Today's Topics:
Fw: Update on PVC toys
Georgia Producer Responsibility Activism -Round One
Kohler Co sets Zero Waste Goal
logging roads (2 msgs)
Re: Zero waste goals
unsubscribe
Which virgin subsidies to eliminate
Zero waste goals (2 msgs)
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:98/24
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 08:29:27 -0500
From: "Bill Sheehan" <bill_sheehan@mindspring.com>
Subject: Fw: Update on PVC toys
From: ccray@dialb.greenpeace.org <ccray@dialb.greenpeace.org
Date: Monday, January 26, 1998 7:10 PM
Subject: Update on PVC toys
An update on PVC toys from around the world:
Attached is a chronology of actions taken (up to x-mas) by various
governments and companies around the world. As you can see, the US
is behind most other countries, most of whom have taken strong
action, particularly on phthalate-containing teethers, etc., which
we have seen no action on in the US.
CHINA - GP met with the HK Toy Council Vice Chairman, TS Wong, last
week . GP was invited by other NGOs (the HK Christian Industrial
Committee and the Asia Monitor Resource Center) to the meeting which
was to discuss labor and environmental practices in the industry. Ho
Wai Chi from GP China presented our toys report as part of the
meeting. Of course the industry said that our report was not
credible, according to US scientists, etc. Nothing really became of
the meeting but we now have dialogue with the other NGOs working on
the toy industry and the HK Toy Council if we wanted any further
meetings.
GP also received a call from a HK chemical company, Polytrade
Chemicals Company (Shenzhen) LTD, suggesting that diisodecyl
adipate, could replace phthalates in PVC. These are made by Exxon
(under the name Jayflex Plasticizers and CP Hall (under the name
Plasthall). GP's lab in Exeter UK provide info on the specifics of
the problems with adipates, but needless to say this is not where we
want the debate to be going.
UK - The newspaper Scotland on Sunday Jan. 18 ran a big story on PVC
toys where Consumer Safety Minister said he believed there was a
significant loophole in the safety regime - he seems to think its all
a matter of getting a testing procotol agreed.
This was followed by the Env. Agency issuing a strong statement last
week on hormone disrupting chemicals (i guess these guys don't talk
to each other much).
Key quote from the 4 page document:
"Industry needs to recognise the risks and uncertainties associated
with this problem and should, therefore, take its own precautionary
action by developing alternative products that don't have hormone
disrupting properties."
Modern Plastics Jan. edition ran a good size story about the German
PVC toys campaign, citing the fact that stores pulled the toys from
the shelves, based on GP claims alone (which is certainly an alarming
thing here for the US toy industry to hear).
US:
On Jan 19, Plastics News ran an article called "CPSC issuing lead
warning," by Steve Toloken:
The Consumer Product Safety Commission is preparing a strongly
worded statement encouraging manufacturers not to use lead in
products accessible to children.
CPSC cannot take action against a product unless it can demonstrate
a rsisk from the lead content. But this policy stateent will be
broader and ask manufacturers to eliminate lead from many items.
"We may not be able to demonstrate a health hazard, but the staff
would like the industry to stop using lead or cadmium in a children's
product, even if the exposure is very low," said agency spokesman Ken
Giles.
CPSC in recent months also has led a crackdown on using lead in PVC
miniblinds.
Bob Burnett, the executive director of the Vinyl Institute in
Morristown, N.J., said vinyl coalting for wire and cable products is
the only vinyl product made in North America that he is aware of that
uses lead as a stabilizer. Manufacturers cannot find a replacement
with the same level of conductivity, but the vinyl is hidden beneath
a polyolefinshild and the wires are not in reach of children, he
said.
However, lead still is used as a stabilizer in other parts of the
world, so imported vinyl products still may contain lead, Burnett
said. Lead-based pigments also have been used in plastic colorants.
CPSC's move comes three months after the agency rejected a
Greenpeace claim that PVC toys contain hazardous levels of lead.
According to a draft of the statement obtained by Plastics News, the
commission found exampls where manufacturers were able to find
alternatives to lead.
"The commission believes that, had the manufacturers of these
lead-containing products acted with prudence and foresight before
introducing products into commerce, they would not have used lead at
all," the statement said.
end
ACTIONS TAKEN BY TOY RETAILERS AND MANUFACTURERS CONCERNING PVC TOYS
April 18, 1997 - Toy Traders Council of Denmark advises members "All
products made of PVC and Vinyl intended for small children - and that
can be expected to be sucked on and chewed - should be removed from
the market, if there is uncertainty about the contents of the used
phthalates."
