Please send info on Teacher*s Sustainability Workshop on 19th____ I would be interested in discussing with others one of the following = topics: GATT/WTO__, Income equity in Denver metro__ NAFTA__,=20 Community Sustainability__, Mexico social justice__, International = security__, Carbon & other *Green* taxes__, Corporate accountability__,=20 Economic literacy__, Corporate subsidies__, other:
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 17:43:01 -0500 From: Bill Carter <WCARTER@tnrcc.state.tx.us> Subject: waste composition and glass
In response to the inquiry about ratios of glass containers by color, and waste composition measurement in general:
The most thorough waste characterization study in Texas to date -- the Cal Recovery Systems study for San Antonio, Texas in 1990 -- found that glass containers made up 5.5% of the total materials destined for area landfills that were sorted in this study. 3.3% was clear glass, 1.7% was brown, and 0.5% was green. That means that of the glass containers entering landfills, the proportions were about 60% clear glass 31% brown glass 9% green glass For comparison, the report cited 3 other local studies which found glass containers to be 7.6%, 3.3%, and 4.9% of the waste, respectively. None of these other studies sorted glass containers by color.
Regarding the effort to estimate the composition of discards on the basis of front-end sales or manufacturing data: The widely circulated EPA national waste characterization data generated by Franklin Associates are based on manufacturing and trade data, attempting to estimate how much material actually is consumed in the U.S. There are many difficulties with this approach, including: 1. Trade data rarely reflect tons of manufactured materials imported and exported across national boundaries. They are generally in terms of dollars. 2. Tonnage of materials going into products is only accessible at the manufacturing stage, and not very precisely. Where the products go in terms of tons rather than dollars is almost impossible to track to the state or local level. As the variation in glass containers as a % of waste in different cities shows, a per capita estimate is unlikely to be as accurate as a waste sort. 3. Another big uncertainty is lag time -- how long materials stay "in use" or in storage before being discarded. What % of today's discards were manufactured in 1995, 1985, 1925? How much of that material has been around the recycling block 2, 3, 4 times as different manufactured products before ending up in a landfill? 4. EPA figures for waste characterization exclude several categories of materials that end up in municipal landfills, such as construction materials and "transportation equipment" materials. 5. There are also non-manufactured materials such as yard trimmings and land clearing debris going into landfills for which there are no production figures of any kind. There are, nevertheless, some interesting categories of products, such as alcoholic beverages by specific container type, that are tracked at the state level (at least in Texas). They do not, however, add up to a complete picture of even one recyclable commodity, much less the universe of materials destined for landfills.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 17:45:47 -0400 From: "Marjorie J. Clarke" <mclarke@shiva.hunter.cuny.edu> Subject: Waste composition studies
It was asked:
>Maybe someone could explain something I've always wondered: why doesn't it >make more sense to determine the composition of waste by looking at SALES of >the materials, rather than through waste comp studies. > >But I also seem to remember a very old publication by the EPA that talked >about the "materials flow methodology" where sales figures are factored in >with life-expectancy of the item, in order to arrive at what seems like much >more meaningful end results. >
As far as I know, Franklin Associates, LTD have been doing this sort of analysis for decades for USEPA on a national basis. They issue their results (annually now), not only in terms of all the recyclables in the waste stream, but separately in terms of products, packaging and organics in the waste stream. Last I'd seen, organics were on the order of 20-25% (food and yard), durable products were 14%, nondurables were almost 30% and packaging a similar number. They break these larger categories into smaller ones as well -- all based on purchases. __ __ //\\ //\\ _ ___ __ o __ // \\ // \\ // \\ // \\ // \\ ||| //__\\ // \\// \\ \\__|| \\___// \\__// ||| \\___ // // \_// \_//
Marjorie J. Clarke Environmental Scientist and Consultant Address: mclarke@shiva.hunter.cuny.edu New York City Phone & Fax: 212-567-8272
------------------------------
End of GreenYes Digest V97 #80 ******************************