GreenYes Digest V97 #260

GreenYes Mailing List and Newsgroup (
Fri, 22 Jan 1999 17:04:44 -0500

GreenYes Digest Thu, 30 Oct 97 Volume 97 : Issue 260

Today's Topics:
Contact at Coke (2 msgs)
GreenYes Digest V97 #259 -Accounting for Trash Collection Savings
Junk Mail Press Release (2 msgs)
U.S. Lags Other Nations in Paper, Glass Recycling =20

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, 29 Oct 1997 08:00:52 -0600 From: "John Reindl" <> Subject: Contact at Coke

For our next state recycling conference, the planning team is looking=20 for a spokesperson from Coke to talk about Coke's view of its corporate=20 responsibility for waste reduction, recycling and `design for=20 recycling'.

Does anyone have a suggested contact for Coke that I can pass along to=20 the planning team?

Thanks much!

John Reindl Dane County, WI (608)267-1533 - fax (608)267-8815 - phone


Date: Wed, 29 Oct 1997 12:47:20 -0500 From: "Bill Sheehan" <> Subject: Contact at Coke


Good luck getting Coke to speak publicly for themselves. Their=20 standard procedure is to hide behind their soft drink trade=20 associations =96 which were created precisely to deflect any=20 possible negative publicity from the world's best known logo. =20

The GrassRoots Recycling Network has seen this firsthand. Our=20 letter to Coke on March 19, 1997 was never even acknowledged,=20 but the state and national soft drink associations have been=20 quoted in dozens of articles about our efforts since then. =20

You might consider =96 as we have =96 not to listen to anyone but=20 Coke talk for Coke.

Cheers, Bill S.

************************ Bill Sheehan GrassRoots Recycling Network 268 Janice Drive Athens GA 30606 Tel & Fax 706-208-1416 ************************

---------- > From: John Reindl <> > To: > Subject: Contact at Coke > Date: Wednesday, October 29, 1997 9:00 AM >=20 > For our next state recycling conference, the planning team is looking=20 > for a spokesperson from Coke to talk about Coke's view of its corporate=20 > responsibility for waste reduction, recycling and `design for=20 > recycling'. >=20 > Does anyone have a suggested contact for Coke that I can pass along to=20 > the planning team? >=20 > Thanks much! >=20 > John Reindl > Dane County, WI >=20 > > (608)267-1533 - fax > (608)267-8815 - phone


Date: Wed, 29 Oct 1997 10:58:04 -0600 From: RecycleWorlds <> Subject: GreenYes Digest V97 #259 -Accounting for Trash Collection Savings

------ =3D_NextPart_000_01BCE459.8A6C31E0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3D"us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

The following responses to the Times Picayune article relating to =3D offsetting solid waste collection costs appear overstated to they argue =3D for a proportionate reduction in trash collection to the amount =3D diverted.

The reason for the overstatement is that the packer still needs to drive =3D the entire route even after curbside recycling begins. =3D20

To understand how the need to continue driving the entire route effects =3D costs, it is useful to divide the time on the route between two =3D activites:

1. Time at the stop collecting material; and

2. Time between stops.

So the first thing to understand is that diversion programs only save =3D the first (time at), not the second (time between). In terms of impact, =3D you'd typically see about 5 seconds between and about 10-20 seconds at =3D the stop.

But that does not mean you save all the time at the stop. In turn most =3D of that 10-20 seconds is slowing down approaching and speeding up =3D leaving, and then again the residual few seconds actually loading is =3D only reduced by loading, for example, 2 bags instead of 3 bags.

The point is that -- unless you reach a high threshold amount of =3D diversion discussed in later -- the acutal savings in the solid waste =3D fleet due to recycling is not very large.

As to the threshold concept, this is significant. To capture this =3D effect, it is necessary to divert a sufficient amount of material such =3D that the need for the trash trucks to go off route and dump is reduced =3D from the typical twice to once a day. In most cases, this will be =3D between 20-30% from the quantity collected on those routes by those =3D trash trucks, and to reach that you can add all of the diversion =3D programs together (e.g. add yard trimming diversion to recycling). In =3D this regard, Rick Anthony's comment is very important to track down. Is =3D the 15% reported diversion calculated as a fraction of overall MSW =3D (including commercial streams) and, if so, what fraction is residential =3D of MSW. =3D20

In any event the answer to the point being raised is a bit more =3D complicated than simply proration.

