WASTE PREVENTION FORUM ARCHIVE   BACK TO ARCHIVE INDEX

18 Jan 00 - online/offline; postal rates; procurement; grasscycling; eco-labels; "economy" sizes ** WASTE PREVENTION FORUM ** -- A project of the National Waste Prevention Coalition -------- Forum archive: http://www.reuses.com/nwpcarchive --------------------- >From Peter Allison, Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Waste Prevention, Boston, MA, following up on his 1/6/00 posting seeking information on "the source reduction benefits (or costs) of distributing information electronically as opposed to by mail": I don't really want to encourage more comments on my original source reduction "online vs. offline" question. However, I want to clarify that the question was not whether or not to provide information online (we are doing that); but rather, could we (an environmental agency) responsibly claim that putting information online would reduce waste. Specifically I was interested in data supporting one side or the other. As I had thought, the answer seems to be "yes, probably, sort of, it depends, no." Thanks to those of you who submitted your thoughts, anecdotes and references. E-mail: Peter [D O T] Allison [A T] state [D O T] ma [D O T] us --------------------- >From Mike Ruby, Envirometrics, Seattle, WA: The U.S. Postal Service will soon be starting a review process leading to an increase in postage rates. I would like to suggest that we should inject into the process a proposal to add something like 0.1 cents per piece to the cost of any bulk third-class mail that would be paid into a fund to support recycling efforts ("polluter-pays principle"). The Postal Service could then hand out the money to state and local government units who apply for support for mixed waste paper recycling efforts or to support research on enhancing collection or demand for mixed waste paper. Such a proposal is more likely to be listened to if it comes from a national NGO (non-governmental organization) or a governmental unit. Anyone have any ideas for enlarging on this concept, or ideas for an appropriate sponsor? Also would need access to a attorney who could research if the Postal Service rate-setting law would allow this. E-mail: mruby ( AT ) envirometrics ( DOT ) com Note from Tom: If anyone has comments on this proposal that deal specifically with recycling, send them to Mike directly. If you have comments on potential waste prevention aspects to this type of proposal, we can run them in the Forum. --------------------- Excerpted from message from Scot Case, Eastern Research Group, Arlington, VA, originally posted on the environmentally-preferable products procurement listserv (forwarded by Christine McCoy): I'd like to answer a few questions I've received about the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's State and Local Government Pioneers case study. EPA has asked Eastern Research Group to collect information on state and local governments that are examining the environmental impacts of their purchasing decisions. Because so much has been written about recycled-content and energy-efficient purchasing, this case study will not focus on those types of purchases. Instead it will focus on state and local governments that examine *multiple* environmental attributes (e.g., recycled-content, energy efficiency, low-toxicity, low-VOC (volatile organic compounds), resource efficient, reusable, etc.) when making purchasing decisions. For example, local governments purchasing recycled-content paper would not be a focus of this case study, but local governments purchasing chlorine-free or tree-free recycled-content paper would be. Similarly, local governments purchasing chromate-free, low-VOC paint, low-toxicity cleaning products, or alternatively fueled vehicles would be relevant. Obviously, there are several well-known environmentally preferable purchasing (EPP) stars in the state and local arena. EPP programs in Santa Monica, California; King County, Washington; the State of Minnesota; and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts immediately come to mind. EPA, however, is interested in learning about "all" of the EPP activities happening at the state and local level. The case study will include a table or an appendix listing all of the state and local governments practicing EPP we can identify, no matter how limited the EPP effort. Several programs will be selected for more in-depth descriptions scattered throughout the case study. If you have any questions or know of any state and local government programs that would be appropriate for this case study, please e-mail me at scase [ A T ] erg [ D O T ] com or call me at (703) 841-0507. Also feel free to contact Julie Shannon with the EPA (shannon [DOT] julie [AT] epa [DOT] gov) with any questions. Thank you. --------------------- Internet website for the report, "Grasscycling for Lawn Care Professionals," issued in June, 1999, by the Alameda County Waste Management Authority & Source Reduction and Recycling Board: http://www.stopwaste.org/reports.html Scroll down. --------------------- Excerpted from the February, 2000, Consumer Reports: What does it mean when lumber carries a "SmartWood" label? Or when produce is labeled "ECO-O.K."? Some environmental labels are legitimate and useful. Others can be misleading. To help people tell the difference, Consumers Union (publisher of Consumer Reports magazine) has received a $150,000 grant from the Ford Foundation to develop a database of environmental labels. The database will include the evidence or verification that exists for their claims, and the parties behind the certification. They will look first at food and wood products. When the project is completed in 2001, consumers will be able to access the information via the Internet and in Consumer Reports magazine. --------------------- Also excerpted from the February, 2000, Consumer Reports: Buying in bulk is not always a bargain. Sometimes consumers are actually penalized for buying a larger size, even though larger sizes are more economical for companies to make and ship. (Stores, not manufacturers, set retail prices.) Consumer Reports found coffee, cereal, baking soda and tuna in New York-area supermarkets that cost less per ounce in their smaller sizes. The most extreme example: In one ShopRite store, StarKist tuna was 67 cents for the 6-ounce can but $2.49 for the 12-ounce can. Manufacturers say larger sizes may not sell well, so stores charge more for them. Smaller sizes may be "loss leaders" - bargains sold at a loss to attract shoppers. Gene Grabowski of the Grocery Manufacturers of America said that a price break for buying in volume "is not a given. That's why unit pricing is important." Note from Tom: I believe that unit pricing in grocery stores - usually a little card on the shelf that shows the price by pound, or by some other measurement common to that product type - is only required by law in a few states. I live in one of them, Washington state. It's a great law. It makes comparison shopping by price much easier. It also makes you realize (unfortunately) how common it is for stores to charge more, by weight, for a product in a larger size. - end -