| |
11 Jan 05 - Tweel; diapers; consumer goods; iPod; ReadyMade
** WASTE PREVENTION FORUM **
-- A project of the National Waste Prevention Coalition
--------
Forum archive: http://www.nwpcarchive.org
---------------------
Excerpted from a column by Norman Mayersohn in the 1/3/05 New York Times:
REINVENTING THE WHEEL - AND THE TIRE, TOO
The first automobile to use air-filled tires was a racecar built by the
Michelin brothers in the early 1890s. Now, after decades spent persuading
the world to ride on air, the company has begun work on an innovation that
could render the pneumatic tire obsolete. Engineers at Michelin's American
technology center in Greenville, SC, envision a future in which vehicles
would ride on what they call the Tweel, a combined tire and wheel that could
never go flat because it contains no air.
A single-piece tire and wheel assembly offers a number of benefits beyond
the obvious attraction of being impervious to nails in the road. The tread
will last two to three times as long as today's radial tires, Michelin says,
and when it does wear thin it can be retreaded. For manufacturers, the Tweel
offers an opportunity to reduce the number of parts, eliminating most of the
23 components of a typical new tire as well as the costly air-pressure
monitors that will soon be required on new vehicles in the United States.
Mounted on a car, the Tweel is a single unit, though it actually begins as
an assembly of four pieces bonded together: the hub, a polyurethane spoke
section, a "shear band" surrounding the spokes, and the tread band - the
rubber layer that wraps around the circumference and touches the pavement.
While the Tweel's hub functions as it would in a normal wheel - a rigid
attachment point to the axle - the polyurethane spokes are flexible to help
absorb road impacts. The shear band surrounding the spokes effectively takes
the place of the air pressure, distributing the load. The tread is similar
in appearance to a conventional tire.
The Tweel auto project is in its infancy, and only a single set of car
Tweels exist, on an Audi A4 sedan used for test drives at Michelin's
research center. Logical uses - military vehicles, for example - would come
years before automobiles. Michelin's business projections accommodate the
possibility that the Tweel may not be an overnight success. This would be
nothing new for Michelin: the radial tire it invented in 1946 was not widely
accepted in the United States until the 1970s.
A photo of the Tweel, on the Michelin media website, is at:
http://www.michelinmedia.com/releases/tweel/michelin_tweel/michelin_tweel_audi/TweelAudi.jpg
----------------------
The next four messages are in response to the recent postings about diapers.
----------------------
From Bruce Nordman, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, CA:
Regarding the reference to environmental impacts of diaper options, I wrote
an article for Home Energy magazine in 1991 (unfortunately their online
archives only reach back to 1993) showing that both the assumptions on which
the key life cycle analyses of the issue were based on were flawed, as well
as the methodology, in that it didn't reflect the many real decisions and
options that people have in diapering. I studied only the energy
implications of diaper options and at that time cloth diapering could lead
to much less - or considerably more - energy use than disposables, depending
on how they were used. The variation within cloth diapering options was far
more than the supposed difference between the "average" cloth and average
disposable. This is a flaw in many life cycle analysis-based studies - they
are used to draw conclusions far beyond what the study considers. While
both types of diapers have evolved since, I think the same basic conclusion
holds: If you are concerned about energy consumption you can minimize it by
efficiently using cloth diapers. If you aren't, then cloth diapering could
easily end up using more energy. It depends more on the user and behavior
than about inherent "facts" about the products themselves.
E-mail: BNordman [A T] LBL [D O T] gov
----------------------
From John Crisley, Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection,
Municipal Waste Reduction Program, Boston, MA:
I have enjoyed the discussion about diaper use. I want to share a bit about
my experience using a cloth diaper service for our first child, who is 9
months old this week. Like many other people on the Waste Prevention Forum,
I was concerned about generating large numbers of dirty disposable diapers
and about the health of our newborn.
My wife and I live just north of Boston, and we are lucky to have a cloth
diaper service (http://www.changinghabits.com
) that services our town even though they
are located in western Massachusetts (that's about an 80-mile service area).
