Re: greenyes-d Digest V99 #313

BRING Recycling (bring@efn.org)
Tue, 19 Oct 1999 14:11:48 -0700


In Response to Pat Franklin. How many btu's to produce a ton of RPET
compared with virgin PET? I think this would be good information for us to
know.

David Wollner
BRING Recycling
Eugene, OR
----- Original Message -----
From: <greenyes-d-request@earthsystems.org>
To: <greenyes-d@earthsystems.org>
Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 1999 3:01 AM
Subject: greenyes-d Digest V99 #313

> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------
> greenyes-d Digest Volume 99 : Issue 313
>
> Today's Topics:
> Re: greenyes-d Digest V99 #311
CRBI <crbi@roman.net> ]
> [GRRN] Going Beyond the Coke Boycott
David Biddle <biddlecswr@email.msn.com> ]
> Re: [GRRN] Going Beyond the Coke Boycott
Eric Lombardi <ecocycle@bcn.boulder.co.us> ]
> [GRRN] Boycott of PET container [ Pat
Franklin <cri@container-recycling.org> ]
>
> Administrivia:
> **************************************************************
> This is the digest version of the greenyes mailing list.
> If should ever need to unsubscribe from this digest, write
> a letter to greenyes-d-request@earthsystems.org with the
> subject unsubscribe. Address letters to the list to
> greenyes@earthsystems.org
>
> To accommodate all digest subscribers, the digest will now
> be sent out in plain text.
> **************************************************************
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------
>
> Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 09:11:47 -0400
> From: CRBI <crbi@roman.net>
> To: greenyes@earthsystems.org
> Subject: Re: greenyes-d Digest V99 #311
> Message-ID: <380B1C93.E7856911@roman.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
> Go for it!
> I am constantly battling individuals in my own environmental
> organization over the same issue. Some want us to be a kinder, gentler
> environmental group. I feel vocal activism that hits corporations in
> the pocket is a more reliable method.
> Keep up the good work
> Heather L. Seckman
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------
>
> Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 10:39:00 -0400
> From: David Biddle <biddlecswr@email.msn.com>
> To: "'Amy Perlmutter'" <amyp@chelseacenter.org>,
> "greenyes@earthsystems.org"
> <greenyes@earthsystems.org>
> Subject: [GRRN] Going Beyond the Coke Boycott
> Message-ID: <01BF1957.B070E0E0.biddlecswr@email.msn.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
> This is my take on the Coke issue:
>
> We've come through a decade where the corporate community has essentially
> been taken at its word that it will voluntarily become environmentally
> responsible. It all started with the McToxics campaign against McDonalds
> and their Styrofoam clamshells (plus many more products they used). Coke
> made their "promise" a few years after that. The newspaper industry
> developed voluntary recycled content standards, the corporate world
> committed to buying recycled, etc. etc. Today you're hearing lots from
> people in the carpet industry, the computer industry and the automobile
> industry. While all of these voluntary initiatives seem positive, some of
> them haven't panned out...or don't hit the mark. Some too may be too
little
> too late. And some may actually be important (take Collins & Aikman's bold
> carpet recycling initiative, ALL of their product lines now use their
> patented carpet backing composed of recycled carpet).
>
> While all of these voluntary programs have been talked up in the press
here
> in the States, we know that Europe has taken a different tack. Extended
> producer responsibility is in full swing across the Atlantic. They have in
> effect regulated corporate environmental responsibility. There are many
> reasons for this. Some are cultural and some are geographic.
>
> Indeed, it is rather obvious that allowing the voluntary approach to EPR
is
> rather too open-ended. There are bound to be endless cases of marketing
> blitz and glitz with little substance...or in cases like Coke's, attitude
> adjustments necessitated by the desire to stretch profits. The question we
> need to ask ourselves as a society is whether there might need to be a few
> teeth in the old dog's mouth afterall. Regulatory approaches are frought
> with problems, are subject to the idiocies of politics, and even in the
> best situations can take decades to work, but the laissez faire approach
is
> probably not going to structurally solve our waste and resource problems
> ...not until we develop a way to create an economic system that
> incorporates the externalities of pollution and the future costs of
> resource extraction.
>
> I don't know how you can regulate recycled content for Coke without
> requiring it of all users of PET bottles. Same would be true of recycled
> content paper, etc. And then the hue and cry from industry, and the
> discovery that the industry doesn't have the capacity, etc. But if you
> really want the problem to be solved that's how it could work.
>
> Personally, I would also suggest that GRRN and others consider a boycott
of
> PET containers in general and support the purchase of juice and soda in
> glass or aluminum (which we all know has recycled content).
