[GreenYes Archives] -
[Thread Index] -
[Date Index]
[Date Prev] - [Date Next] - [Thread Prev] - [Thread Next]
|
For this conference, there might also be interest in the European work that is looking at the environmental impacts of products -- see the web page http://cleantech.jrc.es/pages/r4.htm. John More in the Bank, Less From the Environment >September 19,2005 until September 20, 2005 > > >The Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality is hosting a free two-day >workshop on September 19-20, 2005 on consumer and organizational conservation. >The two-day event will guide the participants to take a closer look at consumer >spending and its impact on the environment. The workshop is for individuals, >communities and organizations interested in saving money, protecting the >environment, and improving personal and organizational performance. The seminar >will be presented by A Nurtured World, Inc., of Austin, Texas. The workshop is >open to the public. Registration is necessary to attend this event. Call the >number below for more information. > >Contact: Audree Miller-501-682-0015 >miller@no.address >More Info. : www.adeq.state.ar.us >Agenda : www.nurturedworld.com > > >Thomas Vinson-Peng >University of Texas >Southwest Network >for Zero Waste >10100 Burnet Rd. CEER-R 7100 >Austin, TX 78758 >512/232-7149 >FAX 512-471-1720 >tvinson@no.address >www.zerowastenetwork.org > >Quoting Eric Lombardi <eric@no.address>: > >> Congrats to Bill and Helen !! It is absolutely true that >what sets Zero >> Waste apart from "total recycling" is the EPR revolution >that is slowly >> building. We need to all start paying more attention to the >"upstream" part >> of ZW, namely the amount of wasted resources, the toxicity >of the products >> and the free ride that "the market" is getting. >> >> >> >> Eric Lombardi >> >> Executive Director >> >> Eco-Cycle Inc >> >> 303-444-6634 >> >> www.ecocycle.org >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Bill Sheehan [mailto:bill.sheehan@no.address] >> Sent: Monday, August 22, 2005 12:03 PM >> To: GreenYesL >> Subject: [greenyes] Editorial: Holy Grail for Zero Waste is EPR >> >> >> >> >> "The Holy Grail for Zero Waste proponents is extended producer >> responsibility (EPR) . Fortunately, the Zero Waste argument >has finally been >> laid out cogently in a paper published by the Product Policy >Institute" >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Solid Waste & Recycling >> >> >> June/July 2005 >> >> >> Editorial >> >> >> >> >> Zeroing in on Waste >> >> >> By Guy Crittenden >> >> >> >> Like drifting continents, a slow-motion collision of two opposing >> philosophies about waste is currently underway in North America. >> Understanding what's at stake is crucial for anyone in the >waste management >> and recycling business, which is being rattled by seismic shifts. >> >> >> >> On one side is "integrated waste management" (IWM), an >approach that seeks >> to optimize the efficiency of waste diversion activities >like composting and >> recycling in coordination with disposal, which may include >incineration >> (preferably to co-generate power) and landfill (if only for >ash). Dutch IWM >> proponents recently made presentations to the City of >Toronto about their >> modern technologies and included waste-to-energy in their >high "diversion" >> numbers. >> >> >> >> IWM appeals to private sector and municipal waste managers >who must cope >> with the ever increasing flood of material that comes their way. IWM >> proponents accept some flattening out the 3Rs hierarchy, >since they don't >> control the first two Rs: reduce and reuse. They have a job >to do, right >> now, and must answer to budget overseers or stock analysts, >fluctuating >> markets for recycled commodities, and limited or declining disposal >> capacity. (Our cover story on page 8 expresses IWM concerns.) >> >> >> >> The other side is Zero Waste, a movement that originated among >> environmentalists and academic think tanks; its core idea is >that what we >> call "waste" is actually the inefficient allocation of >resources and energy. >> Even if incinerators were proven safe and landfill space was >abundant (the >> IWM wet dream), Zero Waste proponents would argue against them. We're >> consuming and discarding more and more resources, they say, >and our focus on >> recycling and disposal systems (even new "gee whiz" technologies) is >> actually making matters worse. >> >> >> >> The Holy Grail for Zero