The service costs about $65-$70 per month and provides us with about 80
clean, cloth diapers per week. They pick up a bag of dirty diapers on
Wednesday mornings and rotate in the clean ones they picked up from the
previous week. I cannot say enough good things about how well this service
works for my wife and I. The cloth diapers come in 3 sizes and the service
provides a synthetic diaper cover that closes with Velcro.
(I know the diapers are imported so I can't speak to how they were made or
the pesticides use on the cotton. However, a cloth diaper is just a
rectangle of cloth stitched around the edge. So I can imagine producing an
organic cloth would be a matter of finding a manufacturer and increasing
demand for the product.)
We went out and bought extra, organic wool diaper covers from a web source
(http://www.alternativebaby.com ) and have
found the wool covers breathe better (the brand name is called Tiny Hinnies
and I believe they're made by a small company in Oregon). Alternative Baby
also sells a wonderful, organic salve appropriately called "Miracle Salve."
The diaper service cautioned us not to use standard salves that contain zinc
oxide because it stains the cloth diapers.
Our day care provider likes that we use cloth because we take our dirty
diapers home with us each day and her husband has less trash to take out to
the curb.
The combination of the cloth diapers and organic salve keeps our 9-month-old
rash-free and happy. We do use a disposable diaper that is gel- and
chlorine-free overnight. In terms of waste generation, we still don't set
out more then one garbage can per week.
E-mail: John ( D O T ) Crisley ( A T ) state ( D O T ) ma ( D O T ) us
----------------------
From Julie Haas-Wajdowicz, City of Antioch, environmental programs, Antioch,
CA:
We have been happily using cloth diapers on my 16-month-old daughter since
we brought her home from the hospital. I have many friends and family that
are always asking us how expensive having a baby really is and we tell them
that due to our decision to use cloth (which we launder ourselves every 3
days in our high efficiency washer) and breast feed, the only expense we
have is day care! We are hoping that our success will result in a few
people choosing cloth as well. I have already handed down her outgrown
diaper covers to a new mother who was very excited to see how easy cloth
diapers could be.
A lot of people have issues with dealing with the dirty diapers. I think it
is important to point out that soiled disposable diapers should really not
be just thrown in the garbage to be landfilled. Landfills are not set up
for poop, the sewage treatment plant is! It is a lot easier to flush off a
cloth diaper then a disposable one!
E-mail: jhaas-wajdowicz ( AT ) ci ( DOT ) antioch ( DOT ) ca ( DOT ) us
----------------------
From Don Van Dyke, California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB),
Business Resource Efficiency and Waste Reduction Section, Sacramento, CA:
This web page in the CIWMB's Waste Prevention Information Exchange provides
links to cloth diaper vendors, vendors of supplies to make cloth diapers, a
couple of organizations that promote reusable diapers, and a couple of
companies that promote biodegradable diapers:
http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/WPIE/HealthCare/Diapers.htm
.
E-mail: DVanDyke [A T] CIWMB [D O T] ca [D O T] gov
----------------------
Item by Paul Rauber in the Jan./Feb. 2005 Sierra magazine, published by the
Sierra Club:
TEN DUMBEST CONSUMER GOODS
"Only ten?" OK, it was a tough choice. Some waste exorbitant amounts of
energy, others turn precious natural resources into trivial junk, while
still others encourage us to consume for the sake of consumption. Here then
are ten of the sorriest ways to dispose of your disposable income:
1. Talk 'n toss cell phones. Their inventor was inspired by wanting to toss
her regular cell out her car window. Now she can! Upside: If they're
littering the highways they won't clog up landfills.
2. Leaf blowers. Using a leaf blower for half an hour is equivalent to
driving a car 110 miles. And all it gets you is leaves on the other side of
the driveway.
3. Disposable DVDs. Disney and Flexplay are marketing DVDs that become
unplayable 48 hours after the seal is broken. They can be mailed in for
recycling, but would people who couldn't be bothered to mail in a rental
really do so?
