GreenYes Digest V98 #64
GreenYes Mailing List and Newsgroup (greenyes@ucsd.edu)
Fri, 22 Jan 1999 17:32:32 -0500
GreenYes Digest Fri, 13 Mar 98 Volume 98 : Issue 64
Today's Topics:
[Fwd: Inventor of Pampers]
Computers (4 msgs)
Green Scissors: "D" for Administration Budget
GreenYes Digest V98 #61
Industrial Ecology III
Update the Bottle Bill Economic Study Release
USA Waste Takeover of Waste Management
USA Waste Takeover of WMI
Waste Management and the Future of Recycling
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:98/64
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1998 10:41:40 -0800
From: Ann Schneider <aschneid@cats.ucsc.edu>
Subject: [Fwd: Inventor of Pampers]
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------6FD6226810A2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3Dus-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Hi All:
I've forwarded the obituary of the man who invented disposable diapers.
Ann
--------------6FD6226810A2
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
X-UIDL: ea9d455ea12af5201edcc1740c9fdf00
X-arrival-time: 889639576
Received: from cats.ucsc.edu by cats-po-1 (8.8.8/4.8) id KAA19646; Wed, 11
Mar 1998 10:06:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from valley.rtpnc.epa.gov (valley.rtpnc.epa.gov [134.67.208.16])
by cats.ucsc.edu (8.8.5/8.8.4.cats-athena) with ESMTP
id KAA23044; Wed, 11 Mar 1998 10:06:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from valley (valley [134.67.208.16]) by valley.rtpnc.epa.gov
(8.8.7/8.8.0) with SMTP id NAA04105; Wed, 11 Mar 1998 13:05:14 -0500 (EST)
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 13:05:14 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <45E7C3062C10D111B6FE00A0C92D114D16839A@ALBINET>
Errors-To: jwhitehe@erg.com
Reply-To: jtrnet@valley.rtpnc.epa.gov
Originator: jtrnet@unixmail.rtpnc.epa.gov
Sender: jtrnet@valley.rtpnc.epa.gov
Precedence: bulk
From: "Kacandes, Tom" <TKACANDES@empire.state.ny.us>
To: Multiple recipients of list <jtrnet@valley.rtpnc.epa.gov>
Subject: Inventor of Pampers
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment: EPA's "Jobs Through Recycling" Grants Network
X-Mozilla-Status: 0001
>From Waste News 12/1/97 - maybe you missed this....
Obituary for Victor Mills, Tuscon, Ariz.
Victor Mills, who led the development of the first mass-marketed
disposable diaper, died Nov. 1 at his home in Tuscon. He was 100.
Mills worked as a chemical engineer for Proctor & Gamble Co. from 1926
to 1961. He is generally recognized as the most productive technolgist
in the company's history.
He held 25 patents on processes used in making Ivory bar soap, Crisco
oil, Duncan Hines cake mix, Jif peanut butter, Pringles potato chips and
a host of other products.
But Procter & Gamble introduced his most notable invention in
1961-Pampers.
Mills started working on the concept in 1956 while he and his
engineering team decided the future of a paper mill the company had
acquired.
The fluffy, clean paper pulp the mill produced was absorbent, and Mills,
being a father and grandfather, hated changing diapers.
Hence came the idea to mass market a disposable diaper.
He first tested Pampers prototypes on his grandchildren.
Then, the firm test-marketed the diapers in Peoria, Ill., in 1961, the
year he retired.
After a few tweaks in the design and price, Pampers became a leader in
what is now the nearly $4 billion-per-year disposable diaper industry.
Mills was born in Milford, Neb., in 1897. He is survived by his wife,
daughter, and three grandchildren.
-end-
--------------6FD6226810A2--
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1998 10:04:03 -0600
From: "John Reindl" <reindl@co.dane.wi.us>
Subject: Computers
Dear List Members -
Does anyone know what proportion of computers (or CRTs) are in or=20
sold to households versus to businesses?
Or any suggestions on how I might get such data?