April 18, 1997 - Danish supermarket chain Foetex removes all soft PVC
toys from its shelves.
May 13, 1997 - FDB, Danish supermarket and superstore chain, removes
all PVC toys for children under three from its shops.
May 22, 1997 - The Danish superstore Bilka removes all soft PVC toys
for children under three from its shelves.
May 23, 1997 - The Italian toy company Chicco suspended the sales of
three PVC teething rings in Spain "in the strict spirit of
responsibility."
May 27, 1997 - BRIO Leksaker stated that it would no longer distribute
certain Chicco teethers in Sweden.
May 27-28, 1997 - Chicco withdraws the same teethers from the Italian
and Greek markets. In November, Chicco would reissue the same
teethers in Italy.
May 27, 1997 - The Swedish superstore chain KF announced that it
stopped selling soft PVC toys intended for children under the age of
three. Approximately 50 toys were removed from its toy assortment.
July 3, 1997 - The Dutch retail chain Blokker, which also owns Bart
Smit Toys and Intertoys, informed Greenpeace Netherlands that "in all
future orders we will state that toys intended for children under the
age of three may not contain any PVC, and that the use of PVC
packaging is not allowed." These retail chains represent 50% of the
toy market in the Netherlands.
July 4, 1997 - The Dutch entity of Toys R Us stated "to make it fully
clear to our suppliers that we are not in favour of the use of PVC in
toys and packaging, that is stated as a condition of supply when
orders are issued," in a letter to the Executive Director of
Greenpeace Netherlands.
July 15, 1997 - Vendex (Vroom and Dreesman), a large Dutch retailer
demanded from their suppliers that all toys must be PVC-free.
July 30, 1997 - European baby retailer Prenatal removed 11 PVC toys
from their shops.
July 31, 1997 - Chicco representatives in Argentina confirm that they
have suspended the sale of three PVC teething rings that had already
been withdrawn in Spain, Italy, Denmark and Sweden.
July 31, 1997 - Ravensburger stopped the import of several PVC SEGA
(Miffy) products into the Netherlands.
August 1, 1997 - Tiamo (Chicco) stopped the delivery of four PVC
products to the Netherlands.
August 6, 1997 - The largest Dutch retailer de Bijenkorf removed known
PVC toys from their shelves.
August 12, 1997 - The Lego Group issued a statement stating that a
phase out of PVC had begun at Lego in 1986, starting with packaging.
The company's "general policy of not using PVC will be continued with
a view to obtaining a 100% phase out within construction toys and
packaging concurrently." Only two types of PVC products still exist
at Lego, wiring for electric cable insulation and doll's heads for
LEGO SCALA.
October 16, 1997 - Belgian Federation of Retailers (FEDIS) announced
it would immediately withdraw all soft PVC toys designed to be chewed
by young children.
October 1997 - The retailer Imaginarium, with toy shops in Spain and
Portugal, decided to stop selling PVC teethers and rattles.
October 1997 - Toys R Us (Umi Parmasi) in Indonesia announced it had
withdrawn from its shelves all Chicco and Disney teethers known to be
PVC.
October 29, 1997 - Toys R Us, Austria, withdrew from their shelves ten
products made of soft PVC for children under 3, following a Greenpeace
action at their Austrian headquarters. It also committed to identify
and withdraw all soft PVC baby toys from their stores in Austria
within two weeks. However, in November Greenpeace discovered that the
toys that were agreed to be removed from the shelves had been put back
out at the instruction of the US headquarters.
November 1997- In the Czech Republic, 4 retailers removed soft PVC
toys from their stores, in response to a Greenpeace request.
November 1997 - Italy - Chicco put back soft PVC toys previously
removed from the shelves, defending their decision using the Italian
National Health Institute labs data showing low level leaching of
phthalates from toys.
November 1997. - Netherlands - Greenpeace received letters from
Blokker, Bart Smit, Intertoys and Toys R Us saying they will continue
to remove soft PVC toys from their shelves. Greenpeace is still
monitoring the situation to ensure that they comply.
November 1997 - In the US a small retailer in Michigan called
Generations issued a statement about why they removed soft PVC
teethers from their shops. "There is not yet a national recall on
these products. However, we have decided to err on the side of
caution and remove these products until we have more information that
they are safe."
