GreenYes Digest V98 #48

GreenYes Mailing List and Newsgroup (greenyes@ucsd.edu)
Fri, 22 Jan 1999 17:33:18 -0500


GreenYes Digest Tue, 24 Feb 98 Volume 98 : Issue 48

Today's Topics:
NCRA letter to Governor Hunt - apples and oranges (2 msgs)
plastic medicine bottles
Post-consumer recycled plastic mandates
Recycling of No. 3 Plastic Bottles
returnable bottles
The Smart Office is Back Online

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:98/48
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 23 Feb 1998 13:27:22 -0500
From: Pablo Collins <collins@csandh.com>
Subject: NCRA letter to Governor Hunt - apples and oranges

The draft letter to Governor Hunt is unfortunately mixing apples with
oranges, or more specifically, waste reduction with recycling.

>"Indeed, per capita waste production not been reduced, but has risen from
>1.08 tons/capita in 1991 to 1.11 lbs./capita (or 1.20 tons/capita with
>Hurricane Fran debris included) in 1997. This increase in solid waste
>generation per capita has come even with the tripling of the state's
>recycling rate since 1991 to about 22% in 1996.
>
Why are we not making progress on our goal?"

The measurement of municipal solid waste, handed down to us for as many
years as government agencies have been tracking MSW, has always counted
recyclable materials as solid waste. So no matter how much you
recycle, you will never bring down you measurement of waste generation.

Given this faulty measure, one must be careful not to confuse waste
generation with waste disposal. One can hope that despite the increase
in per capita waste generation between 1991 and 1997, that North
Carolina's has reduced the amount of waste disposed in landfills and
incinerators because of recycling.

If we are ever going to make real progress in decreasing solid waste
generation, and increasing our industrial reliance on recovered
materials, we must first start by recognizing that material diverted or
removed from the waste stream for recycling is not waste ---- it should
not be measured as waste, or regulated as such ---- At the moment that
material is diverted or recovered from solid waste it is a raw material,
and should be treated as such.

Bales of corrugated containers behind grocery stores and bundles of
newspapers left for curbside pickup should not be included in the solid
waste generation numbers. Once we start using the appropriate measures
of waste, we will be able to measure our progress in eliminating waste.

Pablo Collins
> collins@csandh.com

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 23 Feb 1998 13:25:03 -0600
From: "Cloutier, Chris" <chris.cloutier@moea.state.mn.us>
Subject: NCRA letter to Governor Hunt - apples and oranges

THis is an interesting debate - it is one the IRS has been engaging in
for a year or so now. They contend that recycling facilities built with
SW Municipal Bonds (and therefore tax-free) are not waste facilities b/c
recyclables are a commodity (their word, not mine) and not a waste. In
looking at the debate I have a very difficult time making a distinction
of any kind b/t the ONP I generate and recycle and the ONP my neighbor
generates and does not recycle. Your suggestion is that there is a
distinction in the material rather than the process the material
undergoes.

The problem seems to lie in the word "waste". Maybe "discard" serves our
purpose better.

> ----------
> From: Pablo Collins[SMTP:collins@csandh.com]
> Sent: Monday, February 23, 1998 12:27PM
> To: 'GreenYes@ucsd.edu'
> Subject: NCRA letter to Governor Hunt - apples and oranges
>
> The draft letter to Governor Hunt is unfortunately mixing apples with
> oranges, or more specifically, waste reduction with recycling.
>
> >"Indeed, per capita waste production not been reduced, but has risen
> from
> >1.08 tons/capita in 1991 to 1.11 lbs./capita (or 1.20 tons/capita
> with
> >Hurricane Fran debris included) in 1997. This increase in solid
> waste
> >generation per capita has come even with the tripling of the state's
> >recycling rate since 1991 to about 22% in 1996.
> >
> Why are we not making progress on our goal?"
>
> The measurement of municipal solid waste, handed down to us for as
> many
> years as government agencies have been tracking MSW, has always
> counted
> recyclable materials as solid waste. So no matter how much you
> recycle, you will never bring down you measurement of waste
> generation.
>
> Given this faulty measure, one must be careful not to confuse waste
> generation with waste disposal. One can hope that despite the
> increase
> in per capita waste generation between 1991 and 1997, that North
> Carolina's has reduced the amount of waste disposed in landfills and
> incinerators because of recycling.
>
> If we are ever going to make real progress in decreasing solid waste
> generation, and increasing our industrial reliance on recovered
> materials, we must first start by recognizing that material diverted
> or
> removed from the waste stream for recycling is not waste ---- it
> should
> not be measured as waste, or regulated as such ---- At the moment that
> material is diverted or recovered from solid waste it is a raw
> material,
> and should be treated as such.
>
> Bales of corrugated containers behind grocery stores and bundles of
> newspapers left for curbside pickup should not be included in the
> solid
> waste generation numbers. Once we start using the appropriate
> measures
> of waste, we will be able to measure our progress in eliminating
> waste.
>
>
> Pablo Collins
> > collins@csandh.com
>

