| |
18 Mar 05 - binders; toilet paper; roots; ChemLawn; cleaners; steam; bags
** WASTE PREVENTION FORUM **
-- A project of the National Waste Prevention Coalition
--------
Forum archive: http://www.nwpcarchive.org
---------------------
From Amy Joslin, Multnomah County Sustainability Initiative, Portland, OR:
Are folks aware of options to refurbish used binders to promote reuse? Our
binders frequently end up in the trash because they don't look "like new" or
due to preferences for plastic covers. Thanks.
E-mail: amy [DOT] m [DOT] joslin [AT] co [DOT] multnomah [DOT] or [DOT] us [DOT]
---------------------
From Susan Kinsella, Conservatree, San Francisco, CA, responding to the
3/11/05 posting about Procter & Gamble's new "Charmin Mega Roll" size of
toilet paper, which is the size of four regular rolls:
While the packaging source reduction is great, Charmin is one of the brands
that adamantly and proudly refuses to use recycled content. So, while the
source reduction element is positive, it also encourages people to use even
more of a toilet paper made from trees, an awfully environmentally wasteful
way to make the product. It's possible that this packaging improvement might
get adopted by producers of recycled content toilet paper, but what we've
seen is that the "new! improved!" kinds of things are done only to the
premium brands, not to those considered "value brands." It's not that they
couldn't be done to the value brands, too, but the point of the value brands
- where most of the recycled content is concentrated - is to be cheap, so
their producers don't bother with most of the other hoopla directed towards
sales.
E-mail: paper [ AT ] conservatree [ DOT ] org
---------------------
From Lisa Friend, RE Sources, Bellingham, WA:
A local contractor asked me to recommend an environmentally-friendly root
killer for French drains. I said I couldn't think of anything but a
rotating blade system, but that wouldn't keep the roots from growing back.
He says the old-timers used lime. I can't think of any product that
wouldn't be harmful to either the growing plant / tree or harmful to
groundwater. Does anyone have any suggestions? Thanks.
E-mail: recycle [ A T ] re-sources [ D O T ] org
---------------------
Link to the website for the new "Refuse to Use ChemLawn" campaign, a project
of the Toxics Action Center, a Boston-based environmental group (forwarded
by Jim Neely):
http://www.refusetousechemlawn.org
According to a March 2005 report on the "Refuse to Use ChemLawn" website,
"TruGreen ChemLawn is the largest lawn care provider in the United States,
serving more than 3.4 million households and annually generating more than
$1.3 billion in income... 17 of 32 (53 percent) of TruGreen ChemLawn's
pesticide products include ingredients that are possible carcinogens, as
defined by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the World
Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC)."
In this campaign, the Toxics Action Center urges residential and commercial
customers to stop using TruGreen ChemLawn until the company changes the way
it does its business. The Toxics Action Center is also demanding that
TruGreen ChemLawn:
- Immediately stop the use of pesticides considered possible carcinogens by
EPA and the IARC.
- Disclose all ingredients in their pesticide products, including the
"inert" ingredients.
- Offer a comprehensive organic lawn care program that does not use
pesticides or synthetic fertilizers, and require its field staff to pass an
accredited organic lawn care program.
- Stop using children to market products. (From May 2003 through December
2004, TruGreen ChemLawn had a partnership with US Youth Soccer, encouraging
families to hire TruGreen ChemLawn in exchange for financial support from
the company for local youth soccer leagues.)
----------------------
Link to a guide aimed at janitorial workers, "Cleaners and Toxins: How to
Get Toxic Cleaning Products Out of Your Workplace and Out of the
Environment" (first seen in the Gallon Environment Letter):
http://www.leas.ca/pdf/Toxins%20Guide.pdf
This comprehensive guide was
published about four years ago by the Labour Environmental Alliance Society,
Vancouver, British Columbia.
----------------------
Excerpted from a column by James Cummings in the 3/11/05 Dayton Daily News:
NEW PRODUCT CLEANS WITH STEAM INSTEAD OF CHEMICALS
One look in just about anybody's bathroom cabinets is enough to demonstrate
that America is a chemically dependent nation. Most households have at least
four or five different cleaning products lying around, and most of them are
toxic to some degree.
Shark Euro-Pro has imported an idea that's popular in Europe, using steam
instead of chemicals to clean and sanitize surfaces around the home. The
Shark Steam Bottle, according to its distributors, produces bursts of steam
that cut through stubborn dirt and leave a germ-free surface behind. The
Dayton Daily News tested a Shark Steam Bottle and found it fairly effective
and fairly easy to use, but not always as easy or effective as the chemicals
it seeks to replace. It should prove popular with people wishing to decrease
the amount of toxic materials in their homes, but it might not be for
everybody.
