--___________________________________________________________
Todd J. Paglia, Esq. PO Box 19367 Todd@gpp.org Washington, DC= 20036
Project Coordinator, Government Purchasing Project: http://www.gpp.org Staff Attorney, Consumer Project on Technology: http://www.cptech.org
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 1998 18:15:52 -0400 From: "Janet Matthews" <matthej@assembly.state.ny.us> Subject: GreenYes Digest V98 #140
sorry for the mischaracterization. i got a different impression from the first read-through of your message. =20
---------- > From: Todd Paglia <tpaglia@essential.org> > To: Janet Matthews <matthej@assembly.state.ny.us>; GreenYes <greenyes@UCSD.Edu> > Subject: Re: GreenYes Digest V98 #140 > Date: Wednesday, June 17, 1998 5:37 PM >=20 > > Todd doesn't seem to see the problem with > > that uncompetitive aspect of the Lexmark contract. Toner cartridge > > remanufacturers around the country are up in arms about this restraint, and > > their reaction seems reasonable. >=20 > Actually, Janet, I do see the anticompetitive issue. The letter that I > recently posted to the listserv is directed to the FTC's Bureau of Competition > -- the section of the FTC that handles anticompetitive behavior. The antitrust > issue is very much a concern of mine as I explained in the first letter I sent > to the FTC regarding Lexmark which is available on my page at: www.gpp.org. In > fact, I am urging the FTC to take this on as a matter of antitrust law first and > foremost. >=20 > Todd >=20 > > Janet Matthews > > NYS Legislative Commission on Solid Waste Management > > > > ---------- > > > From: GreenYes Mailing List and Newsgroup <greenyes@ucsd.edu> > > > To: GreenYes@ucsd.edu > > > Subject: GreenYes Digest V98 #140 > > > Date: Wednesday, June 17, 1998 7:30 AM > > > > > > > > > GreenYes Digest Wed, 17 Jun 98 Volume 98 : Issue=20 140 > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > disposables > > > Help New Zealand > > > Recycled Toner Cartridges > > > > > > 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. > > > > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > --- > > > Loop-Detect: GreenYes:98/140 > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > Date: Tue, 16 Jun 1998 09:25:50 -0400 > > > From: "Diamond, Craig" <DiamondC@mail.ci.tlh.fl.us> > > > Subject: disposables > > > > > > I've tracked this issue for years (also driven in part by the need to > > > balance my sense or perception of professional integrity with the rest of > > > the real world). My first was strictly cloth (except for travel), the > > last > > > almost entirely in disposables. > > > I assiduously researched all that was available (mid eighties on) to > > > evaluate what the complete life cycle costs were (energy, pro-rata share > > of > > > final disposal, impacts of agriculture versus silviculture, water > > > consumption for manufacturing etc) and at the end could not come up with > > > meaningful differences, which surprised me. Maybe the source reports > > > (probably still in a bug-infested storage box in my attic) were biased; > > > there definitely were some gaps in the knowledge which perhaps by now > > have > > > been closed. And, it appears, there have been continued industry shifts > > > towards less material per unit and away from plastic covers towards > > 'paper' > > > which I presume to mean less total energy costs and increased opportunity > > > for composting. [never found a good pilot project involving disposables > > even > > > though we've plenty of operations that compost sludge without the > > wrapper!] > > > Sometimes social conventions are intentionally wasteful and we > > collectively > > > accept the impacts of being so. > > > CD > > > Craig Diamond, Chief, Environmental Planning > > > Tallahassee-Leon County Planning Dept. > > > City Hall > > > 300 S. Adams > > > Tallahassee, FL 32301 USA > > > E-mail: diamondc@mail.ci.tlh.fl.us > > > Tel: (850) 891-8621; Fax (850) 891-8734 > > > ******************************* > > > > > > > ---------- > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > > > Date: Tue, 16 Jun 1998 17:11:56 -0400 > > > From: chelsea center for recycling and economic development > > <amyp@ici.net> > > > Subject: Help New Zealand > > > > > > Thought you folks would be interested in this: > > > > > > >This is an invitation for your involvement in our campaign to bring an > > end > > > to landfills in New Zealand. This is not a request for