Category — Recycling

Australia sends a lot of ships, laden with iron ore, to Japan. Then the ships head back to Australia, carrying seawater as ballast. Australia is a dry country, in dire need of fresh water. Japan currently discharges almost all of its treated sewage, which started as fresh water, into the sea. Do you see where we’re going here? Read this article in Asahi Shimbun, which describes how and why Japan may soon be selling its treated sewage to Australia, for use in those iron-ore operations (and replacing the use of fresh water expensively derived from sea water).

This is a pilot project, and I’m sure there will be some kinks to work out, but I believe we’re going to be seeing a lot more of this water reuse and recycling in the future. (Transporting water, which is heavy, ain’t cheap: but in this case waste water is replacing sea water on a ship that’s got to get back to Australia anyway.) Fresh water is a precious and finite resource. Yes, it recycles and cleans itself as it moves from one physical state to another, but with more and more people on the planet, polluting water faster than we or Mom Earth can clean it, there’s less of the stuff to go around. Why discharge expensively treated wastewater into the ocean when it can be used yet again in industry or — depending on its level of treatment — for agriculture or human consumption? (For that matter, why use expensively treated drinking water merely to flush away human waste?) To see how Orange County, California, cleans its waste water to a level fit for drinking, check out my article in the New York Times Magazine.)

Seattle Public Utilities just announced that by July 1st, 2010, “all food service products designed for one-time-use must be replaced with one-time use products that are either compostable or recyclable.” Yahoo. The rule covers restaurants, grocery stores, delis, coffee shops and institutional cafeterias. But since many Seattle recyclers already accept plastic clam shells, yogurt cups, berry boxes, and so on, I wonder how many food outlets will go to the additional expense of purchasing compostable containers.

The city collects food waste already, so the service ware and food scraps will now go into the same bin. Is collecting and processing biodegradable material less energy and water intensive than collecting and processing materials for recycling? I don’t know. But the end product – fertilizer or mulch – seems like an unmitigated good (so long as there’s an outlet for the material), while the consumer products made from mixed plastics (T-shirts, carpeting, strapping, sleeping bag filling, etc.) will merely be landfilled at the end of their useful lives.

Still, the recycled plastic is replacing virgin plastic…. Have you checked out the live feed from the BP spill lately? Start here.

I recently had a nice chat with KCRW’s Evan Kleiman, host of “Good Food,” about water recycling in Orange County (CA). Take a listen here (I’m up second, followed by pieces on vertical farming, climate-friendly meat, and more).

Britain’s Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) has a lengthy report out on the environmental impacts of oxodegradable plastics, which are made of polyethylene along with additives that cause it to degrade by a process initiated by light and/or heat. It concludes: “the incorporation of additives into petroleum-based plastics that cause those plastics to undergo accelerated degradation does not improve their environmental impact and potentially gives rise to certain negative effects.” Read the full report, or check out this take from Plastics News.

The following stories show a range of bottled-water activism on college campuses.  In Ontario, Ryerson University will ban sales of bottled water by 2013. Why the lag? It takes a long time, apparently, to get new fountains up and running (and to run out vending contracts). Still, it’s a brave move. According to The Eyeopener Online, “The ban will impact the university’s contract with Coca-Cola, which allows the corporation exclusive rights to sell beverages on campus. In return, Ryerson gets $765,000 a year if enough products are sold, with the bulk of the money going to scholarships, bursaries and athletics.”

At Humboldt State, reports The Lumberjack, Captain Reducer, who’d recently seen the anti-bottled water documentary Tapped, stood in the quad and railed against bottled water.  Here’s his picture:

The administration asked him to lower his mic, a student suggested he use more facts.  Everyone’s a critic.

At Wesleyan, students are discussing ways to reduce bottled water use on campus, including the use of a filtered-water dispensing machine. The filtered water would cost half as much as bottled, so campus caterer Bon Appetit would still see some revenue from water. But I wonder about students’ mental calculus: one of the attractions of bottled water is that you don’t have any responsibility toward the bottle. You drink your beverage, and you throw the bottle into the recycling bin. That’s what the industry calls convenience (that, and not having to carry a reusable around with you). How would you feel about paying 50 to 75 cents for a half liter of water and then still having to carry and wash it? All of a sudden, it’s not looking so convenient. So much easier and cheaper to just drink (or refill) from a fountain.

