WASTE PREVENTION FORUM ARCHIVE   BACK TO ARCHIVE INDEX

05 Oct 01 - hierarchy; materialism; chemical attacks; events; fur coats ** WASTE PREVENTION FORUM ** -- A project of the National Waste Prevention Coalition -------- Forum archive: http://www.reuses.com/nwpcarchive -------------------- The first three postings are in response to the 10/1/01 posting from Wayne Rifer (working with the Western Electronic Product Stewardship Initiative), asking for comments on a proposed hierarchy for how to handle electronic scrap (e-scrap). ------------------- From Julie Rhodes, Reuse Development Organization (ReDO), Indianapolis, IN: I would suggest that repair/refurbish would be the same, or at least both should be under the topic of reuse. My interpretation is that, for computers, repairing and refurbishing both are starting with a system and with minimal upgrades in memory, cleaning hard drives, adding a modem or a CD disk drive, adding software, etc.; the items are easily reusable in their nearly original form. I think of remanufacturing as a means for parting-out systems and potentially reusing some component parts. When I do my "waste hierarchy" spiel (and I do with every presentation that I give), I differentiate between reuse, repair/refurbish, and remanufacturing from a resource perspective - How many more resources, in terms of time, energy, human labor, etc., will it take to make the item reusable or valuable? Typically the resources used for repairing/refurbishing are minimal, compared with remanufacturing. I also always mention that there are fine gray lines between them, and that often, offering the "value-added" component of repair/refurbish means that much more material has the potential for reuse than in programs without that component. E-mail: info ( AT ) redo ( DOT ) org ------------------ From Donald Van Dyke, California Integrated Waste Management Board, Sacramento, CA: The revised hierarchy for electronics scrap is not a bad idea, but I'd drop the refurbish part of remanufacture because I think that refurbish is implicitly a part of reuse as much as it is a part of remanufacture. It could get confusing. Just one comment: Any modifications to the hallowed hierarchy should not reduce its applicability to liquids, gasses, or large concentrations of organic matter such as food waste, manure, or some types of demolition waste. I think this is best accomplished by keeping the wording brief. Building on Wayne's idea to try to cover all bases, here is what I suggest: 1. Reduce 2. Buy used/remanufactured/recycled 3. Reuse onsite 4. Reuse offsite 5. Remanufacture 6. Recycle onsite 7. Recycle offsite 8. Recover energy 9. Dispose as little as possible I wonder if anyone can come up with a short song or jingle to cover these ideas. It would be a great thing to teach school children. E-mail: DVanDyke [A T] CIWMB [D O T] ca [D O T] gov -------------------- From Barbara Frierson, City of Fremont (CA) Environmental Services: I think Wayne's proposed hierarchy makes a lot of sense. We have been collecting info from local e-waste handlers, and the variety of things they do with the material matches his list closely. The only other thing I can think of is the hazardous waste component of e-waste. You might add "Reduce toxicity of materials" under Reduce, and "Manage hazardous components safely" under Dispose. E-mail: bfrierson [ A T ] ci [ D O T ] fremont [ D O T ] ca [ D O T ] us -------------------- From Tom Watson, King County Solid Waste Division, Seattle, WA, and the National Waste Prevention Coalition: Like most people, I suppose, I've been thinking a lot about recent events - the implications for the world, the country, my own life, etc. A few of these thoughts are related to the work we all do in waste prevention, so I'd like to share those. I'm very interested in any responses you have, for the Forum. - There seems to be a sense that more Americans are thinking that material things are not quite so important anymore. I personally think this is a good thing in general, but it also could be good for waste reduction, resource conservation and the voluntary simplicity movement. Here are a few excerpts from Maureen Dowd's column in the 10/3/01 New York Times: "Who could have predicted that the first war of the 21st century would be about stuff? The puritanical Islamic warriors hate our stuff and think us decadent hedonist infidels who have lost our souls. The terrorists don't want our stuff - they lived among us and resisted being seduced by it. They don't want us to have our stuff. And they don't want our