financial > > support. > > > >Background > > > >Since 1995 the strategy of The Tindall Foundation has been to take a > > > community development approach to environmental initiatives. This has > > > resulted in a number of unemployed people finding work in habitat and > > > species protection, waste reduction, environmental education, organic > > > agriculture, recycling and development of new products from recovered > > > materials. > > > >As a result of the success of these first steps to sustainability, the > > > Foundation has established a new national initiative - The Zero Waste New > > > Zealand Trust. Gerard Gillespie who previously helped to develop the > > > Canberra Zero Waste policy has been appointed Programme Director. > > Stephen > > > Tindall and Warren Snow are Trustees. > > > >New Zealand has in the past made quite rapid change on controversial > > > issues. The first country in the world to give women the vote, the > > > anti-nuclear policy and the overnight change from a command economy to an > > > almost completely free market. > > > >Now we have Zero Waste on the horizon. Our aim is to make Zero Waste > > the > > > next popular movement in New Zealand. > > > >The Objective > > > >The objective of Zero Waste New Zealand is to have New Zealand become > > the > > > first country in the world to adopt a National policy of no waste to > > > landfill. > > > >The goal is ambitious but we are confident of success and that for the > > > long-term sustainability of society there is truly no alternative.=20 We > > > believe that all waste in nature is a resource for other organisms and > > > processes and that human society to survive has no option but to operate > > > within the same laws of nature. > > > >The Strategy > > > >The strategy of Zero Waste New Zealand is threefold. > > > >1. The Zero Waste Network > > > >This is a newly formed network of non-profits, businesses, individuals > > and > > > local governments from around New Zealand working together to eliminate > > the > > > need for landfills - forever. The Tindall Foundation and Zero Waste will > > > bring these groups together regularly to assist in the networking > > process. > > > Zero Waste New Zealand also provides training and best practice tools for > > > network members to use in developing local waste reduction strategies. > > > Considerable resources are being targeted at nurturing and supporting the > > > Network. > > > >2. Funding Support > > > >The Tindall Foundation is currently the main funding source for Zero > > Waste > > > NZ and has a long-term commitment to the campaign. Zero Waste in turn > > > provides funds to eligible non-profits, individuals and businesses who > > are > > > adding value to the overall campaign goal. Examples include new > > technology > > > development, a recovered materials loan fund, research, trials, pilot > > > projects, training for employees in new community based projects, waste > > > reduction education programmes, recycling and composting initiatives, and > > > promotional/educational campaigns. Other funding agencies and some local > > > governments in New Zealand have provided matching funds for some of the > > > programmes. > > > >3. Advocacy & Policy Development > > > >Zero Waste New Zealand staff and consultants are working at all levels > > of > > > Government, business and community to achieve policy strategies that will > > > bring New Zealand society to the prime goal of ending landfill as a > > > disposal option (Incineration is not a disposal option in NZ). Zero > > Waste > > > Network members lobby and work with local politicians and Zero Waste NZ > > > staff are called on to assist when needed to lend a national context and > > > support for local activities. > > > >How you can help > > > > We are seeking statements of support from people involved in > > > environmental protection in other countries who have a sense that Zero > > > Waste is not only possible but also essential. This will put an > > > international spotlight on our efforts, which has in the past been > > > effective at providing impetus for change. The National launch of the > > Zero > > > Waste NZ campaign will be at the Annual Mayors of New Zealand Conference > > - > > > 29th June 1998. > > > >These statements will be used in press releases, displays, newspaper > > > articles and other promotional material leading up to and after the > > launch. > > > The effect of your messages