WASTE PREVENTION FORUM ARCHIVE   BACK TO ARCHIVE INDEX

02 Oct 02 - repair; cleaning products; NWPC project ** WASTE PREVENTION FORUM ** -- A project of the National Waste Prevention Coalition -------- Forum archive: http://www.reuses.com/nwpcarchive -------------------- Excerpted from an article by Nancy Keates in the 9/27/02 Wall Street Journal (referred by Thor Peterson): CAN IT BE FIXED? If you've tried to get something repaired lately, you know it's frustrating - but you might not realize just how bad things are. The number of repair shops across the U.S. has dropped by half during the past decade to about 9,000, even as consumers snap up a record $95 billion worth of gadgets a year. Much of the blame goes to the falling price of electronics, which has made it tempting for people to throw broken items away and prompted makers to pare back on service. Now, with the sluggish economy making people think "repair" instead of "replace," finding help can seem impossible, says Ron Sawyer, executive director of the Professional Service Association, a repair-shop trade group. "There's just too much demand and not enough service." We should know. We spent the past few months trying to get 14 items repaired, including a camera, printer, toaster, lawn mower and cell phone. Depending on what the makers told us, we sent about half of the items to the companies, and half to local repair shops. A couple we sent to both places. Along the way, we had moments of euphoria, frustration, and even sheer rage. In the end, we found that it's still possible to get many things fixed - seven of our items came back working - but the chances vary widely, mostly according to the gadget. Surprisingly, price has little to do with it. No one would touch our $149 scanner, but our cheaper portable CD player was replaced free. As a rule, local shops did better. While dealing with the makers could be a hassle, some companies actually let us trade in the busted goods for new items - at almost a third off. It's clear that because of the economy some people are looking closer at the repair option. Sony says demand for repair support from customers is up 15 percent this year, while Phillips Electronics says calls are running 5 percent higher. In contrast, over the last decade, nearly a quarter of the almost 60 million households with broken items opted to ditch them, according to a survey by eBrain Market Research. But in order to defray costs, many companies, including Sony, Epson, Hewlett-Packard and Handspring, now charge a fee - ranging from $10 to $25 - just to talk to a technician on the phone. In some cases, they're taking planned obsolescence to new heights, making gadgets that can't be repaired - with backs sealed shut or batteries that can't be replaced. At the same time, local fix-it shops, squeezed by low reimbursements for in-warranty repairs and the low prices of replacements, are raising prices - or going out of business. Even Elmo has had to adjust. Luis and Maria's Fix It Shop on "Sesame Street," which used to repair toasters, closed this season after 32 years in business and was replaced by the Mail It shop, where the monsters can use fax machines and mail packages. The show "had to stay relevant," said a producer. -------------------- From Lisa Friend, RE Sources, Bellingham, WA: I spoke with a woman today whose husband repairs small appliances. She says most manufacturers will stop offering warranties by next year - unless you buy one separately from the product you are purchasing. She says it might be good for her family business, but a bad sign of how disposable our economy has become. On a similar note, Xerox is reportedly no longer taking back their large-copy-machine full toner sumps for appropriate recycling / disposal / reuse. If so, shame on them! E-mail: recycle [ A T ] re-sources [ D O T ] org ------------------- Link to a new report from INFORM, "Cleaning for Health: Products and Practices for a Safer Indoor Environment" (first seen on the Environmental Protection Agency's WasteWise bulletin): http://www.informinc.org/CFHbook.htm Toxic chemicals found in many cleaning products can jeopardize the health of janitorial workers and other building occupants. Several states and local governments have found that switching to "greener cleaners" has improved indoor air quality, reduced complaints among janitorial staff and even saved them money. This report is a guide to environmentally preferable cleaning products and methods that have been effectively used in office buildings, schools, hospitals and other facilities in the United States and Canada. It describes pioneering product evaluation programs and lists the brands that were chosen based on environmental and performance criteria. It also provides a model specification, as well as manufacturer contacts and other resources for those who want to develop a safer cleaning program for their buildings. INFORM is a national, non-profit environmental research organization based in New York City. --------------------- From Tom Watson, King County Solid Waste Division, Seattle, WA, and the National Waste Prevention Coalition: Thanks to all of you who responded to my 9/26/02 posting, asking for your comments and ideas on the