WASTE PREVENTION FORUM ARCHIVE   BACK TO ARCHIVE INDEX

08 Jan 03 - donation ethics; door hangers; underwear; RFP; dry cleaning; Taiwan ** WASTE PREVENTION FORUM ** -- A project of the National Waste Prevention Coalition -------- Forum archive: http://www.reuses.com/nwpcarchive -------------------- The first five postings are in response to the 1/6/03 posting that described a recent message seen on another listserv, where an employee at a state agency in the Southeast was asking people in her office to bring in unopened hotel shampoos, product samples, Happy Meal toys, etc., so they could be collected and distributed to battered women's shelters. -------------------- From Barb Nesheim, Minnesota Technical Assistance Program, Materials Exchange Program, Minneapolis, MN: This is in response to the discussion about the waste reduction implications of collecting samples, etc. for usage by charities. In my mind if the hotel soap, shampoo or samples get used rather than tossed that is accomplishing something. Yes, we would prefer that people use larger size items, and we'd rather not be bombarded by all the junk that comes into our lives. Some of it we can and should work to eliminate. However, I feel this discussion doesn't consider the fact that there is a very real need for these products out there amongst a population group that otherwise might not have access to them. I work with a number of nonprofit organizations such as food shelves, free clothing stores, shelters, etc. through the Minnesota Materials Exchange. Their clients are extremely happy to get those little bars of soap and shampoo bottles because often times they really have nothing. Consider yourself lucky if you don't know firsthand that you can't buy toilet paper, shampoo, toothpaste, etc., with food stamps. Yet these are items people need to interact within society or the workplace. One example - I work with a large corporation that has big rolls of toilet paper in their company's bathrooms. They were replacing these rolls when they got about halfway down, which left a lot of paper on the roll. Of course I suggested they just use up the entire roll, but that suggestion was not taken. Rather than castigate them for their wasteful ways, I was able to find a food shelf that now takes these half-used rolls and puts them out for their clientele to supplement their regular toilet paper allotment. When a family goes to a food shelf they get only one 4-pack of toilet paper, which is supposed to last one month, no matter how big their family is. For some people this corporation's toilet paper fills a very real need. Staff at the food shelf have told me that the paper is taken as soon as it becomes available on the shelves. Again, this is not to suggest that we should abandon all hopes or efforts towards waste reduction. You could say that donating samples, etc., is really just circulating waste, not waste reduction. Rather than get into this discussion I'd rather see that excess items that already do exist are made available for a very needy population. Now those toys from Happy Meals - that's another topic entirely! E-mail: neshe005 (A T) tc (D O T) umn (D O T) edu --------------------- From Mckenna Hallett, Currents - Low Impact Jewelry, Maui, Hawaii: I just must respond to the call for samples and other giveaways being actively collected for redistribution to battered women's shelters. It clearly is a genuinely compassionate campaign, but misdirected in its implications for the waste it encourages. I would even question the ethics in the case of taking hotel sundries with no actual need on the premises for which the guests are staying. Robin Hood aside, if you push this concept far enough we might decide to take sugar or jam packages along with a few extra napkins and so on and so on because we were going to give it to someone who really needs it. Samples to one's home would be fair game of course, but even the toys at the food counters should be refused. If everyone who did not keep or use the toys gave it back at the point of sale it might convince these toy pushers to quit with the generally abusive practice of toy giveaways and might long-term keep this pro-consumptive behavior under control. Wishful thinking? It's a new year - why not? E-mail: mckenna [ A T ] lowerimpact [ D O T ] com -------------------- Excerpted from a message from Jay Shepard, Washington state Department of Ecology, Olympia, WA: If a product is used, there will be another new product replacing it. Leave it on the shelf. There will be one less item to dispose of. If enough were left on the shelf, the product would back up on the production chain and maybe stop being produced. Simply because something exists, does not mean we need to consume it. That's how we got in this mess in the first place. E-mail: jshe461 [A T] ECY [D O T] WA [D O T] GOV --------------------- From Eron Drew, biologist, Seattle, WA: This is in response to the posting regarding the collection of soaps and shampoos for redistribution to local battered women's shelters. Although I am a huge proponent of trying to prevent waste, my mother and I just had this discussion while I was back visiting at Christmas time. She works as the director for a local battered women's