WASTE PREVENTION FORUM ARCHIVE   BACK TO ARCHIVE INDEX

24 Sep 03 - cell phone reuse; batteries; water; consumption; time ** WASTE PREVENTION FORUM ** -- A project of the National Waste Prevention Coalition -------- Forum archive: http://www.reuses.com/nwpcarchive --------------------- Link to listings of cell phone donation programs nationwide, on the ReCellular, Inc. website: http://www.wirelessrecycling.com By just entering your zip code, you can find the nearest place that will accept a used cell phone for reuse or recycling. The listing also tells which charity benefits from each program. On this website, non-profits or charities can also learn how to start their own cell phone collection program. ReCellular, a company based in Dexter, Michigan, is the largest reseller and recycler of used wireless phones. In 2002, more than 1.5 million wireless phones were collected, refurbished and resold or recycled by ReCellular throughout the world. The majority of the phones are resold outside the U.S. ReCellular is a partner with various charitable organizations in their cell phone collection programs. --------------------- Excerpted from an article by Jason Best in the Fall 2003 issue of OnEarth, the magazine of the Natural Resources Defense Council: RECHARGEABLE BATTERY RECYCLING PROGRAM - NOT ALL IT'S CRACKED UP TO BE? Most of us give hardly a thought to these little chemical bundles that power our cell phones, laptops, PDAs (personal digital assistants), and cordless everything, from shavers to camcorders, and which have transformed us into a nation of perambulating multitaskers. (The average American uses five cordless products in their daily life, up from three in 1999.) Their impeccable, compact casing belies the fact that all of these rechargeable batteries - nickel-metal hydride (Ni-MH), lithium-ion (Li-ion), and, nastiest of all, nickel-cadmium (Ni-Cd) - are full of toxic chemicals. In anywhere from one to five years, after they've been recharged between 500 and 1,500 times, these batteries will have to be disposed of - somehow. By 2005, cell phone batteries alone are expected to account for 32,500 tons of waste. The industry's answer to the disposal issue is the Rechargeable Battery Recycling Corporation, or RBRC (http://www.rbrc.org). It turns out that RBRC spends millions of dollars a year trying to make you aware of its existence - without much success, perhaps. Its slick website, like its television and print ads, stars its very own celebrity spokesman, Richard Karn, "Al" from TV's "Home Improvement." All you have to do is key in your zip code (or call 800-8-BATTERY), and RBRC provides you with a list of retail stores near you that voluntarily collect batteries as part of its recycling program. There are 30,000 outlets in the United States and Canada. RBRC was formed by the rechargeable battery industry in 1994, after the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) reported that Ni-Cds, one of the most widely used rechargeable batteries at the time, were responsible for more than half of the cadmium found in municipal solid waste. This attracted the attention of state and federal legislators, since, according to EPA, cadmium is one of the most hazardous chemicals in the environment. Rather than face any more government meddling, the five largest battery manufacturers decided to prove that they could deal with the problem themselves. RBRC was, and remains, the only industrywide "take-back" program in the country, and when it was launched it was hailed as a model of how manufacturers could take responsibility for a product's entire life cycle. In 2001, RBRC decided to accept all rechargeable batteries, not just Ni-Cds. The only problem is that the program doesn't seem to work very well, and no one is checking up on the industry to see if it's making real progress on its promise to recycle its wares. A recent RBRC press release crowed that the organization was on track to collect four million pounds of batteries in 2003. But according to an RBRC report published five years ago, the organization collected about four million pounds in 1997. Moreover, the group had anticipated that by now, it would be collecting more than 14 million pounds per year, or 50 percent of spent rechargeable batteries. That estimate didn't even take into account the subsequent explosion in cell phone use. Obviously, a lot of batteries are getting tossed in the trash. Why? Well, one reason seems to be that people you'd expect to know about RBRC's program - the clerks in the stores that officially participate as battery collectors - don't. I contacted more than 70 stores across the country, big names such as Best Buy, Circuit City, Sears, Target, The Home Depot, and Wal-Mart, and explained my dilemma ("I have an old rechargeable battery that says it needs to be recycled," etc.). Fewer than half of the clerks told me that I could drop my battery off at the store. The more typical response came from an employee at an Oregon Wal-Mart: "Aw, just throw it away," she told me with a "don't worry about it, sugar," laugh. "That's all we do." I did eventually get rid of a rechargeable battery at RadioShack; their clerks were the only ones to consistently provide the right information over the phone about the recycling program. But instead of feeling satisfied that I'd done the right thing, I just felt the smallness of my action. I'm all charged up about this battery problem now, but unfortunately, nobody else seems to be. --------------------- Note from Tom: Just a reminder that the Forum does not run items that deal solely with recycling - we focus on reduction and reuse. However, if an item deals with both recycling AND reduction or reuse, we'll consider it. For example, we're running the article above because rechargeable batteries are a type of reuse, and we're running the query below because of the water-use reduction and conservation angle. --------------------- From Janine Bogar, Thurston County Solid Waste, Olympia, WA: RECYCLING VS. WATER CONSERVATION Does anyone have information on the rinsing of recyclable materials versus the water usage and implications of not rinsing the materials? One of our Solid Waste Advisory Committee members, who also is involved in our waste water treatment plant, is concerned that rinsing the recyclables is wasting water. Thanks! E-mail: bogarj (AT) co (DOT) thurston (DOT) wa (DOT) us ---------------------- Excerpted from an essay by John Monczunski in the July 2003 issue of the University of Notre Dame Magazine: CONSUMPTION, ETHICS AND ECONOMICS At what point does the drive to acquire become a bad thing? And are we there yet? Catholic social teaching cites three instances in which excessive consumption is immoral, says Notre Dame economist