Today's Topics:
Award Program for California Businesses
Bar Coding for Take Back Packaging
Beverage Industry Waste Avoidance Practices - best internat'
Beverage Industry Waste Avoidance Practices - best internat'l
Beverage Industry Waste Avoidance Practices - best internat'l examples sought
Coke
FW: Agricultural Plastics
is any market a good market
Recent History of Mfg Responsibility in the U.S.
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: Wed, 21 May 1997 16:18:00 -0700
From: "Brennan, Terry" <tbrennan@CIWMB.ca.gov>
Subject: Award Program for California Businesses
Applications are available through June 30, 1997 for the California
Integrated Waste Management Board's Waste Reduction Awards Program
(WRAP) which recognizes deserving California businesses for their
outstanding waste prevention and recycling activities. Each business is
judged individually, based on the "way" it conducts its business, and
not for the "type" of business it conducts. For example, a recycling
business is eligible to apply for its efforts to reduce its own waste,
but not merely because it recycles the waste of others. Companies or
nonprofits (sorry, no government agencies) that reduce, reuse, and
recycle the waste they generate are eligible to apply. Winners will
receive an award certificate and camera-ready winner logo, along with
media promotion in newspapers and other publications. Winners will be
announced during Pollution Prevention Week in September.
You can obtain an application or more information by contacting Linda
Hennessy, WRAP Coordinator, at (916) 255-2497 (e-mail
lhenness@ciwmb.ca.gov), or visit our Web Site at
http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/mrt/wpw/wrap/wpwrap.htm
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 22 May 97 01:31:47 PST
From: jennie.alvernaz@sfsierra.sierraclub.org
Subject: Bar Coding for Take Back Packaging
Back in April, Bill Carter mentioned the following idea for bar coding
to facilitate take back programs. Does anyone have more information on
this idea, particularly with respect to beverage container packaging?
Thanks in advance,
Bill Sheehan
jennie.alvernaz@sierraclub.org
>Date: Thu, 17 Apr 1997
>From: Bill Carter <WCARTER@tnrcc.state.tx.us>
>Subject: GreenYes Digest V97 #81 -Reply
>
>A fascinating idea for how a manufacturer-responsibility system might
>work was presented by Trish Ferrand at an National Recycling Congress
>session a few years ago -- a system to link data about all packaging to
>the bar codes on products, so that a redemption center at a supermarket,
>for instance, could scan-in returned packaging of various sorts and
>automatically calculate deposit refunds or redemption credits toward
>purchases. No weighing materials, no adding, no hassle. Just remember
>not to tear across the bar code.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 21 May 97 16:02:48 EST
From: grussell@nybg.org
Subject: Beverage Industry Waste Avoidance Practices - best internat'
For information on international policies on beverage
container waste prevention and recycling, I suggest
contacting Bette K. Fishbein at INFORM, Inc.
120 Wall Street
New York City, N.Y. 10005-4001 U.S.A.
tel #: (212) 361-2400, ext.230
fax #: 212-361-2412
email: Inform@igc.apc.org
Gray Russell
Compost Project Manager
Bronx Green-Up
The New York Botanical Garden
grussell@nybg.org
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 21 May 1997 10:58:21 -0500
From: Pete Pasterz <Pete.Pasterz@USDWP.MSU.EDU>
Subject: Beverage Industry Waste Avoidance Practices - best internat'l
Hop--
the best resource I know is the Container Recycling Institute in Wash. DC
They have a wealth of infor on international beverage container reuse programs.
Their web site is: http://www.igc.apc.org/cri/
Pete Pasterz
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 21 May 1997 23:41:31 +0900
From: oldxeye@crisscross.com (Hop)
Subject: Beverage Industry Waste Avoidance Practices - best internat'l
examples sought
I'm looking for best international examples of beverage industry waste
avoidance practices. Please respond with as little or as much information
as you can provide.
