First off, inefficiency IS waste.
I can't speak for Canada as I know nada about life there.
However, moralizing about the lazy consumer, in my view,
is why the ecology movement is stalled where it is.
Modern life is very complex and people really are
overloaded with information--and the responsibility is
continually pushed downstream onto the consumer rather
than being placed on the producer whose specialty it is.
You may even be right where glass bottles are concerned
but they are only one small part of our waste stream
which is only one small part of the ecology problem.
This approach is all wrong or why is it we are
further behind than we were twenty years ago? IT IS
NOT WORKING. If you want people to be good you have
to make it easier for them.
The home is a single point of contact for the logistical aspect
of the waste problem, and the municipal waste collection
system is *already in place*--a distinct advantage.
Your issue of encouraging wasteful habits is tackled at
the household level, as I mentioned, in some California
communities, by charging for excess waste (e.g. $35/container,
$15/item in Los Gatos in 1994) -- a major disincentive to
a throwaway lifestyle.
Refillables could be collected more easily from central waste facilities
-- which may even **encourage** manufacturers to issue
refillables. You must introduce economies of scale into
the reuse equation or businesses will not accept responsibility
for their waste. They will fight the legislation and it will simply
not happen overall. It has to be win-win to be solved in the
time we now have available.
Homes and businesses should be linked to a single waste
handling system that recycles every single recyclable thing
in the stream. Consider that a single waste stream could be sampled
and the responsible industries taxed directly for whatever
percentage of their product (pasteboard, plastic A, plastic B,
or single-use glass) was found. If they want to sell it they
have to pay for its reuse or clean dispoal. Everything a business buys is
on record and with computers this can be done.
IMO every producer should be required to come up with
a plan for recycling every single thing he dumps into the national
space. But remember that your "cheap throwaway" can be some poor
kid's ruler (or calculator) for school. If the recycling process is not
efficient, you are passing unnecessary cost onto the consumer.
--Carol
-----Original Message-----
From: Helen Spiegelman <helens@axionet.com>
To: Carol Slechta <slechta@manthasoft.com>; bcarter0@flash.net
<bcarter0@flash.net>; Martin.Lawrence@epamail.epa.gov
<Martin.Lawrence@epamail.epa.gov>; cri@igc.org <cri@igc.org>
Cc: greenyes@earthsystems.org <greenyes@earthsystems.org>;
WCARTER@tnrcc.state.tx.us <WCARTER@tnrcc.state.tx.us>
Date: Friday, May 21, 1999 7:38 PM
Subject: Re: Refillable Bottles
>>Redemption worked when housewives and footloose little kids>returned heavy
>glass bottles to the stores. Those days are>over. The value to the consumer
>is just not high enough.
>
>Carol, that would be news to Canadian cosumers who return 97% of the
>refillable beer bottles for recycling (probably only a slight hyperbole by
>the beer industry). Similarly, consumers in Canadian provinces like BC and
>Alberta return upwards of 85% of refundable single-use containers for
>recycling.
>
>You said:
>
>Every single thing that a consumer>discards should be collected by the
>municipality and from there>distributed to various organizations--free, if
>necessary to stimulate>an use for it.
>
>I see municipal taxes spent on collection of consumer discards (for
>disposal OR for recycling) as a public subsidy to the producers of those
>cheap throw-aways. Far from "stimulating" a use for discards, this
>convenient service "stimulates" producers to dump more and more throw-away
>junk on the consumer, confident that the hapless taxpayer will dig deeper
>to pay to get rid of it.
>
>Then you said:
>Serious recycling at this point requires hours of a
>>consumer's week. Only retirees can make this type of effort.
>
>Do you think one of the problems of our society might be consumers who are
>to busy to clean up after themselves, and expect the community to provide
>convenient clean-up services for them...
>
>H.
>
>
>*****************************************************
> To post to the greenyes list, send a letter to:
>greenyes@earthsystems.org
> To unsubscribe, send a message to:
>greenyes-request@earthsystems.org with the subject
>unsubscribe. If you have any problems, please
>write to www@earthsystems.org.