To use the Steam Bottle, the person doing the cleaning fills the reservoir
in the bottom of the bottle with plain tap water or distilled water using a
measuring cup that comes with the unit. Plug in the cord, and in 30 to 60
seconds a blue light comes on indicating the bottle is ready for use. When
you hold the bottle close to the surface to be cleaned and pull the trigger,
a strong burst of steam lasting about two seconds is produced. The trigger
is re-squeezed every few seconds to keep the cleaning action going. A wipe
with a clean, white cotton cloth removes the dirt loosened by the steam. For
more stubborn stains, the Steam Bottle comes with stiff-bristled nylon-brush
attachments that clip onto the end of the steam outlet.
Also included with the kit are an extension for directing steam under the
toilet-bowl rim and other tight spots and a squeegee for windows and
mirrors. The device is primarily intended for hard surfaces, but it comes
with a cloth pad and instructions for cleaning stains from color-fast
upholstery. It's clear that the Steam Bottle was crafted by talented
engineers. It's lightweight (less than 1.5 pounds) and easy to grip, with a
wide trigger that doesn't cause finger fatigue. It has a grounded plug and a
heavy-duty 14-foot-long cord that make it possible to clean small rooms
without switching plugs. The side of the reservoir is colored plastic that
lets the user see how much water is left. During testing the reservoir was
still nearly half full after about 45 minutes of cleaning.
In most tests, the Steam Bottle cleaned about as well as a typical
glass-and-surface cleaner. Its most impressive performance came in cleaning
a work table. Something sticky had glued a piece of light carbon package to
the table, and the Steam Bottle with a nylon brush removed the mess in less
than a minute. It was also good cleaning food spills from an enameled range
top and chalky hard-water stains from a black plastic aquarium hood. It was
less effective on a bathtub ring. Steaming and wiping hard with a damp cloth
removed the ring, but ordinary bathroom scouring powder did it faster and
better. The Steam Bottle broke up the greasy dust on top of a range exhaust
hood, but it left a sticky slurry that was hard to wipe away.
For more information on the Shark Steam Bottle, go to
http://www.sharkcompany.com (Click on
"Steam Cleaners" and then "Portable Steamers.") The suggested retail price
is $49.99. Shark Euro-Pro says it can be purchased from several national
retailers, including Macy's, Target, Walgreens and Bed, Bath & Beyond.
------------------------
Excerpted from a 3/14/05 Environment News Service article (forwarded by Jeff
Gaisford):
AUSTRALIANS REDUCE USE OF PLASTIC SHOPPING BAGS
Australians are trying to stop using so many plastic shopping bags, and
according to two reports issued by Australia Environment Minister Senator
Ian Campbell March 12, they are succeeding. The plastic bags litter the
landscape, block drains and creeks, and injure wildlife on land and at sea.
The two new reports, one from sustainability consultants Nolan ITU,
commissioned by the Department of the Environment and Heritage in December
2004, and the other from the Australian Retailers Association, both indicate
the number of bags issued has fallen.
Overall, Australians have reduced bag use by around 21 percent since 2002,
the reports show. "Supermarkets are leading the way and I challenge others,
particularly small retailers and the clothing and department store sectors,
to follow their lead," Campbell said. "In 2002, we used an estimated six
billion lightweight carry plastic bags," he said. "That's a phenomenal
amount of waste, which is not only an eyesore but potentially lethal to some
of our wildlife." The new survey by Nolan ITU estimates that 4.77 billion
lightweight plastic carry bags - or 613 per household - were used during
2004 compared with 5.95 billion in 2002.
Senator Campbell said more work needs to be done with the non-supermarket
retailers which have only reduced bag use by between 10 and 15 percent. "The
good news is, according to the Nolan ITU report, supermarkets have managed
to reduce their use of lightweight plastic bags by 25 percent. This is
consistent with retailers' findings that major supermarkets have recorded a
similar impressive decrease of 26.9 percent," the minister said.
The Australian Retailers Association (ARA) is implementing the voluntary
Code of Practice Target for the Management of Plastic Bags. Agreed to in
2003, the Code aims to reduce plastic bag use by 50 percent by the end of
2005. If the targets are not achieved, the ARA says "it is highly likely
that a ban or tax of 25 cents per plastic bag will be applied." A tax would
cost consumers millions of dollars and cause serious administrative and
operational inefficiencies for retailers, the Association claims. Already 90
percent of supermarkets have committed to the Code, but much wider
participation is essential from all types of business that issue bags,
including fast food outlets, liquor stores, pharmacies and newsagents, said
Stan Moore, chief executive of the ARA.
The Say No to Plastic Bags campaign, run by Clean Up Australia in
partnership with retailers and government, aims to encourage the community
to change its behavior to reduce bags and increase recycling. Clean Up
Australia suggests that retailers offer alternatives for sale in-store, such
as cloth bags, polypropylene bags, recycled paper or string bags, baskets or
boxes. Biodegradable bags made out of cornstarch are a good option for some
stores, the organization recommends. One of the main aims of the Clean Up
Australia campaign this year is to increase participation by
non-supermarkets and smaller retailers. Single-use plastic bags from these
outlets now account for over half of all plastic bags, the group says. Clean
Up Australia offers a comprehensive kit to help any retailer, large or
small, start reducing plastic bag use and increase recycling.
- end -
|