To narrow the topic a bit, here is some background:
* I'm particularly interested in packaging-waste-avoidance measures on a
country-by-country (or state/region) basis;
* I'm NOT interested in bottle and can recycling but rather in high level
stuff, such as non-packaging and re-usable packaging examples;
* Any statistical information which backs up the effectiveness of such
measures would be most welcomed, as would any information about the laws,
agreements, traditions, expectations etc which have led to these
waste-avoiding practices;
* Information on refundable-deposit levels and resulting return and re-use
(or recycling) rates is of course of great interest;
* I'm also interested in non-packaging-related best international examples
of beverage industry waste avoidance (such as that reported under the
heading of "Zero Waste Beer" in GreenYes #94);
* I'm collecting this information for a submission to the New South Wales
Government (Australia) to enable the development and implimentation of a
Beverage Industry Waste Reduction Plan as part of recently enacted
legislation to achieve a 60 percent reduction in waste by the year 2000;
* Perhaps such information has already been compiled and is available on
the net - if so, please direct me to it;
* I will post the results for the benefit of all GreenYes readers.
Until then however, the best I can suggest is ..... drink water!
Regards,
Hop.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 21 May 1997 18:54:53 -0400 (EDT)
From: Infinrecy@aol.com
Subject: Coke
<< I know we are all slaming Coke these days, but here is something positive,
and seemingly contradictory...
Coke has volunteered space on 50 million cans to promote the clean water
program, "Only Rain Down The Drain" sponsored by the Bay Area Stormwater
Management Agencies Assoc.
My
myracycle@compuserve.com >>
Maybe it's some people in that huge org. that don't know what other people
are prioritizing.
ford
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 21 May 1997 09:01:35 -0500
From: Anne Morse <AMorse@nt1.co.winona.mn.us>
Subject: FW: Agricultural Plastics
>----------
>From: Anne Morse
>Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 1997 8:58 AM
>To: 'nec@orbis.net'; ', GreenYes@UCSD.EDU'
>Subject: RE: Agricultural Plastics
>
>Hello NEC, (wish who I knew who there, though)
>
>Re: biodegradable plastics, I spoke recently with Ron Sundberg, a consulting
>engineer out of Minneapolis who is working with the Linden Group of Sweden,
>in the of Novamont, a biodegradable corn-based thermoplastic.
>
>Novamont is today successfully used throughout Europe in bags for food waste
>composting, and they're working on its use in table utensils, and as a thin
>covering over paper plates. I didn't inquire specifically about agricultural
>plastics, but it seems a likely application.
>
>Ron is wonderful to work with, his contacts are many, and his phone # is
>612/825-5566.
>
>----------
>From: nec@orbis.net[SMTP:nec@orbis.net]
>Sent: Friday, May 16, 1997 1:13 PM
>To: GreenYes@UCSD.EDU
>Subject: Agricultural Plastics
>
>Hello! I am looking for any information available about agricultural,
>biodegradable, bio-plastics, or any other alternative plastics made from
>non-petroleum materials. I want to know their benefits, drawbacks and
>availability. If anyone has info, or knows where I can get more
>information, please reply. I will be doing a story in a local newsletter
>which goes out to a large mailing list in Saint Paul, MN.
>Thank you!
>
>
>
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 21 May 1997 10:36:12 -0400
From: "Blair Pollock" <bpollock@town.ci.chapel-hill.nc.us>
Subject: is any market a good market
Good discussion topic: Anecdote from our program on collecting mixed paper
for roofing shingle market. For two years, Orange Community Recycling ran
bimonthly collections of mixed paper for shipment to a roofing shingle paper
market about 90 miles away. About 1000 people came to each collection day
bringing an average of 30 tons per collection. According to the shingle
plant operators, about 50% of the mixed paper we sent down there went
through the paper making screens into the local landfill as paper sludge
that had been floclated and dried with a drying agent. So is this a good
idea? Ship low grade paper 90 miles in rolloff containers each carrying
about five tons then throw out half of it as floculated sludge? I haven't
done the net energy and emmisions calculation.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 22 May 97 02:12:33 PST
From: jennie.alvernaz@sfsierra.sierraclub.org
Subject: Recent History of Mfg Responsibility in the U.S.