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 23 Feb 1998 12:57:43 -0500
From: "Blair Pollock" <bpollock@town.ci.chapel-hill.nc.us>
Subject: plastic medicine bottles

Does anyone have information regarding recycling of prescription type
medicine bottles? A local woman is working on legislation and needs
information quickly on this topic. (so far, she has received discouraging
responses from pharmaceutical industry on recycling these bottles)

In addition to posting to the list, please reply directly to:

<<wsmith@town.ci.chapel-hill.nc.us>>

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 23 Feb 1998 18:50:21 -0600
From: "Dan Johnson-Weinberger" <proportionalrepresentation@email.msn.com>
Subject: Post-consumer recycled plastic mandates

Hi. My name is Dan Johnson-Weinberger and I'm with the Environmental Law
Society of the University of Chicago Law School. I'm interested in mandates
for bottlers to use some post-consumer plastic material in order to develop
the demand side of plastic recycling.

I'm new to the list, so if the topic has been recently covered, forgive me.
I've emailed some folks about this proposal, and learned that the cost is
about 1/4 cent per bottle (to use recycled plastic), the technology to use
recycled plastic exists, and the vigin resin has been dumped onto the market
to undercut the recycled plastic bottles. Also, as Jeff noted, there are
tons and tons of plastic bottles sitting in storage. Mandates can raise the
price of the material and get the market moving.

Does anyone have information you can direct me to? What are your thoughts
on such a proposal? Although national legislation might be the most
efficient, clearly that's not a political possibility. I think a progressive
municipal/state coalition can work though, i.e., about a dozen cities and/or
states each pass local mandates that any plastic bottles sold within the
jurisdiction must contain post-consumer recycled plastic, and all local
mandates are conditional on 10 other jurisdictions also passing a similar
law (so that no city is singularly picked on). Do you all think this would
be a
good idea? Any studies out there?

Thanks,
Dan Johnson-Weinberger
748 W Webster #202
Chicago, IL 60614
773.525.7024
proportionalrepresentation@msn.com

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 23 Feb 1998 17:58:27 -0500
From: "Jeff Surfus" <jeffsurfus@email.msn.com>
Subject: Recycling of No. 3 Plastic Bottles

Ann Arbor, Michigan's recycling contractor is no longer accepting No. 3
Plastic Bottles because there is apparently no resale market. They have
been collecting these bottles over the years and now have 8 tons of them
stored at their Materials Recovery Facility.

Unless a buyer can be found for these PVC bottles soon, they will be
gradually be disposed in the local landfill.

Does anyone have any ideas?

Jeff Surfus

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 23 Feb 1998 10:26:16 -0500 (EST)
From: "Roger M. Guttentag" <rgutten@concentric.net>
Subject: returnable bottles

At 05:55 PM 2/12/98 -0500, you wrote:
>Regarding yesterday's comment on returnables. It's hard to know where to
>break the "convenience" cycle to get returnable bottles back into the
>American lifestyle. I offer two anecdotes.
>
>For many years the Town of Chapel Hill's downtown fire station had a coke
>machine with returnables and a wooden crate to deposit them in. In the late
>80's, the returnables were replaced by one-way containers. The route man
>said "People aren't staying around to drink their cokes. They're walking
>away with the bottles. I'm losing money" Probably true. Whose fault is it?
>
>Last year a new, integrated dairy/bottler opened in our county. (In NC 100
>dairy farms folded last year). The new bottler decided to market its own
>milk in returnable glass bottles locally under its own name "Maple View
>Farms". They found some ancient bottle washing equipment they refurbished.
>They are successful and in all the local grocery stores including our
>regional chains Food Lion and Harris Teeter. The deposit for a quart bottle
>ranges from $1.00 to $1.30. They report losing 1,000 bottles a week! I
>verified this because when I heard the number I was incredulous and on my
>next visit to a recycling dropoff site later that day I spied two bottles on
>the top of the clear glass pile! So are we too affluent, too oblivious. I
>hope that at least the recycling folks are making the money by returning the
>bottles when they find them.
>
=================================================================
Dear Blair and GreenYes:

I found the recent discussions on returnable containers interesting because
it highlights in my mind the need to understand more fully the psychological
/ cultural factors here in the U.S. (as well as in other countries) that
either foster or hinger product reuse behavior. I offer my own (possibly
naive) thoughts regarding reuse.

