WASTE PREVENTION FORUM ARCHIVE   BACK TO ARCHIVE INDEX

05 Jul 07 - imports; curricula; TV; water; mail; webcasts; jobs; iPhone ** WASTE PREVENTION FORUM ** -- A project of the National Waste Prevention Coalition -------- Forum archive: http://www.nwpcarchive.org --------------------- From David Allaway, Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, Solid Waste Policy & Program Development, Portland, OR: For those who work on waste prevention, a significant new study shines some light on a very important topic: pollution emissions abroad associated with producing goods that we consume here in the United States. This is one of the first studies to quantify the overseas pollution burdens of our domestic consumption. The article, "Embodied Environmental Emissions in U.S. International Trade, 1997-2004", was written by Christopher L. Weber and H. Scott Matthews of Carnegie Mellon University. Published June 13th on the website of Environmental Science & Technology, the article examines CO2, SO2, and NOx emissions for products made in other countries but purchased by American consumers. Most accounting frameworks assign these production-related emissions to the countries where the emissions occur. As U.S. consumption increasingly shifts from domestic- to foreign-made goods, and our domestic economy shifts away from manufacturing, conventional greenhouse gas accounting frameworks make it look as if U.S. emissions are decreasing (all other things being equal). But in reality, the environmental impacts of our consumption are rising, not falling. For example, the authors find that in 1997, net embodied CO2 in U.S. imports (carbon emissions associated with overseas production of imported goods, less carbon emissions associated with domestic production of exported goods) were about 0 to 0.3 gigatons of CO2, or 0 - 5% above and beyond U.S. "conventional" CO2 emissions. By 2004, net embodied CO2 in U.S. imports had risen to between 0.3 and 1.3 gigatons, or 5 - 21% above and beyond U.S. CO2 emissions. Put differently, conventional accounting, by disregarding the overseas emissions associated with producing the stuff Americans buy, undercounted the greenhouse gas impact of the U.S. economy by 5 - 21% in 2004, and that number is rising. Not surprisingly, China is the largest - and most rapidly growing - source of emissions embodied in imports to the U.S. To quote the study, "though the U.S.'s share of (global) production-based CO2 emissions shrank between 1997 and 2004, the share of consumption-based CO2 emissions increased, due to increased trade volume and to shifting toward more carbon intensive trading partners. If these trends continue unaltered, and the U.S. continues toward a more service-based economy, it is conceivable that the embodied emissions of imports could exceed domestic production-related emissions within 20 years. Further, shifting to less CO2-intensive energy in the U.S. could be negated by increased trade with CO2-intensive economies." For those of us who work in waste prevention, the study is significant for several reasons: - It suggests that conventional greenhouse gas accounting systems - which focus on emissions sources such as domestic transportation, domestic energy use, and landfills - significantly undercount the importance of producing the goods that eventually end up as waste. - As such, the greenhouse gas benefit of waste prevention is much larger than many conventional accounting systems would suggest. Waste prevention and "environmental purchasing" have important roles to play in reducing American's contributions to global warming. - Where goods are produced may be a very important criterion for environmental purchasing - not only because of transportation and freight, but perhaps more significantly because of differences in energy sources and pollution controls between U.S. producers and producers in other countries. E-mail: Allaway [ D O T ] David [ A T ] deq [ D O T ] state [ D O T ] or [ D O T ] us --------------------- Excerpted from a message from Sondra Flite, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Trenton, NJ, responding to the 6/14/07 posting seeking good curricula on sustainability: For grades 7-12, and also for adults, I like the federal Project Learning Tree's "Municipal Solid Waste" model. It talks about how society has hitherto been rewarded for using things up and passing the cleanup burden to someone else. E-mail: Sondra [ D O T ] Flite [ A T ] dep [ D O T ] state [ D O T ] nj [ D O T ] us Note: Info on this curriculum is at: http://www.plt.org/cms/pages/21_21_13.html An overview of its activities is at: http://65.109.144.97/curriculum/Municipal%20Solid%20Waste.pdf --------------------- From Tom Watson, King County Solid Waste Division, Seattle, WA, and the National Waste Prevention Coalition: The DIY Network (a digital cable TV network) has a new one-hour special called "Green Me Up." It is a reality show where two neighboring families in Seattle competed to see which is the "greenest." I was asked to be the judge for the show, and I had a lot of fun with it. Each family did more than 40 projects and activities, such as adding insulation, installing energy-efficient appliances, reducing consumption and removing carpets. I was very impressed with what they did. The winning family received a new mini electric car worth $14,000. But both families really won, because they got a number of green products, and the services of a contractor, for free. The show will air for the first time this Saturday, July 7, at 