CRTs generated at businesses would fall under our state hazardous=20
waste rules and thus not be allowed in Subtitle D landfills, but=20
perhaps be more likely to participate in a recycling program. CRTs=20
from households have an exemption from hazardous waste rules and a=20
different approach is probably needed to get them collected.
Thanks much!!
John Reindl, Recycling Manager
Dane County, WI
reindl@co.dane.wi.us
(608)267-1533 - fax
(608)267-8815 - phone
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1998 11:49:42 -0500 (EST)
From: "Roger M. Guttentag" <rgutten@concentric.net>
Subject: Computers
At 10:04 AM 3/12/98 -0600, you wrote:
>Dear List Members -
>
>Does anyone know what proportion of computers (or CRTs) are in or=20
>sold to households versus to businesses?
>
>Or any suggestions on how I might get such data?
>John Reindl, Recycling Manager
>Dane County, WI
>
>reindl@co.dane.wi.us
>(608)267-1533 - fax
>(608)267-8815 - phone
>
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
Dear John and List Members:
In regard to your question: I have seen figures regarding household
ownership of computers ranging between 30% to 50%. You may get more
specific sales data from trade associations (perhaps the Electronic Industry
Association?). Here are my thoughts on this issue:
1. One recent industry trend that will dramatically affect household
computer ownership patterns was the emergence within the past year of the
sub-zero (under $1,000) computer pricing that was initiated by Compaq
Computer and now being matched by many other manufacturers. One industry
pundit, in writing about this dramatic drop in pricing, suggested (tongue in
cheek) that the day may not be far off when manufacturers pay consumers to
own computers with the profits to come from add-on sales and services. This
pricing may both entice households that did not own a computer to buy one as
well as encourage computer owning households to purchase a second or even
third computer. You should keep this in mind when you review any industry
data on household ownership patterns.
2. Many computers are purchased and used by the small office / home office
(SOHO) market. It is unknown to me if the available sales data
distinguishes between corporate purchases and SOHO purchases. It is also
unclear to me how your state rules handles the issue of computers used in
SOHO operations. Would they be treated as the same as households?
3. Another relevant issue is the expected term of service for a personal
computer which the sales data will not tell you. It is my understanding
that a large percentage of computers that are no longer needed often get
warehoused or stored for certain periods of time prior to being disposed,
recycled or reused. I wrote about the Electronic Product Recovery &
Recycling web site (http://www.nsc.org/ehc/epr2.htm)in my February 1998
Recycling In Cyberspace column which includes links to work done by Carnegie
Mellon University. I believe they addressed this issue as part of their
research. Both the EPRR and Carnegie Mellon may also be overall good
resources for you to consult as part of your research effort.
Roger M. Guttentag
E-MAIL: rgutten@concentric.net
TEL: 215-513-0452
FAX: 215-513-0453
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1998 11:49:42 -0500 (EST)
From: "Roger M. Guttentag" <rgutten@concentric.net>
Subject: Computers
At 10:04 AM 3/12/98 -0600, you wrote:
>Dear List Members -
>
>Does anyone know what proportion of computers (or CRTs) are in or=20
>sold to households versus to businesses?
>
>Or any suggestions on how I might get such data?
>John Reindl, Recycling Manager
>Dane County, WI
>
>reindl@co.dane.wi.us
>(608)267-1533 - fax
>(608)267-8815 - phone
>
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
Dear John and List Members:
In regard to your question: I have seen figures regarding household
ownership of computers ranging between 30% to 50%. You may get more
specific sales data from trade associations (perhaps the Electronic Industry
Association?). Here are my thoughts on this issue:
1. One recent industry trend that will dramatically affect household
computer ownership patterns was the emergence within the past year of the
sub-zero (under $1,000) computer pricing that was initiated by Compaq
Computer and now being matched by many other manufacturers. One industry
pundit, in writing about this dramatic drop in pricing, suggested (tongue in
cheek) that the day may not be far off when manufacturers pay consumers to
own computers with the profits to come from add-on sales and services. This
pricing may both entice households that did not own a computer to buy one as
well as encourage computer owning households to purchase a second or even
third computer. You should keep this in mind when you review any industry
data on household ownership patterns.
