| |
01 Jun 05 - marketing; peanuts; diapers; paper; packaging; style; responsibility; bags
** WASTE PREVENTION FORUM **
-- A project of the National Waste Prevention Coalition
--------
Forum archive: http://www.nwpcarchive.org
---------------------
From Angie Timmons, Hennepin County Environmental Services, Waste Reduction
and Recycling, Minneapolis, MN:
I'm looking for examples of anyone who has actually applied community-based
social marketing techniques to implement a waste reduction or recycling
program and has some results to share. Thanks.
E-mail: angie [D O T] timmons [A T] co [D O T] hennepin [D O T] mn [D O T] us
---------------------
From Marybeth Gardam, Corrugated Solutions, Des Moines, IA:
I have a start-up business in Des Moines, Iowa. I collect used corrugated
cardboard at small and midsize businesses around the metro area who are not
currently recycling. I pick it up for free (at the moment). I process it
into a packing material that replaces polystyrene packing peanuts and bubble
wrap, so folks can buy one material instead of two and have it be a
biodegradable packing material, instead of those darn petrochemical
products. We have diverted tons of cardboard from the local landfills in
the last year and we will be diverting much more as our sales continue to
pick up.
My question is this: Someone told me that someplace in California they had
started to FINE folks who put their packing peanuts out in their trash. But
I have not been able to find any documentation of this. Is anyone aware of
a town or county that has prohibited polystyrene peanuts from going into the
garbage and instituted a fine for folks who ignore the prohibition?
If people are interested in learning more about my business or product, they
can check out my website at: http://www.corrugatedsolutions.biz
Thanks.
E-mail: Mbgardam (A T) aol (D O T) com
---------------------
From Christy Shelton, Cascadia Consulting Group, Seattle, WA, responding to
the 5/26/05 postings about the new report from the Environment Agency in the
United Kingdom, which concluded that disposable diapers have the same
environmental impact as reusable cloth diapers:
I can't let the latest study pass by without sending along some responses
(especially as I'm going through a lot of cloth diapers with my 1-month-old
these days!).
The Real Diaper Association pointed out flaws in the study methodology and
also noted that the study did not consider issues related to renewable
resources (vs. petroleum products), kids' health (e.g., dioxin, asthma,
future reproductive impacts due to elevated temperatures), or age of toilet
training (may be sooner with cloth). The study included only very limited
analysis of diaper services, which use their economies of scale to wash
diapers more efficiently. The Real Diaper Association press release about
the study is at:
http://www.realdiaperassociation.org/pressrelease_uk-diaperstudy.php
The Women's Environmental Network in the UK released a more detailed
critique:
http://www.wen.org.uk/general_pages/Newsitems/ms_LCA19.5.05.htm
(Diapers are known as nappies in the UK.)
Of course, any diapering will have an environmental impact. Here's a
waste-preventing alternative, but I don't know anyone who's tried it:
http://www.natural-wisdom.com
E-mail: christy (A T) cascadiaconsulting (D O T) com
---------------------
Link to the new website for the City of Seattle's internal paper reduction
program for City agencies:
http://www.seattle.gov/papercuts/default.htm
This website has extensive
resources and information on paper conservation.
---------------------
Link to information on a new amendment to the Packaging Ordinance in Germany
(seen in the Gallon Environment Letter):
http://www.bmu.de/english/waste_management/general_information/doc/35155.php
This May 2005 update is on the website of the Federal Environment
Ministry in Germany. According to the Ministry, since the German Packaging
Ordinance went into effect in 1991, the consumption of packaging in Germany
was reduced by 1.4 million tonnes per year. However, the percentage of
one-way packaging continuously rose in the years before the introduction of
a deposit on drink cans. Since the deposit on one-way packaging was
introduced in January 2003, reusable packaging is again being bought more
frequently. During the first year after the deposit became compulsory, the
share of reusable packaging rose by 10 per cent.
---------------------
Link to the website for the Sustainable Style Foundation:
http://www.sustainablestyle.org/home.html
The Sustainable Style
Foundation is a Seattle-based international nonprofit organization created
to provide information, resources and innovative programs that promote
sustainable living and sustainable design.