November, December 1997 - Over 20 retailers in Austria have stated
that they have withdrawn soft PVC toys for small children. Some of
the most well known include: DM and BIPA, both drugstore chains,
Kastner & Ohler and Gerngross, both department store chains, Heinz and
Trio, both toy retailers with several stores in Austria.
Other Austrian retailers have agreed to establish a concrete plan to
withdraw certain soft PVC toys from their shops. These include: SPAR
and INTERSPAR supermarkets and the Schlecker drugstore chain.
December 1997 - The US superstore Target agreed to remove two PVC
products identified by Greenpeace as containing significant quantities
of lead.
December 1997 - Well known Italian toy company Giochi Preziosi wrote
to Greenpeace Italy stating that they will not include soft PVC toys
for children under three in their catalogue for 1998 and that they
will work on substitution for other applications of PVC. IKEA and
Lego also joined the campaign against PVC in Italy.
December 1997 - The German Association of Toy Retailers, Vedes, and a
toy trading company, Spiel and Spass, have called upon their members
to withdraw from sale all toys made from soft PVC for children under
three.
December 1997 - 70% of the retail market in Germany has withdrawn from
store shelves soft PVC toys for children under three. These include:
Karstadt, Hertie, Horten, Kaufhof Warenhaus AG and Kaufhalle, as
well as mail the order companies such as Otto and Quelle. The German
drugstore chains dm and Budnikowski likewise will no longer sell any
baby toys containing PVC. In addition, the worldwide toy manufacturer
Ravensburger stopped selling PVC products and eliminated PVC packaging
on their products.
GOVERNMENT ACTION TO ELIMINATE PVC TOYS
April 18, 1997 - Danish EPA recommends that "three teething rings be
withdrawn from the Danish market" after Denmark's Environmental
Investigations found that these PVC teething rings "liberated an
extent of phthalates which the EPA regards as unacceptable for
babies." The study found quantities of phthalates leaching from the
toys to exceed allowable limits, set by the EU for food, by up to 40
times. "It is unacceptable that our children are exposed to chemicals
in such quantities - especially when they are so young," said research
chief Lars Carlsen from Denmark's Environmental Investigations.
April 21, 1997 - US President Bill Clinton issues an Executive Order
entitled "Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and
Safety Risks" declaring that the White House shall "make it a high
priority to identify and assess environmental health risks and safety
risks that may disproportionately affect children and shall ensure
that its policies, programs, activities and standards address
disproportionate risks to children that result from environmental
health risks or safety risks." To date, the US government has not
taken action to protect children from the danger posed by PVC toys.
May 28, 1997 - Swedish Minister of the Environment Anna Lindh issued a
press release stating "the PVC industry has had a very long time to
replace dangerous additives. It has apparently not been possible. It
is therefore the PVC industry's own fault that the PVC plastic is not
accepted any longer."
July 16, 1997 - After testing teethers, rattles and toy figurines sold
for babies, the Netherlands Ministry of Health found that the Dutch
advised total daily intake of DINP would be exceeded by 5 - 50% for
all babies sucking or chewing on PVC teethers. "Although the phthalate
concentration and migration values found do not result in an
immediate danger to the health of babies, negative effects cannot be
excluded. Exceeding of the total daily intake is undesirable;
therefore, the ministry urges major retailers to prevent babies from
being exposed to phthalates in toys."
July 18, 1997 - In a letter to Greenpeace, the US Consumer Product
Safety Commission states "we will continue to gather and evaluate
information on the chronic toxicity of specific phthalates, their use
in children's articles and children's exposure to these chemicals."
August 20, 1997 - The Belgian Federal Minister of Public Health called
on retailers to "voluntarily withdraw PVC toys from the shelves" and
for producers to avoid marketing soft PVC toys.
October 3, 1997 - Marcel Colla, Belgian Minister of Public Health
urged toy retailers to take immediate voluntary measures to cease the
marketing of soft PVC toys designed to be chewed by young children.
October 24, 1997 - The Philippines Department of Health issued a press
statement, citing Greenpeace's findings, and called on all toy
retailers and manufacturers to remove from sale "soft PVC toys and
infant care products for infants/children under 3 years of age." The
government also recommended the use of alternatives to soft PVC that
do not require additives or softeners.
