WASTE PREVENTION FORUM ARCHIVE
|
|
|
|
WASTE PREVENTION FORUM ARCHIVE |
|
21 Oct 02 - online banking; peanuts; electronics; bags; junk mail; 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 Stephanie Miles in the 10/21/02 Wall Street Journal: ONLINE BANKING CATCHES ON After years of false starts, online banking is finally catching on. By the end of this year, the number of households that bank online is expected to reach 24.3 million - nearly double the number of households as the end of 2000, according to Jupiter Research, of Darien, CT. The reasons for this surge, say banks and industry analysts, is simple familiarity. As consumers become more comfortable with the Internet in general, they're also embracing the idea of handling their finances over the Web. -------------------- From the website of the Plastic Loose Fill Council, Oakland, CA: The Plastic Loose Fill Council was founded in 1991 to promote the reuse of polystyrene loose fill, commonly known as "packing peanuts." The Council was created by the major U.S. manufacturers of polystyrene loose fill packaging. The Council operates the Peanut Hotline, a national, 24-hour consumer hotline. This toll-free number provides callers with the nearest location that accepts polystyrene packing peanuts for reuse. The number for the hotline is (800) 828-2214. According to the Plastic Loose Fill Council: - The Peanut Hotline receives close to 5,000 calls monthly and more during the holidays. - Since it was started, the Hotline has referred more than 800,000 callers to local businesses that accept polystyrene peanuts for reuse. - There are more than 1,500 collection sites for polystyrene peanuts in the U.S. - More than 30 percent of all polystyrene peanuts are reused. - Collection centers (which are primarily shipping businesses) report that 50 percent of their loose fill needs are met with reusable polystyrene peanuts donated by consumers. Stores that accept polystyrene peanuts for reuse can sign up to be listed with the Peanut Hotline by paying an annual fee of $30. For more information, see the Plastic Loose Fill Council's website at: http://www.loosefillpackaging.com -------------------- Excerpted from a 10/17/02 press release from ElectroniCycle, Gardner, MA (forwarded by Marcia Rutan): MASSACHUSETTS CRT RECYCLING CONTRACT INCLUDES REUSE ElectroniCycle, Inc. of Gardner, MA, has been awarded a new competitive contract from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to recycle cathode ray tubes (CRTs) from TVs and computer equipment in Massachusetts. ElectroniCycle expects to collect and recycle 75,000 CRTs per year under the contract. The material will be collected from state office buildings, universities, municipalities and charities. Massachusetts' contract requires ElectroniCycle to check for working equipment, which the company will distribute to charities or to repair shops. The unrepairable equipment, usually 80 percent, will be broken down into raw materials for recycling. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts' procurement document for this contract and others - the Request for Response for Collection and Recycling of Fluorescent Lamps and Mercury-Containing Devices, and Cathode Ray Tubes, Computers and Electronics - is at: ftp://ftp.comm-pass.com/Data/01351703.PDF Wording related to reuse and repair of CRTs is on page 15 of this document. -------------------- Excerpted from a message from Jay Shepard, Washington state Department of Ecology, Olympia, WA, responding to the 10/15/02 query about garment bags: Regarding plastic versus paper garment bags, please read this article from the Union of Concerned Scientists: http://www.ucsusa.org/Nucleus/99sp.betterhomes.html It's about their book, "The Consumer's Guide to Effective Environmental Choices." As described in the book, the issue isn't paper versus plastic, it's what you put in the bag. From a sustainability standpoint, and a product stewardship standpoint, this is the far greater issue. For garments, take a look at the material and energy intensity of the product. What is it made of - synthetic, wool, cotton, blend? Was the cotton or wool produced without pesticides? Are the dyes used safe for the environment and workers during the manufacturing process? Where was it made? Who made it? Was it sweat shop labor? How durable is the product? Will the purchase contribute to the local economy, or is your purchasing dollar contributing to the profits of a company far away? A more important area to look at is the food you purchase to put in the grocery bag. Where was it grown? How far did it travel to get to your market? Was it grown with pesticides? How much land was required to grow it? How much water? It's hard to find answers to these questions. It's hard to make decisions about purchases without good information. It's hard to live with this kind of ethic when it is so different from the society we live in. The first step is awareness, you and I paying attention to what we buy. As the consuming end of the product stewardship cycle, it is our responsibility. So, take a look at the tags and labels - know where your products were made and what it's made out of. As for the bag, tell them to keep it. E-mail: jshe461 (A T) ecy (D O T) wa (D O T) gov -------------------- Excerpted from a 10/17/02 article by John Schwartz on the front page of the New York Times: MANY MARKETERS TAKE SAME OLD APPROACH TO PRIVACY, JUNK MAIL ISSUES Businesses, responding to lawmakers and consumers, say they are giving customers more ways than ever to control how their personal information is used and sold. But, in fact, many companies all but frustrate their customers' attempts to exercise that control. Facing new laws in half a dozen states and the threat of legislation in other states and in Congress, businesses have claimed to give customers more control over the use of their personal information. But Janice Abrahams, a Web site designer who operates an Internet site (http://www.privacyparts.com) devoted to online privacy practices, recently gave up after weeks of trying to create a page that would identify online services by their privacy practices. "I feel like I've been nailing Jell-O to a tree - with my head," she said. When Yahoo changed its policies earlier this year to make it clear that it could send e-mail and paper mail and even make sales calls to its tens of millions of registered users, it set off a storm of protest. Outbursts have followed similar moves by eBay and America Online. At the Direct Marketing Association web site (http://www.the-dma.org), consumers who want to remove their name from many junk mail lists find that they must sign up by mail, or spend $5 and provide a credit card number to accomplish the same task over the Internet. Putting one's name on a do-not-call list for telemarketers requires a second letter or $5 Internet payment. Louis Mastria, a spokesman for the organization, said the charge was "just to defray costs," not an attempt to deter consumers. -------------------- The next four postings are comments on the proposals for a new National Waste Prevention Coalition (NWPC) project, following up on previous postings. To see the original project proposals, subsequent comments and new proposals, see the past four installments of the Forum (click on the link to the Forum archive at the top of this message). -------------------- From Julie Rhodes, Reuse Development Organization, Indianapolis, IN: In response to Roger Guttentag's 10/15/02 posting: Wild Oats Market, the national health food retail chain, does what Roger has suggested. When they first opened, they offered a free cloth grocery bag to each customer. Thereafter, they charged for the bags, and carry them in their stores on a regular basis. When you bring that bag in for reuse (or any bag for that matter), you receive five cents off your purchase, or a wooden nickel which can be put in a bin to support local charities. Also, regarding the other proposals for a new NWPC project, I far and away like the idea of the War on Obsolescence. But, I might also add a War on Disposables or should I say non-repairables (supporting durables). I think people need to understand the consequences of buying cheap, poorly made, non-repairable, short-lived items. I think a national campaign along these lines could be an important first step in helping some people understand the result of these impulsive purchases. Perhaps the spin should be an easy to comprehend cost-benefit analysis. Or, just a play on the need for instant gratification - a light-hearted poke at people's inability to deny themselves. I do, however, think the struggle is just like the one we faced in the "buy recycled plastic lumber" promotions. Many times, people don't care if something of quality will last more than five years because they don't plan to be in their house that long. They just want a fence or deck to last until they can sell their house, and move on to the bigger, better house. I do agree that the War on Obsolescence should first target the electronics industry that is manufacturing and selling the computers, cell phones, and other items that have only a short life compared to the investment. One reason I think this is critically important is that we aren't just talking about waste generation here. We are talking about toxic, hazardous waste generation, and therefore the need is just that much more critical. Obviously, making electronics more easily upgraded or repaired allows for not only the opportunity to extend the life for the original owner, but also for future owners who, in many cases, are those who otherwise could not afford access to the technology (helping close the digital divide). E-mail: info [AT] redo [DOT] org ------------------- Excerpted from a message by Roger Guttentag, environmental consultant and writer, Harleysville, PA, following up on his 10/15/02 posting: I received a message from Seattle noting that two supermarket chains there sell reusable cloth bags with logos on them and offer discounts for their use. This being the case, then the project suggestion I made can be amended to focus on locating any other examples and then evaluating them to determine if they can serve as effective models for other supermarket chains to emulate. For example, what are the estimated number of shoppers that use these bags, what is the average bag utilization rate, what kind of shopper is most likely to use them, etc. One possible obstacle to the use of store-branded reusable shopping bags that I just thought of is that shoppers (like myself) often like to patronize several different supermarket chains and may feel odd using one chain's bag in the store of another supermarket chain. The solution may be a "universal" reusable shopping bag that can be used in (and receive rebates, prizes, etc. from) any supermarket within a certain region. E-mail: rgutten (A T) concentric (D O T) net --------------------- From Susan Salterberg, Center for Energy & Environmental Education, University of Northern Iowa, Cedar Falls, IA: Regarding the idea for a NWPC project on reducing grocery waste, I would add a suggestion that we look at promoting locally grown (and, ideally, organic - although maybe locally grown is the first step). I have never seen any studies on the waste reduction in buying local vs. food shipped 1,000-plus miles, but there certainly would be a load of energy savings, and packaging savings, etc., etc. Anyone know of research done in this area? As for the suggestion to eliminate phone books: I don't want to have my computer on 7 days, 15 hours a day - in part because of the energy it would use. Plus, living in a rural area with an "obsolete" computer makes it very time-consuming to think of relying on the computer every time I need a phone number. It's been good to hear the various ideas. E-mail: salterberg ( A T ) uni ( D O T ) edu ---------------------- From Meg Lynch, Metro, Regional Environmental Management, waste reduction programs, Portland, OR: I saw the suggestion in the latest Waste Prevention Forum about online phone books. Interestingly enough, one of my co-workers and I were just discussing this very subject a day or so ago. At Metro, for the past couple of years, we've been encouraged to use the online Qwest (the local phone company) phone directories rather than take new paper directories. Of course, my co-worker and I embraced this wholeheartedly. The cruel light of experience, however, has demonstrated to us that a two-year-old paper phone directory is often more accurate than an online one. In other words, one looks up the phone number for a restaurant or shoe store or county office in the online directory, and nada; one looks it up in the paper directory, and voila! Perhaps this is not the case in other parts of the country with more professionally run phone companies, but it is in Portland Qwest land. So, next time we are given the option of getting a paper directory, I'll get one, rather than "rely" on an inaccurate online one. E-mail: lynchm ( AT ) metro ( DOT ) dst ( DOT ) or ( DOT ) us - end - |