proposals for a new National Waste Prevention Coalition (NWPC) project. There have been some excellent observations and insights. Below are excerpts from some of these messages. A number of people have offered to help with certain projects (thank you!) but I'm leaving that part out of the responses below. Or if someone just said yea or nea on a particular project, with no additional comments, we're not running those responses on the Forum (but we're keeping track of them). Mostly we want to share on the Forum today the comments and reasons that people have given about why they like or don't like the different proposals. Once again, the preliminary project ideas are: Junk Phone Book Reduction; Waste Prevention SWAT Team; Double-Sided Printing Breakthrough Project; War on Obsolescence. For brief descriptions of these proposals, see the 9/26/02 posting (click on the link to the archive at the top of this message). Thanks again, and keep the comments and additional project ideas coming! E-mail: tom (DOT) watson (AT) metrokc (DOT) gov --------------------- From Deanna Seaman, Snohomish County Public Works, Everett, WA: I like the war on obsolescence campaign. So many of our issues would simplify if products were designed for durability - electronics, buildings, furniture, clothing, carpet, to name a few. E-mail: deanna ( D O T ) seaman ( A T ) co ( D O T ) snohomish ( D O T ) wa ( D O T ) us --------------------- From David Flora, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 7, Solid Waste Program, Kansas City, KS: Many people have seen the State of Minnesota's "Reduce Waste - If Not You, Who?" campaign. If not, check it out at: http://www.reduce.org It is geared towards consumers, and the initial roll-out a couple of years ago included pledges and prizes. Taking this campaign national, perhaps in conjunction with America Recycles Day, could be a great program. With their permission I modified it for our Region 7 internal web pages. Re-working the text to replace Minnesota-specific information with local information was not a great deal of work. E-mail: Flora (DOT) David (AT) epamail (DOT) epa (DOT) gov --------------------- From David Stitzhal, Full Circle Environmental, Seattle, WA: I really like the junk phone book reduction idea. It has national appeal, gets to the heart of waste prevention, allows different partners from around the nation to join in easily, taps into information-age alternatives to waste, targets big corporations, and is visible to residents and office workers alike. I have reservations about the other proposed projects, primarily in terms of how to create a campaign suitable for the resources of the National Waste Prevention Coalition. My second choice however would be the SWAT team. I think it has some real potential too and is worth exploring further. The hitch there is that most government agencies (i.e., many of the participants in Coalition projects) are often hamstrung when it comes to writing hard-hitting articles, "op-ed" pieces, letters, etc. E-mail: stitzhal ( A T ) fullcircleenvironmental ( D O T ) com --------------------- From Donald Van Dyke, California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB), Sacramento, CA: I think the "war on obsolescence" would have the most impact. It strikes at the most targets, might prevent more waste than any other project, and it will have the enthusiastic support of consumers. I think the double-sided printing project is an easy one and should be done in addition to any other project the Coalition selects. To see posters that address two-sided printing, go to: http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/BizWaste/Posters/Paper.htm, or see all CIWMB waste reduction posters at: http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/BizWaste/Posters/All.htm E-mail: DVanDyke ( A T ) CIWMB ( D O T ) ca ( D O T ) gov --------------------- From Mike Ruby, Envirometrics, Seattle, WA: First of all, I want to comment on a current NWPC project, the Business Junk Mail Reduction Project: We wrote lots of letters and did succeed in getting some of the junk mail coming in here stopped. This project was a help to us in: 1)Deciding to spend the time doing it, and 2) Figuring out how to do it. Unfortunately we seem to cycle back into it after a relatively short time. It seems we need to make another effort fairly soon. A long-term solution would be a junk mail tax, an added fee on all bulk-rate mail that creates a fund to help local governments support recycling efforts. That would raise the cost of sending junk mail and help pay for recovering it. As far as the new project ideas, it is right that the junk phone books are a big problem. You sell advertising in phone books on the basis of the number of books you are promising to distribute. So you need to know your print run and distribution before you start. One aspect you may not be aware of is that phone books use a different kind of paper from newspapers, etc. It is more expensive to produce. The technology may have changed, but it used to be true that phone book paper manufacturers (Daishowa in Port Angeles, WA, used to specialize in this paper - I don't know if they still do) could only recycle phone book paper, not other kinds