---------------------
Link to the "Recognition of Responsibility" statement, which is being
promoted by the Skyfish Project:
http://www.skyfishproject.org/ror.html
Those who sign and submit this
statement are pledging to live a more sustainable lifestyle. First drafted
in the spring of 2002 by the Yale Student Environmental Coalition, the
Recognition of Responsibility is now being circulated by the Skyfish
Project, an Internet-based "think tank."
---------------------
Excerpted from an article by Suzanne Herel in the 5/13/05 San Francisco
Chronicle:
SAN FRANCISCO GROCERY STORE BAG FEE LACKS PUBLIC SUPPORT;
SUPERVISORS PONDER LOWER CHARGE, OTHER WAYS TO REDUCE USE
A city proposal to charge San Francisco grocery stores 17 cents per shopping
bag - a fee that could be passed on to consumers - appears to be headed for
the rubbish bin.
"The 17-cent fee is a non-starter," said Supervisor Ross Mirkarimi, who was
a leading City Hall supporter of the proposed surcharge as a way to reduce
bag use. But don't start double-bagging just yet: There may be a lesser fee
and, in any case, the Board of Supervisors wants to look at a variety of
alternatives to cut back on bag usage - most of which involve the plastic
variety, blamed by environmentalists for everything from clogging recycling
machines to killing marine life.
Although a number of other countries charge a fee for plastic bags - or ban
them altogether - such a fee would be a first for a U.S. city. Judging by
the letters sent to the board, public opinion is running against the bag
fee, which was initially proposed by the city's Department of the
Environment in November. Meanwhile, one of two studies the environment
department commissioned on the proposal indicated that a 17-cent-per-bag fee
wasn't justified after determining the number of bags actually used in the
city and dividing the overall cost of disposing the bags among them, sources
familiar with the study said.
The environment department originally estimated that 50 million disposable
shopping bags were used annually, but the study - which is under review by
the city attorney's office and yet to be released publicly - put the figure
at closer to 150 million. If the cost to the city of disposing bags is
divided among more of them, it reduces the per-bag fee that needs to be
charged to recover the expense, Mirkarimi said, adding that a more realistic
levy would be 4 or 5 cents. Mirkarimi added that he never intended for the
surcharge to be passed onto consumers, though if it weren't, it presumably
wouldn't have the effect of changing people's behavior, which Mirkarimi and
environmentalists hope for. Knowing that there is little City Hall could do
to prevent the plastics and grocery industries from passing along a
surcharge to consumers, Supervisor Sean Elsbernd said any type of fee is
going to be a hard sell and should only be imposed as a last resort.
A second study commissioned by the city environment department looked at
policy alternatives to the fee as well as the economic impact on low- and
fixed-income residents and - because this is San Francisco - on dog owners,
who use the bags to clean up after their pets. That study, too, has yet to
be released to the public.
An industry-funded group called the Progressive Bag Alliance already has hit
the streets to kill any bag fee, putting up flyers and a new Web site:
http://www.sfbagrecycling.com The message
of this campaign is that the fee will be a burden on the elderly, working
families and the poor; that most San Francisco residents strongly oppose it;
and that there are alternative solutions to reducing bag use.
"We think there is a better way to get litter off the street than a tax that
will hurt working families," said Donna Dempsey, executive director of the
Film and Bag Federation, which is part of the Progressive Bag Alliance.
Dempsey said her group would be offering its members free lettering on bags
for a message to encourage their proper disposal. In addition, the
organization wants to urge grocery store workers to fill bags with more
items, and not to double-bag. "The money is not going toward lobbying or
killing a bill, but to offer real, long-term, sustainable solutions," she
said.
Mirkarimi, however, called the Progressive Bag Alliance disingenuous. "The
plastics council is deathly afraid of this effort, or they wouldn't have
spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to kill something when the
legislation hasn't even been crafted yet," he said. "I would like to see
legislation that leverages the obligation of the American Plastics Council
and the National Grocers Association to tell us how they're going to reduce
our use of plastics. If they're serious about reducing plastic, they need to
cough it up and show how to do it."
- end -
|
