| |
26 May 05 - diapers; expiration dates; electronics; job; lunch trays
** WASTE PREVENTION FORUM **
-- A project of the National Waste Prevention Coalition
--------
Forum archive: http://www.nwpcarchive.org
---------------------
Link to information on a May 2005 report, "Life Cycle Assessment of
Disposable and Reusable Nappies in the UK" (nappy is the British term for
diaper), from the national Environment Agency in the United Kingdom:
MAJOR UK STUDY SAYS DISPOSABLE AND CLOTH DIAPERS HAVE SAME ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT
http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/yourenv/857406/1072214
According
to the Environment Agency, "We commissioned a comprehensive, independent
study to establish the true environmental impacts of using disposable and
reusable nappies. We compared using disposable nappies, washing reusables at
home and using a laundry service. To make the comparison fair we examined
all the impacts while a child was wearing nappies. We found that there was
little or no difference between the different types of nappy.... Neither
type of nappy is better or worse for the environment."
The Agency's web page about the study (above) also gives suggestions about
how users of reusable diapers, manufacturers of disposable diapers, diaper
laundries and government agencies can help reduce the environmental impacts
from diapers.
A 5/19/05 press release from the Environment Agency about the study is at:
http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/news/1072187?version=1&lang=_e
------------------------
Link to a 5/26/05 ABC News story by Amanda Onion about the reaction in the
U.S. and Britain to the new report (above) concluding that disposable
diapers have the same environmental impact as reusable cloth diapers:
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=789465&page=1
------------------------
From Michelle Portman, Department of Environmental Protection, Waterways
Program, Boston, MA, responding to the news article posted 5/23/05 about the
growing movement to salvage some of the estimated $1 billion worth of unused
drugs that are disposed of in the U.S. each year:
I hope the idea of recycling some medicine takes off. I never know what to
do with my expired unused "EpiPens" (used for allergic reaction to bee
stings). These cartridges with all their packaging apparently expire every
year. I always get a few so I have them in different bags and locations
which ends up generating a lot of waste. I took them to my town's household
hazardous waste collection and was turned away. So, they invariably end up
in the garbage. I'd really like to know if their efficacy lasts only a year
or is their expiration date in any way influenced by drug company profit
seeking? Ideas anyone?
E-mail: Michelle [D O T] Portman [A T] state [D O T] ma [D O T] us
------------------------
Excerpted from a message from Maggie Clarke, Hunter College, New York, NY:
NEW YORK CITY E-WASTE BILL INTRODUCED
On May 25, the New York City Council introduced comprehensive electronics
take-back legislation for the City. A copy of the bill is posted at:
http://geography.hunter.cuny.edu/~mclarke/WPComm.htm
This bill requires any manufacturer of computers, TVs, portable digital
music players (such as iPods) and other specified electronic equipment that
sells such goods in NYC to set-up a free "take-back" system to collect and
then recycle or reuse these items. To continue selling their goods in NYC,
manufacturers would have to submit waste management plans to the City's
Sanitation Department by 1/1/08 detailing, among other things, how they will
collect and recycle/reuse the equipment once it is either discarded or is
no longer wanted by its owner. The bill covers both residential and
commercial e-waste.
The bill does not require any specific collection program be set up, but
rather leaves it the manufacturers to design the most efficient system.
Manufacturers can set up this "take-back" program on their own or create an
industry consortium to satisfy the law. Manufacturers would also be
responsible for a "pro rata" share of NYC "orphan waste." Manufacturers
would need to ensure that any collection programs meet specified
"performance standards" - specifically, they would need to meet minimum
collection rates based upon average annual sales in the city. By 2010, the
collection rate would need to be 30 percent of sales; this rate rises to 55
percent by 2015; and 80 percent by 2018. To encourage the reuse of
electronic equipment, the bill would give manufacturers double credit in
meeting its minimum collection rates for any unit either donated to the NYC
Education Department or a non-profit organization benefiting low-income NYC
kids and families.
Thanks to Mark A. Izeman, Senior Attorney, Natural Resources Defense
Council, for this write-up.
If you want to provide support or comments on the bill, send them to Carmen
Cognetta, infcogne [ A T ] council [ D O T ] nyc [ D O T ] ny [ D O T ] us, and send a copy to the NYC Waste
Prevention Coalition: nycwpcsteering (A T) yahoogroups (D O T) com Thanks!
E-mail: mclarke ( A T ) hunter ( D O T ) cuny ( D O T ) edu
------------------------
Excerpted from an article by Anthony DePalma in the 5/25/05 New York Times:
MANUFACTURERS EXPECTED TO FIGHT NYC ELECTRONICS BILL
The electronics recycling and reuse bill introduced this week in the New
York City Council (above) would be one of the toughest laws in the nation to
force manufacturers to take the discarded devices back.