Peter Anderson


GreenYes Digest Wed, 29 Oct 97 Volume 97 : Issue 259

Date: Tue, 28 Oct 1997 06:48:14 -0600 From: Alicia Lyttle <> Subject: Recycling article in Times Picayune

An article about Recycling in the Times Picayune of New Orleans, La on Monday October 27. This article states that in Jefferson Parish, they spend more than $1.2 million a year to recycle about 10,000 tons of garbage. It would cost the parish $139,000 to bury that much waste in its landfill. Public officials are now wondering if, despite its environmental benefits, if curbside recycling is worth the money. With few exeptions, most cities and parishes with curbside recycling programs only divert 8 to 15 percent of the waste stream from landfills, far short of the 25 percent target set by the Legislature in 1989. In my opinion the low recycling rate is proportional to the fact that there are absoutely no programs to educate the people in these parishes about recycling. We also do not have a city-wide composting program and most people in the city do not have backyards to compost their yard waste. Bill Sheehan is quoted in the article as saying the following: "You're going to have problems as long as the companies that use virgin materials are subsidized with tax breaks, cheap mineral rights and subsidized acess to our timberlands," said Bill Sheehan, an Athens, Ga., biologist who is chairman of the National Grassroots Recycling Network Sheehan's group advocates lobbying companies to make their products recyclable and to use minimal, recyclable packaging. "These companies generate garbage, but local government is responsible for disposing of it. That is an unfunded mandate if i ever saw one," he said. "I know that we live in a capatilist society, but there are other values that need to be considered." Because our recycling program is not up to par, the student recycling committee of Tulane University is starting a city-wide educational campaign to improve the recycling rate. We will ask the TImes-Picayune to place an insert in their paper on November 15th that contains information on how and why to recycle, what can be recycled, how to get more information on recycling. If anyone has done a city-wide campaign please contact us with suggestions. We need your help! Alicia Lyttle:


Date: Tue, 28 Oct 1997 22:45:24 -0500 (EST) From: Subject: Recycling article in Times Picayune

In a message dated 10/28/97 7:01:16 AM, wrote: >Alicia Lyttle >An article about Recycling in the Times Picayune of New Orleans, La on >Monday October 27. This article states that in Jefferson Parish, they >spend more than $1.2 million a year to recycle about 10,000 tons of >garbage. It would cost the parish $139,000 to bury that much waste in >its landfill. Public officials are now wondering if, despite its >environmental benefits, if curbside recycling is worth the money.=3D20

It should cost about $120 (net, meaning the inclusion of the market =3D value of the material) a ton to collect and process curbside recyclables. This is =3D how you get the $1.2 million (10,000 X 120 =3D3D 1,200,000). But my take, =3D using percentages you give later in your emial, is that your parish generates =3D at least 100,000 tons of trash. I do not know your disposal costs, but your collection costs for trash have to be at least $50 - $60 a ton. (this is about what they are in Philly when we're making things hum). Disposal =3D costs (landfill) would be easy to get, but they should be, minimally, $25 - =3D $30 a ton. That would make your total trash disposal costs $75 - $90 a ton. =3D Total cost then should be $7.5 - $9.0 million. $139,000 is just not right. So, =3D per unit, you might have costs of $80 a ton for trash and $120 a ton for recycling (today with flattened markets). But your total recycling costs =3D are still $1.2 million vs. $8 million for trash. The issue, if I'm right =3D with my numbers, is probably that you have low trash disposal costs, recyclables =3D need better pricing, and the efficiency of your recycling collection system =3D needs to be addressed.

My experience with these issues goes back to 1987 when we developed a =3D model to simulate trash/recycling economics for the Philadelphia recycling =3D program.