My question: What’s wrong with the tap water at Wesleyan? It makes more sense to me to actually find out (through independent lab testing), and then, if there’s anything to worry about, to install filters in existing fountains and install more of them, the same as other institutions (Google) and schools (Washington University in St. Louis, the University of Winnipeg, etc. etc.)

Anne Rosenthal, ’10, Wesleyan’s Environmental Organizers Network co-coordinator and representative to the dining committee, has it right. From the Wesleyan Argus: “The crux of this campaign is the awareness issue, because when kids get off campus there’s going to be bottled water everywhere,” Rosenthal said. “We just want them to get in the habit of thinking about the impacts of their purchases and getting used to alternatives.”

Ben Firke, ’12, chair of the dining committee, is being cautious: “We want to be good stewards of the earth,” Firke said. “But we also want to make sure that if there’s something that Wesleyan students really become reliant on, we’re not going to deprive them of that for what they would interpret as being arbitrary reasons.”

Arbitrary reasons? Please, listen to Rosenthal’s economic, health, and environmental arguments. And just because we’re reliant on something — coal-burning power plants, slaves, the trade in whale blubber — doesn’t mean we can or ought to stick with it for all time.  What do you think the class of 1980, or ’85 or even ’90 drank when they were thirsty for water?

Here’s an editorial from Resource Recycling magazine for December 2009, by Jerry Powell, that explains how Extended Producer Responsibility works and why it’s a great idea. To learn more about EPR, check out the Product Policy Institute.

Do Americans need to look north?

As a magazine editor for nearly 30 years, I am
continually intrigued with what are recycling’s
hottest topics at any given point. On far too
many occasions, what intrigues me doesn’t seem
to resonate as strongly with others in the
industry. The most recent example is a brand
new term in municipal recycling collection and
processing: full EPR. Let me explain on this page
what this is and why it should be among recycling’s
hottest issues.
Extended producer responsibility (EPR) is a
management system for obsolete, recoverable
products. In this scheme, the makers of these
products have a financial and managerial
responsibility to get the used items collected,
processed and recycled. EPR is typically put
into place through legislation. The most
widely known EPR systems are those now
approved in about 20 states, and nearly
every Canadian province, for the recycling
of selected electronics, such as computers,
televisions and monitors.
Over half of Americans (55.1 percent) now live
in states that have adopted the EPR approach for
electronics. In this programs, such producers as
Dell, Hewlett Packard, Sony and Panasonic must
establish and maintain a recovery system in the
state or province.
EPR is an approach that is being expanded quickly
to other materials as well. For example, my home
state of Oregon is the first state to use this
concept for the recovery of post-consumer
architectural paint.
Even with the rising interest, EPR has been limited
to fairly small portions of the waste stream, and
often to those portions that are hard to handle and
recover (e.g., pharmaceuticals, paint, light bulbs,
carpet, etc.). EPR in the U.S. doesn’t target
common residential recyclables, such as paper, metals
and plastics. Can it?
The answer is yes, given the experience in several
Canadian provinces, where the makers of the things
that end up in the residential recycling stream
(think Coke, Heinz, Procter & Gamble, etc.) must
pay a portion of the local-government costs of
collecting and processing these materials.
For example, half the cost of the massive resi-
dential recycling system in Ontario is funded
by these companies. In addition, these pro-
ducers – called stewards – have put up $40 mil-
lion ($Cn) to fund localrecovery system improve-
ments, so that residents are provided cost-
effective and efficient recycling service. I
happen to sit on an advisory body that develops
policies for the distribution of those funds.
And now, the Ontario Minister of the Environment
has decreed that the stewards will soon be required
to fund all of the costs of curbside recycling.
Yes, all.
In a few years, local governments will be reim-
bursed for the costs of collecting and handling
recyclables. One of municipal recycling’s greatest
barriers is that it costs money. City and county
leaders are reluctant to spend more on recycling
when they are being pressured to buy new fire
trucks, repair school buildings, fix roads and
aid the poor. Full EPR, as it’s called in
Ontario, provides a way to address this funding
problem.
And, I’m surprised that full EPR for residential
recycling has not received more attention among
recycling’s most fervent advocates. You would
think that governmental recycling officials
would be very interested in taking a long, hard
look at this option.