shelter and THEY DON'T WANT THESE SOAPS EITHER. Although the woman who posted the original message had good intentions, she fails to recognize that when many women enter a shelter they will be staying for a month or longer. That adds up to a lot of little bottles of shampoo and little bars of soap. My mother has told me that they receive BOXES of these little soaps from people with good intentions and they are never used. If you were staying somewhere for a month or longer, wouldn't you rather have your own bar of large soap rather than to fiddle with those crumbly little bars every day? Personally, I see this "donation" campaign as a way for people to dispose of all those little trinket items that they have fun collecting but don't want, in a way that makes them feel less guilty than pitching them directly in the trash. E-mail: edrew ( A T ) nwifc ( D O T ) org --------------------- From Donald Van Dyke, California Integrated Waste Management Board, Sacramento, CA: If we visit a hotel and either use or take the complimentary toiletries, they are replaced by the hotel. The hotel buys more toiletries, and thus more are produced. More importantly, if we visit a hotel and do not use or take the toiletries, the hotel does not buy more, and more are not produced. It is obviously environmentally preferable for travelers to bring their own toiletries in reusable, refillable containers. The excerpt posted from a message distributed within an office of an unnamed state agency is disturbing, because this state agency is promoting both overpackaging, and stealing. The practice of some hotel patrons of robbing hotels of toiletries and giving them to the needy is actually not uncommon, but it is unfair and inefficient. It is blindly arrogant of any person or agency to decide that they are justified to organize charitable programs that are unwillingly subsidized by the hospitality industry. Additionally, as anyone who has fought the battle to reduce excess packaging would know, providing daily supplies of toiletries to people in tiny little individually packaged portions is as environmentally unconscious as one can get. Two better solutions would be to ASK hotels if they would please donate unused toiletries that might be discarded at the discretion of the hotel for any reason, and ASK manufacturers and distributors for donations of, or price reductions for, toiletries that are packaged in normally sized containers. Robbing these items from the hotels is dishonest and wasteful. On the other hand, hotels should make the toiletries available to customers only upon request. Reusing the other items as described in the posting makes sense. E-mail: DVanDyke [ AT ] CIWMB [ DOT ] ca [ DOT ] gov ---------------------- The next two postings are in response to the 1/6/03 posting about "door hanger" advertisements. ---------------------- From Renee Kimball, Enuf!, Portland, OR: I handle door hangers for products I dislike and recorded political phone messages in the same way. I call the sponsoring party and tell them they DEFINITELY lost my purchase, business or vote because they used this form of advertising. However, there have been several events and important issues I have been alerted to by door hangers, so as long as they are paper and not plastic, I'm OK with it, especially since somebody got a wage for putting them there. We made an electronic billboard in our neighborhood "a financial non-event" the same way. It doesn't take very many potential customers complaining about an advertising method before things change. E-mail: rrrrenee [AT] aracnet [DOT] com ---------------------- From Donald Van Dyke, California Integrated Waste Management Board, Sacramento, CA: I share the concern that was relayed, of those who do not want material hung on their doors to advertise, among other things, when a resident is not home, and thus announce that it is a good time for burglars to come in. I do not think that it would be an infringement of free speech to prevent this practice. Solicitors have, unfortunately, a number of other ways to contact me personally. They can knock on my door and talk to me if I answer. They can phone me if they can find my phone number. They can have the Postal Service stuff my mail box full of whatever they want to, with the aid of reduced bulk mail postal rates. However, in my opinion, a solicitor has no more right to hang material on my door or leave fliers on my front porch as they would to come up to me on the street and hang things on my body or dump paper on the ground in front of me. E-mail: DVanDyke [A T] CIWMB [D O T] ca [D O T] gov --------------------- From Renee Kimball, Enuf!, Portland, OR, responding to the 1/3/03 news item about the new disposable panties being marketed in India: There's something about this whole issue that makes my skin crawl. If you're that weirded out by your own or another's natural daily body functions, panty waste is the least of your problems. Some perverse part of my character has a strong desire to go to a store and stand in the aisle next to where they are displayed and collapse in hysterical fits of laughter while pointing at anyone who picks out a package to buy. E-mail: rrrrenee [ AT ] aracnet [ DOT ] com --------------------- Link to