GreenYes Archives

[GreenYes Home] - [Thread Index] - [Date Index]
[Date Prev] - [Date Next] - [Thread Prev] - [Thread Next]


Re: [greenyes] Upstream...Consumer Waste Reduction Workshop


Tom:
Thank you for the heads up on the Ark. DEQ workshop, it looks excellent! Does
Nurtured World have a website or any conference materials that your regional ZW
P2 website will post? If so give us the link to anything interesting that we
can use in our nearby regions. As you and others have eluded to its going to
take a real revolution from consumers to make EPR happen big time.

In the work I currently am engaged in we are engaging in consideration of the
impact and burden of obesity issues. It seems to me that our societal waste
issues appear to track our historical obesity issues closely. It would be very
interesting to get some published dual data to show this dual trend. From a
women's point of view, there might be opportunity to link the two to provide
awareness and impetus to reduce both obesity and waste at the same time.

Best,
Toni Stein
----- Original Message -----
From: <tvinson@no.address>
To: "Eric Lombardi" <eric@no.address>
Cc: "'Bill Sheehan'" <bill.sheehan@no.address>; "'GreenYesL'"
<greenyes@no.address>
Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2005 8:20 AM
Subject: [greenyes] Upstream...Consumer Waste Reduction Workshop


> > We need to all start paying more attention to the "upstream" part
> > of ZW, namely the amount of wasted resources, the toxicity of the products
> > and the free ride that "the market" is getting.
>
> So true! We have been beginning this work, but it is a big challenge. It will
> require an unprecedented shift in focus. However, like the eco efficiency
work
> we did in the early nineties, consumers are open to the idea that they can
have
> a better life without waste. I would like to plug my colleagues workshop
where
> they make this case:
>
> More in the Bank, Less From the Environment
> September 19,2005 until September 20, 2005
>
>
> The Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality is hosting a free two-day
> workshop on September 19-20, 2005 on consumer and organizational conservation.
> The two-day event will guide the participants to take a closer look at
consumer
> spending and its impact on the environment. The workshop is for individuals,
> communities and organizations interested in saving money, protecting the
> environment, and improving personal and organizational performance. The
seminar
> will be presented by A Nurtured World, Inc., of Austin, Texas. The workshop is
> open to the public. Registration is necessary to attend this event. Call the
> number below for more information.
>
> Contact: Audree Miller-501-682-0015
> miller@no.address
> More Info. : www.adeq.state.ar.us
> Agenda : www.nurturedworld.com
>
>
> Thomas Vinson-Peng
> University of Texas
> Southwest Network
> for Zero Waste
> 10100 Burnet Rd. CEER-R 7100
> Austin, TX 78758
> 512/232-7149
> FAX 512-471-1720
> tvinson@no.address
> www.zerowastenetwork.org
>
> Quoting Eric Lombardi <eric@no.address>:
>
> > Congrats to Bill and Helen !! It is absolutely true that what sets Zero
> > Waste apart from "total recycling" is the EPR revolution that is slowly
> > building. We need to all start paying more attention to the "upstream" part
> > of ZW, namely the amount of wasted resources, the toxicity of the products
> > and the free ride that "the market" is getting.
> >
> >
> >
> > Eric Lombardi
> >
> > Executive Director
> >
> > Eco-Cycle Inc
> >
> > 303-444-6634
> >
> > www.ecocycle.org
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Bill Sheehan [mailto:bill.sheehan@no.address]
> > Sent: Monday, August 22, 2005 12:03 PM
> > To: GreenYesL
> > Subject: [greenyes] Editorial: Holy Grail for Zero Waste is EPR
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > "The Holy Grail for Zero Waste proponents is extended producer
> > responsibility (EPR) . Fortunately, the Zero Waste argument has finally been
> > laid out cogently in a paper published by the Product Policy Institute"
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Solid Waste & Recycling
> >
> >
> > June/July 2005
> >
> >
> > Editorial
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Zeroing in on Waste
> >
> >
> > By Guy Crittenden
> >
> >
> >
> > Like drifting continents, a slow-motion collision of two opposing
> > philosophies about waste is currently underway in North America.
> > Understanding what's at stake is crucial for anyone in the waste management
> > and recycling business, which is being rattled by seismic shifts.
> >
> >
> >
> > On one side is "integrated waste management" (IWM), an approach that seeks
> > to optimize the efficiency of waste diversion activities like composting and
> > recycling in coordination with disposal, which may include incineration
> > (preferably to co-generate power) and landfill (if only for ash). Dutch IWM
> > proponents recently made presentations to the City of Toronto about their
> > modern technologies and included waste-to-energy in their high "diversion"
> > numbers.
> >
> >
> >
> > IWM appeals to private sector and municipal waste managers who must cope
> > with the ever increasing flood of material that comes their way. IWM
> > proponents accept some flattening out the 3Rs hierarchy, since they don't
> > control the first two Rs: reduce and reuse. They have a job to do, right
