WASTE PREVENTION FORUM ARCHIVE   BACK TO ARCHIVE INDEX

02 Dec 02 - duplexing; durability; buy nothing; holidays; Ikea; deconstruct; California ** WASTE PREVENTION FORUM ** -- A project of the National Waste Prevention Coalition -------- Forum archive: http://www.reuses.com/nwpcarchive -------------------- From Tom Watson, King County Solid Waste Division, Seattle, and the National Waste Prevention Coalition: In working to reduce paper use in King County offices, promoting duplex printing (printing on both sides of a sheet of paper) has been one of our greatest challenges. Duplex copying has become fairly well-accepted, but increasing the amount of duplex printing is a constant struggle. Several of our IT (information technology) people have been opposed to duplex printing ever since we installed some duplex printers a few years ago. Their main argument has been that it results in more printer jams. I heard a new twist on this the other day. One of our IT people told me that he doesn't believe in duplex printing because, even though it reduces paper use, it increases the use of the toxic chemicals used to clean the printers. He said a duplex printer requires four times as much cleaning as a non-duplex printer, using those "nasty" chemicals. In the past, they cleaned the printers once a year, but now they have to clean the duplex printers four times a year, he said. Is anyone familiar with this issue? I'd like to hear what the experience has been in other offices that use duplex printers. Do they always have to be cleaned more often, increasing the use of toxic chemicals? Is there perhaps another way to clean them, with less-toxic chemicals? Thanks. E-mail: tom ( D O T ) watson ( A T ) metrokc ( D O T ) gov -------------------- The next two postings are in response to the recent postings about proposed National Waste Prevention Coalition (NWPC) projects, including a "War on Obsolescence" or "Campaign on Obsolescence." -------------------- From Susan Salterberg, Center for Energy & Environmental Education, University of Northern Iowa, Cedar Falls, IA: I like the slogan mentioned by Mckenna Hallett: Reduce and Reuse before Recycling. I also think people resonate with "planned obsolescence," so I'd support that language with a campaign targeted toward that problem. E-mail: salterberg ( A T ) uni ( D O T ) edu -------------------- From Roger Guttentag, environmental consultant and writer, Harleysville, PA: In my 10/15/02 posting I expressed my belief that the suggested "War on Obsolescence" project was too broad and vague. With due respect to Gina Hawkins and others who like the idea of "Campaign for Durability," I believe that this idea also suffers from the same problem. For example, what do we mean by durability with respect to different classes of product? Does it mean it should have a service life of 5 years, 10 years, 20 years, forever? Some may argue that all products should be repairable in order to be considered durable. Really? What is better, a product that is repairable but has a 25 percent probability of requiring a repair within 2 years of purchase and costs 25 percent more than a product that is not repairable (or very difficult to repair) but has a 99.5 percent chance of lasting 10 years or better without any problems? We could all have a great time arguing over the huge number of definitional and tradeoff issues that are engendered by this topic. I also think that many products made today are actually very durable. For example, in thinking about this issue I realized that I own and continue to use a great many products in my home that are 10 years old or older. This includes a car, computer, small electronics, camera, TV, furniture, home appliances (blender, food processor, washing machine, microwave oven), etc. The last product that I got rid of that was not designed as a disposable product was a coffee maker that saw over 10 years of service before it went to the java afterlife. It cost about $30 and was definitely not worth repairing. With regard to the issue of "planned" obsolescence, I am not sure how much it is a problem outside of electronics (I am ignoring for now clothing fashion crazes - that is really a different animal I think). It is extremely noticeable for electronics because of the high rate of innovation in this industry resulting in products being replaced well before they become inoperable. There is absolutely nothing that can be done or should be done about this. In the long run, we are all better off but it has engendered in the short run an avalanche of electronic product discards. Here the issue is not durability or reparability but ease of upgradability - electronic products are often impossible to upgrade (CD / DVD players) or the cost of significant upgrades is greater than buying a new product (most consumer oriented computers). Part of this is due to competitive pressures to make products as cheap as possible. So maybe what we need is a project called "Up with Upgrades"? Maybe this can be resolved only through a comprehensive producer responsibility system such as is now being negotiated through NEPSI (the National Electronics