a State of Ohio Request for Proposals (RFP) for a statewide waste characterization study (first seen in the Recycling Today e-newsletter): http://www.ohiodnr.com/recycling/research/wcs/ This is an RFP to conduct a statewide waste sort and analysis. The results will be used to identify materials that can be removed from the solid waste stream for recycling and reuse. Proposals are due by Jan. 31, 2003. The budget for this study is $100,000, with the expectation of an additional $50,000 from participating Solid Waste Management Districts. The sorts will be done at six to 10 selected landfills, and possibly two to four selected transfer stations. Waste will be sorted into about 28 categories and 26 sub-categories. --------------------- Excerpted from an article in the February 2003 Consumer Reports magazine about dry cleaning alternatives: Environmental concerns and the telltale odor of the standard dry cleaning solvent perchloroethylene ("perc") have opened the door to three new methods of dry cleaning: - GreenEarth, a silicone-based solvent used in modified dry cleaning machines. - Liquid carbon dioxide (CO2) used in high-pressure cleaning machines. - "Wet cleaning" with plain water in computer-controlled washing machines. In recent testing, using identical sets of garments, Consumer Reports compared the new cleaning methods to conventional cleaning with perc. In these cleaning tests, the C02 and silicone-based processes performed as well as or better than conventional dry cleaning, for about the same price. Wet cleaning was less impressive. Locations of cleaners who use the silicone solvent can be found at: http://www.greenearthcleaning.com Click on "Roster of Cleaners." Locations of cleaners who use the CO2 method can be found at: http://www.hangersdrycleaners.com Click on "Store Locations." --------------------- Excerpted from an article by Chiu Yu-Tzu in the 1/6/03 Taipei (Taiwan) Times: TAIWAN ENVIRONMENTAL ADMINISTRATOR STANDS HIS GROUND ON PLASTICS BAN Taiwan Environmental Protection Administrator Hau Lung-bin has withstood his share of criticism over a policy to cut plastic consumption, but he says he has never doubted the need to press ahead. He says his resolve to push through regulations limiting the use of plastic bags and dining utensils has never wavered. "I do have great sympathy for the affected workers of the plastics industry. But we have done our best to offer them as many job opportunities as we can," Hau told the Taipei Times. According to the Taiwan Environmental Protection Administration, Taiwan government programs this year will create about 8,400 jobs for laid-off plastics-industry workers. Hau said that the public needs to be educated for the sake of Taiwan's sustainable development. To deal with challenges from opposition lawmakers, Hau, the only Cabinet-level chief from the pro-unification New Party, spoke up last week at the legislature. "We set up the policy because we love Taiwan," Hau said. He has said that he would step down if the policy failed to reduce the amount of plastic waste. The first stage of the controversial policy was launched on July 1 last year, when all government-run stores were banned from providing free plastic shopping bags to customers. Three months later, a ban on disposable utensils and food containers was imposed at government-operated grocery stores and restaurants. Beginning on Jan. 1, the second stage of the policy came into effect with the ban on free bags and utensils extended to department stores, supermarkets, fast-food restaurants, convenience stores and almost every type of retailer except street vendors. It is estimated that about 76,000 stores in the nation are affected. Since early last year, when the Taiwan EPA was planning details of the policy, Hau has been criticized by the plastics industry, which claims that the policy will eventually affect 50,000 workers. Meanwhile, some environmental groups said that the Taiwan EPA should have banned the use of all materials containing the plastic PVC, which produces dioxin during combustion. Amid the controversy, Hau reiterated that the policy is aimed at changing consumers' habits and was not intended to harm the plastics industry. One example often cited by Taiwan EPA officials to illustrate the disadvantages of using plastic bags was the clogged drainage systems of Taipei City during the floods caused by Typhoon Nari in September, 2001. Hau has called the policy "a revolution in living." The policy was welcomed by some environmental groups, which believe that less consumption of plastic materials will help improve the environment. Some groups, however, said they are worried about other materials being used to replace disposable plastic items. "If paper substitutes are readily available, I don't think people will lose the habit of using something only once," said Lai Wei-chieh of the Green Citizen Action Alliance. Three days after the implementation of the new policy, Lai said that he saw a noodle dish in a chain store being wrapped in seven layers of paper. In addition, Lai said, the implementation of the policy put the burden of looking after unemployed plastics-industry workers on the government's shoulders, even though the industry is in decline. - end -