The two principal factors that I believe influences reuse behavior are
economic and moral and, further, that while it is possible for them to have
an equally joint influence, it is more likely that they have an inverse
relationship to each other. In other words, reuse behavior motivated by
strong economic factors have a weak moral element and conversely, reuse
behavior strongly motivated by moral principals often has a weak economic
basis for its occurrence. For example, there is a high rate of reuse of
auto parts because of strong economic factors such as the high intrinsic
value for most reusable auto products. I doubt most people who use reused
auto parts do so for strong moral reasons but rather it saves them
significant dollars. On the other hand, container reuse appears more likely
to be motivated principally by moral reasons (its the right thing to do)
given the fact that the cost of forgone deposits will be for most of us a
very small (maybe even trivial) percentage of our gross incomes. However,
the moral importance of container reuse will not, for most of us, occupy the
same level as, let's say, the moral prohibitions against murder or theft.
For this reason, it appears that inconvenience factors can be more likely to
succeed in derailing or preventing reuse behavior despite the user's best
intentions. After all, what's the moral penalty for failing to reuse? Is
there a special ring in the Inferno reserved for non-returners?

My point here is not to unfairly lampoon those who do have strong moral
reasons for their reuse behavior. Rather, it is to provide my reasoning for
my belief that, for better or worse (in this county at least), the expansion
of product reuse practices will hinge more on significant economic rewards
than moral arguments (though the motivation to develop these economic
icentives can certainly have a strong moral grounding). This means we
should focus our attentions more on products with higher potential intrinsic
values such as electronic products, furniture, shipping and transportation
products, building products and clothing. While the same statement about
economics vs. morals can be said about recycling, I think the economic
issues loom even larger with reuse given the need for very significant new
infrastructure development that would be required to really expand its
presence in our economy including a heavy investment in revised or totally
new product design and distribution systems.

Roger M. Guttentag
E-MAIL: rgutten@concentric.net
TEL: 215-513-0452
FAX: 215-513-0453

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 23 Feb 1998 12:47:46 -0500
From: "A.K. Townsend" <akt@smartoffice.com>
Subject: The Smart Office is Back Online

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_0006_01BD4059.3DA480E0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

The Smart Office (http://www.smartoffice.com) is back on line. Sorry to =
those of you who looked for it last week and couldn't find it.

Best wishes,
Amy Townsend
----------------------------------------------------------
Amy Townsend
President, Sustainable Development International Corp. (SDIC)
P.O. Box 623
Olney, MD 20830
phone: (301)774-0917/fax: (301)570-9394
E-mail: aktownsend@smartoffice.com
Web Site: http://www.smartoffice.com
----------------------------------------------------------

------=_NextPart_000_0006_01BD4059.3DA480E0
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">

The Smart Office (http://www.smartoffice.com) is = back on=20 line.  Sorry to those of you who looked for it last week and = couldn't find=20 it.
 
Best wishes,
Amy = Townsend
 
----------------------------------------------------------
Am= y=20 Townsend
President, Sustainable Development International Corp.=20 (SDIC)
P.O. Box 623
Olney, MD 20830
phone: (301)774-0917/fax:=20 (301)570-9394
E-mail:  aktownsend@smartoffice.com=
Web=20 Site:  http://www.smartoffice.com
---= -------------------------------------------------------
  ------=_NextPart_000_0006_01BD4059.3DA480E0-- ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 23 Feb 1998 17:53:35 -0600 From: dkmcginty@juno.com (D. McGinty) I am interesting in subscribing to your digest. D. McGinty Trinity Technologies, LLC 302 40th Street NW Fargo, ND 58102 701.277.8929 e-mail at TrinityTech@FargoCity.com or dkmcginty@juno.com _____________________________________________________________________ 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] ------------------------------ End of GreenYes Digest V98 #48 ******************************