Waste proponents is extended >producer responsibility >> (EPR) -- a term coined by a professor from Sweden where, ironically, >> energy-from waste is popular. True EPR connects producers with the >> downstream fate (and costs) of their products and packaging, >and the price >> signal creates a virtuous cycle: internalization of the full costs of >> materials over their complete lifecycle drives >eco-efficiencies up the value >> chain, culminating in design for the environment. >> >> >> >> The economic premise of EPR is fundamentally sound and surprisingly >> consistent with free market ideas. Unfortunately, the best >ideas from the >> Zero Waste movement have sometimes been confused with woolly central >> planning policies and the discredited command-and-control approach to >> regulation, with which they have little in common. >> >> >> >> Fortunately, the Zero Waste argument has finally been laid >out cogently in a >> paper published by the Product Policy Institute based in >Athens, Georgia. >> Authors Bill Sheehan -- former director of a Zero Waste >coalition -- and >> Helen Spiegelman (a board member of the respected British Columbia >> environmental group SPEC) titled their paper "Unintended >> ><http://www.productpolicy.org/assets/resources/UnintendedConseq >uences-MSWand >> EPR.pdf> Consequences: Municipal Solid Waste Management and >the Throwaway >> Society." >> >> >> >> Sheehan and Spiegelman note that the municipal solid waste >management system >> was established a century ago to protect public health but >evolved in such a >> way that it provided an indirect subsidy to the "throwaway society," >> collecting (at taxpayer expense) all the detritus of the >consumer culture >> and making it "go away." Rather than proselytize ordinary >people to recycle >> more (an IWM habit), Sheehan and Spiegelman instead suggest that >> corporations and consumers are behaving in a rational way. >With no price >> connection between production and disposal, it's predictable >that industry >> would shift over the past half century toward the >manufacture of expedient, >> disposable products, often made from non-renewable materials >and energy. (A >> disposable plastic razor is a good example, as is a >"recyclable" plastic >> soft-drink container.) >> >> >> >> The authors state that if this subsidy ended (i.e., if municipalities >> stopped collecting the stuff) the (seemingly) free ride for >these materials >> would stop and EPR would ensue. >> >> >> >> The authors analyzed the U.S. EPA's extensive waste >characterization data >> over the 41-year period from 1960 to 2001 to compare patterns in the >> generation, recovery and discards of product and non-product >wastes (e.g., >> organics). They observe that the municipal waste management >system "has been >> least effective in reducing manufactured product wastes, and >most successful >> in managing certain community generated biowastes." >> >> >> >> "The waste stream managed by local governments changed from >one dominated by >> coal ashes and relatively homogeneous food wastes a century >ago, to one >> dominated by product wastes today. Currently, product wastes >comprise 75 per >> cent of MSW by weight, and 89 per cent by volume," they write. >> >> >> >> Sheehan and Spiegelman note that "Recovery of yard trimmings >is the big >> success story" and suggest that organics processing could >remain a municipal >> service. But they advocate EPR for product waste and note >that the recycling >> rate for many materials has plateaued. >> >> >> >> I don't know how the collision of IWM and Zero Waste is >going to unfold. It >> may be that IWM is the best we can do for now and that >implementation of >> full EPR will be a task for the next generation. In any >case, you owe it to >> yourself to read this lucid paper. >> >> >> >> Available at http://www.productpolicy.org/assets/resources/SW >> ><http://www.productpolicy.org/assets/resources/SW&R-Editorial-J uly2005.pdf> > &R-Editorial-July2005.pdf. > > > > Guy Crittenden is editor of this magazine. Email Guy at > <mailto:gcrittenden@no.address> gcrittenden@no.address > > > > > ************************************* > Bill Sheehan, Director > Product Policy Institute > P.O. Box 48433 > Athens, GA 30604-8433 USA > Tel: 706-613-0710 > Email: bill@no.address > Web: www.ProductPolicy.org > ************************************* > > |
[GreenYes Archives] -
[Date Index] -
[Thread Index]
[Date Prev] - [Date Next] - [Thread Prev] - [Thread Next]