> > now, and must answer to budget overseers or stock analysts, fluctuating
> > markets for recycled commodities, and limited or declining disposal
> > capacity. (Our cover story on page 8 expresses IWM concerns.)
> >
> >
> >
> > The other side is Zero Waste, a movement that originated among
> > environmentalists and academic think tanks; its core idea is that what we
> > call "waste" is actually the inefficient allocation of resources and energy.
> > Even if incinerators were proven safe and landfill space was abundant (the
> > IWM wet dream), Zero Waste proponents would argue against them. We're
> > consuming and discarding more and more resources, they say, and our focus on
> > recycling and disposal systems (even new "gee whiz" technologies) is
> > actually making matters worse.
> >
> >
> >
> > The Holy Grail for Zero Waste proponents is extended producer responsibility
> > (EPR) -- a term coined by a professor from Sweden where, ironically,
> > energy-from waste is popular. True EPR connects producers with the
> > downstream fate (and costs) of their products and packaging, and the price
> > signal creates a virtuous cycle: internalization of the full costs of
> > materials over their complete lifecycle drives eco-efficiencies up the value
> > chain, culminating in design for the environment.
> >
> >
> >
> > The economic premise of EPR is fundamentally sound and surprisingly
> > consistent with free market ideas. Unfortunately, the best ideas from the
> > Zero Waste movement have sometimes been confused with woolly central
> > planning policies and the discredited command-and-control approach to
> > regulation, with which they have little in common.
> >
> >
> >
> > Fortunately, the Zero Waste argument has finally been laid out cogently in a
> > paper published by the Product Policy Institute based in Athens, Georgia.
> > Authors Bill Sheehan -- former director of a Zero Waste coalition -- and
> > Helen Spiegelman (a board member of the respected British Columbia
> > environmental group SPEC) titled their paper "Unintended
> > <http://www.productpolicy.org/assets/resources/UnintendedConsequences-MSWand
> > EPR.pdf> Consequences: Municipal Solid Waste Management and the Throwaway
> > Society."
> >
> >
> >
> > Sheehan and Spiegelman note that the municipal solid waste management system
> > was established a century ago to protect public health but evolved in such a
> > way that it provided an indirect subsidy to the "throwaway society,"
> > collecting (at taxpayer expense) all the detritus of the consumer culture
> > and making it "go away." Rather than proselytize ordinary people to recycle
> > more (an IWM habit), Sheehan and Spiegelman instead suggest that
> > corporations and consumers are behaving in a rational way. With no price
> > connection between production and disposal, it's predictable that industry
> > would shift over the past half century toward the manufacture of expedient,
> > disposable products, often made from non-renewable materials and energy. (A
> > disposable plastic razor is a good example, as is a "recyclable" plastic
> > soft-drink container.)
> >
> >
> >
> > The authors state that if this subsidy ended (i.e., if municipalities
> > stopped collecting the stuff) the (seemingly) free ride for these materials
> > would stop and EPR would ensue.
> >
> >
> >
> > The authors analyzed the U.S. EPA's extensive waste characterization data
> > over the 41-year period from 1960 to 2001 to compare patterns in the
> > generation, recovery and discards of product and non-product wastes (e.g.,
> > organics). They observe that the municipal waste management system "has been
> > least effective in reducing manufactured product wastes, and most successful
> > in managing certain community generated biowastes."
> >
> >
> >
> > "The waste stream managed by local governments changed from one dominated by
> > coal ashes and relatively homogeneous food wastes a century ago, to one
> > dominated by product wastes today. Currently, product wastes comprise 75 per
> > cent of MSW by weight, and 89 per cent by volume," they write.
> >
> >
> >
> > Sheehan and Spiegelman note that "Recovery of yard trimmings is the big
> > success story" and suggest that organics processing could remain a municipal
> > service. But they advocate EPR for product waste and note that the recycling
> > rate for many materials has plateaued.
> >
> >
> >
> > I don't know how the collision of IWM and Zero Waste is going to unfold. It
> > may be that IWM is the best we can do for now and that implementation of
> > full EPR will be a task for the next generation. In any case, you owe it to
> > yourself to read this lucid paper.
> >
> >
> >
> > Available at http://www.productpolicy.org/assets/resources/SW
> > <http://www.productpolicy.org/assets/resources/SW&R-Editorial-July2005.pdf>
> > &R-Editorial-July2005.pdf.
> >
> >
> >
> > Guy Crittenden is editor of this magazine. Email Guy at
> > <mailto:gcrittenden@no.address> gcrittenden@no.address
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > *************************************
> > Bill Sheehan, Director
> > Product Policy Institute
> > P.O. Box 48433
> > Athens, GA 30604-8433 USA
> > Tel: 706-613-0710
> > Email: bill@no.address
> > Web: www.ProductPolicy.org
> > *************************************
> >
> >
>
>
>



[GreenYes Home] - [Date Index] - [Thread Index]
[Date Prev] - [Date Next] - [Thread Prev] - [Thread Next]