David Biddle Philadlephia, PA


Date: Wed, 29 Oct 1997 00:02:05 -0500 (EST) From: Subject: Recycling article in Times Picayune

Forgive my last diatribe. Sometimes we don't read so clear when it is =3D nearly 11:00 pm.=3D20

If it costs you 139,000 to landfill 10,000 tons of trash, your costs are =3D only $13.90 per ton for trash collection! I still don't believe this.=3D20

I agree with all Rick Anthony said in his post to you, but I would add =3D one thing:

Someone there who has control of the information doesn't like recycling. Educate them or de-elect them...

Sincerely again and off to bed

David Biddle Philadlephia, PA


Date: Tue, 28 Oct 1997 09:33:34 -0800 From: Richard Anthony <> Subject: Recycling article in Times Picayune -Reply

>>> Alicia Lyttle <> 10/28/97 04:48am >>> If anyone has done a city-wide campaign


Three things: 1) Using statistics. 15% of a waste stream that provides only curbside recycling is pretty good.=3D20 Without yardwaste (clean green) pick up, a 15% diversion overall is about 30% for the residential waste stream. Remember, the residential collections are about 50% of the whole waste stream. Add Yard waste and you get to 45%.

2. Money. It may take and additional $160,000 to bury garbage after it takes $1.2 million to collect it. If its separated by the public, the $160,000 landfill fee is saved plus whatever revenue is gained by selling the material.=3D20 Remember whether it is recycled or land filled it still has to be collected. =3D20

3. A landfill ban of designated recyclables, or a Mandatory separation ordinance will: level the playing field, create steady streams of separated recyclables for industry to build upon, make it clear in the community that this is the way we handle wasted resources in our county.

Rick Anthony San Diego, CA


End of GreenYes Digest V97 #259 ******************************

------ =3D_NextPart_000_01BCE459.8A6C31E0 Content-Type: application/ms-tnef Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64


------ =3D_NextPart_000_01BCE459.8A6C31E0--


Date: Wed, 29 Oct 1997 07:52:28 -0800 (PST) From: Boston CWA 486 <> Subject: Junk Mail Press Release

This is a better article than most of this type, with some actual new info.

But my experience is that the way to suppress junk mail effectively is not to expect help from any generalized "don't send" lists, but to take agressive personal responsibility. The key thing about junk mail is that it cascades in a pyramid. If you let it go, it avalanches. Nip it in the bud! Look at each piece of mail that you receive, consider who sent it, why, and whether you want it (and more of the same). You will be much more effective in this if you code your address for each person you give it to. (I really have an apartment #, and add letter codes after it. Inventing extraneous apartments #s would potentially add flexibility.) Spontaneous natural misspellings are also helpful aids. [Caution: I notice that many orgs ignore the address I put on their forms, and use the address on my checks instead. So, I have to write in code additions there, too.] Each time your address is mis-used, get on the phone, track it down, get back to the source, and ask them not to do it again! It really is possible to keep junk mail down to a low level, with constant vigilance.

We should be demanding that a system of universal commercial mailing list codes come in to use, so that you can find out where your name came from and effciently/effectively do something about it. We should demand that all junk mail have standardized bar codes so that the Post Office could scan the piles of undeliverable/refused/returned junk mail and charge the senders, at the same time giving the senders the electronic details to avoid such waste in the future. We should demand that all junk mail meet specifications for recycling, at least as "mixed paper", to qualify for low postal rates. A general system of postage-paid pre-addressed "no more of this kind of mail please thank you" postcards as part of many mailings, all ready to just be dropped in return mail, would also help.

DMA types always proclaim in public that they have no interest in sending mail to people who don't want it (this from a system pleased to get one-percent returns, which translates to designed-in waste of almost 100%). If they were serious, they would at least make it very easy to use the internet to decline future mailings of specific or general types.

Some of the worst junk mail offenders are environmental orgs and other non-profits. We need "best practice" standards for combining lists, removing duplicates, and generally keeping lists up-to-date. Orgs need help with good practice guidelines, and also should be threatened with having to make a good effort in order to qualify for nonprofit rates. The near-universal use of self-stick mailing labels is a blatant example of Not-Eco-Correct practice. (We need small service shops in every city that can take a computer address file and use it to print addresses on mailing pieces directly and efficiently.)

The new self-stick stamps taking over and gumming up high-grade paper recycling is another symbol of the general lack of coordination.