October 28, 1997 - Austrian Minister for Consumer Affairs, Barbara
Prammer, issued a press release stating that PVC-free toys are
desirable. She will be working to amend Austrian regulations on toys
and initiate European-wide restrictions on PVC in toys. She also
called on the industry to avoid producing PVC toys and replace them
with existing alternatives.
November 19, 1997 - the Dutch Consumer Agency issued a press release
confirming that some soft PVC toys are still on the shelves.
November 27, 1997 - Svend Auken, Danish Minister for the Environment
and Energy asked the Danish EPA to work out a proposal for a ban on
phthalate-containing toys for small children. He also asked the EU
to ban hazardous substances in toys.
December 12, 1997 - The German Federal Institute for the Protection of
Consumer Health and Veterinary Medicine, the BgVV, issued a statement
which called on toy manufacturers to take steps to "markedly reduce
the burden of softeners or to stop using them altogether in toys for
small children." It also called on the industry "as a matter of
responsibility, to see that these products do not get on the market."
The BgVV further recommended that "parents not buy toys made of soft
PVC for children up to three years of age, since it cannot be said
with certainty that these products are safe."
December 16, 1997 - Austrian Minister of Consumer Affairs Barbara
Prammer issued a draft regulation to ban the sale of certain plastic
toys containing plasticizers which are likely to be sucked or chewed
by children under 3 years old. Prammer also stated that she will
work for a similar regulation at the EU level. "PVC in children's
toys is an undesirable risk which could be avoided quickly and easily
by using other materials."
December 1997 - The Belgian government division "Child and Family,"
which oversees the health and safety of 70,000 children in public and
private day care centers and kindergartens in the Dutch-speaking part
of Belgium, is providing information to parents, especially new
mothers, recommending they not buy soft PVC toys. A letter was sent
to the owners and operators of the facilities, urging them to "be
critical when buying toys and choose alternatives, and not soft PVC
toys." Lastly, "Child and Family" called on the toy industry to ban
PVC from their production lines. The French equivalent organization,
O.N.E. agreed to do the same in the French speaking part of Belgium.
December 19, 1997 - Following a meeting to discuss PVC toys, Rosi
Bindi, the Italian Minister of Health, asked the National Health
Institute to start a monitoring program to determine the possible
health risks from these toys and in the meantime "will ask Italian toy
producers to use alternative materials. Finally, more binding
measures to deal with the presence of phthalates in products for
children under three cannot be excluded."
-- End --
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 1998 02:12:32 -0500
From: "Bill Sheehan" <bill_sheehan@mindspring.com>
Subject: Georgia Producer Responsibility Activism -Round One
The following AP story describes Round One in the battle to get Georgia
corporations to acknowledge that they have a responsibility for waste in
Georgia -- starting with beverage container deposits. We lost the vote in
the Senate subcommittee -- as expected -- but we have won Round One!
A courageous Senator (Donzella James) and a grassroots effort operating with
virtually no cash (Georgians For a Bottle Bill) have had a significant victory
in forcing a Senate hearing -- the first in 20 years of efforts to pass a
bottle bill in Georgia.
We have also taken a major leap forward by introducing millions of Georgians
to the issue, through extensive TV coverage this week in Atlanta (four TV
stations and major newspapers covered the hearing, and two TV stations and
Associated Press covered our demonstration at the Soft Drink Association's
opulent legilators' reception the night before). We have had coverage in
virtually all of the major newspapers in Georgia since our coordinated
statewide rallies in October.
The vote against the bill was expected at this stage because of the
overwhelming influence of the beverage industry on legislators in Georgia.
Cracks in the wall are appearing, however. We have heard from more than a few
legislators who support us and are watching closely the rising public support
for producer responsibility here.
Next steps? Organizing in the districts, lobby days at the capitol, and
education of local elected officials and taxpayers who are being hoodwinked by
the industry that refundable container deposits are taxes rather than a means
of taking the burden for recycling and waste and litter disposal off the backs
of taxpayers.
If you want to be on our mailing list, reply to this message with your contact
info and interests. National
************************
Bill Sheehan
bill_sheehan@mindspring.com
************************
BOTTLE BILL KILLED BY SENATE SUBCOMMITTEE
By Russ Bynum, The Associated Press 1-27-98
A Senate subcommittee today killed a bottle deposit bill that was opposed by
the powerful beverage industry but backed by environmentalists statewide.