stuff to taint their holy lands; they want to banish our planes and equipment and MTV culture from the Persian Gulf. Up until the moment the twin towers fell, America was deep in a cocoon of self-gratification and self-improvement. But our culture turns out to be about much more than its glittery surface, and that's been clear in all that's happened since Sept. 11: the exposure to the quiet lives of inspiration that so many victims led; the valor of rescue workers; the altruistic derring-do of the men who fought back on Flight 93; our concern about inflicting unnecessary suffering on innocent Afghans; the generosity and civic tolerance at the heart of our country's response to horrific loss. With their oxymoronic holy war, Osama bin Laden and his murderous disciples meant to expose our moral vacuity. But they exposed only their own. They simply succeeded in illuminating - not just to the rest of the world but to us - how little all our baubles and all our booty have to do with who we really are. The terrorists taught us this: We are more than the sum of our stuff." This is Tom again - I think that's a little simplistic, but she makes some good points. I also saw a news article this week quoting a woman whose apartment and all her possessions were destroyed (she lived next to the World Trade Center). She said she felt incredibly lucky: "All I lost was stuff." But then, there's always the other side of the coin. For some people (especially in New York City, I would guess), the response has been, "Well, life is uncertain, so I might as well enjoy it all I can." Someone who works in Manhattan, quoted in today's Wall Street Journal, said she normally isn't much of a shopper, but last weekend she went on a big shopping spree. "I've donated money to the Red Cross, tried to volunteer, bought groceries and given them to rescue workers - I figured I can boost the economy, too," she said. "It felt good to be kind of frivolous." - Another thing I've noticed: One of the main topics of conversation now, related to all this, is bioterrorism. It's partly because the media has irresponsibly stoked people's fears, I think, but a lot of people are definitely worried now about terrorism involving deadly viruses or toxic chemicals. It's a legitimate fear. And I've been thinking that it's also an opportunity for reducing toxics (a number of people on this listserv work with both solid waste reduction and toxics reduction). If we want to reduce the chances of terrorists getting access to deadly chemicals, wouldn't it make sense to reduce the overall use of pesticides and hazardous industrial chemicals? Wouldn't it make sense to tighten up regulations on the use of those substances? Maybe now is the time to make this point - The fewer toxic substances that are produced and sold, the less chance that that those materials will get into the wrong hands. E-mail: tom ( D O T ) watson ( A T ) metrokc ( D O T ) gov -------------------- From Tanya Schaefer, Recycling Advocates, Portland, OR: WASTE PREVENTION AND RECYCLING AT EVENTS: A NEW RESOURCE Recycling Advocates, a nonprofit organization in Portland, Oregon, announces the publication of "Recycling at Events: A Guide to Reducing Waste at Any Event." The perfect resource for anyone involved in event planning, the guide is chock-full of tips for preventing waste and maximizing recycling at events. Read it and learn how to: - Reduce packaging and "throw-aways" - Collect and compost food waste - Maximize collection of recyclables - Promote your efforts For a free copy of the guide, please contact us at (503) 777-0909 or info [A T] recyclingadvocates [D O T] org A Portable Document Format (PDF) version is available to download at our website at: http://www.recyclingadvocates.org E-mail: tks (AT) hevanet (DOT) com -------------------- Excerpted from a 10/2/01 news item from the Reuters News Service: FUR COAT DONATIONS CHICAGO - The annual fall anti-fur campaign of the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) will feature donations of fur coats to the homeless, in stark contrast to PETA's past graphic banners and bloodied furs, the group said. After attacks destroyed the World Trade Center and damaged the Pentagon, leaving nearly 7,000 people dead or missing, PETA said they have decided to tone down protests that have included "Meat is Murder" banners and blood-covered furs. The animal rights group plans to donate fur coats to the homeless during the anti-fur campaign that begins Oct. 4. Fur-wearers who had a change of heart donated the coats to PETA, the group said. - end -