2. Many computers are purchased and used by the small office / home office
(SOHO) market. It is unknown to me if the available sales data
distinguishes between corporate purchases and SOHO purchases. It is also
unclear to me how your state rules handles the issue of computers used in
SOHO operations. Would they be treated as the same as households?
3. Another relevant issue is the expected term of service for a personal
computer which the sales data will not tell you. It is my understanding
that a large percentage of computers that are no longer needed often get
warehoused or stored for certain periods of time prior to being disposed,
recycled or reused. I wrote about the Electronic Product Recovery &
Recycling web site (http://www.nsc.org/ehc/epr2.htm)in my February 1998
Recycling In Cyberspace column which includes links to work done by Carnegie
Mellon University. I believe they addressed this issue as part of their
research. Both the EPRR and Carnegie Mellon may also be overall good
resources for you to consult as part of your research effort.
Roger M. Guttentag
E-MAIL: rgutten@concentric.net
TEL: 215-513-0452
FAX: 215-513-0453
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1998 16:12:06 EST
From: Jango <Jango@aol.com>
Subject: Computers
John,
Using the CMU study, approximately 150 million computers are out there=20
(other numbers I've seen range from 160 m to 175 m but remember there are=20
a significant number being recycled and, sadly, some being disposed of)=20
right now. A recent article in our Philadelphia Inquirer notes that an=20
industry survey shows 45% market penetration in households nationwide=20
with about a 15% annual growth rate (corroborated by the CMU study).=20
Assuming approximately 100 million households in the country (I think=20
this is correct...please let me know alternatives if you have them) that=20
would be roughly 45 milliion PCs, or around 30%. This doesn't take into=20
account the end-of-life issue for household recycling. My guess is that's=20
what you're working on so...good luck. Remember though, that the end of=20
life for most home PCs is probably another 3-5 years off.
As to the CRT issue, it seems odd that large scale generation does not=20
effect a township or county doing the collecting. I mean, yeah, you might=20
put out one or two CRTs next year in the trash, but if everyone did that,=20
doesn't your transfer station become a large scale generator? In any=20
event, I'm assuming you all don't burn out there. If yoiu did, you don't=20
want any of that stuff in your disposal streams. I've heard too that CRTs=20
may be responsible for as much as 50% of the lead in landfills. Don't=20
know if that's true, but if it is, maybe people should be a little bit=20
careful how they deal with stuff.
By the way, what does everyone think of USA Waste's latest acquisition?=20
Whew! Pretty slick if you ask me. Sort of like Apple buying out Compaq=20
(which I think would be a good move). Looking forward to your thoughts on=20
this.=20
David Biddle
Center for Solid Waste Research
7366 Rural Lane
Philadelphia, PA 19119
215-247-2974 (voice and fax)
jango@aol.com
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1998 17:12:14 -0800 (PST)
From: "David A. Kirkpatrick" <david@kirkworks.com>
Subject: Green Scissors: "D" for Administration Budget
BELOW AVERAGE: The Green Scissors Campaign announced the release=20
yesterday of a Clinton-Gore Report Card following the release of the=20
Green Scissors `98 report. The coalition of conservation, taxpayer and=20
deficit reduction advocates gave the Clinton Administration's budget a=20
"D" in its efforts to cut harmful federal spending. "The=20
Administration should be on the cutting edge of trimming waste from the=20
budget. Instead we are too often seeing pork barrel politics as=20
usual," said Ralph DeGenarro of Taxpayers for Common $ense. The report=20
card assesses Clinton's position and activity on 71 proposed budget=20
cuts that would save almost $50 billion taxpayer dollars and protect=20
the environment.