4. Lunchables. Processed meat, fatty cheese, and crackers in an
unrecyclable plastic tray, wrapped in more plastic and then cardboard. Kids
deserve better.
5. Disposable toilet cleaners. Instead of a brush that lasts for years, you
can now spend a lot of money for flushable toilet brushes.
6. Imported bottled water. Even if your tap water is undrinkable, your H20
doesn't have to be shipped in tiny bottles halfway around the globe.
7. AOL CDs. The glut of 400 million unsolicited discs a year has inspired
numerous recycling attempts. Beer coasters? Sushi platters? Mailbox
reflectors? But trash they are and to trash they shall return.
8. Swiffers. "You can just throw away the dust with the cloth!" exults the
Web site for these rags-on-a-stick. Somehow it doesn't sound like progress.
9. Disposable underwear. Disks of cloth with an adhesive that sticks
directly to your pants. They even come in camo!
10.The Hummer. Ostentatious energy waste as a reason for being. A special
lifetime achievement award.
----------------------
Link to a Computer TakeBack Campaign website targeting Apple Computer for
not doing enough to reduce solid and toxic wastes (forwarded by Ted Smith):
http://www.badapple.biz This new campaign
primarily targets Apple's iPod music player. According to the website, "The
iPods contain toxics like lead and other harmful chemicals that are
associated with infertility and brain damage. And because Apple has
designed the iPod so that consumers cannot easily replace the batteries,
consumers will either have to pay Apple a hefty fee to replace them or throw
the used-up iPods in the trash...."
The campaign asks Apple to "Design products that are free of poisonous
toxins" and "Provide free and convenient recycling for its products." The
campaign also urges people to e-mail Apple CEO Steve Jobs to complain.
The Computer TakeBack Campaign was founded by 14 environmental and activist
organizations, listed on this web page:
http://www.computertakeback.com/about/founders.cfm
----------------------
Excerpted from an interview by Jennifer Hattam of ReadyMade magazine editor
Shoshana Berger, in the Jan./Feb. 2005 Sierra magazine:
GIVING SEX APPEAL TO SUSTAINABILITY AND REUSE
Shoshana Berger presides over a magazine that tells readers how to make
purses out of plastic bags and wine racks from old box springs, but don't
call her a crafter. That word's Popsicle-stick-and-Elmer's-glue connotations
make her cringe. And the hip (but not haughty), thirty-something Berger
hardly fits the stereotype of a granny crocheting her doily.
Born and bred in Berkeley, California, Berger found herself drawn to people
who were cutting unconventional paths in the world. A freelance writer and
editor with a pop-culture and high-tech bent, she and her artist friends
would get together on weekends and "make stuff" - dragging furniture off the
street to strip and sand it, turning old tea tins into clocks, and sewing
blankets out of vintage sweaters. The "do it yourself" (or DIY) ethic was a
big part of their lives, but despite the glut of media created for their age
group, Berger realized that "there was no magazine on the newsstand that
really spoke to us and for us."
So in December 2001, Berger and a former colleague, Grace Hawthorne,
launched ReadyMade magazine with a print run of 35,000. Initially a
quarterly publication, it went bimonthly in early 2004 and now has 300,000
readers, many of them urban tinkerers who submit most of the ideas shown in
its pages (and often model their own designs). Part home-improvement manual
and part lifestyle-magazine satire, one typical issue of ReadyMade featured
an aviation-industry junkyard, instructions for making a skirt out of old
umbrella panels, and a nonprofit that builds wheelchairs from scavenged
materials in developing countries. The magazine's emphasis on creative reuse
rather than shopping may seem to be swimming against the tide. But as
editor-in-chief, Berger is trying to make innovative recycling as sexy and
fashionable as the latest styles from SoHo.
Sierra: Where did the magazine's name come from?
