>A FEW COMMENTS ON CAROL SLECTA'S COMMENTS: that's "Slechta"
>
>Carol said: "glass bottles are only one small part of our
>waste stream which is only one small part of the ecology
>problem." TRUE, but the only way we're going to solve the
>"ecology problem" (I SEE IT AS "ACHIEVING SUSTAINABLE
>LIVING") is BY TAKING ONE SMALL STEP AT A TIME.
Pat, I am really honored that people are paying any attention
to what I am saying, and I wish you would think more carefully
about it--think "out of the box" as they say--
I'm 41 and I've been hearing about "tiny steps"
for twenty-five years. And the waste problem
in the southeast is worse than it was, with few local
recycling centers for things that the city doesn't handle.
Last year Charlotte NC gave everyone a huge
trash can half the size of a VW bug for their *weekly*
waste. Everyone dutifully puts their newspaper and
bottles and cans in the red recycling bin, THEY FEEL
GOOD ABOUT this--why not extend this to returnables,
plastics, paper, etc? Industry GENERATES this stuff
in mass processes but recycling people want us to
think about little trips to the store to get rid of bottles;
this is absurd! Either curb the manufacturer or provide
a mass way to handle his mess, or both.
The simplest solution is best, most efficient.
For one thing, to appeal to businesses, you
have to make the solution simpler than creating the problem.
>
>much of what we throw away is discarded AWAY
>FROM HOME (office, university, school, church, hospital, etc
Obviously, we won't be picking up those items from the home
but from the workplace (which I addressed in my mail as follows):
>>Homes and businesses should be linked to a single waste
>>handling system that recycles every single recyclable thing
>>in the stream.
Many California and college town communities have convenient
recycling bins on sidewalks and in malls--it's great!
>etc, etc). FURTHERMORE, there are those consumers (and they
>are many) who simply don't care how high there trash bill is,
>so making them pay more would have little or no impact on
>their consumption habits.
My experience is that the monetary and the social pressure act
together. Wealthy people *can* afford the fees but generally they
are the most informed and also have the resources such as
space/time/household help to take care of recycling needs in the home. They
also have much greater choices as consumers, for instance,
shopping in coops and farmers' markets where typical packaging
is rare and bring-your-own string bags are common.
>
>Carol said: "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."
>LIFE IS COMPLEX -- YES. BUT WHY SHOULDN'T THE CONSUMER WHO
>WANTS THE CONVENIENCE OF THROWAWAY THIS AND THAT HAVE TO PAY
>A PRICE. WITH CURBSIDE RECYCLING YOU HAVE "ALL" TAXPAYERS
>PAYING FOR THE MOST CONSUMPTION ORIENTED TAXPAYERS.
>
Again, charging wasteful consumers prevents the "zero waste" people
from subsidizing the wasteful ones. It is a bit of a regressive tax
since it hits poor people more heavily but there is no inherent
reason that poor people should generate more waste, so I think
that can be overlooked.
One thing you forget is that recycling is only one aspect
of modern life which needs to be handled. I want to call my
congressperson about logging, I want to get petitions signed for
labeling of genetically engineered foods, I want to make a single
car trip involving work, recreation, and shopping in a day, not make
dozens of single trips as most people do. All this involves planning,
simplification, and good use of time and resources. God knows
if I wanted to ride my bike I would need even more time. Again,
moralizing about how I am lazy because I don't want to personally
return recyclable bottles to a store is too Judeo-Christian for
me. Let us think about what works and stop over-utilizing
punishment techniques in our psychological modeling of the
waste equation. I did 31 hours of psychology with a 4.0 average
and a GRE of 780 and I can tell you, positive reinforcement is
what works. Moralizing and superiority are destroying the credi-
bility of the environmental movement as they destroyed "feminism."
I run a small business and I can tell you, I don't
have time to personally handle each piece of packaging I
generate each day, nor can I always choose to avoid buying
it (e.g. medical packaging, printer cartridges,et c).
As for the laziness issue, consider this: where my husband comes
from, India, they used to serve street food and picnic food in banana
leaves, folded to form a cup, or just as a plate. Then the leaf
was thrown on the ground. This happens to be ecological because
the leaf is biodegradable.
The coastal native Americans used to throw their shells in huge
piles after eating; some of these middens (I think they are called)
actually form parts of the Atlantic shoreline.
Why should we moralize about human
behavior instead of seeing that the technology and the systems
accomodate the behavior without causing ecological harm?
Carol Slechta
Dir. Marketing
Mantha Software, Inc.
>
>
>
>At 01:48 AM 5/22/99 -0400, Carol Slechta wrote:
>>Hi Helen--
>>
>>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
>>>******************************************************
>>>
>>
>>
>Pat Franklin, Executive Director
>Container Recycling Institute
>1911 Ft. Myer Drive Suite 900
>Arlington, VA 22209
>703/276-9800 fax 276-9587
>email: cri@container-recycling.org
>web: www.container-recycling.org
>
>*****************************************************
> 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
>******************************************************
>