WASTE PREVENTION FORUM ARCHIVE   BACK TO ARCHIVE INDEX

05 Jan 01 - producer responsibility; capitalism; SUVs; building products; Junkyard Wars; job; Denmark; lights; future ** WASTE PREVENTION FORUM ** -- A project of the National Waste Prevention Coalition -------- Forum archive: http://www.reuses.com/nwpcarchive -------------------- Excerpted from a message from Julie Rhodes, Reuse Development Organization (ReDO), Indianapolis, IN, responding to Tom Watson's 1/3/01 comment expressing dismay with the news article from the Environmental News Network that gave Kodak's single-use cameras as an example of a manufacturer providing a lease option: I guess I tend to agree that it's not exactly a lease, but the point of the article is good - that we are only borrowing this item for a short time, then returning it for reuse. This is what most remanufacturers actually do - just borrow a camera or toner cartridge, for example. This is what the carpet tile concept is about, a diaper service and so on. I'm troubled that the article uses the term disposable, but then they do expound upon that comment later by saying that Kodak calls them one-use or single-use cameras. They typically use the parts three times, but, as far as I know, they don't ever reuse the camera in its entirety. So, the article may be a little misleading. But, as far as communicating to people that Kodak's single-use camera is a form of producer responsibility, I think that is accurate. Kodak has agreements with all the film processors, and they encourage a lot of environmentally-sound practices as a part of the agreement, including how to deal with the chemicals responsibly. And, they provide free shipping for the film processor to their contractor, Plastic Innovations (PI) in Crawfordsville, Indiana, and Kodak used to pay PI for the processing. I actually think now, however, PI has found cost-effective markets and made their process of deconstruction/parts removal more efficient, and may no longer receive a subsidy from Kodak - I'm not sure about this. Surely they still pay them for the reused parts coming back to Kodak's plant. Anyway, the bottom line is that I think the message in the article is a good one. I'm most concerned with their mixing of terms: recycling, reuse, remanufacturing, single use, disposable. People don't understand the difference, and the article has used them all interchangeably. E-mail: jlrhodes [ AT ] in [ DOT ] net -------------------- The next two postings are in response to the recent postings about capitalism. -------------------- From Renee Kimball, Portland, OR: The discussion of how an economic system can be compatible with environmental responsibility seems to be missing a key ingredient. Whether the system is capitalism, communism, socialism or what have you is far less important than the ethical foundation of the individuals operating within that system. Greed doesn't have a particular nationality, race, religion, sexuality, social level or political affinity. Any system will work if the participants are operating from the basis of truthfulness, compassion and tolerance. This doesn't just mean those at the top either - it means every level right down to the pot scrubbers and toilet cleaners. If I am not willing to stop stealing pencils from my "rich" employer or neglect to call attention to an under-charge by a "multi-national corporation," how can I possibly expect to be treated any differently in their dealings with me? Justice and ethics start with me. If I am truthful, benevolent and forbearing then I feel I am doing the best thing possible to create the world that we all say we want. If you chip away at the bottom of the pyramid, the top can't help but fall in time. If you spend all your energy trying to tear down the apex, the strength of the base will defeat you every time. E-mail: rrrrenee [A T] aracnet [D O T] com -------------------- From Mark Clayton, Right Choice Refreshments, Seattle, WA: I am a capitalist who believes in the free market system. True capitalism inspires entrepreneurialship and competition. Unfortunately, "Big" business and "Big" labor unions are in bed with "Big" government and what we have today is more about protectionism than capitalism. "Big" business, "Big" labor, and "Big" government all thrive at the cost of ingenuity, small business, the individual working person, and that which is good for the community. I believe that business needs to partner with government and consumers to develop policies and businesses that are for the greater good of the community. Recycling is better than disposing of things into landfills, but I think most of us agree that most recyclables are in fact needless disposables. "Big" business and "Big" government promoted recycling as a solution to waste management. This gave "Big" business a license to create more waste under the disguise that it is all "recyclable." True capitalism would put the incentives into developing and promoting products that are designed to reduce or eliminate waste. My business is a good example of this. In