>
> Does any of this make sense?
>
> David Biddle
> Center for Solid Waste Research
> 7366 Rural Lane
> Philadelphia, PA 19119
> 215-247-2974
> biddlecswr@email.msn.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Amy Perlmutter [SMTP:amyp@chelseacenter.org]
> Sent: Friday, October 15, 1999 12:03 PM
> To: greenyes@earthsystems.org
> Subject: [GRRN] Coke Campus Boycott
>
> I get really concerned when I see stuff like this. Coke SHOULD be doing
> more to support plastics recycling. I'm not convinced it needs to be put
> back into soda bottles, the PET market isn't all that bad, but I think
they
> should make an active effort in developing stable markets for RPET either
> in their bottles or other uses. However, just because they are not doing
> that doesn't mean they are harming the environment. I don't mean to
defend
> coke here, I'm not a big soda fan nor am I fan of coke, but they do do
> other things that support, and don't harm, the environment. Using recycled
> content is not the only environmental activity that corporations
undertake,
> and how many of us aren't happy to be able to buy beverages in single
> serve? I can't blame coke for that. I think it harms us all when
> corporations are portrayed as either all good or all bad when it comes to
> the environment or anything else (unless they truly are all good or all
> bad). It has been my experience in trying to get companies to do the right
> thing that they are often better off from a PR standpoint doing nothing,
> because when they try to do something they get attacked by sometimes
> righteous environmentalists for not doing enough. Can't we please
> recognize Coke for what they do do well environmentally and come at this
> from a more positive side and urge them to build on their previous efforts
> and do more, or just ignore their other stuff and focus on what we want
> them to do, rather than demonize them and discount anything positive they
> might be doing? While this tactic might be good for fundraising, I don't
> think it does anything to change corporate behavior-- it just alienates
> them, makes them think environmentalists are ridiculous and close-minded,
> and makes it impossible for us to educate them. And while I think its
> great that students are being conscientous about where they work, we don't
> do a service to them by leaving out the shades of gray and encouraging
them
> to make change from within empires that aren't all evil.
>
>
> >FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
> >October 15, 1999
> >
> >Contact:
> > Rick Best, GrassRoots Recycling Network
> > 916-443-5422; 916-599-2148 cell
> > Heather Kunst, ECOnference 2000
> > 215-287-0052
> >
> >CAMPUS JOBS BOYCOTT TARGETS COCA-COLA
> >
> >Coke is named for jeopardizing plastics
> >recycling
> >
> >PHILADELPHIA (October 15) - A coalition of
> >student activists is launching a new
> >campaign to get tens of thousands of
> >students nationwide to pledge not to
> >interview for jobs with corporations that
> >are doing harm to the environment. One of
> >the first corporations to be targeted is the
> >Coca-Cola Company.
> >
> >"Coke is being targeted for its failure to
> >support plastics recycling," said Andy
> >MacDonald, field director for the Dirty Jobs
> >Boycott. "Coke's failure to use recycled
> >plastic is hurting recycling and the
> >environment. It is time for students to
> >demand more of market leaders like Coke
> >before going to work for them."
>
> >"By Earth Day 2000, corporations with
> >terrible environmental records will hear the
> >message loud and clear: if they want to be
> >successful recruiters, they have to be good
> >corporate citizens," said Heather Kunst,
> >Dirty Jobs Boycott organizer.
>
> Amy Perlmutter
> Executive Director
> Chelsea Center for Recycling and
> Economic Development
> University of Massachusetts
> 180 Second Street
> Chelsea, MA 02150
> 617-887-2300/fax 617-887-0399
> visit our web site at www.chelseacenter.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
> ******************************************************
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------
>
> Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 13:37:04 -0600
> From: Eric Lombardi <ecocycle@bcn.boulder.co.us>
> To: David Biddle <biddlecswr@email.msn.com>
> Cc: "'Amy Perlmutter'" <amyp@chelseacenter.org>,
> "greenyes@earthsystems.org" <greenyes@earthsystems.org>
> Subject: Re: [GRRN] Going Beyond the Coke Boycott
> Message-Id: <3.0.3.32.19991018133704.00f20340@bcn.boulder.co.us>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> David,
>
> You make perfect sense, and I support the "public policy"
> approach 100% (via tax manipulation or laws) versus the
> voluntary "good corporate citizen" approach. Been there,
> done that,,, and its a facade for non-action.