Product Stewardship Initiative). However, this leads me to my final thought which is to argue that the NWPC should focus on achieving a specific goal in order to accomplish something concrete and useful. Here is my idea. We all agree that the best solution would be electronic products that are reasonably priced, reliable, durable and easily upgradeable. We may also agree that manufacturers are not producing this ideal product for such reasons as concerns over possible impacts on future profits. However, there may be one constituency that would be interested in tackling this issue just for the intellectual challenge - engineering students. Let's offer a modest prize, say $5,000, as well as assurances of receiving non-stop praise, accolades and hosannas, for coming up with a workable design for a common electronic product, say a DVD player, that can be easily upgraded and does not add significant cost to the product. Now, to quote Thomas the Tank Engine, that would be really useful. E-mail: rgutten [ AT ] concentric [ DOT ] net -------------------- Excerpted from a message from Carl Weimer, RE Sources, Bellingham, WA: I thought people might enjoy this item in the 11/28/02 Bellingham Herald about a local business, Dream On Futon, being closed on Buy Nothing Day (which was held last Friday, Nov. 29): http://news.bellinghamherald.com/stories/20021128/Business/119734.shtml Nancy Taylor, owner of Dream On Futon, is a board member of RE Sources and got the idea from the example that our RE Store used building materials stores in Seattle and Bellingham have set by closing for Buy Nothing Day for the past five years. Dream on Futon and the RE Store both ran Buy Nothing Day ads in the local newspapers for the 10 days prior to Buy Nothing Day. Nancy reports that many customers have seen the ads, and called or stopped in to tell her they appreciate her message concerning consumerism. E-mail: carlw (AT) re-sources (DOT) org -------------------- Links to three other articles on Buy Nothing Day: - By Susan Broili in the 11/29/02 Durham (NC) Herald-Sun: http://www.herald-sun.com/orange/10-293983.html - By Scheherazade Daneshkhu in the 11/29/02 Financial Times, London, United Kingdom (note - in England and some other countries, Buy Nothing Day was held on Saturday, Nov. 30): http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=FT.com/StoryFT/FullStory&c=StoryFT&cid=1037872438540 - Column by Robert Jamieson Jr. in the 11/29/02 Seattle Post-Intelligencer: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/jamieson/97728_robert29.shtml -------------------- Link to the transcript of an online chat with Bill McKibben, author of "Hundred Dollar Holiday," on the website of the Center for a New American Dream (forwarded by Susan Salterberg): Note from Susan - I just read this. It addresses the holiday season and consumerism. I encourage people to take a moment and read it for renewed inspiration. (He gave it to me.) http://www.newdream.org/holiday/mckibbenchat.html This online chat, with people from around the country asking McKibben questions, took place in October, 2000. -------------------- Link to an article by John Leland in the 12/1/02 New York Times magazine, "How the Disposable Sofa Conquered America," about Ikea: http://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/01/magazine/01IKEA.html Note - New York Times articles are usually only available on their website for free for a short time after publication, and you may have to register even to see the free articles. Tip: To read the article without all the ads, and all on one web page, click on "Printer-Friendly Format" near the top right-hand corner. -------------------- Link to information on the 11th Rinker International Conference on Deconstruction and Materials Reuse, to be held May 7-10, 2003, in Gainesville, Florida (forwarded by David Flora): http://www.cce.ufl.edu/rinker11/index.htm The conference is sponsored by the Center for Construction and Environment at the University of Florida. The annual meeting of the Used Building Materials Association will be held in conjunction with this conference. -------------------- Excerpted from a message from Sarah Weimer, California Integrated Waste Management Board, Sacramento, CA: REUSE ASSISTANCE GRANTS AVAILABLE FOR LOCAL AGENCIES IN CALIFORNIA The California Integrated Waste Management Board is offering $500,000 for the fiscal years 2002/2003 and 2003/2004 to provide incentives for local public agencies to establish new or expanded reuse opportunities in California. All cities, counties, and regional agencies in California that have obligations to develop and implement waste reduction programs pursuant to the requirements of the Public Resources Code are eligible to apply individually or regionally, and may partner with any entity (such as a business or non-profit). Questions must be submitted in writing by February 1, 2003. For more information or to download the application, visit: http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/Reuse/Grants Applications are due by 2 p.m. on Friday, Feb. 28, 2003. E-mail: sweimer (AT) ciwmb (DOT) ca (DOT) gov - end -