Washington State we used to have a tax on all carbonated beverages, which of course are consumed in disposable containers. Lobbying went on to eliminate the carbonated beverage tax and put in its place a tax on syrup that amounts to about 25-40 percent of the manufactured cost of syrup. This tax of course drives up the cost of the syrup. This syrup is used when people consume fountain drinks and other cold beverages. It is extremely easy to encourage the use of reusable containers when consuming these drinks. Besides the syrup tax, we also have to pay a litter tax on all the syrup we sell. My company makes fountain syrup and sells home and office soda fountains that we import from Europe. Our customers eliminate millions of disposable containers. Yet with this syrup tax it makes it difficult to show our customers the savings we could show them without this special tax on our product that is not on competing products that are packaged in disposable containers. This syrup tax is an environmentally damaging tax. The "Big" government has chosen to protect "Big" business and "Big" labor who are involved in the manufacturing of disposable containers that then get filled primarily with water and a little bit of flavoring. My company, in its manufacturing and distribution system, is making it so that the only thing we and our customers dispose of is one recyclable #2 plastic one-gallon container for the equivalent of every 8,448 disposable cans of cold beverage. Thus we are eliminating the need to dispose of the 8,448 twelve-ounce containers and in its place we dispose of one recyclable one-gallon container. Yet, as long as this environmentally unfriendly tax on syrup remains, it is difficult to compete with the sale prices of disposable cans and bottles full of cold beverages which do not have such a tax. In conclusion: Do not look at the flaws of protectionism thinking and call it capitalism. Good capitalism profits from what is good and fails when something better comes along, but protectionism keeps that which is better from coming along by maintaining the status quo and keeping power structures intact, at the cost of the individual, the community, and the environment. Protectionism is allowed to excel as long as the taxing "Big" government regulators are in bed with "Big" business and "Big" labor unions. Two years ago our state legislators put before the Governor a bill to eliminate the syrup tax. He vetoed it, stating that he would not sign it because the voters voted the tax in. WRONG!! The regulators voted the syrup tax in. Then they wanted to raise more revenues and decided that the way to do it would be to find something that would appeal to the public and allow them to vote on it. So they came up with a "crime" bill that would be paid by doubling the current syrup tax. The individual voter knew little about the tax but was blindsided into voting for the tax increase because they wanted "crime prevention." This happens all the time in school tax issues. The government powerhouses don't fund that which they know they can get people concerned about in an effort to raise taxes. After all, people won't turn down a tax to help kids. Our whole system is about power and protectionism, not about the individual, the community, and the environment we all must live in. It is about maintaining the plush luxurious environments the "Big" people get to live in. E-mail: MrSodaWon (A T) aol (D O T) com ------------------- From Thor Peterson, Seattle Public Utilities, Seattle, WA, responding to the recent postings about sport utility vehicles (SUVs): Regarding the reasons one can mount for purchasing an SUV: I'm reminded of a bumper sticker on a friend's mini-compact Honda. It makes no excuses; it just tells the truth. I think such honesty is central to our progress to a more sustainable society. It reads: "I'm polluting the atmosphere." E-mail: Thor [ DOT ] Peterson [ AT ] ci [ DOT ] seattle [ DOT ] wa [ DOT ] us ------------------- From Rachel Donnette, Thurston County, Olympia, WA, responding to the 1/3/01 posting about the free BEES (Building for Environmental and Economic Sustainability) software program, which was developed to help designers, builders and product manufacturers evaluate cost-effective green building products: A reaction to the BEES 2.0 program: This contribution to green building sounds like a step forward in most respects. What I didn't notice in reading the description of the life-cycle analysis was an appraisal of how well the green products work. The most environmentally-benign construction product is only good for the environment, and will only get used, if it is good to use. Personal anecdote: I've been working with contractors on a remodel of my home. We're using recycled plastic lumber, non-VOC paint indoors, and trying to use other low-toxicity finishes. I say TRYING because, when I suggested a water-based wood stain for a floor finish, the builder said no, he had tried that in the past and it didn't work well. And when I wanted latex primer and paint outside on new construction, the