of paper. So they needed programs that segregated phone books. On the one hand we should require phone books to be distributed only to people who specifically request them, and on the other we need to find ways to keep them in a separate waste stream (again, if the technology has not changed). I'm not so sure about the double-sided paper approach. We try to do that here and find that the technology is still lacking. We have equipment breakdowns, wasted employee time and wasted paper too much of the time. I'm not convinced it is ready for folks who are not so committed yet. As for a war on obsolescence, better products are the key. When I was growing up you had to buy a new car every three years because they just could not last more than five years. The entire reason people are holding cars longer now is that the products are better made and can last longer. We are now on the 19th year on our family car and it is still going great. People buy green in new house purchases because they see it as a one-time purchase, so they want to know how long it will last (including the appliances) and they are willing to spend extra to meet their ideals. Other purchases are seen as short-term because the technology is changing so fast they want the product to wear out before the technology is obsolete. You can't even give an old computer to a non-profit in a third-world country (I tried). Fashion is deliberate obsolescence to churn the market. You will not succeed in trying to fight female and teenage fashion unless you can fight the notion that your appearance defines your worth (which is actually true for most people in most situations - just think how long someone would last in a government job if you showed up to work looking like the average middle school student). Cars can be fashion-driven but because of the strong resale market those who must have fashion can dispose of the cars to those who care less or have less ability to spend to be fashionable. Similarly some are able to reuse fashionable clothing, furniture, etc. Bottom line: strengthening product quality leads to longer life times, stronger reuse networks allow fashion-driven items to have a longer life. Unfortunately, the way some of our clothing "reuse" networks have worked in the past has been to destroy the garment and fabric industries in the ultimate receiver societies (case in point, Africa). Don't know how to resolve that problem. E-mail: mruby [A T] envirometrics [D O T] com ---------------------- From Laurie Stoerkel, West Contra Costa Integrated Waste Management Authority, recycling programs, San Pablo, CA: The phone book project appears to limit competition, promote a monopoly and put us in the position of choosing one provider over another. So I vote "no" on that project. I highly support the other three. What would I add to the list? Promote the Irish 15 cents tax on plastic bags; reuse envelopes for utility billing (especially garbage bills); and reducing consumer packaging. Of course, it's best to choose one or two and run with it. Whatever the group decides I would support. E-mail: lauries (A T) recyclemore (D O T) com --------------------- From David Allaway, Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), Solid Waste Policy and Program Development, Portland, OR: I see the phone book, double-sided printing and obsolescence projects as having the most potential. Maybe because I don't understand the SWAT team that well. Specific to phone book reduction, I think we might have better luck focusing on commercial users rather than households, since commercial users (especially in large offices) are more likely to be able to share phone books or have easy access to telephone directories online (as presumably these days most commercial and government facilities have lots of computers), whereas many residents would find online access inconvenient and sharing impractical. On the issue of printers, I suspect that one major printer manufacturer might be interested in participating in a project like this if there is something in it for them. This company's environmental folks have concluded that paper use represents the biggest environmental impact in the life cycle of the printer. I'll note here that City of Portland, Portland Metro, Oregon DEQ and some other local governments in the Portland area are kicking off a project this fall to work with a local copy machine sales/service firm to increase the use of "default duplexing" and recycled paper among its customers. Increasingly, offices are using multi-function machines that combine the features of copiers with printers, so possibly the Portland area project and a Coalition project could converge. The printer campaign seems "safest," in that I can imagine the directory companies being upset with the phone book project and some of the consumer "durables" companies being upset with the obsolescence project - the same "waste prevention is bad for my business and government shouldn't be promoting it" concern that has come up before. E-mail: Allaway (DOT) David (AT) deq (DOT) state (DOT) or (DOT) us -------------------- From Mark Clayton, Right Choice Refreshments, Seattle, WA: How about a war on disposables and the use of excessive packaging when it