GREENLines, Wednesday, March 11, 1998 from GREEN,=20
the GrassRoots Environmental Effectiveness Network,=20
A project of Defenders of Wildlife=20
(505) 277-8302 or email rfeather@defenders.org
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 12:46:24 -0800
From: David Assmann <dassmann@sirius.com>
Subject: GreenYes Digest V98 #61
Position Available
Solid Waste Management Program
Title: Commercial Recycling Coordinator
Application Due 5:00 p.m., March 27, 1998
Position Available Immediately.
Salary Annual Salary of $52,435 to $63,736
The Recycling Program and City:
The San Francisco Recycling Program is within the Solid Waste Management
Program
of the City and County of San Francisco. The Program is responsible for
ensuring
that the City meets its recycling obligations and fully implements the=
City=92s
Source Reduction and Recycling Element. For the position, the City=92s=
commercial
sector includes all non-residential entities (businesses, non-profit
organizations, institutions, and public agencies) which number more than=
62,000
and collectively generate about 70 percent of the City=92s waste. The=
Recycling
Program serves as a liaison between the commercial sector and recycling=
haulers
and provides support and information about setting up or expanding waste
prevention and recycling programs.
The Position:
Under the direction of the program manager, the Commercial Recycling
Coordinator
will be responsible for developing and promoting waste reduction and=
recycling
programs for the City=92s commercial sector. Specifically, the Coordinator
will be
responsible for analyzing the effectiveness of existing programs, developing=
and
recommending new ones that target additional materials and populations,=
working
closely with commercial entities and recycling service providers, and
supervising
staff and contractors.
Examples of Duties:
* Market and promote effective resource management and conservation in the
commercial sector.
* Develop and stage events and activities that promote resource conservation
opportunities.
* Liaise between the Solid Waste Management Program, San Francisco=
commercial
sector, and service providers.
* Analyze and evaluate existing programs and the need for new ones.
* Prepare and manage budgets.
* Provide technical assistance to the commercial sector and Recycling=
Program
co-workers.
* Promote =93buy recycled=94 and other market development activities to the
commercial
sector.
* Prepare request for proposals, and select and manage contractors for=
projects
related to commercial recycling.
Minimum Qualification:
* Five years work experience, with a preference for communication or=
marketing
experience working with businesses. A Master=92s Degree may be substituted
for one
year of work experience.
* Bachelor=92s degree in any field, with preference for degree in business,
marketing or environmental studies.
* Experience developing and marketing programs for targeted audiences.
* Ability to work well and coordinate with a variety of individuals,=
agencies,
businesses, trade associations and service providers.
* Excellent communication skills.
Desirable Knowledge, Skills, and Experience:
* Experience in the environmental or recycling field,
* Knowledge of, and experience with, the San Francisco business community.
* Experience preparing and managing budgets.
* Proficiency with word processing, database, and spreadsheet software.
* Second language (read/write/speak) skills in Chinese.
* Second language (read/write/speak) skills in Spanish.
* Excellent research and analytical skills.
* Ability to motivate others.
* Ability to work independently and in a team environment.
* Ability to plan and meet deadlines.
How To Apply: Mail a cover letter and resume to :
S.F. Solid Waste Management Program, Hiring Committee
Commercial Recycling Coordinator Position
1145 Market Street, Suite 401, San Francisco, CA 94103.
Submittal Deadline:Resume and cover letter must be received no later than
5:pm. on
March 27, 1998. (This deadline may be extended.)
MINORITIES, WOMEN AND DISABLED ARE ENCOURAGED TO APPLY
an Equal Opportunity Employer
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1998 22:36:27 -0800
From: Alisa <alisaw@wco.com>
Subject: Industrial Ecology III
--------------DF04558FCE0AF35EF7C9FAF1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3Dus-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
This was a fantastic opportunity to learn, share ideas, and create new
partnerships when I went last year. If you look at the program, I'm
sure you'll see this year looks to be much of the same!
