GreenYes Digest V97 #283

GreenYes Mailing List and Newsgroup (
Fri, 22 Jan 1999 17:03:47 -0500

GreenYes Digest Sat, 22 Nov 97 Volume 97 : Issue 283

Today's Topics:
Buy Nothing Day
Coke's new PET bottle (2 msgs)
Computer Recycling/Demanufacturing
one activist pursues 'Buy Nothing Day'
phone books
Re: Re: Regarding Sad Recycling :( -Reply -Reply
unsubscribe greenyes (2 msgs)
White Pigmented Milk Bottles
Why Dan Seligman's Forbes article is Garbage

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: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 14:26:03 -0500
From: "Barbara Schaefer" <>
Subject: Buy Nothing Day


November 28, 1997

International BUY NOTHING DAY is a 24 hour moratorium on
purchasing, in the interest of drawing attention to rampant consumer

For more information about how you can become actively involved, and
to download the BUY NOTHING DAY poster, please visit the following


Pass it on.


Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 08:34:02 -0800 (PST)
From: Pat Franklin <>
Subject: Coke's new PET bottle

On Nov 19 Peter Anderson alerted everyone to the introduction of a 1/2 liter
PET bottle introduced in a number of U.S. markets, as reported in this weeks
issue of Plastics News. There was a typo in his is a 16.9
ounce bottle not a 19.9 ounce bottle. There are many, many ramifications
including, as Peter pointed out, the possibility of an even smaller bottle
to compete with the 12 ounce aluminum can. As it is, this PET bottle will
continue to eat into aluminum can share for soft drinks. The aluminum can's
days may well be numbered. Any attempt to base the economic viability of
one's curbside recycling program on the expectation that the aluminum cans
in the waste stream will remain constant is not realistic.

Furthermore, when the aluminum industry launches its nationwide recycling
program early in 1998, there will be additional competition for the aluminum
cans that are now in the waste stream.

Thanks to Peter for getting news about Coke's latest package innovation out
to green yes!!!!!!!

Pat Franklin, Exec Dir
Container Recycling Institute
1400 16th Street, NW Ste 210
Washington, DC 20036
202/797-6839 fax 5437


Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 10:09:38 -0800
From: Paul Tapley <>
Subject: Coke's new PET bottle

Reply to: RE>Coke's new PET bottle


You wrote:
"Furthermore, when the aluminum industry launches its nationwide recycling
program early in 1998, there will be additional competition for the aluminum
cans that are now in the waste stream."

Could you explain this in more detail, I am not aware of what you are refering
to (there may be others on the list as well).

Thanks for sharing such good info.,
Paul Tapley - Sonoma St. Univ.


Date: Sat, 22 Nov 1997 05:44:21 -0500
From: "Bill Sheehan" <>

News Flash of the Day:


Sydney-based Coca-Cola Amatil Ltd. [a subsidiary of Atlanta-based
Coca-Cola Co.] will start producing its own recycled-content PET
bottles in January. Ian Brown, CCA corporate affairs manager,
said CCA decided this year to manufacture its own PET bottles
containing 25 percent recycled content. ... CCA expects to have
its PET bottle plant fully operational by the end of 1998.

SOURCE: Plastics News November 3, 1997, Pg. 6; by Rebecca Thyer.


Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 19:22:00 -0800 (PST)
From: Ann Schneider <>
Subject: Computer Recycling/Demanufacturing

Hi David and GreenYes folks,

We are working on a Reuse workshop for electonics but most importantly
for the repair, reuse, dismantling of brown goods (tv's, vcrs, audio
equipment, telephones all the way to hair dryers and blenders.

Here in CA, movement is being made for computers so our emphasis is on
the products that don't seem to have any collection mechanism (other than
"donating' them, working or not, to the local charitable thrift store.)

Do any of you have leads on businesses that are taking back the 'cheaper
electronics' or businesses that are accepting them for dismantling.

I am aware of the CSI pilot collection projects in New York and of the
German company that is thinking of setting up shop in Rhode Island. So
looking for other leads especially if they are in or operate in California.

Many Thanks,

Ann Schneider
UCSC- Bus. Env. Assist. Center
Chair, Repair, Resale and Reuse Technical Council (RRaRC)
of Calif. Resource Recovery Assoc.


Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 13:36:10 -0800 (PST)
From: Boston CWA 486 <>
Subject: one activist pursues 'Buy Nothing Day'

Wall Street Journal
19nov97 page one
A Holiday Greeting Networks Won't Air:
Shoppers Are 'Pigs'
Still, one activist pursues 'Buy Nothing Day';
a call to cut up credit cards

Good tho not esp friendly coverage of Adbusters
so much for free market /free speech
consumerism does indeed seem to be a conspiracy/addiction

WSJ 19nov97 B1
Novel P&G Product Brings Dry Cleaning Home
"They won't say exactly what Dryel does contain"

This product might actually be a step forward for the environment, but the
time of "secret" chemicals should be long past.



Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 13:35:58 -0800 (PST)
From: Boston CWA 486 <>
Subject: phone books

The appropriateness of mass distribution of so many "free" telephone
directories annually is questionable. At the very least, exchanging the old
for new, integrating distribution and collection, should be done. Instead
of distribution to homes, they should be sold from supermarkets and drug
stores for $1 each -- or $2 if an old one is not being turned in.
Anything along these lines happening anywhere? How are phone books
done in other countries?
Keith c/o
total recycling - zero waste
W.Rox/Boston, MA USA


Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 21:21:49 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: Re: Regarding Sad Recycling :( -Reply -Reply


I've read many of your notes and others' notes on your situation. Sounds like
a citizen's group needs to start making noise about forcing your local
telephone company and Donnelly to take back books! This is how Bell got
started in the game in the first place in most of North America. You guys
might just have a sit down with them and find out if they have any back
hauling opportunities to get books up to a mill north of there. A little
noise about producer responsibility sometimes can go a long way.

As to costs, it would seem to me that if you can keep your costs below
whatever your costs for burning are you must have a number of creative
options...animal bedding, packaging material, whatever.

Many of us are know-it-alls, I know, and we're sorry, it's just frustrating
to hear that industry keeps leaving people high and dry after stringing them
out for a few years.

David Biddle
Philadelphia, PA

In a message dated 11/21/97 5:30:46 AM, wrote:

>Each year my City (Largo) weighs the pros and cons of telephone book
>recycling to determine if we will collect them. Much discussin occurs
>before a decision is made. Telephone books will not be distributed in
>our area until next spring. Helen


Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 08:53:29 -0600
From: Joshua Reiser <>
Subject: unsubscribe greenyes


Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 08:56:20 -0700 (MST)
Subject: unsubscribe greenyes

unsubscribe greenyes penelope canan

Penelope Canan, Sociology	voice:  (303) 871-2049
University of Denver		fax:	(303) 871-2090
2040 S. Race Street		email:
Denver, Colorado 80208-0209


Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 10:34:33 -0600 From: RecycleWorlds <> Subject: White Pigmented Milk Bottles


In the course of researching the recycling problems creating by some = American dairies' conversion to white pigmented HDPE bottles (namely, = the loss of the 1/3-1/2 higher revenues commanded by natural HDPE = relative to pigmented HDPE), we have just learned that consumer groups = in Australia are lobbying to convince their dairies to switch to white = pigmented bottles for nutrition reasons.


Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 07:32:26 -0800 (PST) From: Pat Franklin <> Subject: Why Dan Seligman's Forbes article is Garbage

November 14, 1997

Dear Editor, The following is the short version of my response to Dan Seligman's article "Why Recycling is Garbage", which appeared in the November 17th issue of your magazine. I would be happy to send your the longer version, although even this letter exceeds the normal 250 word (or less) standard letter to the editor.

Sincerely, Pat Franklin Executive Director Container Recycling Institute 1400 16th Street, NW Suite 210 Washington, DC 20036 202/797-6839 fax 202/797-5437 email:

Why Dan Seligman's article in the Nov. 17th issue of Forbes Magazine is garbage by Pat Franklin

There are more than ten good reasons to deposit Dan Seligman's article ("Why Recycling is Garbage", Forbes Magazine, 11/17/97) in the box marked TRASH (OOPS, I mean, recycling bin), but here are just a few. Actually, Mr. Seligman's portrayal of all proponents of recycling as "lousy writers" almost deterred me from writing a response at all. I have tried to touch on each of his ten reasons to boycott America Recycles Day, but have stopped short of commenting on his comparison of the three R's (reduction, reuse and recycling) to the Ten Commandments.

It is curious that Seligman encourages a boycott of America Recycles Day, which has dozens of corporate and industry sponsors. Not only have they invested hundreds of thousands of dollars in promoting the event, one of their own, Bill Heenan, President of the Steel Recycling Institute is one of the co-chairs. The hope is that companies like Coca-Cola will heed the message of America Recycles Day, and start using recycled content in the 20 BILLION plastic (PET) soda bottles they produce each year. If Americans are going to recycle their products and packaging, industry has to commit to using the materials that are collected.

Mr.Seligman claims that "there's no shortage of raw materials, so we don't need to conserve them." This attitude is short sighted and irresponsible. The squandering of raw materials and natural resources, estimated to be billions of dollars a year) would have to be considered a waste even if our supply of raw materials were infinite, which it is not. Last year alone, we LANDFILLED $600 million worth of Aluminum cans in the U.S. In the words of a well-known and respected corporate leader, Peter Coors, President of Coors Beer, "All waste is lost profit."

Seligman points out that recycling programs are subsidized by government, and he's right. But these subsidies pale in comparison to the subsidies enjoyed by the paper, aluminum and plastics industries, just to name a few industries that benefit from virgin tax breaks. Furthermore, if the externalities of materials extraction, manufacturing and disposal were incorporated in the price of products and packaging, THE costs of recycling (and disposal) would be shifted FROM LOCAL GOVERNMENT to producers OF THE PRODUCTS. It's called the 'producer pays principle'.

And yes, recycling takes a little time. But the 100 million Americans who recycle every day are proof that most folks don't seem to mind the extra effort it takes to separate recyclables from trash. They know, even if Seligman doesn't, that landfills are expensive to site, generate hazardous air emissions, and threaten both surface and groundwater supplies. And, since he thinks we have no shortage of landfill space, let's put the next landfill in Seligman's backyard.


End of GreenYes Digest V97 #283 ******************************