``The lobbyists win again,'' said Sen. Donzella James, the bill's sponsor,
when the four-member panel voted unanimously against her proposal.
The bill by Ms. James, D-Atlanta, would have imposed a 10-cent deposit on
glass, metal or plastic bottles to encourage recycling. Consumers would get a
refund when they returned the bottles.
Today's hearing before the subcommittee pitted testimony from
environmentalists and citizen activists against that of lobbyists for the
grocery store, soft drink and recycling industries.
``Consumers, businesses and lawmakers have learned there are more
comprehensive, less costly and more efficient ways to address recycling and
litter control than through deposits,'' said Kevin Perry, lobbyist for the
Georgia Soft Drink Association, which represents 100 bottlers statewide.
The measure had been given little chance of passing in Coca-Cola's backyard.
But its supporters said they're not through fighting.
``We're going to be organized in every corner of Georgia,'' said Lance King,
an environmental consultant. ``This is by no means dead.''
On Monday, King and other bottle bill backers sought to publicize their cause
with a demonstration in front of the downtown hotel where the soft drink
association was holding its annual reception for legislators.
The event, which featured heavy appetizers and live music, was the single most
expensive lobbyist-funded legislative event last year, costing $39,055.
The handful of demonstrators carried signs saying, ``We Want a Fair Hearing''
and ``Follow the Money.''
As legislators began filing in, the soft drink association's Perry commented,
``It's freedom of speech. They're able to support their cause just like we
are.''
####
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 09:25:19 -0500
From: "Bill Sheehan" <bill_sheehan@mindspring.com>
Subject: Kohler Co sets Zero Waste Goal
JOHN REINDL SAID
It may be useful for someone in the Zero Waste effort to compile a
list of firms and communities that have adopted a zero waste goal
and perhaps to get copies of their plans and then share this
information with other firms and communities.
BILL SHEEHAN SEZ
Yes! Collecting and posting information on Zero Waste resolution, plans and
other activities is a top priority of the GrassRoots Recycling Network. We
hope to be able to post such information to our web site on a frequent
basis -- so it functions more like a bulletin board than an archive. In the
meantime, please forward such tidbits to this list or to me. We want to cover
news both from the public and private sectors.
MARJORIE CLARKE SAID
What do
we make of companies that manufacture disposable diapers (or chemical
cleanser... you fill in the blank) who make their manufacturing processes
so efficient that they don't waste any resources or create any byproducts
for our air and water, but the product itself is not good for the
environment? Do they qualify as having attained Zero Waste?
SHEEHAN SEZ
Absolutely correct. As an insect ecologist in a past life, my favorite
example is pesticides. I know of no more wasteful substance, and a biological
poison at that. For every one molecule that reaches its target organism,
billions of molecules of poison are released into our environment and washed
into our rivers. I note with concern that DuPont, a company whose name comes
up frequently in Zero Waste discussions, is a major producer of pesticides.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 12:39:27 -0500
From: chelsea center for recycling and economic development <amyp@ici.net>
Subject: logging roads
re: ban on roads through national forests, are there any protections to
make sure that this won't just lead to more intensive logging where there
already are roads?
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: Thu, 29 Jan 1998 03:20:58 EST
From: DavidOrr <DavidOrr@aol.com>
Subject: logging roads
Amy Perlmutter has asked a very important question. And the bad news is that
she's put her finger on the BIG PROBLEM with this whole strategy of focusing
on roads: IT WON'T STOP LOGGING!
In fact, this anti-road building campaign, while certainly an incremental step
toward protection, will not save much forest at all. Indeed, the only option
we have available to us that will really protect forests is the McKinney-Leach
bill, H.R. 2789, also known as the National Forest Protection & Restoration
Act. This legislation will stop the entire timber sales program on federal
public lands.
The effort to stop road building will only stop construction of roads IN A FEW
AREAS, not the cutting of trees. While every step in the right direction is a
step in the right direction, many activists are becoming increasingly
impatient with the politicians continually being too-little, too-late. If all
we get from having a "seat at the table" is servings of crumbs, then we're
doing something wrong.