>
> Literally, Coy Smith and I organized the NRC Board to entertain
> the idea of "endorsing" minimum content standards as a good idea
> and good public policy. This was 1993-94 ... the industry
> side kept saying "don't give us the German, French or Canadian
> solution,,,let us create the American solution based on
> voluntary actions." It sounded good, but we didn't buy it so
> forced the battle into the NRC BOard meeting. We lost the
> vote cause it was tied 50:50 ... that's coalition leadership
> in action. The subject has never, to my knowledge, ever come
> back up on the NRC"s radar screen ... even though 50% of the
> Board supported it!
>
> BUt I believe the real reason we lost the vote was because of
> that magic element, "timing". The issue came up in late 1994,
> just when the Great Bull Market for recyclables was in gear,
> and the future looked very bright. Indeed, we all went on to
> enjoy awesome markets for one year. Industry was able to claim
> that "recycling had won in the marketplace, and we don't need
> no new laws, or anything!" Of course, we Americans really
> want to believe that less laws are better, and that the market is
> really the saviour of our times, so their message played very well.
>
> But now where are we? The "timing" is favoring us, and the COke
> campaign is just the beginning of a "Producer Responsibility"
> mentality in the USA. Waste News had it right in their editorial
> a few months ago ... the Coke campaign is a threshhold issue
> regarding how corporations are going to respond to grassroots
> pressure.
>
> Power politics are fun when you have some power. That's our job
> now as recycling advocates... to come together and create some
> real grassroots POWER... We deserve to be equals at the table
> with these powerful corporations, but until we believe that, we
> won't ever get there.
>
> Eric
>
>
>
> At 10:39 AM 10/18/99 -0400, David Biddle wrote:
> >This is my take on the Coke issue:
> >
> >We've come through a decade where the corporate community has essentially
> >been taken at its word that it will voluntarily become environmentally
> >responsible. It all started with the McToxics campaign against McDonalds
> >and their Styrofoam clamshells (plus many more products they used). Coke
> >made their "promise" a few years after that. The newspaper industry
> >developed voluntary recycled content standards, the corporate world
> >committed to buying recycled, etc. etc. Today you're hearing lots from
> >people in the carpet industry, the computer industry and the automobile
> >industry. While all of these voluntary initiatives seem positive, some of
> >them haven't panned out...or don't hit the mark. Some too may be too
little
> >too late. And some may actually be important (take Collins & Aikman's
bold
> >carpet recycling initiative, ALL of their product lines now use their
> >patented carpet backing composed of recycled carpet).
> >
> >While all of these voluntary programs have been talked up in the press
here
> >in the States, we know that Europe has taken a different tack. Extended
> >producer responsibility is in full swing across the Atlantic. They have
in
> >effect regulated corporate environmental responsibility. There are many
> >reasons for this. Some are cultural and some are geographic.
> >
> >Indeed, it is rather obvious that allowing the voluntary approach to EPR
is
> >rather too open-ended. There are bound to be endless cases of marketing
> >blitz and glitz with little substance...or in cases like Coke's, attitude
> >adjustments necessitated by the desire to stretch profits. The question
we
> >need to ask ourselves as a society is whether there might need to be a
few
> >teeth in the old dog's mouth afterall. Regulatory approaches are frought
> >with problems, are subject to the idiocies of politics, and even in the
> >best situations can take decades to work, but the laissez faire approach
is
> >probably not going to structurally solve our waste and resource problems
> >...not until we develop a way to create an economic system that
> >incorporates the externalities of pollution and the future costs of
> >resource extraction.
> >
> >I don't know how you can regulate recycled content for Coke without
> >requiring it of all users of PET bottles. Same would be true of recycled
> >content paper, etc. And then the hue and cry from industry, and the
> >discovery that the industry doesn't have the capacity, etc. But if you
> >really want the problem to be solved that's how it could work.
> >
> >Personally, I would also suggest that GRRN and others consider a boycott
of
> >PET containers in general and support the purchase of juice and soda in
> >glass or aluminum (which we all know has recycled content).
> >
> >Does any of this make sense?
