WASTE PREVENTION FORUM ARCHIVE   BACK TO ARCHIVE INDEX

25 Apr 01 - Opt-out for a fee; education attack; paperless office; paint ** WASTE PREVENTION FORUM ** -- A project of the National Waste Prevention Coalition -------- Forum archive: http://www.reuses.com/nwpcarchive -------------------- From Glenn Meyer, Minnesota Office of Environmental Assistance, St. Paul, MN: The Direct Marketing Association (DMA) has added online registration for their Mail Preference Service (MPS). Before we get too excited, however, note that there's a $5 FEE to use the online form. The traditional mail service is still free. I imagine that the DMA is in a tough spot. They want to make the service cheaper to administer, but not so easy to use that their opt-out list swells significantly. I'm worried that consumers will get the impression that opting out is not a free choice. Plus, in the long run, I'm sure that the collection of electronic data for the MPS will save a lot of money for the Direct Marketing Association. Take a moment to let DMA know that we like the idea, but object to the fee. The form for online registration is at: http://www.the-dma.org/cgi/offmailinglistdave This is how they describe the service on that page: "There is a $5 processing fee for registering with the MPS service online. You will need a valid credit card to register online. We use secure payment transaction processing to protect your card information. You may also register using our mail-in form which we will create for you using the information you provide. There is no charge for registering by mail. However, registering by mail may delay inclusion in the "delete file" up to 30 days. To register online or by mail, please complete the form below and click the appropriate button." Also, following up on recent postings, here is a link to an article by Melynda Dovel Wilcox in the April, 2001, Kiplinger's Personal Finance about the new U.S. federal law requiring financial companies to send their customers an opt-out form: http://www.kiplinger.com/magazine/archives/2001/April/ahead/privacy.html (This kind of opt-out is free, of course.) Glenn's e-mail: glenn ( DOT ) meyer ( AT ) moea ( DOT ) state ( DOT ) mn ( DOT ) us --------------------- The next two postings are in response to the 4/23/01 posting of the column by John Tierney in the New York Times, attacking a new New York City Department of Sanitation waste reduction manual for the city's schools. --------------------- A 4/24/01 letter to the editor in the New York Times, in response to Tierney's column, from Dorothy Lyon, of Brooklyn, NY: I'm rather stunned by Mr. Tierney's grousing over the recycling manual being distributed in New York City's public schools. I was elated to hear about such a manual and to hear that conservation and recycling are being elevated to such importance by our city bureaucrats. The value of "reduce, reuse, recycle" can't be emphasized enough. I'm so glad that New York is focusing on it, because it sure isn't happening on a national level! Conservation has to be instilled in our consciousness. We will have continual problems meeting our energy needs and protecting the environment if conservation and recycling don't become intrinsic values to everyone. --------------------- From Bruce Nordman, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, CA: On the curriculum issue: Putting resource issues (including recycling) into science classes would offer the opportunity for people to analyze recycling (and source reduction) choices in a quantitative manner, to assure that their efforts are directed toward those with the most effect. Certainly that shouldn't be the only type of approach (symbolism can be important), but I think it would make the curriculum more credible. Also, the brief letter to the editor in response to Tierney's column (4/23/01 posting) said using both sides of a piece of paper makes sense economically, because a 50-sheet pad costs $3. That is 6 cents/sheet. You can buy office paper (as you put in your copier or laser printer) for about 0.5 cents/sheet, so that $3 pad is 12 times as expensive as individual sheets. Someone isn't doing quantitative analysis. E-mail: bnordman (AT) dante (DOT) lbl (DOT) gov -------------------- The next three postings are in response to the 4/23/01 posting of the New York Times article about how office paper consumption is soaring, instead of the "paperless office" that some had projected for the 21st Century. -------------------- Also from Bruce Nordman: The idea of a "paperless office" was, and is, a silly idea. Let's go for a "glassless office," "metalless office" or "fabricless office" while we're at it. That computers and other office equipment can be used to reduce paper use is of course true. That doing so has only rarely been tried or a priority is also true. If we as a society (government, businesses, individuals, etc.) put resources to the issue, much could be done. That printers are using more paper is not new or revealing; for many years there has been a shift from copiers to printers - most of that new printing is on paper that has been dropped from copier use. Paper use has tracked the size of the economy with remarkable consistency over the many decades; this suggests, and I expect, that there will be no large change in this in 10 years, either up or down. E-mail: bnordman [ AT ] dante [ DOT ] lbl [ DOT ] gov -------------------- From Mary Ayde, Minnesota Waste Association: As a dedicated recycler, avid reader of your e-mails and many, many other informative environmental e-mails, I can't help but wonder why there has been no movement to get the computer programmers to reduce the amount of paper that has to be printed with each e-mail. For example: the long trail of information following an e-mail. Is it necessary? I do agree that retaining what is read is easier on paper than on the computer, but in the interest of paper (trees) reduction, it would seem there could be less printed! That would help cut the wasted cartridges, even if I can mail them to be recycled. This issue has plagued me since I first started on-line 7 years ago. I thank you one and all for sharing the wealth of information that is distributed, and praise each and every one of you that do your share to protect Mother Earth. E-mail: mayde ( A T ) aol ( D O T ) com ---------------------- Excerpted from a message from Polagaya Fine, Snohomish County Solid Waste Division, Everett, WA: I'm not discouraged by the article. This has been the paper manufacturers' line. I heard it in 1997 from Weyerhaeuser. They were and still are predicting less paper used per capita and a whole lot more capita's buying it. So far they are right. Note mid-article that businesses are buying and using less paper. I expect that trend to continue and accelerate. The article comments that offices first switching to e-mail experience a 40 percent rise in paper consumption. Additional paper consumption tends to go along with new electronic media. Folks begin by printing electronic stuff out. Paper is what they are used to. The trend doesn't last. Over time, folks print less and less. I don't expect newspapers, magazines, and books to disappear. But the rise in paper consumption by magazines and newspapers last year was fueled by lots of "dot-com" print ads bulking up the publications. It wasn't a trend towards more publications or more circulation. Already there has been a steep fall-off this year: You may have noticed your magazines look skinnier. There may well be a trend towards more paper packaging. I am not sure this is a bad thing environmentally, though excess packaging is a problem. My office is far from paperless. Too many things, we need to keep on paper. We used to recycle reams of one-sided paper. Then we started printing drafts on one-sided used paper. Now the sources of one-sided paper have dried up. Why? We are printing fewer draft copies of anything. We are more careful about printing extra copies of things. And, many draft reports that used to be printed are now kept electronically for editing. Final note: Canon ran a full page ad in the Wall Street Journal Monday for a machine called the Cannon imageRUNNER. Looks like a copier, prints like a copier, advertised as a document distribution center. Paper goes in and you can send electronically as fax or email. Or you can copy and print. Which way goes the future? I am not discouraged. When Canon advertises this equipment to mainstream businesses, there is no reason to be. E-mail: polagaya ( DOT ) fine ( AT ) co ( DOT ) snohomish ( DOT ) wa ( DOT ) us ------------------- The next two postings are in response to a 4/23/01 posting, asking if anyone knows if paint companies have ever been encouraged to make and sell sample/test colors in anything smaller than a quart. ------------------ From Barbara (Nichols) Zaccheo, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), WasteWise Program, Washington, DC: My EPA colleague had never heard of paint being sold in less than quarts for residential use. She suggested I check the National Paint and Coatings Association website, at: http://www.paint.org/index.htm but I didn't find anything about this on their environmental pages. My husband has been a house painter and remodeler for years and suggested the following: - Use the paint chips and consult with a professional painter regarding color choice (how's that for job development? ha, ha). - If quarts are purchased, one can return the paint can with no refund as long as it's clean. It gets re-sold as a blooper at a discounted rate. I'm not sure if this is legal but it does happen. - One can donate the quarts to a non-profit organization; or - The quarts can be recycled as hazardous waste. I think your idea to have a smaller "sampler" is a great idea. It'd be interesting to learn why the paint companies haven't bothered with it. E-mail: Zaccheo (DOT) Barbara (AT) epamail (DOT) epa (DOT) gov -------------------- From Karen May, King County Solid Waste Division, Seattle, WA: I have this to offer about the paint question: Daly's in Seattle does sell 4-ounce samplers of Pratt and Lambert paint. It's just enough for one to experiment and make a decision. Bravo to Daly's! I'm glad that at least one paint store has taken a stand on this wasteful issue. I have been told by other stores that it's not cost-effective for them to offer smaller than a quart. Daly's will get my business from here on out! E-mail: karen [DOT] may [AT] metrokc [DOT] gov Note from Tom: Daly's Home Decorating Center is known as a very good (and expensive) paint store. It was established in 1948 and they have two locations - one in Seattle and one in Bellevue (a smaller city next to Seattle). The phone number of their Seattle store is (206) 633-4200. - end -