Today's Topics:
Journal of Commerce op-ed on plastics recycling
Natural products (2 msgs)
new EDF analysis of plastics recycling (2 msgs)
Nov SD Earth Times is On-line
Waste prevention uses more than recycling
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, 2 Nov 1997 13:45:51 -0500
From: Richard_Denison@edf.org
Subject: Journal of Commerce op-ed on plastics recycling
Below is the text of an op-ed I managed to get placed in the Journal of
Commerce's 10/27 issue.
Journal of Commerce
Guest Opinion
October 27, 1997
Plastics Recycling Sham
By Richard A. Denison
This year the makers of plastic packaging have spent tens of millions of
dollars on a major public relations campaign to let you know all the ways
that "plastics make it possible."
Meanwhile, these same companies are trying to make it impossible for you to
learn the truth about what they've done or, more accurately, haven't done
to recycle all that plastic.
Every year the American Plastics Council conducts an industry survey to
determine how much plastic packaging was recycled. Each spring, the
council issues its press release proclaiming plastics recycling a grand
success.
Not until several months later are the full survey results released to the
public. Each fall the Environmental Defense Fund analyzes the full set of
the industry's numbers, only to find that the highly selective figures
touted earlier by the council don't begin to tell the whole story about
plastics recycling.
Well, apparently the council didn't appreciate having the full story told.
So this year they adopted a new policy: The full annual survey results are
being denied to the public, with distribution restricted to council
members. All the public can get is the spring press release.
And with good reason from the plastics council's perspective, it turns out.
The Environmental Defense Fund was able to obtain a copy of the latest
survey (which reports the results for 1996).
Here are what the council's own numbers reveal:
Less than 10% of plastics packaging is being recycled, a third the rate for
the next closest packaging category, glass.
In contrast to all other major packaging types, growth in recycling of
plastics packaging has been at a snail's pace over the last decade, capped
with an actual decline over the past year.
Even plastic bottle recycling -- the mainstay of plastics recycling and the
only numbers the council ever mentions in its publicity -- declined in
1996. Recycling of plastic soda bottles, the industry's only real success
story, dropped sharply for the second consecutive year; from 45% in 1994
and 41% in 1995 to 34% in 1996, the lowest level since 1990.
Of particular note is the recycling rate for polystyrene packaging and food
service items, which has hovered around 1.5% for the last several years, a
rate that makes a mockery of the polystyrene industry's much-touted goal
set in 1990, and unceremoniously abandoned last year, of achieving a 25%
recycling rate by 1995.
As if these statistics weren't bad enough, the cumulative effect of this
uniquely poor showing by the plastics industry year after year is
especially telling. Each year over the entire period from 1990 to 1996,
for every additional pound of plastic packaging that was recycled, nearly
four pounds of additional virgin plastic packaging was produced on average.
All told this decade, over 13 times more virgin plastic packaging was
produced than was recycled.
Why is plastics recycling failing, and why won't the council face up to it?
Here are just two examples of problems that thwart recycling but could
easily be solved if the will existed:
Single vs. multiple types of plastic: The only plastic packages recycled to
any significant extent -- soft drink, milk and water bottles -- are all
made from one type of plastic, easily identified by people for recycling
and easily reprocessed.
In contrast, many other consumer products come in different types of
plastic that look alike but can't be recycled together (except for
low-grade uses such as making plastic lumber).
This hodgepodge results not from any functional requirement but from
short-term economics: These packagers buy the cheapest plastic available at
a given time.
Supermarket surveys we've conducted have found four different plastics used
to make shampoo bottles and five for all-purpose cleansers, with even the
same brand using more than one type.
Clear vs. colored: Soft drink, milk and water bottles also are generally
free of pigments, in contrast to the broad palette of deep pigments used in
most plastic bottles for purely cosmetic reasons.
Companies like Procter & Gamble and Lever Brothers have won praise for
using recycled plastic in their bottles.
Ironically, they have done so by cornering the market on clear milk and
water jugs, to which they add their trademarked pigments.
The next time around, the bottles are lucky to be used even as plastic
lumber, and far more likely to end up as trash.
These obvious barriers to plastics recycling illustrate that makers and
users of plastic -- unlike those of glass, aluminum, steel and paper --
have yet to work together to do what is needed to incorporate recovered
materials back into the mainstream of production, by designing for
recyclability. Instead, plastics recycling remains the poor stepchild of
the industry, a fact amply demonstrated by the plastics council's own
numbers. A good first step, however, would be for the council to start
telling the truth about plastics recycling.