Alisa Wade
On April 24-26, the Future 500 will present Industrial Ecology III (IE
III), its third-annual sustainability workshop and roundtable retreat,
in
San Francisco and the Marin Headlands. The Future 500 is a network of
some
of the world's most forward-thinking business change agents from the
corporate, technology, environmental and social spheres. IE III will
draw
together a highly dynamic group of people to learn, discuss, and put
into
practice cutting edge business and policy tools that emulate nature's
efficient and creative systems. Featured presenters include Fritjof
Capra,
author of "The Web of Life", Anita Burke of Texaco, Art Kleiner, author
of
"The Fifth Discipline Fieldbook", and Michael Kleeman of Boston
Consulting
Group.
Industrial Ecology is a set of tools, systems, principles, and
technologies
that generally share three objectives: (1) to minimize costs of all
kinds
- economic, environmental, and social; (2) to maximize benefits -
profits,
incomes, and quality of life; and (3) to promote sustainability - of
people, corporations, and ecosystems. For more information visit the IE
III
website at http://www.globalff.org/ie3-info.htm or contact the Future
500 at
(800) 796-8052 or by email at info@globalff.org
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Industrial Ecology III - April 24-26: Exploring opportunities for
profit and innovation by emulating natural systems. For more info.
visit http://www.globalff.org/ie3-info.htm or call (800) 796-8052
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
--------------DF04558FCE0AF35EF7C9FAF1
Content-Type: text/html; charset=3Dus-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
This was a fantastic opportunity to learn, share ideas, and create new
partnerships when I went last year. If you look at the program, I'm
sure you'll see this year looks to be much of the same!
Alisa Wade
On April 24-26, the Future 500 will present Industrial Ecology III (IE
III), its third-annual sustainability workshop and roundtable retreat,
in
San Francisco and the Marin Headlands. The Future 500 is a network
of some
of the world's most forward-thinking business change agents from the
corporate, technology, environmental and social spheres. IE III
will draw
together a highly dynamic group of people to learn, discuss, and put
into
practice cutting edge business and policy tools that emulate nature's
efficient and creative systems. Featured presenters include=
Fritjof
Capra,
author of "The Web of Life", Anita Burke of Texaco, Art Kleiner,
author of
"The Fifth Discipline Fieldbook", and Michael Kleeman of Boston=
Consulting
Group.
Industrial Ecology is a set of tools, systems, principles, and=
technologies
that generally share three objectives: (1) to minimize costs
of all kinds
- economic, environmental, and social; (2) to maximize benefits
- profits,
incomes, and quality of life; and (3) to promote sustainability
- of
people, corporations, and ecosystems. For more information visit the
IE III
website at http://www.globalff.org/ie3-in=
fo
.htm or contact the Future
500 at
(800) 796-8052 or by email at info@globalff.org
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Industrial Ecology III - April 24-26: Exploring opportunities
for
profit and innovation by emulating natural systems. For more
info.
visit http://www.globalff.org/ie3-in=
fo
.htm or call (800) 796-8052
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
*
--------------DF04558FCE0AF35EF7C9FAF1--
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 14:38:28 -0500
From: jlsegal@juno.com
Subject: Update the Bottle Bill Economic Study Release
MASSPIRG would like to thank Dr. Jeffrey Morris, Sound Resource
Management, for his hard work and dedication in writing "Economic and
Environmental Benefits of Updating Massachusetts' Bottle Bill." Dr.
Morris may be reached at ZeroWaste@aol.com or by calling (206)622-9454.
For more information: see end of release.=20
STUDY REPORTS POTENTIAL SAVINGS OF NEARLY $100 MILLION FROM UPDATED
BOTTLE BILL
Massachusetts Public Interest Research Group released a report authored
by Dr. Jeffrey Morris of Sound Resource Management detailing the
quantifiable economic and environmental benefits of updating the state's
16 year old Bottle Bill to include non-carbonated beverage containers in
the nickel deposit.
"Our research and evaluation finds that updating Massachusetts' Bottle
Bill to include non-carbonated beverages is in the economic and
environmental interests of the Commonwealth," said Dr. Morris.