Do Americans need to look north?
Resource Recycling
Jerry Powell
December 2009
Editorial Perspective

As a magazine editor for nearly 30 years, I am continually intrigued
with what are recycling’s hottest topics at any given point. On far
too many occasions, what intrigues me doesn’t seem to resonate as
strongly with others in the industry.
The most recent example is a brand new term in municipal recycling
collection and processing: full EPR. Let me explain on this page what
this is and why it should be among recycling’s hottest issues.
Extended producer responsibility (EPR) is a management system for
obsolete, recoverable products. In this scheme, the makers of these
products have a financial and managerial responsibility to get the
used items collected, processed and recycled. EPR is typically put
into place through legislation.
The most widely known EPR systems are those now approved in about 20
states, and nearly every Canadian province, for the recycling of
selected electronics, such as computers, televisions and monitors.
Over half of Americans (55.1 percent) now live in states that have
adopted the EPR approach for electronics. In this programs, such
producers as Dell, Hewlett Packard, Sony and Panasonic must establish
and maintain a recovery system in the state or province.
EPR is an approach that is being expanded quickly to other materials
as well. For example, my home state of Oregon is the first state to
use this concept for the recovery of post-consumer architectural
paint.
Even with the rising interest, EPR has been limited to fairly small
portions of the waste stream, and often to those portions that are
hard to handle and recover (e.g., pharmaceuticals, paint, light bulbs,
carpet, etc.). EPR in the U.S. doesn’t target common residential
recyclables, such as paper, metals and plastics. Can it?
The answer is yes, given the experience in several Canadian provinces,
where the makers of the things that end up in the residential
recycling stream (think Coke, Heinz, Procter & Gamble, etc.) must pay
a portion of the local-government costs of collecting and processing
these materials.
For example, half the cost of the massive residential recycling system
in Ontario is funded by these companies. In addition, these producers
– called stewards – have put up $40 million ($Cn) to fund local
recovery system improvements, so that residents are provided cost-
effective and efficient recycling service. I happen to sit on an
advisory body that develops policies for the distribution of those
funds.
And now, the Ontario Minister of the Environment has decreed that the
stewards will soon be required to fund all of the costs of curbside
recycling.   Yes, all. In a few years, local governments will be
reimbursed for the costs of collecting and handling recyclables.
One of municipal recycling’s greatest barriers is that it costs money.
City and county leaders are reluctant to spend more on recycling when
they are being pressured to buy new fire trucks, repair school
buildings, fix roads and aid the poor. Full EPR, as it’s called in
Ontario, provides a way to address this funding problem. And, I’m
surprised that full EPR for residential recycling has not received
more attention among recycling’s most fervent advocates. You would
think that governmental recycling officials would be very interested
in taking a long, hard look at this option.

A little late to the party,  I just started watching some non-privatization-related Poland Spring videos on YouTube. Here’s one (called Poland Spring: For a Man) spoofing the portability (and disposability) of those five-gallon jugs. Others (here and here) have some fun with the stalwarts at 1-800-4SPRING: “Is it okay to drink Poland Spring if you’ve had a tracheotomy? Because I drank some Dasani and it hurt like a mother.” “My hamster, Liberace, loves your water. Is it okay to put it in his bowl?” Unsurprisingly, the phone workers stay strictly on script.

Lots of bottled-water market news lately.

In Canada, the Polaris Institute is celebrating the “beginning of the end of bottled water” with a roundup of municipalities and school districts that have quit selling or supplying bottled water (read the article here). Joe Cressy, the author, believes the tide has turned, but notes “bottled water companies are not going to simply stop producing bottled water. Let’s be honest, there is a lot of money to be made from selling tap water back to residents in plastic bottles. In the face of today’s backlash, bottled water companies have increased their advertising and lobbying activities. Nestlé, for example, continues to offer municipalities money for recycling projects on the condition that they rescind their bottled water restrictions. The City of Thorold, Ontario just recently rejected a $90,000 offer from Nestlé to rescind their bottled water ban.”

Meanwhile, the Canadian water brand Naya, which had all but disappeared in the United States, is now “planning aggressive domestic expansion”  in bottles made of 100 percent recycled plastic,  the first of their kind for water, Brandweek reports.  Granted, Naya is a tiny brand and doesn’t need a vast and constant stream of recycled PET, but one can only hope this increases the pressure on Nestle, Coke and Pepsi (if they’re going to continue selling water in disposable bottles, that is) to follow suit. After all, Americans discard 30 to 40 billion plastic water bottles every year.

