RE: [greenyes] Fwd: A Message From Epson

["Pat Franklin" <pfranklin@no.address>]

Boy, talk about stretching the definition of recycling...... What we want is
"reused" not "recycled" cartridges anyway.   aMy guess is that it does cost
less, as Wayne Turner suggests, just as it costs less to replace a toaster
or a clock or just about anything else these days.  But it seems to me that
if they had a high enough volume of returned cartridges to make it worth
their while to invest in a "refill" system, and if (this part's important)
consumers let them know that they want reused (not recycled) cartridges,
then I think they'd do it.

****************************************
Patricia Franklin
Executive Director
Container Recycling Institute
1911 N. Fort Myer Drive, Ste. 702
Arlington, VA 22209

TEL:   703.276.9800
FAX:   703.276.9587
EMAIL: pfranklin@no.address

http://www.container-recycling.org
http://www.bottlebill.info
****************************************

-----Original Message-----
From: Wayne Turner [mailto:WAYNET@no.address]
Sent: Thursday, September 30, 2004 7:56 AM
To: amuller@no.address; greenyes@no.address; gaia-members@no.address
Subject: Re: [greenyes] Fwd: A Message From Epson


I received an identical reply from the same source as Alan.

Can anyone explain why Epson is choosing incineration over refilling
cartridges while so many other inkjet producers or third part orgs. are
going the refilling route?  Would that be because it costs less to
produce new inkjet cartridges than to refill old ones?  Any thoughts,
ideas or facts?

Wayne

>>> Alan Muller <amuller@no.address> 09/30/04 06:43AM >>>

>I received this reply from Epson in response to my note objecting to
their
>"recycling" of printer cartridges by incineration:

>Dear Mr. Muller,
>
>I received your message regarding Epson's expansion of our ink
cartridge
>recycling program.  I appreciate your concerns and thank you for
taking
>the time to share your thoughts.
>
>Our goal is to provide the most efficient and environmentally safe
method
>of disposing of empty ink cartridges while also being able to help our

>schools.  The research we did indicates that the federally approved
>waste-to-energy facility we are using is an effective and appropriate
way
>to dispose of these containers and the best solution we have
identified so
>far.
>
>A modern waste-to-energy facility should not be confused with simple
open
>burning of refuse. In a waste-to-energy facility, the heat generated
by
>the combustion process is recovered and converted into usable energy.
The
>energy is produced either in the form of steam or in the form of
>electricity produced by steam turbine generators. Waste-to-energy
>facilities have state-of-the-art air pollution control systems to
ensure
>permit compliance.  This process reduces waste by 90%, which would
>otherwise go into a landfill.
>
>It has been brought to our attention, however, that while this process

>creates a valuable end-product, which is usable energy, many people
>believe more accurate term is energy recovery, rather than the generic

>term recycling that we used to describe it. While we believe our
solution
>has many merits, we are always looking for improvement, so I welcome
your
>suggestions for better alternatives as we continue to seek out methods
to
>improve this process.
>
>Sincerely,
>
>Shelby Houston
>Manager, Customer Programs
>Epson America, Inc.
>shelby_houston@no.address
>562-290-5445