Today's Topics:
disposables
GreenYes Digest V98 #140 (3 msgs)
New INFORM, Inc. Report
Oil bottle recycling
Press Announcement
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:98/141 ----------------------------------------------------------------------Date: Wed, 17 Jun 1998 09:44:25 -0500 From: "David L. Turner" <Dturner@ysi.com> Subject: disposables
Unfortunately, this is an issue for which there is no perfect solution, nor is there an overwhelming favorite.=20 Western culture has developed an attitude that if there is no perfect solution, then all solutions are bad and unworthy of consideration. While I will not argue that it is good to fill up the planet with disposables, they are not evil incarnate either.=20
We found that using cloth diapers during the day held on with diaper wraps (Biobottoms, or whatever local brand you choose) and a disposable for overnight made good sense. Our children rarely got a rash and we got more sleep (and therefore added less crabbiness to the world). I washed diapers about every 6 days. (Not a big deal to do really, and they're easy to stack.) They are still very useful for cleaning up spills too.=20
Our 20 to 25 gallon volume of trash a week is less than most people seem to generate around here, so we were not adding anything massive to the pile. =20 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - I didn't get a harrumph from that man! The Gov in "Blazing Saddles"
Regards,
David Turner YSI Safety & Environmental Coordinator 1725 Brannum Lane Yellow Springs, Ohio 45387 Email: DTurner@YSI.com Phone 1-937-767-1685 ext. 270 Facmetaphor: 1-937-767-9353
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 1998 13:17:17 -0400 From: "Janet Matthews" <matthej@assembly.state.ny.us> Subject: GreenYes Digest V98 #140
I don't know if Todd Paglia of the GPP had seen any of our previous postings about the Lexmark controversy. Lexmark's exclusive licensing arrangement for its Optra S printer cartridges has generated controversy -- not only because very few of their printer cartridges are being returned for recycling, but because it also restrains other toner cartridge remanufacturers from remanufacturing this particular Lexmark product, and because there's no evidence that Lexmark even offers a remanufactured version of this toner cartridge. 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.
Here in NYS, a bill has been introduced in both houses of the State Legislature (Assembly no.10868-A) that prohibits the state purchasing agency from purchasing any commodity with limits on its remanufacturing options. =20 =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 >=20 >=20 > GreenYes Digest Wed, 17 Jun 98 Volume 98 : Issue 140 >=20 > Today's Topics: > disposables > Help New Zealand > Recycled Toner Cartridges >=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 postmaster@ucsd.edu. > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--- > Loop-Detect: GreenYes:98/140 > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >=20 > Date: Tue, 16 Jun 1998 09:25:50 -0400 > From: "Diamond, Craig" <DiamondC@mail.ci.tlh.fl.us> > Subject: disposables >=20 > 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 > ******************************* >=20 > > ---------- > >=20 >=20 > ------------------------------ >=20 > Date: Tue, 16 Jun 1998 17:11:56 -0400 > From: chelsea center for recycling and economic development <amyp@ici.net> > Subject: Help New Zealand >=20 > Thought you folks would be interested in this: >=20 > >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.=20 > >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.=20 Stephen > Tindall and Warren Snow are Trustees.=20 > >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. =20 > >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.=20 > >The goal is ambitious but we are confident of success and that for the > long-term sustainability of society there is truly no alternative. 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.=20 > >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.=20 > >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. =20 > >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 > > =20 > > > >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 >=20 > ------------------------------ >=20 > Date: Tue, 16 Jun 1998 15:24:15 -0400 > From: Todd Paglia <tpaglia@essential.org> > Subject: Recycled Toner Cartridges >=20 > To the list, >=20 > 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.=20 Thanks. >=20 > Todd > -- > ___________________________________________________________ >=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 >=20 > GOVERNMENT PURCHASING PROJECT > PO Box 19367 =95 Washington, DC 20036 > (202) 387-8030 =95 (fax) 234-5176 =95 http://www.gpp.org > __________________________________________________________ >=20 > June 10, 1998 >=20 > William J. Baer, Director > Bureau of Competition > Federal Trade Commission > 6th & Pennsylvania Avenue > Washington, DC 20580 >=20 > Re: Antitrust and Environmental Issues Relating to Lexmark Optra S Printers and > Toner Cartridges >=20 > Dear Mr. Baer: >=20 > 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. >=20 > 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. >=20 > 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. >=20 > 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. This may create > a sufficient hurdle to restrict or eliminate competition for this line of HP > printers cartridges. >=20 > 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. >=20 > Thank you for your consideration of these important issues and I look forward to > your reply. >=20 > Sincerely, >=20 >=20 > /s/Todd J. Paglia >=20 > cc: Joan Z. Bernstein > Fran McPoland >=20 > ------------------------------ >=20 > End of GreenYes Digest V98 #140 > ******************************------------------------------
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 1998 17:37:49 -0400 From: Todd Paglia <tpaglia@essential.org> Subject: GreenYes Digest V98 #140
> 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.
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.
Todd
> 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 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. 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.