Recycle electrons -- Save a Tree! =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D Keith c/o total recycling - zero waste W.Rox/Boston, MA USA =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D At 02:28 PM 10/24/97 -0700, Robin Salsburg wrote: >Hi All-- > >Just wrote up a press release about the new law making it easier for people to get off some types of junk mail lists. I am sending it along with the hopes that you might be=20


Date: Wed, 29 Oct 1997 09:06:41 -0800 From: Paul Tapley <> Subject: Junk Mail Press Release

Reply to: RE>>Junk Mail Press Release

Here's one more idea for the "junk mail" problem. This method does not= address the problems, it just makes me feel better, sending a small message. When I get unwanted solicitations in the mail, the first thing I do is look for the postage paid return envelope (PPRE). I then put all the materials they sent= to me into their PPRE and then send it all back to them with the message:= "Please recycle this, send no more, and take my address off your mailing list. Thank you." I haven't noticed any great reduction in the mailings, but it seems appropriate to have the sender of unwanted mail be made responsable for it's disposal, and pay the postage as a small penality for the inconvience of us having to deal with it.


Date: Thu, 30 Oct 1997 07:21:18 -0500 (EST) From: Subject: Subscribing

Jodi Segal, MASSPIRG, is trying to get on the greenyes listserve without luck. If someone can fix the problem or email her the directions for doing= so (she has tried several times), that would be greatly appreciated.=20


Amy Perry


Date: Wed, 29 Oct 1997 05:46:45 -0800 (PST) From: "David A. Kirkpatrick" <> Subject: U.S. Lags Other Nations in Paper, Glass Recycling =20

U.S. Lags Other Nations in Paper, Glass Recycling =3D20 October 29, 1997 7:02 AM EST

RIVERDALE, Md.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Oct. 29, 1997--Germany, Switzerland, Denmark, the Netherlands and Japan seem to lead the world in paper and glass recycling, far surpassing the U.S., according to the November issue of Recycling Laws International from Raymond Communications Inc.=3D20

Recycling figures from European trade associations show that the majority of European countries recycled at least 50% of their glass containers in 1996, while the U.S. recycled about 32%. Switzerland had the highest rate at 89% recovery; the Dutch recovered 81%; Germany 75%; Japan is approaching 60% recovery.=3D20

Europeans reportedly recycled 32 million tons of waste paper in 1996, according to the Confederation of European Paper Industries, giving the European Union an average recovery rate of nearly 50%. Comparatively, the U.S. recycled about 44% of its paper in 1996 (including pre-consumer material) while Japan was nearing its 60% recycling goal, recycling more than 55%.=3D20

However, when it comes to steel and plastics, the U.S. stacks up more favorably, according to RLI.=3D20

While Japan leads the world in steel recovery at 77% in 1996, the U.S. ranks second at 58%; Europe averaged about 45%. (Although Germany recycled 81% of its steel containers).=3D20

While no new comparative figures for overall plastic packaging recovery were available, 1995 figures indicated that the U.S. leads most of Europe in mechanical recycling of plastic packaging. Only Austria (15%) Germany (10.9%) and Switzerland (11.9%) recovered more than the U.S., which recycled about 9% of its plastic packaging in 1995.=3D20

Under Europe's Directive on Packaging & Packaging Waste, each country must recycle at least 15% of each material, and achieve a minimum 50% recovery of packaging by July 2001.=3D20

"Europe's producer responsibility schemes seem to succeed in sending design signals to manufacturers, and improving recovery rates on the traditional materials such as paper, glass and metals," commented publisher Michele Raymond, "But it has not worked so well for plastics."=3D20

That is because the laws do not actually require companies to use the recovered material just ensure it is collected and recycled somehow.=3D20

The numbers suggest that the U.S. approach of government collecting only selected plastic containers (e.g. milks jugs and soda bottles) which have current markets may work better.=3D20

Six international experts from three continents will detail the latest on recycling policy in Europe, Canada, Asia and Latin America at the Take it Back! '97 conference Nov. 17-18, in Alexandria Va.=3D20

=3DA9 Business Wire. All rights reserved.=3D20



End of GreenYes Digest V97 #260 ******************************