David Orr
John Muir Project of Earth Island Institute
Sierra Club Angeles Chapter Zero Cut Task Force
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 22:58:14 EST
From: Jango <Jango@aol.com>
Subject: Re: Zero waste goals
My thoughts on Roger Guttentag's thoughts (and others)
Roger wrote:
>Dear List Members:
>
>Both John's and Marjorie's remarks are useful in this discussion because
>they address two important issues as we attempt to unpack the concept of
>zero waste:
>
>1. All products eventually become obsolete, consumed or used to the point
>where their original function or purpose is no longer viable or available.
>(John's point)
>
This is true, but isn't the idea of zero waste to try to design for
nominal recycling and/or reuse after seeking to design out the obvious
problems and inefficiencies...not toget at the decision making level of
the individual (see below for more)?
>2. It is conceivable for a zero waste organization to produce products or
>services that do not contribute to or sustain a larger zero waste system.
>(Marjorie's point)
Is this not the point of Zero Waste?...I mean to look at the whole chain
of resource utilization and ferret out where the paths of inefficiency
are? In the case of disposable diapers (or food service disposables, or
toilet paper for that matter!) aren't we as purveyors of the 0-waste
ideology headed toward some sort of bio-recycling solution...composting,
methane generation, or whatever (forget the fact that we can't
technically handle all the residuals and junk...we will be able to
someday)? If the notion is to say, "Thou shallt not use a paper cup!"
then I think we are living in the wrong country. ..or planet.
>
>What I thought most interesting about these points is that they hint at the
>role that time plays in defining zero waste. For example, in response to
>Marjorie's point my thought is that a zero waste company making a disposable
>product is still more preferable to its alternative. But for how long? In
>other words, a specific practice can be environmentally preferable in the
>short term but not in the long term. However, this begs the question as to
>what the time frame should be for making the transition from the present
>situation to the preferred zero waste system. Is it 10 years, 50 years or
>longer? What is the time frame for intermediate stages of development? At
>this point in time (no pun intended) I don't have a good intuition as to
>what the appropriate responses would be.
The time frame just to get everyone (100%) in this country to recycle
cans, bottles and paper is probably another 25 years. This next century
coming up should see Extended Producer Responsibility schemes and more
efficient manufacturing slowly becoming the norm as resources become more
and more expensive and as economists learn how to quantify social and
environmental costs and build them into pricing systems.
>
>John's point raises an even larger issue. What should be the time value of
>our products? For example, are disposable products (1 year of useful life
>or less) acceptable in a zero waste system as long as there is a
>non-disposal option for them? Or do we create a hierarchy like there is for
>solid waste management in which our prferences are explicitly time based -
>that is durable products are better and disposable products should be
>discouraged. Does a time based hierarchy concept even make sense for zero
>waste discussions?
NO. The very idea of waste is a social construct (there is actually no
such thing as waste, is there!) and in our silly little country (witness
the last week of you know who in the media) we have the added problem of
waste not just being socially defined but actually being a tacitly
defined right of each and every individual. At the far extreme, at the
turn of the last century one person's Kohler worshipping was another
person's night soil. We haven't really come that far since then.
Maybe we need to establish the social and technical means for people to
handle resources as efficiently as possible from cradle to grave, but we
also may need to recognize that there are much bigger issues at stake
here than whether waste is eradicated from the face of the earth.
I think the issue of time here can only confuse matters. Most paper
products are disposed of in a matter of weeks from the time they were
purchased...many just days. Toilet paper, newspapers, copy paper,
magazines, etc. They are not designed to be stored...if they were we
would need much bigger houses and the filing cabinet industry would be
doing better than Waste Mgmt. and BFI. Paper is great stuff. But it is
also terribly...recyclable. Computers on the other hand should last
forever but they have lives of less than five years (this goes back to
the idea that waste is a social construct). Cars are similar at 10 years,
though we've got a tremendous infrastructure for dealing with cars. The
computer industry is of course on the path to design products more
responsibly, especially for recycling, but that plays right into the game
they are playing with us which is...come on, you really want one of these
now don't you? Question is, are the computer companies at fault or
consumers...or are we all in the game together? I do not think the answer
is so easy.
>
>In summary, I believe the dimension of time plays an even greater role in
>defining what zero waste is than it does for recycling. Therefore, we
>should include some form of time referencing in our discussions of whether a
>particular practice or trend contributes or does not contribute to our
>achievement of zero waste goals.
And we should also, I'm afraid, not over look the fact that technology
and infrastructure and the appeal to human behavior is about all we can
expect here...in the next 100 years.