> >
> >David Biddle
> >Center for Solid Waste Research
> >7366 Rural Lane
> >Philadelphia, PA 19119
> >215-247-2974
> >biddlecswr@email.msn.com
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Amy Perlmutter [SMTP:amyp@chelseacenter.org]
> >Sent: Friday, October 15, 1999 12:03 PM
> >To: greenyes@earthsystems.org
> >Subject: [GRRN] Coke Campus Boycott
> >
> >I get really concerned when I see stuff like this. Coke SHOULD be doing
> >more to support plastics recycling. I'm not convinced it needs to be put
> >back into soda bottles, the PET market isn't all that bad, but I think
they
> >should make an active effort in developing stable markets for RPET either
> >in their bottles or other uses. However, just because they are not doing
> >that doesn't mean they are harming the environment. I don't mean to
defend
> >coke here, I'm not a big soda fan nor am I fan of coke, but they do do
> >other things that support, and don't harm, the environment. Using
recycled
> >content is not the only environmental activity that corporations
undertake,
> >and how many of us aren't happy to be able to buy beverages in single
> >serve? I can't blame coke for that. I think it harms us all when
> >corporations are portrayed as either all good or all bad when it comes to
> >the environment or anything else (unless they truly are all good or all
> >bad). It has been my experience in trying to get companies to do the
right
> >thing that they are often better off from a PR standpoint doing nothing,
> >because when they try to do something they get attacked by sometimes
> >righteous environmentalists for not doing enough. Can't we please
> >recognize Coke for what they do do well environmentally and come at this
> >from a more positive side and urge them to build on their previous
efforts
> >and do more, or just ignore their other stuff and focus on what we want
> >them to do, rather than demonize them and discount anything positive they
> >might be doing? While this tactic might be good for fundraising, I don't
> >think it does anything to change corporate behavior-- it just alienates
> >them, makes them think environmentalists are ridiculous and close-minded,
> >and makes it impossible for us to educate them. And while I think its
> >great that students are being conscientous about where they work, we
don't
> >do a service to them by leaving out the shades of gray and encouraging
them
> >to make change from within empires that aren't all evil.
> >
> >
> >>FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
> >>October 15, 1999
> >>
> >>Contact:
> >> Rick Best, GrassRoots Recycling Network
> >> 916-443-5422; 916-599-2148 cell
> >> Heather Kunst, ECOnference 2000
> >> 215-287-0052
> >>
> >>CAMPUS JOBS BOYCOTT TARGETS COCA-COLA
> >>
> >>Coke is named for jeopardizing plastics
> >>recycling
> >>
> >>PHILADELPHIA (October 15) - A coalition of
> >>student activists is launching a new
> >>campaign to get tens of thousands of
> >>students nationwide to pledge not to
> >>interview for jobs with corporations that
> >>are doing harm to the environment. One of
> >>the first corporations to be targeted is the
> >>Coca-Cola Company.
> >>
> >>"Coke is being targeted for its failure to
> >>support plastics recycling," said Andy
> >>MacDonald, field director for the Dirty Jobs
> >>Boycott. "Coke's failure to use recycled
> >>plastic is hurting recycling and the
> >>environment. It is time for students to
> >>demand more of market leaders like Coke
> >>before going to work for them."
> >
> >>"By Earth Day 2000, corporations with
> >>terrible environmental records will hear the
> >>message loud and clear: if they want to be
> >>successful recruiters, they have to be good
> >>corporate citizens," said Heather Kunst,
> >>Dirty Jobs Boycott organizer.
> >
> >Amy Perlmutter
> >Executive Director
> >Chelsea Center for Recycling and
> >Economic Development
> >University of Massachusetts
> >180 Second Street
> >Chelsea, MA 02150
> >617-887-2300/fax 617-887-0399
> >visit our web site at www.chelseacenter.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
> >******************************************************
> >
> >*****************************************************
> > 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
> >******************************************************
> >
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------
>
> Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 18:30:51 -0400 (EDT)
> From: Pat Franklin <cri@container-recycling.org>
> To: David Biddle <biddlecswr@email.msn.com>
> Cc: <greenyes@earthsystems.org>
> Subject: [GRRN] Boycott of PET container
> Message-Id: <2.2.16.19991018183914.12e7d9da@pop.mindspring.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> David,
>
> ". . . I would also suggest that GRRN and others consider a boycott of
> PET containers in general and support the purchase of juice and soda in
> glass or aluminum (which we all know has recycled content)."
>
> I want to respond . . . . .
>
> Choosing one container material over another is tricky. It is true that
> aluminum beverage cans have a relatively high recycled content level,
thanks
> to the relatively high (but still an "F" in my book) aluminum can
recycling
> rate of 56% in 1998. I would also like to add that without the VERY high
> recovery rates for aluminum cans in container deposit states, the aluminum
> can recycling rate (and thus the amount of recycled content in aluminum
> cans) would be far below 56%.
>
> We recycled 56 billion out of the approximately 100 billion cans sold.
That
> means 45 billion aluminum cans were trashed last year.
>
> I have taken a crack at the 'energy' numbers and would welcome readers to
> TAKE A CLOSE LOOK AT MY FIGURES AND GET BACK TO ME IF YOU SEE A MISTAKE.
