[greenyes] RE: Coke, Refillables and Recycling

["Reindl, John" <Reindl@no.address>]

Hi Linda ~

You bring up some good points on the production of toxics, the use of
non-renewable resources and sustainability.

Do you have any data on the toxicity of the production of HDPE and PET
containers that you could share with me?

I would also be interested in any data that you have on the toxicity
generated during the production of aluminum, steel and glass containers as
well as data on the consumption of non-renewable resources by all container
types.

Thanks much,

John Reindl, Recycling Manager
Dane County, WI 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Linda [mailto:linda@no.address]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2004 1:21 PM
> To: 'Peter Anderson'; 'GreenYes'
> Subject: RE: [greenyes] Coke, Refillables and Recycling
> 
> 
> I don't disagree with you Peter. Coke deserves credit for making the
> change that we asked them to (If they in fact did). But sometimes
> recycling feels like a bandaid on the problem. 
> 
> The more I learn about plastics (especially as containers for
> food/drink) the less I want to encourage the production and 
> use of them.
> And while I understand why plastic is so popular, the truly sustainable
> path does not include the production of synthetic, toxic,
> non-biodegradable polymers from a non-renewable resource. And while it's
> a good thing for Coke to use less virgin material in its bottles, the
> recycled plastic isn't any better for our health than the new plastic.
> We need to move away from petroleum-based plastics altogether. This is
> where the recycling movement ends and the Zero Waste movement
> begins...with redesign.
> 
> Linda Smith
> Community Outreach Manager
> Eco-Cycle
> 303.444.6634
>  
> P.S.  Donate your car, truck, boat or RV to Eco-Cycle.  Get 
> the details
> at www.ecocycle.org/cardonation
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Peter Anderson [mailto:anderson@no.address] 
> Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2004 11:11 AM
> To: GreenYes
> Subject: [greenyes] Coke, Refillables and Recycling
> 
> With reference to the Greenpeace posting:
>   GREENPEACE ACTIVISTS REPRESENTING CHARACTERS COMING BACK FROM THE
> FUTURE 
> TO
>   FIGHT WASTE.
> 
>   GREENPEACE RETURN PLASTIC BOTTLES TO COCA COLACONTAINING 
> THOUSANDS OF 
> MESSAGES FROM CONSUMERS
> 
>   IN AN APPEAL TO SCIENCE FICTION, A 16 PEOPLE GROUP CAME FROM THE
> FUTURE TO 
> FIGHT THE GROWING PROBLEM OF WASTE.   THE FIRST TARGET OF THE 
> GROUP WAS
> COCA 
> COLA BECAUSE THEIR GROWING PRODUCTION OF DISPOSABLE
>   BOTTLES.
> 
> Certainly, for those looking to build sustainable structures in the
> future, 
> it is unfortunate that the day of refillable bottles has passed in so
> much 
> of the world. Also, leadership is sorely needed on bottle bills in a
> time 
> when single serve containers are eroding recovery rates, and certainly
> the 
> market leader is always a perennial target.
> 
> On the other hand, as recyclers, we need to recognize Coke 
> for the major
> 
> initiative it took in 2000 to voluntarily commit to use 10% recycled
> content 
> in its plastic bottles, which culminated in years of behind the scenes
> work 
> to help commercialize recycled PET technologies.
> 
> For years PET recycling had been struggling financially in significant
> part 
> because the cost premium for producing food grade bottle resin from
> recycled 
> instead of virgin plastic made it impossible to gain a beach head in
> those 
> higher paying bottle markets. Recyclers had been largely relegated to
> the 
> committed, but low value, fiber markets, with their dependency on the 
> gut-wrenching and extremely volatile markets in China.
> 
> The sheer volumes controlled by Coke was the catalyst that moved the 
> equipment market to develop the technology to use curbside 
> collected PET
> 
> bottles to be recycled back into those high paying bottle markets, and
> also 
> to eliminate the costly re-pelletization process (about 8-10 
> cents per 
> pound).  Absent those changes that made recycled PET 
> competitive in the 
> bottle-to-bottle market, this major part of the reason for 
> strengthening
> 
> prices received by recyclers would not have happened, and it only did
> happen 
> because of Coke's commitment here.
> 
> So, certainly there is a need to continue to push for more 
> sustainable 
> practices in other areas as well, but, at the same time, I 
> feel that we
> will 
> ill-serve our own interests if we fail to acknowledge the positive
> things 
> that companies have done, especially when it is not just PR but major 
> substantive progress.
> 
> I recognize that this may be controversial, and tie me down defending
> these 
> views in the coming weeks, but I feel quite strongly that it 
> needs to be
> 
> said. Otherwise, if we fail to give credit where it is due, we will
> remove 
> any incentive for other industries to cooperate with our policy
> nostrums.
> 
>  
> 
>     Peter
> _________________________
> Peter Anderson, President
> RECYCLEWORLDS CONSULTING
> 4513 Vernon Blvd. Suite 15
> Madison, WI 53705-4964
> Ph: (608) 231-1100
> Fax: (608) 233-0011
> Cell: (608) 698-1314
> eMail: anderson@no.address
> web: www.recycleworlds.net
> 
>          CONFIDENTIAL
> This message, and all attachments thereto,
> is covered by the Electronic Communications
> Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C., Sections 2510-2521.
> This message is CONFIDENTIAL. If you are
> not the intended recipient of this message,
> then any retention, dissemination, distribution
> or copying of this communication is strictly
> prohibited. Please notify me if you received
> this message in error at anderson@no.address
> and then delete it.
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: greenyes-unsubscribe@no.address
> For additional commands, e-mail: greenyes-help@no.address
> 
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: greenyes-unsubscribe@no.address
> For additional commands, e-mail: greenyes-help@no.address
>