WASTE PREVENTION FORUM ARCHIVE   BACK TO ARCHIVE INDEX

01 Nov 99 - smart trash can; computers; cutting boards; packaging; incentives ** WASTE PREVENTION FORUM ** -- A project of the National Waste Prevention Coalition -------- Forum archive: http://www.reuses.com/nwpcarchive ------------------- >From Sandra Thorp, Hennepin County Solid Waste Division, Minneapolis, MN: Regarding the 10/29/99 posting of the article about the "smart" trash bin, it reminded me of something one might read in a "News of the Weird" column. I question whether there could be any enthusiasm garnered for this type of personal waste auditing, akin to a trash sort on the curb. I'm also not in favor of receiving any more ads or announcements about products or sales -when I need something, I go out and buy it. Here is another packaging item, however. Recently, I was carrying two empty boxes of Nabisco Triscuit (reduced fat) crackers to the recycling bin at the same time. Something seemed different about the way the boxes felt. Sure enough, I held both boxes up and discovered that one was noticeably smaller. The net weight, 8-1/2 oz (241 g) was the same; it was just the thickness of the package that was different. My rather crude measurements have estimated that there is approximately 4.852 sq. in. LESS material in the smaller box. First I checked the Nabisco web site to see if there was anything touting packaging reduction - nothing. Then I called their consumer center's 1-800-NABISCO number printed on the box and asked what they could tell me - nothing. They said they would call me back - nothing. I called again, and still no response. The representative seemed rather confounded by my questions. I am very curious to know if this is a waste/cost reduction measure implemented by Nabisco. Does anyone have any information on this? E-mail: SANDRA [D O T] THORP [A T] co [D O T] hennepin [D O T] mn [D O T] us ------------------- >From Susan Salterberg, Center for Energy and Environmental Education, University of Northern Iowa, Cedar Falls, IA, responding to Lisa Sepanski's 10/25/99 posting seeking examples of Environmentally Preferable Purchasing guidelines that have been used to purchase computer equipment: Energy Star, a program of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, labels certain computers as Energy Star computers. They meet specific energy savings requirements. You may be able to access more information by calling EPA's Energy Star hotline at 800-782-7937 (STAR YES). E-mail: ssalter (A T) netins (D O T) net ------------------- >From Tom Kacandes, Empire State Development, Albany, NY, and president, Reuse Development Organization: I've recently noticed two instances of plastic "disposable cutting boards." One cost $1.59, the other two bucks, and each gave you 5-7 thin plastic sheets with some edging. My understanding is that the natural oils in wood cutting boards suppress bacteria, but plastic does not, contrary to the popular misconception that plastic is "cleaner." Wood solves the problem of plastic cutting boards breeding bacteria without creating waste. I can't imagine why anyone would need this product, but it seems to be gaining distribution. E-mail: TKACANDES ( AT ) EMPIRE ( DOT ) STATE ( DOT ) NY ( DOT ) US --------------------- The next four postings are in response to the 10/29/99 posting about a new milk carton-type box for Kellogg's Special K Plus breakfast cereal, made from waxed or coated virgin paperboard. --------------------- Also from Tom Kacandes: I don't think there's any question that the milk carton-type box is a BIG net negative for recycling, and not any particular advance for source reduction. Years ago, there were "waxed" containers (wax is still used in many large corrugated cardboard produce boxes), but the container you describe is almost assuredly coated with polyethylene as a vapor barrier, probably both inside and out. I doubt there is very much plastic saved by this container (maybe on a percentage basis, but not relative to total plastics use). The best cereal container is the plastic bag alone or bulk cereal purchasing (use your own reusable container). My food co-op sells my favorite cereal in a large bag, sans box. Doesn't have any more crushed flakes than my Raisin Bran in the box. The latter has an easily-separated bag and box for recycling (of box). This system seems like a pain compared to the bag only, though. I used to think bulk purchasing was packaging nirvana, BUT a persistent cereal moth infestation (required buying pest traps, discarding/composting unused cereal) and seeing most people buy new bags for their bulk cereal purchases convinced me the bag-only is best. By the bye, 40 percent or so of all newspaper and a good chunk of OCC (old corrugated containers) and mixed paper are consumed by the recycled paperboard ("CCNB", for clay-coated newsback) paper mills whose "cylinder" paper machine technology is uniquely able to put specific waste paper grades in the layer(s) where they work best. This is an