>
>
> In order to get a handle on the energy savings realized if 24 billion PET
> soda bottles were replaced with 24 billion aluminum cans I made the
> following assumptions:
>
> Assumption #1: The PET bottles would be replaced by aluminum cans on a
PER
> UNIT basis not a volume basis. In fact, it is more likely that more units
> of aluminum cans would be made to deliver the larger volume of soda
> delivered by PET bottles.
>
> Assumption #2:
> 194 mill btu's needed to make a ton of aluminum cans from virgin materials
> 45 mill btu's needed to make a ton of aluminum cans from recycled cans
> 47 mill btu's needed to make a ton of PET bottles from virgin materials
>
> At 47 mill btu's per ton of new PET bottles, it takes about 40,285,714
mill
> btu's of energy to produce 24 billion PET bottles -- the number of PET
soda
> bottles produced in 1998.
>
> At the 1998 recycling rate of 56%, 13.2 billion new cans would be produced
> from recycled cans, using 9,000,000 mill btu's of energy. Another 10.8
> billion new cans from would be made from virgin materials, using
31,745,454
> mill btu's of energy. Together that's about 40,000,000 mill btu's of
energy
> to make the 24 billion cans (45% from raw materials and 56% from recycled
cans).
>
> If my calculations are accurate, there would be no energy savings if the
24
> billion PET soda bottles were replaced UNIT FOR UNIT with 24 billion
> aluminum cans.
>
> Now I realize this is just taking the energy use into consideration, but
it
> should certainly be part of the discussion.
>
> Anyone care to comment??????
>
> Pat Franklin
>
============================================================================
=
>
>
> At 10:39 AM 10/18/99 -0400, David wrote:
> >This is my take on the Coke issue:
> >
> >We've come through a decade where the corporate community has essentially
> >been taken at its word that it will voluntarily become environmentally
> >responsible. It all started with the McToxics campaign against McDonalds
> >and their Styrofoam clamshells (plus many more products they used). Coke
> >made their "promise" a few years after that. The newspaper industry
> >developed voluntary recycled content standards, the corporate world
> >committed to buying recycled, etc. etc. Today you're hearing lots from
> >people in the carpet industry, the computer industry and the automobile
> >industry. While all of these voluntary initiatives seem positive, some of
> >them haven't panned out...or don't hit the mark. Some too may be too
little
> >too late. And some may actually be important (take Collins & Aikman's
bold
> >carpet recycling initiative, ALL of their product lines now use their
> >patented carpet backing composed of recycled carpet).
> >
> >While all of these voluntary programs have been talked up in the press
here
> >in the States, we know that Europe has taken a different tack. Extended
> >producer responsibility is in full swing across the Atlantic. They have
in
> >effect regulated corporate environmental responsibility. There are many
> >reasons for this. Some are cultural and some are geographic.
> >
> >Indeed, it is rather obvious that allowing the voluntary approach to EPR
is
> >rather too open-ended. There are bound to be endless cases of marketing
> >blitz and glitz with little substance...or in cases like Coke's, attitude
> >adjustments necessitated by the desire to stretch profits. The question
we
> >need to ask ourselves as a society is whether there might need to be a
few
> >teeth in the old dog's mouth afterall. Regulatory approaches are frought
> >with problems, are subject to the idiocies of politics, and even in the
> >best situations can take decades to work, but the laissez faire approach
is
> >probably not going to structurally solve our waste and resource problems
> >...not until we develop a way to create an economic system that
> >incorporates the externalities of pollution and the future costs of
> >resource extraction.
> >
> >I don't know how you can regulate recycled content for Coke without
> >requiring it of all users of PET bottles. Same would be true of recycled
> >content paper, etc. And then the hue and cry from industry, and the
> >discovery that the industry doesn't have the capacity, etc. But if you
> >really want the problem to be solved that's how it could work.
> >
> >Personally, I would also suggest that GRRN and others consider a boycott
of
> >PET containers in general and support the purchase of juice and soda in
> >glass or aluminum (which we all know has recycled content).
> >
> >Does any of this make sense?
> >
> >David Biddle
> >Center for Solid Waste Research
> >7366 Rural Lane
> >Philadelphia, PA 19119
> >215-247-2974
> >biddlecswr@email.msn.com
> >
> >
> >
> >
> Container Recycling Institute
> 1911 Ft Myer Drive, Suite 900
> Arlington, Virginia 22209
> 703/276-9800 fax 276-9587
> www.container-recycling.org
> NEW EMAIL ADDRESS
> cri@container-recycling.org
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> End of greenyes-d Digest V99 Issue #313
> ***************************************