Savings include:
- $9.4 to $26.8 million from employment opportunities that make new
containers and other products from recycled materials;
- $18.8 to $24.8 million in revenues from selling recovered beverage
containers to recycling markets;
- $13.5 to $20.2 million worth of reduced litter and waste management
costs;
- $18.1 to $24.0 million from reduced public health costs from pollutants
emitted when virgin materials are used in manufacturing beverage
containers;
- $1.1 to $1.2 million in reduced public health costs for emergency room
visits resulting from cuts on broken glass and litter; and
- $1.3 to $1.9 million worth of reduced greenhouse gas emissions from
energy used in manufacturing beverage containers from virgin materials.
"Updating the Bottle Bill makes sense for our environment and our
economy. It is supported by the public, community leaders,
environmentalists, and a majority of the legislature. The figures in our
report show that we are wasting time and money until we pass an updated
Bottle Bill," stated MASSPIRG's Solid Waste Program Advocate Jodi
Segal, who is leading the 370 member coalition to update the Bottle Bill.
Legislation to update the Bottle Bill to place a nickel deposit on
containers of iced tea, fruit juice, bottled water, and other beverages
has been pending in the House of Representatives for several years.=20
Supporters hope that release of this report will spur legislative action.
-end
release-
For more information: Jodi Segal (617) 292-4800.
To order a copy of the report, send a check (in the appropriate amount)
to=20
MASSPIRG
29 Temple Place
Boston, MA 02111.
Media: free Legislators: free PIRG
members: $7.50 =20
Individuals and non-profits: $10.00 Others: $30.00
_____________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1998 15:56:47 -0600
From: "RecycleWorlds"
Subject: USA Waste Takeover of Waste Management
To the Editor
Wall Street Journal
200 Liberty Street
New York, NY 10281
To the Editor:
Three years ago, Journal reporter Jeff Bailey raised the rafters
because he felt that the public had let itself be fooled by the large
waste haulers. According to Mr. Bailey, they used the 1988 garbage
barge episode as a ruse to dupe us that there was a landfill crisis in
order for Waste Management's Dean Buntrock to "pass along huge price
increases [in disposal fees] to municipalities and other customers
[and] push up profits at WMX" ("Waste of a Sort," WSJ, Nov 11 =9195).
In his coverage of Waste Management's fall to USA Waste ("USA
Waste Services Is Set to Take Over Waste Management," WSJ, Mar 11
=9198), Mr. Bailey now unwittingly becomes the foil for USA Waste's Mr.
Drury when he quotes the new CEO's advice: "Stay out of hazardous
waste; make customers pay for recycling services and don't speculate
on used-paper prices".
Played out against Mr. Bailey's other fillips ("recycling...a
popular
business with consumers and some businesses but not a very profitable
one"), not to mention Mr. Drury's well publicized predilections ("It's
really a very simple business. We pick up garbage...That's all we do
and all we want to do," Waste News, May 26 =9197), Mr. Bailey is
effectively setting the public up to accept sharply higher fees for
recycling services, in areas where waste haulers have market power, as
a justified price adjustment.
What will happen if recycling charges soar? First, recycling =97
which has grown from 10% to almost 30% of the waste stream in the last
decade =97 will fade away through the death of a thousand financial
cuts. Then, the abundance of landfill space will become reabsorbed as
the volumes that previously were diverted by recyclers come back home
to the garbage dump. With access to landfills tightening, the large
integrated haulers will be able to freeze out new entrants and charge
monopoly prices across the board.
And is there really a economic basis for hiking recycling fees?
As is his wont, Mr. Bailey continues to distort the picture of
recycling's economics. It is true that in the early 1990's, WMI and
BFI did, at times, price recycle collection contracts below normal
markups as loss leaders because they wanted to gain a leg up on
associated waste collection contracts. But there are few, if any
contracts like this around anymore. And, it is true that during the
1995 spike in the price for recycle commodities, many firms, most
notably BFI and Prins, became punch drunk and, assuming those sky-high
prices would extend out into the future, underbid competitors to gain
short term market share =97 to their dismay in 1996 and 1997. But, no
one is doing that today.