comes to the consumption of food and beverage items? E-mail: MrSodaWon [ A T ] aol [ D O T ] com ------------------- From Bill Smith, City of Tacoma Solid Waste Management, recycling program, Tacoma, WA: I vote for the double-sided copying project - back to the basics. It's not new and sexy but it's not being done in a lot of places either. E-mail: BSmith (A T) ci (D O T) tacoma (D O T) wa (D O T) us ------------------- From Bruce Nordman, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, CA: Because of my work on paper reduction, naturally I am biased towards a 2-sided paper project. This seems the one most amenable to scientific analysis, and the one which is most costly to society in dollar terms (except for obsolescence). Responding to the question that accompanied the project proposals - "Why isn't waste prevention / source reduction more visible?" - my response is: I continue to believe that waste prevention will be most successful when it is approached for the "materials use efficiency" benefits (including avoided production) rather than for its disposal benefits. There are of course limited exceptions to this, such as when the waste is toxic or hazardous. I don't know what will jump-start wide interest (that is, investment with $$$$) in source reduction, but I doubt it will be due to concerns around recycling. E-mail: bnordman [AT] dante [DOT] lbl [DOT] gov ------------------- From Nancy Abell, City of Monroe, WA: The phone book reduction project gets my vote. Personally, it drives me crazy to get three different phone books. It also seems like a project where you might actually be able to make some quantifiable progress. E-mail: nabell [AT] ci [DOT] monroe [DOT] wa [DOT] us ------------------- From Betsy Rosenberg, Eco Talk radio program, San Francisco, CA: I love all four ideas but the obsolescence one is the one that would have the most impact I think, long term. It appeals to me because it focuses attention on the way we (society) design for waste and make it so difficult for consumers to be conserve-ative! A recent example - Having switched cell phones, just a different model of the same brand, I was forced to buy a new phone charger for the car because it was "different" from the one I had. When I asked if they would take my old one back for recycling or reuse, of course they (Sprint) looked at me like I was from Mars. When I asked why they do that, he said, "Same reason the car and fashion industry comes up with new models all the time, so you buy more." Oy. E-mail: betsy [A T] ecotalk [D O T] net ------------------- From Margaret Kitchell, Seattle, WA: I am so pleased that you have junk phone book reduction as a possible project. I have tried as a citizen to do something about the books, but it has been so hard, and the problem is getting worse every year. E-mail: kitchell (A T) Seanet (D O T) com ------------------- From Karen Higgins, Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, Los Angeles, CA: Great ideas. The main thing is to give people concrete steps to take, so it's not so overwhelming. I haven't succeeded yet on the telephone book issue. I receive three different ones at home. I think they don't want to take you out of the database because they fear they won't know when to put the address back in if a new customer moves in. We adopted two-sided printing a few years ago. It's still not always being done, but it's getting better. E-mail: KHIGGI ( A T ) LADWP ( D O T ) com -------------------- From Renee Kimball, "Enuf! The Planet's Favorite Band," Portland, OR: My observations are a personal response on how I feel about the issues: Junk phone books - An important issue but very "yuppie" feeling in its concern. Waste prevention SWAT team - Great idea but a real burnout maker as there are SOOOOOOO many issues and crap out there it would be easy to get overwhelmed. In addition, it's very discouraging to keep contacting people to take "action" and have them not respond. This concept of getting folks to take action could also be incorporated into whatever other project is done. Double-sided printing - I'm more extreme on this issue than most and would rather focus on the NO printing. Frankly I look down socially on anyone who doesn't double-side photocopy. This also feels more corporate than all-inclusive, which limits the "clientele" that can be approached. War on obsolescence - Now here's something I could sink my teeth into! It is already a strong focus in our buying practices - If there is only a plastic version of what I want, then I feel the shelves are "bare." Another major concern is toxins in the environment. These start out being a "waste" and "waste" everything they touch. Is there possible room for a project in that direction? Tons get overused and dumped each year. A reduction in this area would benefit everyone and everything. E-mail: rrrrenee (A T) aracnet (D O T) com ------------------- From Dale Alekel, King County Solid Waste Division, Seattle, WA: I vote for the SWAT team and the war on obsolescence. These could be combined. I think that many of the problems/concerns that the SWAT team would respond to would be related to obsolescence issues. E-mail: dale [ D O T ] alekel [ A T ] metrokc [ D O T ] gov - end -