WASTE PREVENTION FORUM ARCHIVE   BACK TO ARCHIVE INDEX

29 May 01 - disposable/reusable products; computers; dry cleaning alternatives ** 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 5/24/01 query about the new trend toward "disposable/reusable" products for storage and cooking. -------------------- From Glenn Meyer, Minnesota Office of Environmental Assistance, St. Paul, MN: I think the foodservice disposables industry has put so much weight on the sterile, hygienic nature of single-use items, that they're reluctant to suggest that reusing something might be okay, too. For example, research into bacteria in reusable mugs is shocking, but then you realize that these are the same items you would find in your house for personal use - I don't know about you, but I don't have a high-temperature sanitizer in my kitchen. Special containers for leftovers are nothing new, but they've always been expensive. But what realistic consumer hasn't put a yogurt container or an aluminum pie plate to a second use for food or crafts? Storage containers have a niche - they're always needed, and their cost of replacement makes them less painful to replace if they get lost, broken or too filthy to make cleaning seem realistic. The Rinse & Reuse plates I'm confused by; they're made with real stone, but they're "bendy." They say they can be put in the top level of a dishwasher, but not in a conventional oven. Is it higher class to picnic on stone than plastic or paper? Would people be more likely to take them home for a washing and reuse because they aren't flimsy? At $3 for 14 11-inch plates, they're a lot cheaper than real dishes, but more expensive than traditional disposables. They're found in the store in the same aisle as the paper and plastic plates. The cookware - Pot Lux (Reynolds) - baffles me. A local food columnist for the Star Tribune (Minneapolis) got mail explaining that such products appeal to those who want to bring items to dinners and "potlucks" - the items aren't "disposable," but not returned to their owner, either. His point was that at $3-4 per pan, that's a lot of money when compared to a lifetime reusable pan that costs $8-12. In my experience, most people empty out their reusable tin or crockpot and leave behind the leftovers, not the cookware. E-mail: glenn (D O T) meyer (A T) moea (D O T) state (D O T) mn (D O T) us -------------------- From Thor Peterson, Seattle Public Utilities, Sustainable Building Program, Seattle, WA: I thought I'd give a few thoughts about this apparent trend. I haven't seen any data to support my thoughts, but I'm concerned that these new products, although theoretically reusable, will end up being one-use most of the time anyway. In the grand scheme of things, they'd be "environmentally preferable" to the status quo (which by no means infers that it's sustainable) if it results in less materials and energy being expended. However, I think the answer to this will only be revealed as the stuff enters the waste stream and is analyzed with waste composition studies. My specialty is green building, and it reminds me of an issue I encounter there: manufacturers like to tout durability as an environmental benefit in surface finish materials. But the potential life of the product or finish isn't the variable to measure - it's the average time the material actually remains in the house. Linoleum may last 100 years, but if you're tearing it out every 5 because you want a "fresh" look for your kitchen, the fact that it's 5 times more durable than the most common alternative is moot. In short, after all the other environmental impacts are assessed on these new products (e.g., what, exactly, is this "stoneware"?) what we really need to know is whether they're being used by consumers more than once, or just fancier versions of their precursors. I suspect a lot of people will buy them for their sturdiness and still toss them after one use. As far as the more philosophical question regarding our disposable inclinations: I once heard our society described as bulimic, and I feel that's pretty accurate. So much of our value system has shifted toward consumption. It's not, as some people assert, materialism. If we were materialists, we would value materials. Instead, it's about acquiring and consuming those materials. Why we've picked consumerism over materialism I think has to do with responsibility. Consuming and acquiring doesn't require any responsibility; maintaining items takes time and energy. E-mail: Thor ( D O T ) Peterson ( A T ) ci ( D O T ) seattle ( D O T ) wa ( D O T ) us -------------------- Excerpted from an article by Heidi Schuessler in the 5/24/01 New York Times (first seen on the Reuse Development Organization listserv): HEWLETT-PACKARD LAUNCHES ELECTRONIC EQUIPMENT TAKE-BACK PROGRAM Hewlett-Packard announced on May 21 that they will now take back computer equipment from any manufacturer, including PC's and monitors, printers, scanners, switchers, routers - even calculators and hand-held organizers. Working equipment will be donated to charitable organizations, and parts may be reused. The rest will be processed to recover any usable material. Hewlett-Packard's program is similar to those instituted by other computer manufacturers and retailers, including International Business Machines (IBM) and Gateway. Hewlett-Packard charges a fee of $13 to $34 (depending on the items), which offsets the cost of shipping and the actual recycling. "There is some value in these old computers in terms of their precious and base metals," said Chris Altobell, the business development manager for the Product Recycling Solutions Group at Hewlett-Packard headquarters in Palo Alto, Calif., "but the cost of retrieving that value is actually more than the metals are worth." If consumers and manufacturers share the responsibility for keeping harmful electronic equipment out of landfills, he added, then everyone benefits. The need for recycling and reuse has grown as fast as the rate of computer obsolescence. The average life span of a computer is now less than three years. According to a National Recycling Coalition report, 20 million computers became obsolete in 1998, but only 11 percent were recycled - and corporations were responsible for the bulk of that. In the last year computer manufacturers have started offering recycling and reuse programs to individuals and small businesses. IBM (http://www.ibm.com/ibm/environment) takes back any manufacturer's computers and peripherals for $29.95, and Sony has a free take-back program for Sony products in Minnesota. Gateway (http://www.gateway.com/recycle) offers rebates toward future purchases to customers who return their old computers to designated collection sites. Hewlett-Packard has recycled and reused computers from corporate clients for more than a decade. It even has its own electronics recycling plant in Roseville, Calif., which is jointly operated by Micro Metallics Corporation, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Noranda, a Canadian mining company. The Roseville plant processes about four million pounds of equipment a month, and the company plans to open a similar plant in Nashville in July. People interested in sending their equipment to Hewlett-Packard for reuse and recycling can go to http://www.hp.com/go/recycle If there are fewer than 10 items, the site will take the owner's credit card information and arrange for Federal Express to pick them up (the parts need to be boxed). If there are more than 10 items, Hewlett-Packard will quote a price for the fee. Hewlett-Packard will begin a similar fee-based program in Europe on June 1, followed by Canada later in the year. Depending on demand, the company will also look at expanding the program to Asia and Latin America. -------------------- Link to an article about waste computers and other electronics by Henry Norr in the 5/27/01 San Francisco Chronicle (forwarded by Ted Smith): http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2001/05/27/BU119228.DTL -------------------- Link to a 5/23/01 column by Francesca Lyman on the MSNBC website about "green" alternatives to dry cleaning: http://www.msnbc.com/news/577463.asp - end -