Richard A. Denison is senior scientist at the Environmental Defense Fund.
Richard A. Denison, Ph.D.
Senior Scientist
Environmental Defense Fund and Alliance for Environmental Innovation
1875 Connecticut Avenue, NW Suite 1016
Washington, DC 20009
Phone 202/387-3500
Fax 202/234-6049
email richard@edf.org
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 3 Nov 1997 00:55:31 -0500 (EST)
From: JeaDavies@aol.com
Subject: Natural products
In a tiny shop in Costa Rica a group of "indigenas" are trying to revive
their lost weaving art using only natural products and natural dyes but are
having a problem locating materials. I remembered a woman cotton farmer (in
Ariz.?) who raised green and brown cotton. Does anyone know about her or how
to contact her? I'll try to get them together.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 02 Nov 1997 11:05:50 -0800
From: Chris Garton <garton@shocking.com>
Subject: Natural products
I believe you're thinking of Sally Fox of Fox Fibers. The phone number that I
have for her is 520-684-7199(O) 7299(F).
Chris Garton
JeaDavies@aol.com wrote:
> In a tiny shop in Costa Rica a group of "indigenas" are trying to revive
> their lost weaving art using only natural products and natural dyes but are
> having a problem locating materials. I remembered a woman cotton farmer (in
> Ariz.?) who raised green and brown cotton. Does anyone know about her or how
> to contact her? I'll try to get them together.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 2 Nov 1997 13:37:58 -0500
From: Richard_Denison@edf.org
Subject: new EDF analysis of plastics recycling
Per the request of some of you, I am posting a press release the
Environmental Defense Fund issued last week about our analysis of the
latest plastics recycling figures developed -- but withheld from the public
(see below) -- by the American Plastics Council. A copy of the analysis
itself can be found on EDF's web site, at www.edf.org, from a link on the
home page or under Library/Reports.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact:
Richard Denison 202 387-3500
Lisa Swann 202 387-3500
ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND EXPOSES "SORRY STATE" OF PLASTICS RECYCLING
Analysis Uses Industry's Own Numbers
(21 October, 1997 ? Washington, DC) The Environmental Defense Fund (EDF)
has released a detailed analysis of the latest recycling figures for
plastics packaging ---? based on data reported by the American Plastics
Council (APC) ? that documents an actual decline in an already low plastics
recycling rate.
EDF's analysis, Something to Hide: The Sorry State of Plastics Recycling,
stands in stark contrast to the rosy, highly selective picture painted by
APC in its press materials issued last spring ? months before the council's
full report was completed. EDF obtained a copy of the report this year
despite APC's new policy denying the public access to its report.
"When APC's numbers are examined, it becomes clear why they would want to
hide this report," said Dr. Richard Denison, EDF senior scientist and
author of the analysis. "It vividly documents the continuing neglect of
plastics recycling as the abandoned stepchild of the plastics industry."
EDF's analysis reveals the following facts about the current state of
plastics recycling:
Less than 10% of plastics packaging is being recycled. As shown in the
attached chart, that rate is a third that of the next closest packaging
category, glass.
Again in contrast to all other major packaging types, growth in
recycling of plastics packaging has been at a snail's pace over the last
decade, capped with an actual decline over the past year.
Even plastic bottle recycling ? the mainstay of plastics recycling and
the only numbers APC mentions in its public materials ? declined in
1996. Recycling of plastic soda bottles ? the industry's only real
success story ? dropped sharply for the second consecutive year, from
45% in 1994 and 41% in 1995 to 34% in 1996 ? the lowest level since
1990.
Of particular note is the recycling rate for polystyrene packaging and
food service items, which has hovered around 1.5% for the last several
years, a rate far below the polystyrene industry's much-touted goal set
in 1990 ? and abandoned last year ? of achieving a 25% recycling rate by
1995.
EDF's analysis found that the cumulative effect of this poor showing by the
plastics industry year after year was most telling of the state of plastics
recycling. Each year from 1990 to 1996 ? for every additional pound of
plastic packaging that was recycled, nearly 4 pounds of additional virgin
plastic packaging was produced on average. All told this decade, over 13
times more virgin plastic packaging was produced than was recycled.