will be to encourage our leaders and > > > decision-makers to take risks to help achieve the goal and to break > > through > > > the institutional limitations that prevent change. > > > >Because NZ is a small country with a history at times of rapid change, > > > this is possible - more so perhaps than much larger countries such as the > > > USA. If we are successful then there will be a model that will serve as > > an > > > example to other countries. > > > >If you wish to make a statement of support (it need only be one > > sentence), > > > or wish to be involved in any way please write to the below address or > > > email myself at Wsnow@voyager.co.nz or Gerard Gillespie at > > > zerwast@icarus.ihug.co.nz. Alternatively you can post it directly onto > > the > > > Zero Waste NZ web site at: > > > >http://www.zerowaste.co.nz/ > > > >Please feel free to add any ideas you may have that will help us achieve > > > this goal. Thanks so much to those that have already sent messages. > > > >Kind regards > > > > > > > > > > > >Warren Snow > > > >The Tindall Foundation > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Amy Perlmutter > > > Executive Director > > > Chelsea Center for Recycling and > > > Economic Development > > > 180 Second Street > > > Chelsea, MA 02150 > > > 617-887-2300/fax 617-887-0399 > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > > > Date: Tue, 16 Jun 1998 15:24:15 -0400 > > > From: Todd Paglia <tpaglia@essential.org> > > > Subject: Recycled Toner Cartridges > > > > > > To the list, > > > > > > I have been trying to get the FTC to look into Lexmark's Optra S line > > of > > > printers and toner cartridges--the cartridges are sold on a "single use" > > basis (the > > > most recent letter is attached below). The consumer must 1. return the > > spent > > > cartridge to Lexmark, or 2. throw it away. There is nothing wrong with > > the first > > > option if Lexmark actually recycles them--but requiring that disposal be > > the only > > > other option for a consumer is obviously bad policy (use of toner > > cartridges avoids > > > some 38,000 tons of landfilling per year). This focus on disposable > > products as a > > > way to eliminate competition from recyclers also has potentially broad > > implications > > > beyond the toner cartridge market. Have any procurement people come > > across this > > > issue or similar issues? Other letters to the FTC would be helpful. > > Thanks. > > > > > > Todd > > > -- > > > ___________________________________________________________ > > > > > > Todd J. Paglia, Esq. PO Box 19367 > > > Todd@gpp.org =20 Washington, > > DC 20036 > > > > > > Project Coordinator, Government Purchasing Project:=20 http://www.gpp.org > > > Staff Attorney, Consumer Project on Technology:=20 http://www.cptech.org > > > > > > > > > GOVERNMENT PURCHASING PROJECT > > > PO Box 19367 =95 Washington, DC 20036 > > > (202) 387-8030 =95 (fax) 234-5176 =95 http://www.gpp.org > > > __________________________________________________________ > > > > > > June 10, 1998 > > > > > > William J. Baer, Director > > > Bureau of Competition > > > Federal Trade Commission > > > 6th & Pennsylvania Avenue > > > Washington, DC 20580 > > > > > > Re: Antitrust and Environmental Issues Relating to Lexmark Optra S > > Printers and > > > Toner Cartridges > > > > > > Dear Mr. Baer: > > > > > > Ralph Nader and I recently requested an investigation by the Federal > > Trade > > > Commission (FTC) into the marketing practices of Lexmark International, > > Inc., a > > > manufacturer of printers and toner cartridges. Our April 22, 1998 letter > > to > > > Chairman Robert Pitofsky is attached along with Chairman Pitofsky's > > reply. I am > > > writing to request a meeting with representatives from the Bureau of > > Competition, > > > the Bureau of Consumer Protection, and any other FTC employees or other > > federal > > > personnel that may be able to contribute to a discussion of the Lexmark > > Optra S > > > line of printers and toner cartridges. > > > > > > As was discussed in greater detail in the attached letter, Lexmark's > > Optra S line > > > of printing products is of serious concern because Lexmark is marketing > > its toner > > > cartridges subject to what purports to be a single use license. In other > > words, > > > the purchaser allegedly must choose between returning the used toner > > cartridge to > > > Lexmark or throwing it away -- recycling by a third party remanufacturer > > is no > > > longer an option. This is a serious matter as remanufacturers employ > > thousands of > > > people across the United States and provide an environmentally preferable > > and cost > > > effective option for consumers by offering recycled toner cartridges. > > > > > > Moreover, this is an issue that may impact federal purchasing mandates if > > it is not > > > addressed. As you may know, remanufactured toner cartridges must be > > purchased by > > > the federal government pursuant to Executive Order 12873 and the > > Environmental > > > Protection Agency's Comprehensive Procurement Guidelines. Lexmark's > > marketing > > > practices will certainly restrict if not eliminate a competitive > > marketplace for > > > remanufactured Optra S toner cartridges. Lexmark must not be permitted > > to employ > > > its legally questionable single-use licensing scheme as a means to > > eliminate > > > competition offered by remanufacturers. I believe this marketing > > practice, in > > > addition to stretching the law of licensing beyond recognition, > > represents an > > > illegal tying arrangement in violation of federal antitrust laws. > > > > > > Of even greater concern -- to consumers, remanufacturers and federal > > procurement > > > officials -- is the possibility that Lexmark's example will be followed > > by other > > > laser printer manufacturers. This would surely have a disastrous impact > > on the > > > robust recycled toner cartridge sector that now represents $1 billion > > dollars in > > > annual sales. Recently, Hewlett Packard (HP) introduced a line of > > printers, the HP > > > 2000C Professional Series, that utilizes a new ink cartridge which for > > the first > > > time includes a "single use only" restriction. Although HP's marketing > > practices > > > differ in some ways from the Lexmark example, it may have the same result > > of > > > restricting competition from toner remanufacturers. While HP claims that > > a > > > remanufacturer will be able to recycle the spent cartridge for resale, > > this will > > > only be permissible, according to HP, if the remanufacturer replaces a > > microchip in > > > the cartridge that contains HP's embedded "Jet Series" trademark.=20 This > > may create > > > a sufficient hurdle to restrict or eliminate competition for this line of > > HP > > > printers cartridges. > > > > > > The FTC should investigate this matter before more of the printer/toner > > market > > > shifts to single use only and does irreparable damage to the > > remanufacturing > > > sector. In the long term, this move toward restricting recycling of > > toner > > > cartridges and encouraging use of disposable products will have serious > > > consequences for the environment and may result in impeding federal > > recycled > > > purchasing requirements. > > > > > > Thank you for your consideration of these important issues and I look > > forward to > > > your reply. > > > > > > Sincerely, > > > > > > > > > /s/Todd J. Paglia > > > > > > cc: Joan Z. Bernstein > > > Fran McPoland > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > > > End of GreenYes Digest V98 #140 > > > ****************************** >=20 >=20 >=20 > -- >=20 > ___________________________________________________________ >=20 > Todd J. Paglia, Esq. PO Box 19367 > Todd@gpp.org Washington, DC 20036 >=20 > Project Coordinator, Government Purchasing Project: http://www.gpp.org > Staff Attorney, Consumer Project on Technology: http://www.cptech.org >=20
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 1998 09:38:30 From: Alison Imperato <imperato@informinc.org> Subject: New INFORM, Inc. Report
New INFORM Report on Reducing Construction and Demolition Waste in Municipal Projects, Now Available!
INFORM, Inc. would like to announce Building for the Future: Strategies to Reduce Construction and Demolition Waste in Municipal Projects, a new report by Bette Fishbein, Senior Fellow at INFORM, Inc., is now available on the web in Adobe format at http://www.informinc.org/publications.html#p . (print copies available from INFOM)
In many communities, construction and demolition (C & D) debris -- the waste that is produced as we build, renovate, and demolish buildings -- can be as voluminous as the ordinary garbage that comes from households and businesses. However, little attention has been paid to this waste stream, and even less attention has been paid to strategies for reducing it at the source.