David Biddle
Philadelphia, PA
215-247-2974 (voice and fax)
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 03:34:51 -0700
From: Noam Glick <glick@slip.net>
Subject: unsubscribe
unsubscribe
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 16:35:11 -0600
From: "John Reindl" <reindl@co.dane.wi.us>
Subject: Which virgin subsidies to eliminate
Hi David -
For the Cato Institute, I based my comments on their possible
support to eliminate corporate subisidies on three of their
documents I found on their web page (http://www.cato.org):
Ending Corporate Welfare as We Know It
How Corporate Welfare Won
Clinton & Congress Fail to Eliminate Business Subsidies
Their analyses show much higher levels of corporate welfare ($87
billion) than even the Green Scissors report.
And they specifically describe items like roads in national forests.
So I think they would join our efforts.
For the Reason Foundation, I based my comment on a discussion I had
with Lynn Scarlett at a conference last year in Minnesota. However,
Lynn said that they had not done any specific studies.
I hope that my comments weren't taken to mean that they would be in
complete agreement with everything that we as waste diversion folks
might want. But I do think that there are a lot of business groups
like the above two and the CSAB that we could ally with on this
issue. And who knows? Maybe work together on some other issues as
well -- I'm hearing more and more businesses recognize that wastes
are losts profits, that today's toxics in products are tomorrow's
liabilities..... We may find many areas that we can work together.
Best wishes,
John
> In a message dated 1/26/98 3:02:57 PM, reindl@co.dane.wi.us wrote:
>
> >It seems that the elimination of virgin material subsidies will
> >attract a lot of support from the business sector. In my
> >contacts with the Cato Institute, the Reason Foundation and other
> >business groups, I have found strong support for getting rid of
> >virgin material subsidies.
>
> I hope this is true, but in my experience with these two organizations, I have
> seen quite the opposite. These groups are not necessarily opposed to
> subsidies, but rather they are enamored of open market bidding and
> privatization of public lands. As an example, they have not opposed logging
> or grazing or mining on public lands, despite the fact that all these
> industries are heavily subsidized. Instead, they advocate allowing enviro
> groups to bid for the right NOT to cut down trees or graze cattle, or
> alternately, they advocate for a wholesale sell-off of our public lands to the
> highest bidder. The problem with these schemes is that they perpetuate
> subsidies, and a gross devaluation of the non-market public values of public
> lands, clean water, and wildlife.
>
> I would welcome learning of any straightforward treatment of these issues by
> Cato or Reason, but to date I have not seen such.
>
> The bottom line is that these groups are libertarian, and they are
> fundamentally philosophically opposed to public ownership of land and
> wildlife, and are opposed to governmental regulation to protect natural
> resources. Furthermore, they DO oppose subsidies to recycling. And this
> betrays the logical fallacies of their entire ideology: they oppose subsidies
> to correct market failure, and they oppose ending the subsidies that are
> caused by market failure. They are apparently blind to the nonsensical nature
> of their positions.
>
> David Orr
>
reindl@co.dane.wi.us
(608)267-1533 - fax
(608)267-8815 - phone
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 09:37:41 -0500 (EST)
From: "Roger M. Guttentag" <rgutten@concentric.net>
Subject: Zero waste goals
At 08:19 PM 1/27/98 -0500, you wrote:
>John Reindl replied:
>
>>All products are disposable and use resources, of course. For the
>>Kohler Company it takes a little longer to dispose of their
>>products, although they are involved in disposal functions on a
>>daily basis. They make bathroom fixtures, including sinks, showers,
>>bathtubs, toilets (hence the pun about the "bottom line"), etc.
>>
>>Hope this clears things up!!
>
>Only to the degree that we are speaking about Kohler. My question was
>quite a bit broader than this instance, as I tried to make clear. What do
>we make of companies that manufacture disposable diapers (or chemical
>cleanser... you fill in the blank) who make their manufacturing processes
>so efficient that they don't waste any resources or create any byproducts
>for our air and water, but the product itself is not good for the
>environment? Do they qualify as having attained Zero Waste?
> __ __
> //\\ //\\ _ _ _ o _
> // \\ // \\ ({_}} {{_}} {{_}} || //_\\
>// \\// \\ ^ // // || \\__
> \_// \_//
>Marjorie J. Clarke
>Environmental Scientist and Consultant
>http://everest.hunter.cuny.edu/~mclarke/index.htm
>http://everest.hunter.cuny.edu/~mclarke/moodyblu.htm
>New York City Phone & Fax: 212-567-8272
=======================================================
Dear List Members:
Both John's and Marjorie's remarks are useful in this discussion because
they address two important issues as we attempt to unpack the concept of
zero waste:
1. All products eventually become obsolete, consumed or used to the point
where their original function or purpose is no longer viable or available.
