WASTE PREVENTION FORUM ARCHIVE   BACK TO ARCHIVE INDEX

25 May 00 - pointing fingers; cafeteria trays; federal executive order; awards ** WASTE PREVENTION FORUM ** -- A project of the National Waste Prevention Coalition -------- Forum archive: http://www.reuses.com/nwpcarchive -------------------- The first two postings are in response to the 5/22/00 excerpt from the newsletter of EarthSave, a non-profit organization that promotes a plant-based diet (the posting included a quote from Howard Lyman, president of EarthSave International). -------------------- >From Renee Kimball, waste prevention advocate, Portland, OR: MEATING THE CHALLENGE Lyman's statements musta hit a raw nerve with me. Maybe it's just the fact I'm growing very weary of the moral high ground group and their lack of compassion for any but their own value system. Howard Lyman's pontification that an environmentalist eating meat was like a philanthropist not giving money is pathetic. It is just such "holier than thou" attitudes that alienate potential converts to more responsible behavior and fuel the arguments of the opposition on ALL fronts. In addition, selective statistics don't set any better with me when used by environmentalists than when they're used by the American Plastics Council. Lyman conveniently left out the statistics on methane production of rice paddies, which wouldn't have made his case look quite so grand, and just what does happen to that "non-recycled waste" of livestock in confinement? We are our own worst enemy in the fight for eyeballs and ears. We have turned off so many people by doing a "Chicken Little - The Sky Is Falling" routine that many who would be receptive turn a deaf ear to our arguments. It is far better to pat someone on the back for their efforts (no matter how seemingly insignificant) than to slap them in the face because they're not living up to our specific qualifications for being an "environmentalist." In addition, it hardly matters whether we eat meat or not if the whole northwest aquifer is polluted because of run-off toxins (a large part of which come from agriculture). Who cares if you eat hamburger instead of rice cakes if your kids have asthma because of air pollution from SUVs and factories? Fair enough if you encourage people to cut down on the amount of meat they eat, but to insist people radically change a major lifestyle factor because YOU think it's the most important thing is why we're not making any headway in this game. You want to reconcile something with "environmental values"? Try justifying the computers, TVs and stereo equipment we all have, discard on a regular basis and want the rest of the world to buy (especially here in the land of Hewlett Packard and Intel). Before any of us start pointing fingers of accusation we better look under our sinks for toxic chemicals, check out our gas mileage and get really honest about the square footage of our homes. E-mail: rrrrenee [ AT ] aracnet [ DOT ] com -------------------- >From Yen Chin, City of Seattle: I still eat meat. I still get a bit anxious when I gather for a meal at a vegetarian table... and vegan... gulp. I still drive a car and use it in preference to the bus at times. And I still buy running shoes made in China. But I'm still glad to see a discussion of meat consumption on this listserv. I'm glad because meat production results in so much waste, and I'm glad because the discussion encourages us to look at ourselves rather than point fingers at other people. Changing my diet to include less and less meat requires me to make some conscious behavioral changes. It means I have another reason for avoiding fast food joints. It means I need to change my relationship to time so as to cook dried beans. It means I have to invoke culinary creativity to make tofu acceptable, even desirable, to my family. True, I have enough flexibility in my schedule to more easily make these kinds of accommodations than many other people. True, not having responsibilities for children makes it easier. But I've had to work hard to create that flexibility, and I make sacrifices to maintain it. I consider that work and those sacrifices worthwhile because the slack they afford helps me avoid wasting myself. I think it useful to consider the concept of wasting self when we ponder waste prevention. Our lives tend to get organized and scheduled to such a high degree that behavior change can take on the appearance of annoyance even when that change ultimately makes for a saner, healthier life with less waste. A couple of weeks ago when I raised the issue of common laundry rooms rather than individual laundry equipment, some of the responses made me re-read my posting to look for attacks on convenience. I found none; I attacked status. And I hoped that the discussion might turn to an exploration of how an apparent inconvenience could result in a more fruitful life rather than continued waste on the contemporary treadmill. "No bird soars too high, if he soars with his own wings." - William Blake E-mail: Yen (DOT) Chin (AT) ci (DOT) seattle (DOT) wa (DOT) us ------------------- >From Karen Higgins, City of Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, following up on her 5/22/00 posting about waste prevention and recycling related to cafeteria trays in schools: The Los Angeles Department of Water and Power tested subsidizing china and silverware purchases prior to advocating paper products, but the cost due to "walking off" was tremendous. A few of the items were probably disposed, and others may still reside in employees' desks, but they were not in the cafeteria, so they had to be replaced with something. We even had "cafeteria utensil amnesty" collection bins on each floor (17 stories, 2,100-plus employees, plus walk-ins). E-mail: khiggi [ A T ] dwp [ D O T ] ci [ D O T ] la [ D O T ] ca [ D O T ] us ------------------- >From Debbi Dodson, Dodson & Associates, San Diego, CA, responding to the 5/22/00 posting from Karen Higgins, which described a machine that shreds and melts polystyrene and can be used to recycle disposable polystyrene items used in schools: I've seen this process before. They exhibit at the National Recycling Congress (NRC) and the school food service show (national and California anyway). Thus far it has not been a big draw at schools because it requires too much effort from the custodial staff. Also requires a machine at each school and each machine is around $2,500. Look for them this year at NRC. E-mail: ddodson (A T) cts (D O T) com ------------------- Website link to a copy of the "Greening the Government" Executive Order for the federal government, issued on April 21, 2000, by President Bill Clinton (first seen in Michele Raymond's State Recycling Laws Update online newsletter): http://www.pub.whitehouse.gov/uri-res/I2R?urn:pdi://oma.eop.gov.us/2000/4/24 /10.text.2 Note from Tom: The website address above is actually one address, although it may look like two separate addresses. This executive order has a number of measures and goals related to pollution prevention within the federal government. ------------------- Excerpted from message from Lisa Skumatz, Skumatz Economic Research Association, Seattle, WA (forwarded by Gary Liss): The National Recycling Coalition (NRC) Awards Committee reminds you that the awards nomination deadline is June 15! Forward this e-mail to great companies, programs, and individuals that should submit a nomination for an NRC award this year. We are looking for outstanding nominations in recycling, composting, source reduction, and education, as well as new products, innovations, and market development. Don't forget to think about winners from your state/local/regional awards or other competitions. We want to make sure that the winners represent the "best of the best" from across the country. For information on the awards, see the NRC website at: http://www.nrc-recycle.org/ Scroll down and click on NRC's Recycling Awards. Lisa's e-mail: skumatz [AT] serainc [DOT] com - end -