This study focuses on strategies for municipalities. It documents the techniques used throughout the United States to design, manage, build, and take apart structures more efficiently, with less waste. Topics discussed include: asset management, developing a waste plan, alternatives to dedicated space design, deconstruction techniques and materials reuse.=20
Design stage waste prevention strategies such as design for durability, adaptability, and disassembly such as the use of moveable wall systems are analyzed. Construction phase waste reduction strategies looking at packaging, handling and storage of materials, and supplier take-back are examined. Efforts to promote green buildings including waste prevention components, are described such as the U.S. Green Buildings Council=92s environmental rating system for buildings.=20
While the report was written with a focus on New York City, it will be of great value to every municipality in the United States.
For more information, or to place an order for a printed copy, please= contact:
INFORM, Inc. 120 Wall Street, 16th Floor New York, NY 10005 Attn: Tom Crowell, Outreach Coordinator
(212) 361-2400 * Fax (212) 361-2412 email: Crowell@informinc.org
Site: www.informinc.org
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 1998 14:04:09 -0400 From: "James Wood" <James@hiri.com> Subject: Oil bottle recycling
A vendor of ours throws out over 300 1 gallon HDPE oil bottles per month. Does anyone out there know of an outlet for oil bottles? We can bale them, if that helps.
James
It is not just garbage anymore!
Check out our website at www.hiri.com
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 1998 10:46:30 +0000 From: "GLOBE EUROP.UNION" <e.globe@innet.be> Subject: Press Announcement
PRESS ANNOUNCEMENT Parliamentarians asked to identify Prioirities on European integration
Yesterday, the EU's Cardiff Summit called for the EU to meet the challenge of sustainable development by integrating environmental considerations into the Community: it adopted a "Partnership for Integration" between all Community bodies. Top of the Agenda are Agenda 2000 and the Kyoto Climate Change Protocol.
The Council asked Parliamentarians to help identified priority areas for policy integration, in aiding the Commission to refine its methodology.
GLOBE: one step ahead of the game
Responding to the Summit's call, 85 Parliamentarians from 37 European countries will convene in =81rhus, Denmark on June 21 and 22. This conference will be a landmark in efforts to increase co-ordination in the environmental work of parliamentarians across Europe, under the guidance of Carlos Pimenta MEP of GLOBE and Steen Gade MP, Chair of the Danish Parliament's Environment Committee.
Said Carlos Pimenta MEP: "We expect that this Conference - Our Common European Garden in 1998 - will mark a breakthrough in our efforts to promote regular and effective co-ordination among Europe's parliaments, so that we may use our parliamentary powers to shift every policy, every piece of legislation and every budget towards sustainable development."
The agenda of the conference will feature: Reviewing the progress of Agenda 21 in Europe; Banning Endocrine Disrupting Chamicals; Energy and Climate Change; Citizens' new environmental rights: public participation, access to information and access to justice; A Panel with Environment Ministers and with UNEP Executive Director, Klaus T=9Apfer.
A joint press conference will be given on Tuesday 23 June by=20 UNEP and GLOBE Europe in =81rhus, featuring: Carlo Ripa di Meana MEP, former Environment Commissioner of the EU (GLOBE EU), Klaus T=9Apfer, Executive Director of UNEP and: Steen Gade MP, host of the parliamentary conference Press conference at 12.30, Tuesday 23 June 1998. SAS Scandinavian Congress Centre,=20 Margrethepladesen 1, the Scandic Ballroom.
For additional information please contact: In Brussels: Marlene Abdellaoui, Tel 32 2 230 65 89, Fax: 32 2 230 95 30 In =81rhus, Denmark: Nicolas Tavitian or David Webber, Tel: 32 75 47 60 09 (portable telephone).
------------------------------
End of GreenYes Digest V98 #141 ******************************