WASTE PREVENTION FORUM ARCHIVE   BACK TO ARCHIVE INDEX

15 Dec 00 - SUVs; packaging; gifts; business food waste; Verizon; grocery bags; online shopping ** WASTE PREVENTION FORUM ** -- A project of the National Waste Prevention Coalition -------- Forum archive: http://www.reuses.com/nwpcarchive -------------------- From Bruce Nordman, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, responding to the recent postings about over-packaging: My nomination for most egregious form of excess "packaging" is most uses of Sport Utility Vehicles (when used appropriately, they may be fine). The amount of material used to contain the contents (usually one or two people) is far more than needed. On the primary/secondary/tertiary division of packaging, I recall that the INFORM book on the German Green Dot program cited a study that found that secondary packaging was only 0.2 percent of the total (just one part in 500). I realize that primary and tertiary packaging can also be excess, but I suspect that secondary packaging is what is most cited as excessive. I expect that there is more potential improvement from changing the product and its use than from changing the packaging. Regardless, we need to do both. E-mail: BNordman [ A T ] LBL [ D O T ] gov -------------------- From Meg Lynch, Metro Waste Reduction, Planning and Outreach Division, Portland, OR, responding to the recent postings about Christmas gift-giving: I have a story about buying less stuff. Seven friends exchange gifts for birthdays and Christmas. This year, after being discontented with the Christmas gift exchange, I suggested that we instead pool our money and give a joint cash gift to one or two charities, while still leaving the birthday gift exchange intact. The Christmas gift exchange had felt like a somewhat hollow exercise, since (nearly) all of us are not needy of more stuff; in point of fact, the one person who's most in need of "stuff" is the one who's least interested in more stuff. Five of the seven were receptive. Two were adamantly opposed to changing it, even on a trial basis. In effect, two people got to veto the proposal, so we are back where we started. So what to do? No gifts and jeopardize two friendships? Then it makes me wonder about friendships that are so fragile that they must rely on gifts to prop them up. Not a happy solution, at least yet. E-mail: lynchm ( AT ) metro ( DOT ) dst ( DOT ) or ( DOT ) us -------------------- From David Flora, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 7, Solid Waste Program, Kansas City, KS: A new publication entitled "Business Food Waste Briefing Paper: Options for Grocers, Restaurants and Food Processors" was developed by WasteCap Wisconsin and is aimed at educating producers of food waste to reduce, reuse or recycle this significant waste stream. The document is being distributed to more than 5,000 restaurants, grocery stores, and food processors in Wisconsin. WasteCap Wisconsin will be following up with interested parties to provide technical assistance to implement the practices showcased in the publication. To order a copy, go to this website: http://www.wastecapwi.org/ Click on "Services." Scroll down to "Publications and Mailings." E-mail: Flora (DOT) David (AT) epamail (DOT) epa (DOT) gov ---------------------- From Tom Watson, King County Solid Waste Division and National Waste Prevention Coalition, Seattle, WA: Verizon Wireless has a new program called, "New Every Two." If you sign up with them for a digital plan with monthly access, you can trade in your old phone for a new wireless phone every two years "for free." Here's their pitch: "With our New Every Two program, you can keep up with the latest in mobile communications because your wireless phone is updated to a newer model every two years. No matter what the future advancements in mobile communications might be, you'll always have the option to enjoy the latest features available." Here's Verizon's web page for this program: http://www.verizonwireless.com/special_offers/new_every_two/index.html This marketing tactic disturbs me. It perpetuates the idea that electronic equipment is disposable. I certainly hope they have a way to reuse the old phones that are traded in, but even so, this is planned obsolescence at its worst. E-mail: tom [ DOT ] watson [ AT ] metrokc [ DOT ] gov ---------------------- Excerpted from a posting from Glenn Meyer, Minnesota Office of Environmental Assistance, St. Paul, MN, responding to the 12/4/00 posting from Bill Sheehan seeking information sources for evaluating the environmental impacts of grocery bags: A resource that you should check out is the March 1992 Resource Recycling article "Reuse versus recycling: A look at grocery bags" (Fenton, Robert W., pp. 105+). The article has a very progressive stance, which also gets at the heart of my own thinking on the "paper vs. plastic" controversy: Is disposable packaging appropriate at all? It does some math on the energy intensity per trip for different types of grocery bags. It supports more durable options, but is very clear that a simpler choice - reusing a bag meant for just one use - also has a big impact. I use cloth bags, and find their convenience more than justifies their cost - but that can turn people off. If consumers can even learn to say "no, thanks" when they don't need a bag, and then "bring back the sack" for those times that they do need one, then a major environmental and economic impact will be felt. My rule of thumb: Whatever you choose, reuse. Other resources on this subject: - The 1990 Franklin Associates study, "Resource and Environmental Profile Analysis of Polyethylene and Unbleached Paper Grocery Sacks" (July 1990) ignores reuse. - While the American Plastics Council and the renamed Film and Bag Federation have focused more attention on creative reuse in the last five years or so, it seems as if the plastics industry has rarely touted the durability and reusability of its erstwhile "single-use" (disposable) products. As a result, they generally get hit by environmentally-motivated groups that focus on the "forever" quality of plastics as waste. The "Paper or Plastic?" web page for The Film and Bag Federation of The Society of the Plastics Industry is at: http://www.plasticbag.com/POP/index.html - An economic angle was explored in the Wall Street Journal article, "Pushing Paper in a Plastic World" (2/24/98, pp. B1,7, by Calmetta Y. Coleman). The eco-friendliness was set aside - it was all about consumer preference, capacity, cost-per-bag, and handles. Surprise statistic (1998) - paper bags carry 20 percent of the nation's groceries, down from 95 percent in 1982. They conclude that if consumers prefer paper bags with handles, then the key is for stores to teach baggers and customers how to properly fill them to get the full value out of them. Article makes a point that a credit of 5 to 10 cents is worth it to stores if it entices customers into reusing them, especially in the competitive world of grocery stores where profit margins of 1 percent of sales are common. Other links and articles: - Earth-Friendly Living: Reusable bags, 10 years later (Mark Harris) http://www.enn.com/enn-features-archive/1999/05/051399/bags_3170.asp - E Magazine, March/April 1996 (pp. 42-3) "Bag it: 'Paper or Plastic?' We're asked at the grocery store, but what about cloth?" (Tracy Koontz). - Science World, April 20, 1990, pp. 11-16. "Bag It: The Grocery Sack Dilemma," Karen McNulty. - "Plastic or Paper: Which is better for the environment?" 12/6/97, Carol Nuckols, Fort Worth Star-Telegram. Glenn's e-mail: glenn (DOT) meyer (AT) moea (DOT) state (DOT) mn (DOT) us ---------------------- Link to a 12/7/00 article by Katharine Mieszkowski in Salon.com on whether online shopping is good for the environment (forwarded by Jeff Gaisford): http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2000/12/07/ecology/index.html ---------------------- Link to a 12/11/00 article on the same subject, "E-commerce: friend or foe of the environment?" by Stephen Leahy on the Environmental News Network: http://www.enn.com/enn-features-archive/2000/12/12112000/ecommerce_40648.asp - end -