Berger: "ReadyMade" comes from Marcel Duchamp, who took an industrial
artifact - a urinal - stood it on its back, called it Fountain, and
exhibited it as art. The idea of his readymades was to take an everyday
object and to reinvent it, to imbue it with meaning. For us, it's the same
project, but we believe it shouldn't be relegated to the gallery - it should
be part of everyone's everyday mindset that the built world around us is not
disposable; that the things in it were made at the expense of great energy,
and they should not be just blithely cast off. They should be reused, down
to the gristle, and they should be honored by being reinvented in
interesting ways.
Sierra: Unlike other lifestyle magazines, ReadyMade doesn't promote lots of
stuff. Is reducing consumption a deliberate part of your mission?
Berger: Absolutely. Magazines like Real Simple and Organic Style have this
cloak of simplification, but really they're pushing more product on you.
ReadyMade readers are not anticonsumerist per se, but they have a certain
reverence for objects, and believe that purchasing choices are important.
That's part of our mandate: to look critically at this cultural moment and
what it's producing. For instance, ReadyMade has a section where we also
push products, but they have to meet two criteria: great design and
sustainability. We firmly believe that environmentalism has to come through
example, rather than through pedantics. We try to make our projects and
products cool enough that readers are going to want them, whether they're
interested in sustainable design or not. The magazine has to be fun, and
cheeky, and have the same attitude you would expect from a friend or peer.
Sierra: Does your reluctance to push product create problems with
advertisers?
Berger: Advertisers see our readers as budget-minded, and interested in
creating rather than buying. So it's been a challenge to convince them that
these people do buy, they just buy in a conscientious way.
Sierra: Is the DIY movement just the latest incarnation of a
back-to-land-type fad, or part of a real change in how we think about the
way we live?
Berger: In our society, it's all about getting everything you need - and a
lot of stuff you don't - right now. So there will always be people who feel
like that is a kind of gluttony. But in another way, I think (the DIY
movement is) very specifically part of the DNA of our generation, the first
generation to grow up with personal computers and this huge saturation of
media geared toward us. Young people grew up sitting in front of one screen
or another, which takes us away from the more tactile, artisan world that
our grandparents lived in. We hanker for that feeling of reward when you
make something with your hands, creating something out of nothing.
Sierra: How can environmentalists better appeal to people who want to live a
more sustainable lifestyle, but don't want to leave out the "style"?
Berger: The idea of linking environmentalism to denial and compromise is an
old stigma that the movement has to shake off. That's part of what ReadyMade
is trying to do. It's giving some sex appeal to sustainability and reuse.
Any kind of heavy-handed message is doomed to fail. You have to give people
a reason that is more concrete and tangible to them than that they're saving
the earth. They might feel powerless to do that, or they might not think the
earth needs saving. So you have to give them another incentive. And you also
offer them alternatives that are equally comforting and fulfilling. If you
push environmental products that look like crap, people are not going to
accept them. I think that's been a great lesson with hybrid cars. The
better-looking they get, and the more like "real" cars they get, the more
consumers accept them. It's kind of a no-brainer. I drove in a Prius for the
first time about a month ago, and I was completely blown away by how
well-styled and comfortable it was. It just felt like a luxury car. And I
was like, sign me up!
Sierra: So we can't really make self-denial cool, but we can make
environmental choices more palatable by making them more pleasurable.
Berger: Absolutely. With ReadyMade's projects, it's also about putting an
individual stamp on things: You made this thing that's specific to you, and
part of your personality has come out through it. There's definitely
something to not wanting to have the same Pottery Barn table that everybody
else has. For example, in one issue we ran a "MacGyver" challenge asking
readers to do some kind of creative reuse with blown-out speakers. People
came up with the most ingenious solutions - lighting fixtures, planter
boxes, shelves - and they are very handsome, high-end-looking pieces of
furniture. When someone walks into your apartment and says, "That is the
coolest thing I have ever seen! Where did you get that?" you can tell them
you made it. There's so much more sex appeal to that than in saying you
bought it down the street at Ikea.
- end -
|