Electronic devices are a mounting concern because they can contain
potentially toxic substances like lead, mercury and chromium. The U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency estimates that 70 percent of the heavy
metals in landfills leach from electronic equipment. Although electronic
waste now accounts for less than 1 percent of the city's residential trash,
Council officials say they think that number will grow dramatically because
many old computers and other pieces of equipment being hoarded in basements
and closets will eventually be discarded. Officials say that only about 10
percent of this growing mound of electronic waste is recycled.
Councilman Michael E. McMahon, the chairman of the Sanitation Committee and
a sponsor of the bill along with Speaker Gifford Miller and Bill de Blasio,
said the new law would be an integral part of the solid waste management
plan that the city is putting together. But the new law is unlikely to be
passed without a fight from manufacturers and retailers, who agree that
something must be done about old computers but worry that it will be
impossible to comply with a patchwork of laws. Four states have already
passed legislation, and bills have been introduced in more than 20 others.
"We actually support a recycling initiative by government but in our view,
it should be a national standard," said Gary Shapiro, president of the
Consumer Electronics Association, which represents manufacturers and some
retailers. Mr. Shapiro said the proposed New York City law seemed "pretty
onerous," and he said he was surprised that it did not force retailers to
share responsibility with manufacturers for taking back outdated electronic
devices, which would be similar to the current New York state system for
recycling beverage bottles. Unlike the bottle law, which imposes a five-cent
deposit per container, the new electronics bill specifically prohibits
manufacturers from imposing any fees on consumers to cover the cost of
recycling.
Mark A. Izeman, a lawyer with the Natural Resources Defense Council who
helped draft the bill, said forcing manufacturers to take responsibility for
their products, as they do in Europe, would encourage them to use fewer
toxins and to design devices that could be more easily reused. "Right now,
manufacturers have no financial incentive to design products that facilitate
reuse," Mr. Izeman said.
------------------------
Link to a job posting for a Waste Reduction Coordinator for the Chittenden
Solid Waste District, Williston, VT:
http://www.cswd.net/recycling/job_wrc.shtml
This person will work on
recycling, composting, and other waste reduction programs. Responsibilities
include providing outreach and making presentations to K-12 schools, and
coordinating community programs for the District. The annual salary for
this full-time position is $33,554. The deadline for applications is June
6, 2005.
------------------------
Excerpted from a 5/19/05 article by Susan Coney in the Newtown (CT) Bee
newspaper:
SIXTH GRADE SCIENCE CLASS VS. DISPOSABLE LUNCH TRAYS
What initially began as a simple lesson on the environment for sixth grade
science teacher Todd Stentiford's class at Reed Intermediate School in
Newtown quickly evolved into an intensive unit of study. "Our class was
studying the environment and then narrowed the topic down to waste at our
school," said Mr. Stentiford. "Someone mentioned how wasteful it was to use
disposable lunch trays, and that's the path of study we followed."
Once his students' interests were piqued, Mr. Stentiford provided the sixth
graders with a list of websites where they could do further investigative
work on the negative impact disposable lunch trays have on the environment.
The children learned that the lunch trays were made of polystyrene. After
conducting research, the students became very concerned and decided to write
letters to Joe LaChance, director of food services for Chartwells, the food
service company that provides the entire lunch program for all of Newtown's
schools. The class objective is to persuade Mr. LaChance to change to
washable trays.
Sixth grader Evelyn Fahey said, "I didn't know that polystyrene wasn't
biodegradable. We use so much polystyrene that we don't even realize it."
Student Jane Ellen Anderson said in her letter, "There are 2.9 billion
pounds of polystyrene in landfills around the world. That's a lot,
considering that polystyrene is 95 percent air. Our school alone is
producing so much waste in one year. We use 300 polystyrene lunch trays
every day, sometimes even more. After 182 days of school, we use
approximately 54,600 trays." She concluded her letter: "Think about it this
way; if everyone keeps using as much polystyrene as they have been for the
next few hundred years, the earth won't be healthy enough to grow those
great fruits and veggies that you like to serve us."
Sixth grader Joshua Volpe wrote, "In this school, as you may know, we have
had a dish washing facility since the day this school opened; not once have
we used it to clean a student's tray! If we don't use this machine then that
is another $16,892.51 (the price of the dishwasher) down the drain." Student
Brandon Weiner added in his letter, "Why would we spend over $16,000 on an
industrial dishwasher if were just going to spend even more money to buy
polystyrene trays over and over again?" Abhinav Tyagarajan, a sixth grader,
provided Mr. LaChance with a mathematical breakdown of the cost
effectiveness of using reusable trays as opposed to the polystyrene ones. A
small portion of his argument went as follows, "If we switch to plastic
trays we would save about $2,700 per year! Wow! In fact if we had started
using plastic trays when this school had opened we would have saved about
$8,100."
The students recently completed their letters to Mr. LaChance and are hoping
that he will consider what they have to say and eliminate the use of
disposable lunch trays in all of the Newtown schools.
- end -
|