Charles Wilber, who played a major role in drafting the U.S. bishops' 1986 pastoral letter on the economy. Catholic social teaching considers excessive consumption morally questionable when other individuals or nations are in need, when the environment is threatened or when it becomes the primary goal of life. On the matter of consumption, we are apparently damned if we do and damned if we don't. On the one hand, we should consume less for all the Catholic social teaching reasons. On the other hand, with the stock market tumbling, companies laying off workers, endowments plummeting and everyone cutting back, we are told we need to consume more. With a sputtering economy, can we lower consumption? Are there reasons we should try? The answers, as usual, tend toward gray. Notre Dame Professor of Economics Amitava Dutt illustrates the point: "Although higher consumption may seem unethical," he says, "when demand is not high enough, as is the case now, it can be argued legitimately that higher consumption actually may help everyone. By creating demand, we create jobs, raising income, helping the poor not only in this country but perhaps in poorer countries where people may be producing these goods." "On the other hand," Dutt reverses, "increased consumption may not be beneficial if people go into debt to finance it. If debt burden grows, this shifts income distribution from the poor to the rich, and therefore demand might go down because the rich typically consume less of a percentage of their total income. Also," he points out, "the luxury items that the rich consume generally are not produced in poor countries, so poor nations are not likely to benefit." In any attempt to determine the ethics of consumption, Dutt says it's useful to consider the most basic question: What is the point of all the binge buying? What is the rabbit we're all chasing? The classic answer is "happiness." But studies have shown that after a certain point consumption does not yield happiness. In fact, it may make us unhappy, Dutt says. Still, most of us cling to the idea that greater consumption means greater happiness. However, Notre Dame sociology professor Eugene Halton argues that the consumption culture enslaves the unwary - which is most of us - by using happiness in "bait-and-switch" tactics. In all of its enticements, consumer culture suggests happiness but really offers pleasure, Halton says. "Yet happiness is something other than pleasure," he points out. "Basically happiness is social, the way we relate to people, the way we love our family, friends and neighbors." Last fall, in his core course, "Making the Modern Material World," Halton had his students play a game that demonstrates just how deeply ingrained consumer culture is in our psyche, especially among young people. He gave each student a stack of colored Post-it notes and then paired them off. The pairs were told to tag any brand they recognized on the other person. An incorrect guess resulted in a Post-it on the forehead. Within a few minutes the 18 students were awash in colored tags, while Halton and I were among the few sporting colored paper on our foreheads. In an impressive display of consumer IQ, the students were able to identify just about everything they saw. As another consciousness-raising exercise to demonstrate the strength and pervasiveness of consumer culture, Halton asked his class not to shop on the day after Thanksgiving, which traditionally begins the Christmas buying orgy. A number of students described the incredulity and annoyance directed at them by friends and family when they declined to take part in the buying ritual. Consuming has become our identity, and if we don't do it at the appropriate time, to the appropriate (excessive) degree, something must be wrong. One response to this is the voluntary simplicity movement. The ideal of this diffuse movement is to scale back, slow down and enjoy life: Get out of debt, live below your means, cut back on work, do the things you really want to do. Until now the movement has been a largely unorganized, diffuse network of like-minded people. However, if it is to have a transforming effect on society it must enter the political arena and move beyond personal lifestyle issues and shift to emphasizing the environment and social justice, write Notre Dame sociologist Joseph Rumbo and Stephen Zavestoski, an assistant professor of sociology at the University of San Francisco. It appears, in fact, that the movement is about to take that next step. The Simplicity Forum, an alliance of about 55 leaders, is sponsoring Take Back Your Time Day, which will be held October 24, 2003. For this event, modeled after the first Earth Day in 1970, organizers are encouraging people to take all or part of the day off work to attend nationwide teach-ins and public events that focus on the epidemic of stress and overwork felt by many Americans, and its harmful effects on health, family and community. Organizers see this as the first step in a campaign to transform the dominant culture to a "simplicity friendly" society. "Affluenza" author and Take Back Your Time Day coordinator John de Graaf says the Simplicity Forum chose the take-back-your-time theme because it realized that overworked Americans are concerned about the issue, even if they're not yet into simplicity. "Everyone complains about never having enough time to do what they want. We understand that we just can't tell people this is about sacrifice. We want to show that there is something to be gained from cutting back and simplifying one's life." As soon as people begin to look at the issue, the link with wasteful consumption becomes apparent, he says. "We consume more throwaways and convenience food items for the simple reason we are in a hurry." But with an economy on the skids and many Americans fearful of losing their jobs, is this the right message at the wrong time? "We want to persuade people that this is precisely the time when this sort of thing is most important," de Graaf says. Economically, he notes, "it would be better for more people to work less, sharing jobs, than for a few to work large amounts of overtime." "Our society has made producing and consuming the ultimate values in life at the expense of other values that ought to be given consideration," de Graaf says. "Our life is out of balance. The national dialogue needs to begin." -------------------- Link to a Take Back Your Time Day downloadable poster that addresses the consumption angle: http://www.simpleliving.net/timeday/posters/pdf/cellphones.pdf A variety of other Take Back Your Time Day downloadable posters are at: http://www.d.umn.edu/~jrock2/timedayposters The main Take Back Your Time Day website is at: http://www.simpleliving.net/timeday - end -