WASTE PREVENTION FORUM ARCHIVE   BACK TO ARCHIVE INDEX

28 Aug 03 - disposables; precautionary principle; Mach III; diapers; EPA ** WASTE PREVENTION FORUM ** -- A project of the National Waste Prevention Coalition -------- Forum archive: http://www.reuses.com/nwpcarchive --------------------- Excerpted from an 8/27/03 article by Joseph Kahn in the Boston Globe, following up on a news item posted on the Forum 8/4/03 about the new disposable digital cameras: AT YOUR DISPOSAL In a consumer society built on disposable income, it's safe to say anything goes. But a throwaway digital camera? Now, that's amazing. It wasn't terribly long ago that the digital camera, like the compact disc and cellular phone before it, represented the very latest in cutting-edge technology. Digital cameras were the hot new thing at consumer shows from coast to coast. Everybody wanted one. Early models were extravagantly expensive, true. Yet the public correctly surmised that as with the video recorder and DVD player, prices would drop dramatically once mass-market forces took over. Being able to send snapshots over the Internet, meanwhile, seemed as wondrous as space travel. Wonder has a short shelf-life these days. The new disposable models - called the Dakota, made by Pure Digital Technologies - went on sale this month at select stores nationwide. Retail-industry watchers already predict other manufacturers will follow suit with their own versions, despite the camera's built-in limitations. With the new disposables, images are recorded on a 25-photo capacity memory chip that must be taken to an authorized retailer for transferal onto compact disc. Costing about $11 - plus another $11 for the CD and single-copy prints - the single-use digital lacks features found on more expensive models, notably a screen that allows users to review (and delete) whatever they've shot so far. As a grab-and-go vacation accessory, however, it clearly has the potential to compete with disposable 35mm film cameras. It's also symptomatic of how quickly consumer products cycle from the durable to the discardable. "If you look at the big picture, in a sense everything is becoming disposable," says Tim Brennan, director of development for the Coalition for Environmentally Responsible Economies, a Boston-based organization made up of business, environmental, and investor groups. On three recent occasions, Brennan reports, he took a malfunctioning appliance to a repair shop. Stereo receiver, humidifier, 35mm camera - didn't matter. Each time he was told he'd be better off buying a new one. "They all said, 'Why would you want to fix that?'" says Brennan, rather disconsolately. Lately, he's heard General Motors is developing a hydrogen-powered car with a replaceable, snap-on body. "I guess you just throw the old one away," Brennan muses, conjuring up a time in the not-so-distant future when the guy at the auto-body shop smiles and asks: "Paper or plastic?" The Wall Street Journal just published a lengthy article on the growing trend of remodeled houses being torn down by new owners and rebuilt as even larger, more lavishly appointed mini-mansions. This development in the high-end housing market "sends a message that we are moving toward this disposable housing mentality," says Adrian Scott Fine of the National Trust for Historic Preservation. Unsurprisingly, many environmentalists are disheartened by the trend toward junkable products. Ted Smith, executive director of the Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition in San Jose, Calif., calls the advent of the disposable digital camera "emblematic of the situation we find ourselves in generally - and especially with the high-tech industry, which has been promoting this whole throw-it-away philosophy." Smith, whose organization addresses environmental and health issues related to the high-tech sector, brands it the "next logical progression" in America's single-use mentality. "We're really defoliating our own future and that of future generations," he opines. As Brennan, Smith, and others note, cameras are hardly the only product being designed to march from the retailer's shelf to the garbage can or the recycle bin, more or less directly. A generation ago came disposable baby diapers (first popularized in the 1960s), shaving equipment (the first throwaway shavers were developed in the 1970s) and butane lighters. Each responded to consumer demands for portability, convenience, and in certain instances, hygiene. Then along came such heretofore unimaginables as disposable contact lenses and hearing aids. Fuji marketed the first disposable camera in 1986, revolutionizing the photo business. Meanwhile, American ingenuity has produced the disposable cellphone (use up your prepaid minutes and toss it away) and disposable DVD, which self-destructs within 48 hours, thanks to a bonding resin that begins degrading once the disc's package is opened. Dubbed the EZ-D, the new version is "intended to address people who find renting inconvenient," according to the manufacturer, who's test-marketing the invention this summer. Only a cynic would suppose that any forthcoming "Gigli" DVD will start decomposing before the package is unsealed. -------------------- Guest column in the 8/4/03 San Francisco Chronicle by Jared Blumenfeld, director of the City and County of San Francisco's Department of the Environment: AN ENVIRONMENTAL VERSION OF THE HIPPOCRATIC OATH A bold environmental code became law in San Francisco August 4th, one whose overarching framework is called the Precautionary Principle. Through it, San Francisco is taking a significant step away from the Bush administration's anti-environmental policies. The Precautionary Principle sets out to improve the way we make environmental decisions. While the Bush team asks, "How much environmental harm will be allowed?," in San Francisco, decision-makers will ask a very different question: "How little harm is possible?" San Francisco is a leader in making choices based on the least environmentally harmful alternatives, thereby challenging traditional assumptions about risk management. The 11 existing laws consolidated in the Environment Code have introduced more than 700 zero- or low-emission vehicles to the city's fleet, conserved 6,800 trees and more than half-a-million gallons of water each year by purchasing recycled-content paper, cut toxic-pesticide use in half and protected worker health by designing buildings that use less energy and other precious natural resources. We acknowledge that our