WASTE PREVENTION FORUM ARCHIVE   BACK TO ARCHIVE INDEX

14 May 99 - environmental choices; junk mail; volunteer; article; reduce-y ju ice ** WASTE PREVENTION FORUM ** -- A project of the National Waste Prevention Coalition --------------------- >From Celeste Duncan, City of Seattle, responding to 5/10/99 posting from Gretchen Lowe asking if anyone attended a recent symposium in Seattle and wanted to share their notes (note from Tom: Gretchen's original request went out on our regional listserv, but I'm running this reply on the national listserv because I'm sure people will be interested): Yep, I attended and created a synopsis for my division. Below is my 5/6/99 memo and summary. I attended a symposium at Seattle University last night, where Warren Leon of the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) spoke. UCS is a national nonprofit organization of scientists and citizens working together for a healthy environment. (The West Coast Office is in Berkeley. Check out the excellent Web site at http://www.ucsusa.org.) Dr. Leon discussed the findings in UCS's new book - "The Consumer's Guide to Effective Environmental Choices." The book helps people set personal environmental priorities; by focusing on a relatively few especially damaging aspects of their consumption, Americans can reduce overall environmental damage dramatically. UCS believes that this more targeted strategy will be more effective and appeal to a wider segment of the population. I was very impressed with the methodology and findings of the research upon which the book is based, and with the UCS organization itself. The researchers first determined which environmental problems are the most significant and which of these result primarily from consumer actions. Then they used an economic input-output model to trace consumer dollars throughout the economy. Finally, by combining information about environmental problems with data on consumer spending patterns, they developed a model to quantitatively analyze how specific purchases affect the environment. The most important conclusion of the research was that, of the 50 broad consumer spending categories identified, only 7 are responsible for the vast majority of consumer-related environmental harm. Changes in these 7 areas will produce the most marked environmental improvement. The researchers suggest 11 priority actions to address these areas. Some other consumer activities that are highly damaging did not make it onto the "Dirty Seven" list, because they account for very small shares of total consumer spending. I have summarized the main points of the research below. If anyone wants to purchase the book, it's $15. A year's membership to UCS (with magazine subscription) is $25. Write: Union of Concerned Scientists, Two Brattle Square, PO Box 9105, Cambridge, MA 02238-9105, or call (617) 547-5552. LEADING CONSUMPTION-RELATED ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS 1) Air pollution 2) Water pollution 3) Global warming 4) Natural habitat alteration THE "DIRTY 7" MOST ENVIRONMENTALLY HARMFUL CONSUMER CATEGORIES 1) Cars and light trucks 2) Meat and poultry 3) Fruits, vegetables, grains 4) Household appliances and lighting 5) Home heating, hot water, and air conditioning 6) Home construction 7) Household water and sewage 11 PRIORITY ACTIONS FOR CONSUMERS Transportation 1) Live where you reduce your need to drive. 2) Avoid buying an additional car. 3) Choose fuel-efficient, low-polluting cars. 4) Set concrete goals for reducing car travel (i.e. 10 miles less per week.) 5) Walk, bike, ride public transit. Food 6) Eat less meat. (Beef is more environmentally damaging than chicken, and pasta is way less harmful than either.) 7) Buy certified organic foods (The FDA is currently developing a national standard for "organic"; organic foods are produced in a way that causes less water and air pollution and uses less water.) Household Operations 8) Choose your home carefully. (Most wood goes for construction, so buy a smaller one. In 90 years of recycling all your paper, you won't save as many trees as you would buying a 1500 square foot home instead of a 7000 square foot one.) 9) Target heating and hot water. (Reduce use; given a choice, choose gas, a less environmentally damaging way to heat than oil or electric.) 10)Install efficient lighting and appliances. (The appliance priorities are to buy a more efficient refrigerator and hot water heater, and buy a microwave - far less damaging than a stove/oven. 90% of the environmental damage from washing machines can be eliminated not by buying a more water-efficient machine but by doing all washing in cold water.) 