"Producers of every other type of packaging ? glass, aluminum, steel and
paper ? have stepped up to the plate by investing the dollars needed to
incorporate recovered materials back into the mainstream of production,"
said Denison. "The plastics industry sinks its dollars into its latest
national PR campaign to tell us all the ways that 'plastics make it
possible,' while trying to make it impossible for the public to learn the
truth about how little it has done for recycling."
EDF's analysis is available on the World Wide Web, at
http://www.edf.org/pubs/Reports/PlasticsRecycling/.
The Environmental Defense Fund, a leading, national, NY-based nonprofit
organization, represents 300,000 members. EDF links science, economics, and
law to create innovative, economically viable solutions to today's
environmental problems.
Richard A. Denison, Ph.D.
Senior Scientist
Environmental Defense Fund and Alliance for Environmental Innovation
1875 Connecticut Avenue, NW Suite 1016
Washington, DC 20009
Phone 202/387-3500
Fax 202/234-6049
email richard@edf.org
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 2 Nov 1997 14:16:49 -0500
From: Richard_Denison@edf.org
Subject: new EDF analysis of plastics recycling
The first version of this I sent around had some weird formatting, so I'm
resending a cleaned-up version.
---------------------- Forwarded by Richard Denison on 11/02/97 03:13 PM
---------------------------
From: Richard_Denison@edf.org on 11/02/97 01:37 PM
To: greenyes@ucsd.edu
cc: (bcc: Richard Denison)
Subject: new EDF analysis of plastics recycling
Per the request of some of you, I am posting a press release the
Environmental Defense Fund issued last week about our analysis of the
latest plastics recycling figures developed -- but withheld from the public
(see below) -- by the American Plastics Council. A copy of the analysis
itself can be found on EDF's web site, at www.edf.org, from a link on the
home page or under Library/Reports.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: Richard
Denison 202 387-3500
Lisa Swann 202
387-3500
ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND EXPOSES "SORRY STATE" OF PLASTICS RECYCLING
Analysis Uses Industry's Own Numbers
(21 October, 1997 -- Washington, DC) The Environmental Defense Fund (EDF)
has released a detailed analysis of the latest recycling figures for
plastics packaging ---? based on data reported by the American Plastics
Council (APC) -- that documents an actual decline in an already low
plastics recycling rate.
EDF's analysis, Something to Hide: The Sorry State of Plastics Recycling,
stands in stark contrast to the rosy, highly selective picture painted by
APC in its press materials issued last spring -- months before the
council's full report was completed. EDF obtained a copy of the report
this year despite APC's new policy denying the public access to its report.
"When APC's numbers are examined, it becomes clear why they would want to
hide this report," said Dr. Richard Denison, EDF senior scientist and
author of the analysis. "It vividly documents the continuing neglect of
plastics recycling as the abandoned stepchild of the plastics industry."
EDF's analysis reveals the following facts about the current state of
plastics recycling:
Less than 10% of plastics packaging is being recycled. As shown in the
attached chart, that rate is a third that of the next closest packaging
category, glass.
Again in contrast to all other major packaging types, growth in
recycling of plastics packaging has been at a snail's pace over the last
decade, capped with an actual decline over the past year.
Even plastic bottle recycling -- the mainstay of plastics recycling and
the only numbers APC mentions in its public materials -- declined in
1996. Recycling of plastic soda bottles -- the industry's only real
success story -- dropped sharply for the second consecutive year, from
45% in 1994 and 41% in 1995 to 34% in 1996 -- the lowest level since
1990.
Of particular note is the recycling rate for polystyrene packaging and
food service items, which has hovered around 1.5% for the last several
years, a rate far below the polystyrene industry's much-touted goal set
in 1990 -- and abandoned last year -- of achieving a 25% recycling rate
by 1995.
EDF's analysis found that the cumulative effect of this poor showing by the
plastics industry year after year was most telling of the state of plastics
recycling. Each year from 1990 to 1996 -- for every additional pound of
plastic packaging that was recycled, nearly 4 pounds of additional virgin
plastic packaging was produced on average. All told this decade, over 13
times more virgin plastic packaging was produced than was recycled.
"Producers of every other type of packaging -- glass, aluminum, steel and
paper -- have stepped up to the plate by investing the dollars needed to
incorporate recovered materials back into the mainstream of production,"
said Denison. "The plastics industry sinks its dollars into its latest
national PR campaign to tell us all the ways that 'plastics make it
possible,' while trying to make it impossible for the public to learn the
truth about how little it has done for recycling."