> GreenYes is archived on the GrassRoots Recycling
>Network web site: http://www.grrn.org
>******************************************************
>
-----Original Message-----
From: Helen Spiegelman <helens@axionet.com>
To: Carol Slechta <slechta@manthasoft.com>; bcarter0@flash.net
<bcarter0@flash.net>; Martin.Lawrence@epamail.epa.gov
<Martin.Lawrence@epamail.epa.gov>; cri@igc.org <cri@igc.org>
Cc: greenyes@earthsystems.org <greenyes@earthsystems.org>;
WCARTER@tnrcc.state.tx.us <WCARTER@tnrcc.state.tx.us>
Date: Friday, May 21, 1999 7:38 PM
Subject: Re: Refillable Bottles
>Hi Carol:
>
>At 05:44 PM 5/21/99 -0400, Carol Slechta wrote:
>
>>Redemption worked when housewives and footloose little kids>returned heavy
>glass bottles to the stores. Those days are>over. The value to the consumer
>is just not high enough.
>
>Carol, that would be news to Canadian cosumers who return 97% of the
>refillable beer bottles for recycling (probably only a slight hyperbole by
>the beer industry). Similarly, consumers in Canadian provinces like BC and
>Alberta return upwards of 85% of refundable single-use containers for
>recycling.
>
>You said:
>
>Every single thing that a consumer>discards should be collected by the
>municipality and from there>distributed to various organizations--free, if
>necessary to stimulate>an use for it.
>
>I see municipal taxes spent on collection of consumer discards (for
>disposal OR for recycling) as a public subsidy to the producers of those
>cheap throw-aways. Far from "stimulating" a use for discards, this
>convenient service "stimulates" producers to dump more and more throw-away
>junk on the consumer, confident that the hapless taxpayer will dig deeper
>to pay to get rid of it.
>
>Then you said:
>Serious recycling at this point requires hours of a
>>consumer's week. Only retirees can make this type of effort.
>
>Do you think one of the problems of our society might be consumers who are
>to busy to clean up after themselves, and expect the community to provide
>convenient clean-up services for them...
>
>H.
>
>
>*****************************************************
> To post to the greenyes list, send a letter to:
>greenyes@earthsystems.org
> To unsubscribe, send a message to:
>greenyes-request@earthsystems.org with the subject
>unsubscribe. If you have any problems, please
>write to www@earthsystems.org.
> GreenYes is archived on the GrassRoots Recycling
>Network web site: http://www.grrn.org
>******************************************************
>
-----Original Message-----
From: Helen Spiegelman <helens@axionet.com>
To: Carol Slechta <slechta@manthasoft.com>; bcarter0@flash.net
<bcarter0@flash.net>; Martin.Lawrence@epamail.epa.gov
<Martin.Lawrence@epamail.epa.gov>; cri@igc.org <cri@igc.org>
Cc: greenyes@earthsystems.org <greenyes@earthsystems.org>;
WCARTER@tnrcc.state.tx.us <WCARTER@tnrcc.state.tx.us>
Date: Friday, May 21, 1999 7:38 PM
Subject: Re: Refillable Bottles
>Hi Carol:
>
>At 05:44 PM 5/21/99 -0400, Carol Slechta wrote:
>
>>Redemption worked when housewives and footloose little kids>returned heavy
>glass bottles to the stores. Those days are>over. The value to the consumer
>is just not high enough.
>
>Carol, that would be news to Canadian cosumers who return 97% of the
>refillable beer bottles for recycling (probably only a slight hyperbole by
>the beer industry). Similarly, consumers in Canadian provinces like BC and
>Alberta return upwards of 85% of refundable single-use containers for
>recycling.
>
>You said:
>
>Every single thing that a consumer>discards should be collected by the
>municipality and from there>distributed to various organizations--free, if
>necessary to stimulate>an use for it.
>
>I see municipal taxes spent on collection of consumer discards (for
>disposal OR for recycling) as a public subsidy to the producers of those
>cheap throw-aways. Far from "stimulating" a use for discards, this
>convenient service "stimulates" producers to dump more and more throw-away
>junk on the consumer, confident that the hapless taxpayer will dig deeper
>to pay to get rid of it.
>
>Then you said:
>Serious recycling at this point requires hours of a
>>consumer's week. Only retirees can make this type of effort.
>
>Do you think one of the problems of our society might be consumers who are
>to busy to clean up after themselves, and expect the community to provide
>convenient clean-up services for them...
>
>H.
>
>
>*****************************************************
> To post to the greenyes list, send a letter to:
>greenyes@earthsystems.org
> To unsubscribe, send a message to:
>greenyes-request@earthsystems.org with the subject
>unsubscribe. If you have any problems, please
>write to www@earthsystems.org.
> GreenYes is archived on the GrassRoots Recycling
>Network web site: http://www.grrn.org
>******************************************************
>