painter said no way, not in this rainy climate, and not on raw wood, and not when there's danger of freezing. I suppose I could insist on non-toxic, but may then pay the price of ruined floors and having to re-do the paint job prematurely. If performance under various conditions is in the BEES 2.0 score - great. That would give me a way to choose environmentally-sound products that I could use with confidence. E-mail: DONNETR [A T] co [D O T] thurston [D O T] wa [D O T] us ------------------- From Cathy Buller, Pacific Northwest Pollution Prevention Resource Center, Seattle, WA, responding to the 1/3/01 posting asking whether anyone has seen a new cable television show called Junkyard Wars (or the British version, Scrapheap Challenge), where two teams compete to build machines out of stuff lying around a junkyard: I sent this inquiry to a neighbor who's a cable-TV channel surfer and spouse of a U.K. citizen (both seemed good qualifications for awareness of the Junkyard show). Here's his reply: "Saw it the other night when they were building a harvesting machine. It's more along the lines of "Changing Rooms" (British show where people descend on a house for a weekend to completely re-do the interior decor & furnishings in one room). Except that this is a contest and there is lots of pithy commentary from the judges as to the efficacy and technical merit of the teams' approaches. Fun to watch but fairly Rube [Goldberg] in concept. I like "Bot Wars" better: another late-night cable TV show where people build robots with parts of chain saws, radial saws, etc., then pit the robots against each other in a sort of demo derby where the object is to entrap and chew up an opposing 'Bot." Reviewer: Bill Driskell / a.k.a. "Dr. Science" Cheers! (Tally ho?) Cathy's e-mail: cbuller [A T] pprc [D O T] org ------------------- Excerpted from a job announcement sent by John Fischer, Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, Boston, MA: The City of Boston has received a grant from the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) to hire a district coordinator for the Municipal Recycling Incentive Program (MRIP). The salary is $43,200 per year, based on 1,800 work hours. Duties of the MRIP District Coordinator will include: - Assist municipalities in increasing the effectiveness of their recycling, household hazardous waste, source reduction and unit-pricing programs and meeting the MRIP eligibility requirements. This shall be accomplished through consumer education activities, development of new programs, district coordination, recycling program changes, and other tasks as requested by DEP. - Conduct outreach and education on MRIP to District municipalities to encourage their participation in the program. - Collect and validate data related to solid waste management activities of the municipalities in the MRIP District. Requirements include three years experience, or educational substitutions. Please submit a resume and a cover letter no later than January 19, 2001, to: Ms. Susan Cascino, City of Boston, Department of Public Works, City Hall, Room 714, Boston, MA, 02201. John's e-mail: John ( D O T ) Fischer ( A T ) state ( D O T ) ma ( D O T ) us ------------------- Excerpted from a 12/18/00 story from the Environmental Data Services Daily, a European environmental news service (forwarded by Shelly McClure): DENMARK ENACTS ENVIRONMENTALLY-WEIGHTED PACKAGING TAXES A Danish parliamentary vote Dec. 15, 2000, confirmed that packaging materials on the Danish market would be taxed according to environmental impact beginning in April. Replacing an existing weight-based taxation system, the new tax rates will be determined relative to the environmental impacts, including the impact of the distribution of the packaging material. The new system, in which the tax rate is determined from the rating of each material on an environmental index, will ensure that the most environmentally-friendly packaging types, such as cardboard, are taxed at a lower rate than are more damaging materials. Under this system, aluminum and PVC plastic will face higher tax rates: Aluminum will be taxed at Euros 4.47 (4.2 U.S. dollars) per kilogram and PVC at Euros 2.72 (2.56 U.S. dollars) per kilogram. The tax rates will be recalibrated every three years. ------------------- Link to a composite photo from the U.S. National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) showing the lights of the Earth (forwarded by Alexandra Scott and Lea Dutton): http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0011/earthlights_dmsp_big.jpg Note from Tom: This may take a while to load, but it's fascinating. Scroll up and down and across to see the entire Earth, and mankind's effect on it. ------------------- Excerpted from message from Rob Arner, Washington D.C. area: I thought people might be interested in this column that I wrote about key waste management issues for the future. It is on the SolidWaste.com website at: http://www.solidwaste.com/read/sp20010103/381322 E-mail: rarner [ AT ] shentel [ DOT ] net - end -