(John's point)
2. It is conceivable for a zero waste organization to produce products or
services that do not contribute to or sustain a larger zero waste system.
(Marjorie's point)
What I thought most interesting about these points is that they hint at the
role that time plays in defining zero waste. For example, in response to
Marjorie's point my thought is that a zero waste company making a disposable
product is still more preferable to its alternative. But for how long? In
other words, a specific practice can be environmentally preferable in the
short term but not in the long term. However, this begs the question as to
what the time frame should be for making the transition from the present
situation to the preferred zero waste system. Is it 10 years, 50 years or
longer? What is the time frame for intermediate stages of development? At
this point in time (no pun intended) I don't have a good intuition as to
what the appropriate responses would be.
John's point raises an even larger issue. What should be the time value of
our products? For example, are disposable products (1 year of useful life
or less) acceptable in a zero waste system as long as there is a
non-disposal option for them? Or do we create a hierarchy like there is for
solid waste management in which our prferences are explicitly time based -
that is durable products are better and disposable products should be
discouraged. Does a time based hierarchy concept even make sense for zero
waste discussions?
In summary, I believe the dimension of time plays an even greater role in
defining what zero waste is than it does for recycling. Therefore, we
should include some form of time referencing in our discussions of whether a
particular practice or trend contributes or does not contribute to our
achievement of zero waste goals.
Roger M. Guttentag
E-MAIL: rgutten@concentric.net
TEL: 215-513-0452
FAX: 215-513-0453
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 16:12:01 -0600
From: "John Reindl" <reindl@co.dane.wi.us>
Subject: Zero waste goals
Interesting question, Marjorie -
I think that this may raise a question that we could discuss
for a long time -- who is reponsible for the waste from the
purchases that we make?
Obviously, my heart is to assign a fair amount of responsibility to
manufacturers, especially for hard-to-handle materials (Tyvek in
magazines, computer monitors, propane tanks for camping, etc).
But for some stuff, the consumer must take some
responsibility or blame. If I am a parent with infants, I have a
choice between disposable diapers and cloth. As a gardener and lawn
owner, I have a choice between using or not using pesticides.
Obviously, though, to live, unless I am totally "back to nature", I
need to buy some products and some of those products are going to
end up as waste in today's world, and perhaps for some years to
come. How much of this waste do we assign to the manufacturer (say
Kohler, when the toilet is finally so worn out that it does get
disposed in 50, 100 or more years), versus how much do we as
consumers assume? I don't think I can really answer that. And, in the
case of the toilet, the design that Kohler uses today because it is
recyclable (ceramics which can be ground up for road
base) may or may not result in it being recycled when it finally
outlives its useful life because of changes in technology,
economics, and infrastructure years down the road. Who then gets
the debit for not being zero waste?
Perhaps it goes back to those who look at Zero Waste as a goal, who
believe that we are not there yet, but who are following W. Edwards
Deming's drive for constant improvement. I am not sure we ever
truly reach perfection, but instead, we keep on truckin' .
John
>
> Only to the degree that we are speaking about Kohler. My question was
> quite a bit broader than this instance, as I tried to make clear. What do
> we make of companies that manufacture disposable diapers (or chemical
> cleanser... you fill in the blank) who make their manufacturing processes
> so efficient that they don't waste any resources or create any byproducts
> for our air and water, but the product itself is not good for the
> environment? Do they qualify as having attained Zero Waste?
> __ __
> //\\ //\\ _ _ _ o _
> // \\ // \\ ({_}} {{_}} {{_}} || //_\\
> // \\// \\ ^ // // || \\__
> \_// \_//
> Marjorie J. Clarke
> Environmental Scientist and Consultant
> http://everest.hunter.cuny.edu/~mclarke/index.htm
> http://everest.hunter.cuny.edu/~mclarke/moodyblu.htm
> New York City Phone & Fax: 212-567-8272
>
reindl@co.dane.wi.us
(608)267-1533 - fax
(608)267-8815 - phone
------------------------------
End of GreenYes Digest V98 #24
******************************