Keeping recycling in the picture is not only good for the
environment, it is also a key element in reining in the looming
monopolization of waste hauling.
But, for that to happen we mustn't acquiescence to phony price
increases to recycle. Indeed not only do hauling charges for bottles,
cans and paper not need to be increased, but rather new efficiencies
in such things as larger compacting vehicles for recyclables make it
possible to slash existing recycling collection costs nearly in half.
Otherwise, if we let the giants artificially price recycling out
of the market, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to have an inkling
where the resulting hauling monopolies will lead.
Sincerely,
Peter Anderson, President
RecycleWorlds Consulting
PA/ji
____________________________________
Peter Anderson
RecycleWorlds Consulting
4513 Vernon Blvd. Ste. 15
Madison, WI 53705-4964
Phone:(608) 231-1100/Fax: (608) 233-0011
E-mail:recycle@msn.fullfeed.com
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1998 16:04:28 -0600
From: "RecycleWorlds"
Subject: USA Waste Takeover of WMI
To the Editor
Wall Street Journal
200 Liberty Street
New York, NY 10281
To the Editor:
Three years ago, Journal reporter Jeff Bailey raised the rafters
because he felt that the public had let itself be fooled by the large
waste haulers. According to Mr. Bailey, they used the 1988 garbage
barge episode as a ruse to fool us that there was a landfill crisis in
order for Waste Management's Dean Buntrock to "pass along huge price
increases [in disposal fees] to municipalities and other customers
[and] push up profits at WMX" ("Waste of a Sort," WSJ, Nov 11 =9195).
In his coverage of Waste Management's fall to USA Waste ("USA Waste
Services Is Set to Take Over Waste Management," WSJ, Mar 11 =9198), Mr.
Bailey now unwittingly becomes the foil for USA Waste's Mr. Drury when
he quotes the new CEO's advice: "Stay out of hazardous waste; make
customers pay for recycling services and don't speculate on used-paper
prices".
Played out Mr. Bailey's other fillips ("recycling...a popular
business with consumers and some businesses but not a very profitable
one"), not to mention Mr. Drury's well publicized predilections ("It's
really a very simple business. We pick up garbage...That's all we do
and all we want to do," Waste News, May 26 =9197), Mr. Bailey is
effectively setting the public up to accept sharply higher fees for
recycling services, in areas where waste haulers have market power, as
a justified price adjustment.
What will happen if recycling charges soar? First, recycling =97 which
has grown from 10% to almost 30% of the waste stream in the last
decade =97 will fade away through the death of a thousand financial
cuts. Then, the abundance of landfill space will become reabsorbed as
the volumes that previously were diverted by recyclers come back home
to the garbage dump. With access to landfills tightening, the large
integrated haulers will be able to freeze out new entrants and charge
monopoly prices across the board.
And is there really a economic basis for hiking recycling fees? As
is his wont, Mr. Bailey continues to distort the picture of
recycling's economics. It is true that in the early 1990's, WMI and
BFI did, at times, price recycle collection contracts below normal
markups as loss leaders because they wanted to gain a leg up on
associated waste collection contracts. But there are few, if any
contracts like this around anymore. And, it is true that during the
1995 spike in the price for recycle commodities, many firms, most
notably BFI and Prins, became punch drunk and, assuming those sky-high
prices would extend out into the future, underbid competitors to gain
short term market share =97 to their dismay in 1996 and 1997. But, no
one is doing that today.
Keeping recycling in the picture is not only good for the
environment, it is also a key element in reining in the looming
monopolization of waste hauling.
But, for that to happen we mustn't acquiescence to phony price
increases to recycle. Indeed not only do hauling charges for bottles,
cans and paper not need to be increased, but rather new efficiencies
in such things as larger compacting vehicles for recyclables make it
possible to slash existing recycling collection costs nearly in half.
Otherwise, if we let the giants artificially price recycling out of
the market, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to have an inkling
where the resulting hauling monopolies will lead.