9 p.m. Eastern time (6 p.m. West Coast time). It will be replayed four hours later, and will be aired again on Sunday. Aug. 5 at 9 p.m. Eastern time and again four hours later. About 43 million homes receive the DIY Network on DIRECTV channel 230 or the DISH Network on channel 111 (confirm channels in your area). Here's a blurb about the show: http://www.diynetwork.com/diy/specials/episode/0,2046,DIY_14360_51465,00 ..html I also did an article about this show for the Seattle Times home and garden section. It will run Saturday July 7th, and should be posted on this page after the 7th: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/homegarden E-mail: tom [DOT] watson [AT] metrokc [DOT] gov --------------------- From Desmond Machuca, City of SeaTac, Public Works, SeaTac, WA: When you have time, you may enjoy this short article and quiz. Please don't skip the quiz, it's short. Gratefulness for Water: http://www.gratefulness.org/p/water.cfm E-mail: dmachuca [ AT ] ci [ DOT ] seatac [ DOT ] wa [ DOT ] us --------------------- Excerpted from a 6/26/07 Environmental News Service article (forwarded by Jim Neely): SAN FRANCISCO MAYOR BANS BOTTLED WATER AT CITY AGENCIES Mayor Gavin Newsom of San Francisco issued an order June 25 to permanently phase out the purchase of bottled water by the City and County of San Francisco. As of July 1, there is a ban on any city department or agency purchasing single-serving bottles of water using city funds, unless an employee contract specifies usage. This prohibition will apply to city contractors and city funded and/or sponsored events. By Sept. 30, 2007, all city departments and agencies occupying either city or rental properties will have completed an audit to determine the viability of switching from bottled water dispensers to bottle-less water dispensers that utilize local public water. By Dec. 1, 2007, all city departments and agencies occupying either city or rental properties will have installed bottle-less water dispensers that use local public water. Newsom said the environmental impact of the bottled water industry has been "profound." He cited figures from the Container Recycling Institute: Supplying the plastic water bottles that American consumers purchase in one year requires more than 47 million gallons of oil, the equivalent of one billion pounds of carbon dioxide that is released into the atmosphere. More than one billion plastic water bottles end up in California's landfills each year, taking 1,000 years to biodegrade and leaking toxic additives such as phthalates into the groundwater, Newsom said. Water diverted from local aquifers for the bottled water industry can strain surrounding ecosystems, he said, adding that "transporting bottled water by boat, truck and train involves burning massive quantities of fossil fuels." "All of this waste and pollution is generated by a product that by objective standards is often inferior to the quality of San Francisco's pristine tap water," the mayor said. The International Bottled Water Association was critical of the move, saying that the Mayor's comments and actions only encourage an unnecessary and confusing "bottled water versus tap water" debate. Plastic beverage bottles are among the most recycled packaging in this country and beverage companies continue to reduce the amount of plastic used in their packaging, said the association, adding that "Rather than focusing on one beverage choice, it would make more sense for our government officials to focus on improving recycling rates for all consumer packaging." --------------------- From Tom Watson, King County Solid Waste Division, Seattle, WA, and the National Waste Prevention Coalition: The Direct Marketing Association has launched a new campaign to promote recycling of direct mail: http://www.recycleplease.org This appears to me to be an attempt to show how environmental they are, to combat the "Do Not Mail" opt-out legislation introduced in 14 states last year. I rant about this, and give a few more details, in my EcoConsumer blog: http://www.KCecoconsumer.com --------------------- From David Flora, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 7, Solid Waste Program, Kansas City, KS: WasteCap Nebraska, with funding from the Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality and in partnership with US EPA Region 7, is hosting a series of webcasts this summer. I believe that waste reduction and recycling advocates have only begun to realize the potential of web seminars to provide information to a broad business audience. I will be hosting a conference call on Monday July 9 at 2 p.m. local time to discuss how this WasteCap Nebraska project can serve as a model for other service providers. The call-in number is 866-299-3188 and the conference code is 9135517523. Info about the next webcast is at: http://www.wastecapne.org/pub/2007/summer-lecture-series/3-resource-mana gement.shtml E-mail: Flora (DOT) David (AT) epamail (DOT) epa (DOT) gov --------------------- Link to a job posting for a recycling coordinator for the City of Gresham, OR (first seen in the Association of Oregon Recyclers newsletter): http://www.ci.gresham.or.us/apptrak/JobAnnouncement.asp?Posting_Nbr=07-6 4 This job includes waste prevention duties. The salary range is $3,817 to $4,828 a month. Deadline for applications is Friday, July 6, 2007. Gresham is located just outside Portland. --------------------- Link to a job posting for a recycling project specialist for Washington County, Hillsboro, OR (first seen in the Association