WASTE PREVENTION FORUM ARCHIVE   BACK TO ARCHIVE INDEX

05 Mar 99 - Zip-Loc; building materials; copies; Earth Day 2000; junk mai l ** WASTE PREVENTION FORUM ** -- A project of the National Waste Prevention Coalition ----------------------------------------- From Brian Foran, California Integrated Waste Management Board, Sacramento, CA: In reply to Vanessa Hinkle's comments about Zip-Loc's reusable/disposable rigid plastic containers: I personally have no problem with plastic food storage containers that are designed and sold for reuse, such as Rubbermaid and Tupperware containers. I don't think anyone needs to justify buying such containers. They save considerable packaging waste by allowing people to bring food to work or play that is sold in larger, multiple-serving packages, rather than in individual servings. They also save on the often ridiculous use of plastic wrap and foil to store food for a day or two in the refrigerator. If Zip-Loc's food storage containers are just as durable as the type made by Rubbermaid and Tupperware, and cost less, more power to them. I agree with Vanessa that, at 50 cents apiece, the cost of the Zip-Loc containers should discourage most people from throwing them away. However, my hunch is that the Zip-Loc containers (I still have yet to see them) are not as durable as those made by Rubbermaid and Tupperware. Durability is a crucial element of waste prevention. Products that are designed for a limited life -- only to be disposed thereafter -- are major sources of waste. Relative durability aside, it is still very unsettling to see a manufacturer promote as "disposable" a type of product that has traditionally been designed for reuse; that is the central issue for me. Johnson Wax' promotion of their Zip-Loc containers as disposable is simply a step in the wrong direction. It's hard enough to make progress in waste prevention without manufacturers producing products that move us ever closer to a disposable society. E-mail: bforan (A T) CIWMB (D O T) ca (D O T) gov --------------------------------------- From Karen Hamilton, King County Environmental Purchasing Program, Seattle, WA (with additional background info from Tom), responding to the 3/3/99 posting suggesting that "virtual flea markets" could be established on-line to promote reuse: One example of this concept that is already in operation is the Reusable Building Materials Exchange, which allows people to exchange small or large quantities of used or surplus building materials on-line. It serves four counties in Washington State, including much of the Seattle area. Their website is located at: http://www.rbme.com/ To check out the type of listings they have, click on the name of one of the counties (some counties have more listings than others), and then click on "Browse Materials." ----------------------------------------- From Bruce Nordman, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, responding to questions in a 3/4/99 posting (the writer noted that the state of New Hampshire is considering pursuing the adoption of a double-sided copying policy for state agencies): You might check out: http://eetd.LBL.gov/Paper -- a web site I created called "Cutting Paper". Ultimately, I think that you will find info that I should add to the site, though I hope that the site is helpful to you to begin with. > 1. What states have implemented a double-sided copying policy? I don't know. I'm dubious that just a policy somewhere that "encourages" people to do it has any effect. Having a policy posted next to every copier may have some effect, but I found that the simplest reminder taped to the copier had the same effect as a slick, complex one. You could have a policy that copiers are to be set to default duplex unless there is a good reason not to. Some machines can't be set this way, and a few may be unreasonably difficult to use when they are, and for a few uses it doesn't make sense. I would try it out on a few machines first though, to get more familiar with it. It is much more effective than any policy is. > 2. Do they have documented results of any reduction in paper usage/costs after the policy was implemented? I measured an 8% increase in duplexing with a simple reminder (average across about 40 machines) and a 15% and 20% increase with default duplex (reducing paper use by 5% and 10% respectively). The machines set to default duplex had much higher initial duplexing rates, so the difference in effectiveness of default duplex is greater than these figures suggests. Ask your copier technician about internal counters that track duplexing rates. Many copiers have them, though on many (probably most) they are not accessible to the average user. See what you can get out of the technician. Let me know what brand of copiers you have and I might have additional advice. > 3. Any tips for "enforcement"? After your initial tests, do it across an entire facility at the same time. Then, when someone complains, you can ask how their copying needs are different from all the other people who are doing fine with it. Some people flip out over default duplex; its just part of what makes humans so amusing. > 4. Any unforeseen issues we'll likely encounter in the process of implementing such a policy? It would be good to have cost estimates of paper use and copying in hand to raise with people. The typical organization spends $500/year per employee on paper use costs ($50 for the paper itself). Good signage is essential for default duplex. Unfortunately this has to be created for each machine model. It would be great to have a library of such labels; I've created them for many Canon models for our laboratory. Good luck. E-mail: BNordman ( AT ) LBL ( DOT ) gov --------------------------------------- From Tom, Forum moderator: Correction: In the 3/4/99 edition of the Forum, I incorrectly identified Ann Schneider. She is actually with the University of California at Santa Cruz. Her office is in Santa Clara. -------------------------------------- Excerpted from message from the Earth Day Network, forwarded by Peter Drekmeier of that network: Earth Day 2000, the 30th anniversary of Earth Day, will use grassroots organizing and cutting-edge technology to educate, empower, and inspire actions that protect the public interest. Earth Day will create global networks that connect activists together. It will prod organizations to think more ambitiously about the immensity and urgency of their work. In the United States and many other countries, Earth Day 2000 will highlight the need to replace polluting fossil fuels with clean, renewable sources of energy. We welcome all groups to join us in this energy campaign. We will also facilitate networking to launch campaigns on other millennial issues. For more information about international plans for Earth Day 2000, please contact Mark Dubois, International Coordinator, at 206.264.0114 x203 or mdubois [A T] earthday [D O T] net ---------------------------------- Statistic from a front-page article in the 3/2/99 New York Times: An estimated 3.5 billion credit card offers flood Americans' mailboxes each year. - end -