world will never be free from risk. However, a risk that is unnecessary, and not freely chosen, is never acceptable. San Francisco's Precautionary Principle, enacted as part of the Environment Code, insists that environmental decision-making be based on rigorous science - science that is explicit about what is known, what is not known and what may never be known about potential hazards. Unfortunately, in today's regulatory system, lack of proof of harm is usually misinterpreted as proof of safety. In San Francisco, we want to create a means to take action despite scientific uncertainty about the degree of a given risk. Too often, regulatory agencies get stuck in "paralysis by analysis"; the new framework removes excuses for inaction on the grounds of scientific uncertainty. The costs of not taking precautionary action are often very high, as we've seen in the case of tobacco, lead and asbestos. Early scientific warnings about risks to health went unheeded by government agencies. As a result, billions of dollars have been spent to deal with the consequences of these problems. Costs include health care and health insurance, lost economic productivity, absenteeism, lost wages and cleanup. The Precautionary Principle process also requires decision-makers to consider possible impact to the local economy. Our Precautionary Principle calls for a careful analysis of a range of alternatives using the best available information. The goal of this process is to determine whether a potentially hazardous activity is necessary, and whether less hazardous options are available. For instance, our pesticide reduction program eliminated all of the most toxic chemicals used by city gardeners and identified less-toxic ways to solve weed and pest problems, some as benign as using goats to clear weed-choked hillsides, or heat cannons to kill termites in walls. Science provides vital evidence for making these decisions. However, elected officials will ultimately use a combination of scientific data and judgments of what is necessary, useful and fair to make environmental decisions. Both locally and internationally, the public bears the direct consequences of environmental decisions. A government's course of action is necessarily enriched by broadly based public participation when a range of alternatives is considered. This concept of environmental democracy is deeply ingrained in San Francisco's Precautionary Principle. At the World Trade Organization, the Bush administration is fighting the European Union's right to restrict imports of genetically modified foods and beef containing hormones, and proposed legislation that would require some 30,000 chemicals now in use to be immediately registered with EU authorities. The failure of the United States to adopt the Precautionary Principle is yet another way in which we are ostracizing ourselves from the rest of the planet. San Francisco's Precautionary Principle presents a historic opportunity to refocus environmental decision-making on reducing harm. In doing so, we are sending a message to Washington: The days of letting polluters and industries set our health and environmental agenda may be over sooner than you think. ---------------------- Excerpted from a message from Yen Chin, City of Seattle, Seattle, WA: MACH III Every time I shave I compose a few paragraphs to send to this listserv, so I'd better just get the writing done and drop the procrastination. A few years ago an old friend who "doesn't endorse products" gave me a Gillette Mach III razor for a seasonal stocking stuffer. He also gave it high praise, something I don't expect to hear in reference to a new consumer product. A year later I complained to him that the razor failed to live up to expectations because I decided to replace the original blades after only nine months. That's right: nine months. And I didn't replace them because they no longer successfully shaved my face and head. In fact, at the end of nine months the blades were doing about as well as my old razor did when it was new. Rather I figured I could treat myself to a bit of unnecessary consumption, and shaving with new blades feels almost like shaving with no blade at all. This razor reduces waste in two ways. First it simply lasts much longer than the razors I used to use. I figure I can get at least ten times the number of shaves out of Mach III blades than out of the twin-blade disposable razor I once used. Second, it saves on shaving cream, since the foam easily passes between the three blades and I can reuse it on other parts that I shave. Typically, I'll apply the shaving cream to my face and reuse it on my head. One can of shaving cream lasts me a very long time as a consequence. My wife thinks that this reuse of shaving cream is disgusting, so please don't tell her I revealed this practice in public. E-mail: Yen [ DOT ] Chin [ AT ] seattle [ DOT ] gov -------------------- Excerpted from an 8/21/03 BBC (British Broadcasting Corporation) News article: GREEN MESSAGE FROM DIAPER PILE A mini-mountain made of filled rubbish bags is being constructed in a Wales seaside town in an attempt to show how much nappy (diaper) waste one baby can create. Sustainable Wales has organized the stunt, which it hopes will bring home to parents the impact on the environment that disposable nappies can have. Sustainable Wales is spearheading a campaign throughout Wales to promote the benefits of reusable nappies - 30,000 nappies are thrown away here every hour. The sculpture is being built in Porthcawl, in south Wales, where the charity has its headquarters. As well as building the nappy mountain, volunteers are also handing out information about nappy laundering services in the area. Cindy Evans of Sustainable Wales said that when parents look at the pile, they "will be able to see for themselves the amount of waste created through the use of disposable nappies. And we will be showing parents that they have a real choice when deciding on the type of nappy to use on their baby - real nappies are natural, easy to use and offer considerable savings." -------------------- Link to a notice from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, seeking nominations from the public for its database of chemical substances in the environment with potential adverse human health effects (from the Reuse Development Organization listserv, forwarded by Leslie Kirkland): http://www.epa.gov/iris/whatsnew/2004nominations/fr_notice.htm Nominations of new chemicals for the database are due by October 14, 2003. - end -