11)Once the electricity industry is deregulated in Washington state (by 2000-2001), choose a provider that sells renewable, or "green" electricity. OTHER HIGHLY DAMAGING ACTIVITIES 1) Powerboats 2) Pesticides and fertilizers 3) Gas-powered yard equipment 4) Wood-burning fireplaces and wood stoves 5) Recreational off-road driving 6) Hazardous cleaning products and paints 7) Products made from threatened species E-mail: Celeste (D O T) Duncan (A T) ci (D O T) seattle (D O T) wa (D O T) us ----------------------- >From Maggie Clarke, environmental scientist, Hunter College, New York, NY, responding to the 5/11/99 excerpt of the newspaper article by a sixth-grader about a 3-year project he's doing with his family to analyze their junk mail: With regard to the junk mail project by the Chapel Hill student (who, by the way, thinks, organizes and writes better than most of the college students I've been teaching lately), I have a suggestion on mail reduction measures to evaluate. Getting off mailing lists is the obvious first step, but a more powerful step is getting off Rental Lists. If one orders by mail or catalogue or is a member of organizations that rent your name and address, then getting off mailing lists will only be a temporary solution. In time, your address will be sold to them again. Many places will not only take your name off their mailing list, but also their rental list. E-mail: mclarke [ AT ] shiva [ DOT ] hunter [ DOT ] cuny [ DOT ] edu ---------------------- >From Christine McCoy, National Recycling Coalition, Alexandria, VA: VOLUNTEER INTERN SOUGHT The National Recycling Coalition (NRC) seeks a mature self-starter to assist the Department of Programs and Policy in a number of administrative, organizational and research tasks. Prior experience in the area of integrated solid waste management is a plus. Responsibilities include assisting two NRC staff members to support activities under the following programs: The Chicago Board of Trade Recyclables Exchange, Recycling Works, Source Reduction Forum, National Recycling Financing Initiative and the Recycling Economic Information Project (to find out more about these programs, please see the NRC web site at: http://www.nrc-recycle.org). Candidates should be aware that this is an unpaid volunteer position. The NRC is an Equal Opportunity employer. Deadline 5/21/99. Please submit your resume, and a cover letter, to Christine McCoy, 1727 King Street, Suite 105, Alexandria, VA 22314, Fax: 703/683-9026, or via e-mail at ChristineM ( A T ) nrc-recycle ( D O T ) org Note from Tom: The NRC website was not working when I tried it this morning, but hopefully it will be back up soon. ---------------------- Website link to 5/12/99 article about business recycling and waste prevention on the CNN (Cable News Network) Financial News website (includes some good waste prevention stats, case studies and other info): http://www.cnnfn.com/smbusiness/9905/12/q_recycling/ ---------------------- >From Tom Watson, National Waste Prevention Coalition coordinator: PRODUCT ALERT This time it's a good one! All of a sudden I'm seeing all these non-frozen juice concentrate products in the supermarket. Welch's, Ocean Spray and Libby's (Juicy Juice) are all selling (at least here in Seattle) this product, in a variety of flavors, in the bottled juice section. It comes in an aluminum can, the size of a regular can of pop. The juice is pasteurized. One 11.5 ounce can of concentrate will make 46 or 48 ounces of juice, depending on the brand. At my store, a can cost $1.79, compared with $2.89 for the 48-ounce size of the same product, non-concentrated, in a plastic (PET) jug. This strikes me as a great step forward. Compared with the bottled, non-concentrated versions, it uses much less packaging, and these companies are no longer shipping water all across the country. It's more convenient than the frozen juice concentrates (don't have to freeze it, and it's pourable). The aluminum container is easily recyclable (in contrast, not all recycling programs take PET bottles, and the caps are never recyclable; the coated paperboard cans for frozen concentrate are not recyclable, except for the aluminum ends). Questions I have about this product include: When did it first come out? (Maybe other people have known about this product for awhile, and I just missed it.) Is it currently available all over the country? Have any companies been advertising it? Have any companies talked about their cost savings (I'm guessing the savings in shipping costs would be huge, if this catches on) from selling their juice this way? What's the retail price comparison between this new kind of non-frozen concentrate and the traditional frozen concentrates? If you guys have any info, let me know and I'll post it. It seems like this might be a product that some of us (our agencies and groups) might want to highlight as a cool new example of packaging reduction! E-mail: tom (D O T) watson (A T) metrokc (D O T) gov - end -