Sincerely,
Peter Anderson, President
RecycleWorlds Consulting
PA/ji
____________________________________
Peter Anderson
RecycleWorlds Consulting
4513 Vernon Blvd. Ste. 15
Madison, WI 53705-4964
Phone:(608) 231-1100/Fax: (608) 233-0011
E-mail:recycle@msn.fullfeed.com
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1998 10:33:32 -0600
From: "RecycleWorlds"
Subject: Waste Management and the Future of Recycling
Sorry to have been out of the office yesterday, and didn't get time to
do my email duty, but the headline story in the 3/11/98 Wall Street
Journal was "USA Waste Services Is Set to Take Over Waste Management,"
by our Jeff Bailey, and it has significant implications for recycling.
Waste Management (#1) and USA Waste (#3) are merging, with (1) USA
Waste being the surviving corporation, and (2) USA Waste then assuming
the more well known Waste Management name.
This means that USA Waste's management now runs the combined show --
if the merger is consumated -- and USA Waste's CEO, John Drury is in
charge of the new company.
Two things about the news coverage to the world of finance:
1. The first concerns Mr. Drury. He previous to his position with USA
Waste was no. 2 at BFI. The article describes that time: "BFI has
struggled too [along with WMI with its ill-fated diversification],
notably from its headlong rush into recycling, which is a popular
business with consumers and some businesses but not a very profitable
one. The recycling move was made under William D. Ruckelshaus, the
former Environmental Protection Agency chief who became chairman and
CEO in 1988. Mr. Drury was president, and the two men clashed. 'Bill
truly thought that the future of disposal would be recycling,' Mr.
Drury says. 'I was always opposing it. I would n't accept it.' Mr.
Ruckelsahus called him 'a dinosaur,' Mr. Drury says, and fired him.
'Bill asked me to move along.'
2. The second concerns how the article describes the profitability of
recycling operations. "Mr. Drury's time out of the industy [after
being fired from BFI] gave him a chance to see where its original
participants had erred. And he saw how to make a second wave of
consolidation profitable: Stay out of hazardous waste; make customers
pay for recycling services and don't speculate on used-paper prices;
and keep costs low because, as much as big waste companies like to
think they have a valuable brand name, customers buy on price."
My understanding is that, as he has before, Mr. Bailey distorts the
picture of recycling's economics. While it is true that in the early
1990's, WMI and BFI did price recycle collection contracts at costs
below normal markups as loss leaders to gain access to associated
waste collection contracts, there is no longer the practice. And it
is true that during the 1995 price rise in recycle commodities, many
firms, most notably BFI and Prins, became punch drunk and assumed
those prices trended out into the future to gain short term market
share -- to their dismay in 1996-7.
But, to the best of my knowledge, there are no contracts out there to
day of any significance that any longer fail to make customers pay for
recycling services.
What this article suggests is that in locales where the new combined
entity has market power, the price for recycling services will
increase significantly, ostensibly to make it pay for itself. Another
way to look at it is that the big money for integrated firms comes
from gaining market power which means keeping out new entrants. One
of the most basic ways of accomplishing this is by controlling the
local landfill which, in Industrial Organization theory, is the
bottleneck strategum. If diversion programs expand, the current
landfill surplus will be perpetuated and it will become that much more
difficult to exercise that bottleneck control over access to new
entrants who might underbid.
That is to say, finding an excuse to raise the cost of recycling will
over time continue the process or eroding recycling's competitiveness
and market penetration. That is now the clarion call among all of the
integrated waste firms and it means that, unless a counter strategy is
developed by recyclers, it could be very, very serious for all of us.
We need to focus on this very carefully if we are to survive!
____________________________________
Peter Anderson
RecycleWorlds Consulting
4513 Vernon Blvd. Ste. 15
Madison, WI 53705-4964
Phone:(608) 231-1100/Fax: (608) 233-0011
E-mail:recycle@msn.fullfeed.com
------------------------------
End of GreenYes Digest V98 #64
******************************