of Oregon Recyclers newsletter): https://hrapps.co.washington.or.us/applicationsonline/index.cfm?page=job desc&id=367 This job includes waste reduction duties. The salary range is $23.23 - $28.36 per hour. Initial review of applications will begin July 9, 2007, but applications may still be submitted after that date. Hillsboro is located just outside Portland. --------------------- Excerpted from a column by Joe Nocera in the 6/30/07 New York Times: NEW APPLE PHONE - "ASSURED OBSOLESCENCE" In David Pogue's review of Apple's new iPhone in the New York Times, he pointed out that the iPhone, unique among cellphones, doesn't have a removable battery. He wrote: "Apple says the battery starts to lose capacity after 300 to 400 charges. Eventually, you'll have to send the phone to Apple for battery replacement, much as you do now with an iPod, for a fee." Huh? That couldn't be, could it? Does Apple really expect people to mail their iPhones to Apple and wait for the company to return it with a new battery? It was bad enough that the company did that with the iPod - but a cellphone? Cellphones have become a critical part of daily life, something we can barely do without for an hour, much less days at a time. When you do what I do for a living, this sort of question is usually pretty easy to clear up. You ring up a company spokesman, and get an answer. But at Apple, where according to Silicon Valley lore even the janitors have to sign nondisclosure agreements, there is no such thing as a straightforward answer. There is only spin. "Apple will service every battery that needs to be replaced in an environmentally friendly matter," said Steve Dowling, an Apple spokesman. He went on: "With up to 8 hours of talk time, 6 hours of Internet use, 7 hours of video playback or 24 hours of audio playback and more than 10 days of standby time, iPhone's battery life is longer than any other smartphone." This response didn't even attempt to answer the question I'd asked him, which was how Apple planned to service its batteries. But never mind. This is another Apple innovation: the robotic spokesman, who says only what he's been programmed to say. With Apple taking the position that the battery replacement issue was not something it needed to share with reporters - much less buyers of the iPhone - I went elsewhere in search of answers. I talked to design experts, battery wonks and technology geeks. One thing I wanted to know was why Apple had made a cellphone without a removable battery in the first place; it seemed like such an extreme act of consumer unfriendliness. If the iPod was any guide, batteries were inevitably going to run down. With most cellphones, when the battery has problems, you take it to a store, buy a new battery, let the salesman pop it in, and start using it again. Why wasn't Apple willing to do that? "It is about assured obsolescence," said Rob Enderle of the Enderle Group, a technology consulting firm. "That is why they don't have a replaceable battery in the iPod. But the problem here is that the iPhone will run out of battery life before the two-year service contract runs out." On the other hand, those who have drunk from the iPhone Kool-Aid were not remotely bothered by the removable battery issue. My assumption was that if the battery does indeed last for 300 to 400 charges, it will probably start to lose its capacity in about a year, at least for heavy users. Of course the iPhone warranty also lasts a year, so if my calculation is right, it means that the batteries will need to be replaced just as the warranty runs out. Meaning that iPhone customers will have to pay for a new battery instead of getting it free - just like the iPod. But maybe I'm being too conspiratorial. Tim Bajarin of Creative Strategies, a well-respected technology consultant, told me, "I think this is much ado over nothing." Yes, he said, there would be heavy users who had to recharge their iPhones every day, but most people would get two full years out of their batteries. So it would at least last as long as the service contract. So maybe it will get two years. But let's think about what that means. Those who are dismissive of the battery issue are saying, essentially, that when the two years are up, and the battery needs to be replaced, customers will purchase a new and improved iPhone instead. That's why it is a nonissue for them - they are buying into the idea of assured obsolescence. If all you want is a new battery after two years - and don't lust after whatever new phone gadget Apple has come up with by then - then you're just not with it. Besides, don't most cellphone users get a new phone within two years? The answer, of course, is yes. But most cellphone purchases are heavily discounted - costing $100 or less - and are tied to an extension of the service contract. Is Apple really going to play that game? I'm betting the answer is no. Buying a new iPhone is going to be an expensive proposition for the foreseeable future - which of course is great for Apple's bottom line, but not so great for its customers. And what about the people who have early battery problems? Or those who are such heavy users of their iPhone that they need a new battery after a year? The question remains, What are they supposed to do? Go without a cellphone while Apple is replacing the battery? From where I'm sitting, this is classic Apple behavior. It is perfectly happy to sell you the coolest $599 device you've ever seen. Just don't expect them to be especially helpful when it runs into problems. - end -