EDF's analysis is available on the World Wide Web, at
http://www.edf.org/pubs/Reports/PlasticsRecycling/.
The Environmental Defense Fund, a leading, national, NY-based nonprofit
organization, represents 300,000 members. EDF links science, economics, and
law to create innovative, economically viable solutions to today's
environmental problems.
Richard A. Denison, Ph.D.
Senior Scientist
Environmental Defense Fund and Alliance for Environmental Innovation
1875 Connecticut Avenue, NW Suite 1016
Washington, DC 20009
Phone 202/387-3500
Fax 202/234-6049
email richard@edf.org
Richard A. Denison, Ph.D.
Senior Scientist
Environmental Defense Fund and Alliance for Environmental Innovation
1875 Connecticut Avenue, NW Suite 1016
Washington, DC 20009
Phone 202/387-3500
Fax 202/234-6049
email richard@edf.org
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 2 Nov 1997 23:59:50 -0700
From: Carolyn Chase <cqual@znet.com>
Subject: Nov SD Earth Times is On-line
at http://www.sdearthtimes.com
November '97 Table of Contents
-----------------------------------------------Please forgive any duplicate
postings.........
Editorial
A Code without a Plan by Carolyn Chase
Local Ecology
Last call of the wild
In man vs. nature, we both lose.
Improving San Diego's Habitat Plan
A new lawsuit against the U.S. Fish&WIldlife Service is
intended to
strengthen species protection and chances for recovery.
"What's going on?" I'm a little confused, are you?
With all the furor over sports teams and stadia, it's an
odd fact that
eco-tourism could be more economically beneficial to San
Diego.
The biggest story of all
Polls indicate a rise in spirituality and a
corresponding move away
from consumptive lifestyles.
Marine Ecology
Community activists call for enforcement of clean water act and
action on polluted runoff
The original Clean Water Act goal was zero pollutant
discharges
in navigable waters by1985. We're still waiting...
Health and Diet
St. John's wort: answer to depression and other problems
This indigenous herb provides a panoply of medical
benefits.
Green Restaurant Review: Pasta Espresso
About sprouts and enzymes...
It's hard to believe the inoffensive little sprout
packs so much nutrition.
In your garden with the Garden Goddess
Fall in the roses - Putting your roses to bed right ensures
spring glory.
San Diego Earth Day
Restore San Diego
Join the third annual restoration project at 5 sites in
the county.
Calendar- November Earth-friendly events
Observations from the edge
Earth: the bride of creation by Minister Masada
A call for a pre-nuptial agreement between the earth and
man.
Sparing the child by Robert Nanninga
"Everyone talks about the weather, but no one does
anything about it."
Oh, if that were only true.
San Diego Earth Times - PO Box 99179 - San Diego, CA 92169
email: sdet@sdearthtimes.com - Voice: (619) 272-7423 - Fax: (619) 272-2933
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 02 Nov 1997 19:06:46 -0600
From: Susan Snow <sksnow@1stnet.com>
Subject: Waste prevention uses more than recycling
More than recycling prevents waste. See http://wire.ap.org/
10/29/1997 18:36 EST
Loading Dock Reuses Leftovers
By DALE HOPPER
AP Business Writer
** BALTIMORE (AP) -- When Pastor Leon Jones Jr. delivers a sermon at
Imani Christian Fellowship Church, he thanks more than God for the
altar under his feet. The 600-square foot platform was built with
material that would have been dumped if not for The Loading Dock, a
nonprofit organization that recycles building supplies. The Loading Dock
is the oldest of an expanding network of reuse centers across the
country which includes Urban Ore in Berkeley, Calif., and
Environmentally Yours in Albany, N.Y....
The Loading Dock was formed in 1984 to help low-income families keep up
their houses. Shoppers walk through the well-stocked aisles of a
21,000-square-foot warehouse piled high with toilets, sinks, carpet,
insulation, tile, shutters and five-gallon buckets of ``off-brown''
paint mixed from old paint.
The items are donated by manufacturers, contractors and individuals from
as far away as Virginia and Pennsylvania and sold for one-third retail.
About 7,000 people are eligible to shop at the warehouse, having been
referred by 1,600 churches and other nonprofit.
The Loading Dock's self-sufficient success has drawn support from a
wide range of people who are touched by seeing an old gym floor,
complete with painted stripes, turned into a sparkling living room...**
To learn more of this Associated Press article, go to its website above.
Susan Snow
------------------------------
End of GreenYes Digest V97 #264
******************************