MAYORS CALL FOR MORE PARTICIPATION BY INDUSTRY TO SHARE INCREASING COSTS
BNA STATE ENVIRONMENT DAILY
Nov. 8, 1994
WASHINGTON (BNA) -- A resolution by the U.S. Conference of Mayors to
consider a recycling system that would include manufacturer responsibility
has caused alarm in industry, according to interviews conducted Nov. 2 and 4.
Industry representatives fear the resolution, passed several months ago,
is based on a European system that will not work in the United States. The
resolution asked Congress and the administration to study the models.
Citing ever-increasing financial burdens on cities and local governments
for recycling solid waste and noting that other nations have established
systems of manufacturer responsibility, the mayors called for a national
debate to explore shared responsibility for waste management.
The resolution mentioned several roles manufacturers could play in sharing
the role of recycling, including requiring companies to take back, reuse, or
recycle large product containers, collecting excess packaging at stores where
shoppers have left it, and partially fund a consortium to recycle and manage
waste or to reimburse local governments for their costs.
The resolution states that the debate should focus on tailoring
manufacturer's responsibility to the U.S. recycling system, and not adopting
the German Green Dot system, which has been harshly criticized by U.S.
businesses for forcing a market for recyclables. Other countries that have
some type of manufacturer share responsibility include Canada and France.
The U.S. Conference of Mayors is the first non-environmental group to
endorse the concept of manufacturer responsibility in the United States,
David Gatton, senior environmental adviser for the U.S. Conference of Mayors,
told BNA Nov. 2.
While industry members have said they are interested in participating in a
national debate exploring the current status of recycling in the United
States, several told BNA Nov. 4 that a major recycling reform is not needed,
and that manufacturers are already contributing to reducing and recycling
solid waste.
<snip>
Richard Abramowitz, director of environmental affairs for the National
Soft Drink Association, told BNA Nov. 4 that the term "manufacturer's
responsibility" is a misnomer. It is used now to make industry more
responsible for its packaging, but industry is already taking responsibility
for its packaging and has been for years. Companies have reduced the amount
and weight of the materials in their packages and have used more recycled
content in their packages as well, Abramowitz said.
"This is commonplace in the beverage industry. There is an economic
incentive to use less packaging," he said.
The resolution, however, acknowledged that industry is already
participating in solid waste reduction goals, and stressed the need for
industry to share the costs of solid waste management and recycling. This
way, limited local government funds could be freed from solid waste
management and used for more pressing health and safety issues, according to
the resolution.
But Abramowitz expressed no sympathy for the escalating costs local
governments say they bear for solid waste management.
"Why shouldn't they pay?" Abramowitz said. If manufacturers start sharing
the costs of solid waste management, the consumers are going to pay the
difference of lower city taxes through higher product costs. "Either way, the
person who owns the house is going to pay," he said.
Abramowitz said a national debate is acceptable, but there is no real need
for reform at the moment. The recycling markets are rebounding for many
materials such as newspaper, aluminum, and plastics. The value of the
recyclable materials is the highest it has been in years, he said.
Over time the municipalities will begin to reap the benefits of higher
recyclable values, and their costs will begin to decline, Abramowitz
predicted.
Rather than the focus being on who pays for recycling, the cities should
begin to focus on establishing a more efficient collection system and better
advertising for recycling.
J. Winston Porter, president of the Waste Policy Center in Sterling, Va.,
also agreed that no major recycling reform is needed. Porter served as EPA's
assistant administrator for solid waste and emergency response between 1985
and 1989.
<snip>
Porter also acknowledged that he has a fundamental problem with the
manufacturer's responsibility philosophy. When a company sells a product to a
consumer, the consumer should not turn around and tell the company it is
responsible for the waste the product causes. It is the consumer who owns the
product and the waste it generates, he said.
------------------------------
End of GreenYes Digest V97 #116
******************************