absolutely CRITICAL group of paper mills for wastepaper markets. I can not overemphasize this point. Without them operating at current levels, the wastepaper market would TANK in a big, big way. They are at war (mostly winning) with (guess who?) the 100-percent virgin bleached paperboard mills who make the polycoated container you described. I'd be happy to explain details to anyone who cares, but I VOTE NO! In a huff for good reason, Tom Kacandes E-mail: TKACANDES [ AT ] EMPIRE [ DOT ] STATE [ DOT ] NY [ DOT ] US --------------------- >From Brian Foran, California Integrated Waste Management Board, Sacramento, CA: While the package might reduce total packaging materials by not requiring the plastic liner that most paperboard-packaged cereals have, I have to say that this package is an utter disaster from a waste prevention perspective. In my opinion, waste prevention encompasses design for recyclability. In other words, waste prevention addresses both the production and the consumption end. While the waxed gable-top carton might save a few ounces of material over the conventional paperboard/plastic liner package, it will end up adding many tons of unrecycled material to our landfills (assuming its applications grow). While plastic (wax) coated paperboard cartons are technically recyclable, and there have been many programs established in U.S. schools and institutions to collect and recycle such cartons, a very high percentage of U.S. citizens will not have the opportunity to recycle the Special K Plus carton, and thus it will end up as garbage. Once again, it appears packaging designers have discounted environmental considerations. E-mail: bforan [A T] CIWMB [D O T] ca [D O T] gov --------------------- >From Renee Kimball, Recycling Advocates, Portland, OR: I'm wondering why they don't go back to waxed paper bags (which are compostable) with cardboard boxes (wasn't that the original way of doing it?). I'd even be willing to pay more for cellulous bags instead of plastic. Another alternative is done by Annie's Mac and Cheese. They just put it in the recycled-content box - no liner - and I think it's great. We solve the problem with cereal by making our own granola - 16 grams of protein, very low fat and tastes great - recipe upon request. E-mail: rrrRenee ( A T ) aracnet ( D O T ) com -------------------- >From Bruce Nordman, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, CA: I expect that the carton weighs more than the box/bag combo. One ought to be able to determine that with a good small scale. Assuming that the carton doesn't get recycled and the paperboard box does, I'd think the paperboard one has less overall impact. I do wonder if any of the companies have seriously tried to make a carton or box/bag combo that is readily acceptable for mixed paper recycling. I recall that the bags used to be waxed paper, which was much easier to open, and I assume that the needs for preserving cereal are not the same as for milk. Other issues are the relative ability to keep the cereal fresh, and I concur that a bag-only option would be preferable. E-mail: BNordman [A T] LBL [D O T] gov --------------------- Excerpted from message from Jeff Morris, Sound Resource Management Group, Seattle, WA (also posted on the Environmental News Network and several listservs): The environmental community may be interested in a provocative result from a study conducted by Sound Resource Management Group (SRMG) on success factors in attaining low disposal and high diversion among cities, including Seattle. Many of these cities have been using aggressive economic incentives and programs such as curbside recycling to stimulate waste reduction and diversion for most of this decade, long enough for these methods to achieve their full impacts on behavior. The remarkable result of statistical analysis on disposal and diversion quantities per residential household is that two economic incentives: 1) embedding both curbside recycling and curbside yard debris costs in garbage fees (so that garbage collection customers get both curbside services at no additional charge); and 2) charging at least as much for additional cans of garbage as is charged for the first can (as opposed to, for example, charging just 35 percent to 50 percent of first can cost for the second can, the so-called cost-of-service garbage fee) - increases residential waste reduction and recycling rates by 25 percentage points, holding a variety of other important factors constant, such as median household income, yard size for occupied residences, and the absolute level of garbage fees. This result shows that communities can exert substantial influence on solid waste disposal just through use of economic incentives. Less disposal means lower use of virgin materials (e.g., less drilling for oil, cutting of trees, mining for minerals), which in turn means lower impacts on ecological habitats (for humans and all other species, e.g., cleaner air and water). E-mail: ZeroWaste (AT) aol (DOT) com - end -