Over in the U.K., rumors of the demise of the bottled water industry appear to be premature.  Between 2006 and 2008, volume sales of water in the UK fell 11 percent, reports Grocery Trader, but in 2009, sales were down a mere 1 percent. “With economic conditions expected to improve, Mintel forecasts that volume sales will start growing steadily from 2011 onwards and that by 2014 the British will once again be consuming 2.5 billion litres a year.”

Yesterday, Matthew Savage at Triple Pundit wrote a piece on the slowdown in bottled-water sales and the rise in the use of re-usable bottles, noting “But the bottled water industry is enormous, estimated at about $16 billion, and reusable water bottles are a mere drop in the bucket. It would take a mass exodus of people using refillable water bottles to take away the significant market share of the bottled water industry.”

Savage ends by asking, “Reusable water bottles are a great step in the right direction, but how can bottled water companies fundamentally rethink their business models?” Unless “rethink their business model” means quit selling bottled water, I don’t think there’s a lot they can do to satisfy people who are fundamentally against the growth of bottled water. Yes, more people need to use refillable bottles, and we need more places to refill them, and we need guarantees that public water supplies are safe (or filtered). But do we really want companies interested in increasing their sales of bottled water — companies that answer to shareholders, not the public– to move into these areas?

Nestle Waters has a new-ish product on the market called “re-source” spring water, which comes in bottles made with 25 percent recycled content. Until October 2010, Whole Foods has the exclusive right to sell re-source in supermarkets. As part of the initiative, 26 Whole Foods stores in California and Arizona have been kitted out with reverse vending machines that accept plastic, glass, and aluminum containers for recycling and let users claim bottle deposits (too bad Arizona doesn’t have a bottle bill) or receive coupons. The recycling program will extend to 200 stores this fall.

Here’s the interesting part: for every plastic container recycled during the promotional period, Nestle Waters will donate 5 cents to Keep America Beautiful. Nestle Waters CEO Kim Jeffery has repeatedly said he believes in stronger recycling programs (and using 25 percent recycled PET is a good first step). And breaking with other bottlers, he’s even come out in favor of bottle bills — if they apply to a broader range of containers. But why give that nickel to KAB? The group isn’t really an environmental organization. Yes, it works “to engage and inspire millions of Americans to take personal responsibility for improving their local community environments” (that is, it gets citizens to assume responsibility for picking up waste). But it’s funded by industries –packaging, bottling, chemical, and forest-products companies — that have historically opposed legislative solutions,  such as bottle bills and other producer-responsibility measures, to garbage problems. KAB is currently proposing to take over the moribund National Recycling Coalition, against the wishes of many former members, independent recyclers, nonprofits, and environmental groups who’ve expressed their views on the subject here.

There are many groups out there working to reduce the amount of packaging waste foisted upon taxpayers and the environment. Nestle’s nickels may have done more good working on upstream solutions to the single-use scourge. Whether those groups would have accepted the corporation’s donations is a whole ‘nother question.

To learn more about KAB, try this article by Ginger Strand in Orion, this piece from the Container Recycling Institute, or skip directly to my website, order a copy of Garbage Land, and then read chapter 9.

A team of researchers at MIT’s SENSEable City Lab is attaching electronic tags to random pieces of trash in New York City and Seattle, hoping to track where they end up (click here for MIT’s news release). The researchers hope the project will raise awareness of the impact of trash on our environment. Does anyone think it’s odd that we need fancy technology to find out where our waste ends up? Believe me, picking up the phone and asking the person in charge of a transfer station, landfill, or recycling center rarely brings complete satisfaction (self promotion alert: read Garbage Land: On the Secret Trail of Trash to learn why). Also, isn’t this electronic tag itself going to contribute to the waste stream (a toxic part, if it contains any heavy metals)?

I’m all in favor of learning more about where things go after they leave our curbs, but an important next step is learning what happens to our waste after it’s buried or burned, recycled or composted. There is more to the story (see Annie Leonard’s The Story of Stuff for an excellent primer). Perhaps even more important is making the upstream connection to the materials that went into this so-briefly-used consumer product (the MIT site features a Starbucks cup). That’s when things get interesting. We may have enough room to landfill all our waste (ignore, for a moment, the actual and social costs of doing such a thing), but do we have enough natural resources (trees, oil, metals, minerals, water) to continue to make disposable, single-use, unrepairable, unrecyclable consumer goods? The MIT project wasn’t designed to answer this question. I think we already know the answer.