Product Policy Institute Blog

Vermonters can have their bottle bill and EPR for packaging too

2012-02-06T12:06:00.000-08:00

ByBill Sheehan and Matt Prindiville, Product Policy Institute

A controversial EPR-related bill in Vermont has died andhearings took place on a new bill.

Vermont bill H.218 died,according to ResourceRecycling. It was introduced in2010, reportedly the brainchild of Coca-Colaand artfully framed as an “EPR Framework” bill. It would have implemented producer financing for collection of packagingand printed paper while repealing the state’s bottle bill - which is thestate’s most successful recycling initiative, collecting over 80% of beveragecontainers sold into Vermont.

Hearings were held on a new bill, H.485, in mid-January. The new bill is mostly a traditional solidwaste management plan based on government responsibility for recycling and wastemanagement. However, the bill mentions extended producerresponsibility, in the form of possible agency recommendations in futurereports. Surprisingly, that was enoughto draw opposition testimony from the Toy Industry Association and the anti-EPRProduct Management Alliance.

The bill allows the Commissioner of the Department ofEnvironmental Conservation to recommend options for legislative consideration,including: (A) product and packagingbans, (B) tax incentives; and (C) deposit and return legislation or extendedproducer responsibility legislation for certain products.

While attempting to brand EPR for packaging and printedpaper as being superior to bottle bills, Coca Cola and advocates for thisapproach missed the mark. PPI has alwaysadvocated that industry-run bottle bills are not onlyEPR, but are model examples for successful EPR programs and ones to buildon.

Opponents have argued that bottle depositsare overly prescriptive, and don’t allow manufacturers the flexibility tocreate their own systems. We would arguethat container-deposits are a policy tool to achieve robust performance, andthat industry-run bottle bill initiatives meet the definition of EPR becausemanufacturers are “physically and financially” responsible for their products.

Besides, we want to allow government tobe prescriptive when results aren’t being achieved. For another example beyond deposits, in 2006,Maine passed legislation to incorporate a $5 financial bounty in theirunderperforming EPR law for mercury thermostats, paid to anyone with an oldthermostat. Once the bounty was inplace, returns to Maine’s thermostat EPR program went through the roof and is now the highest-performing program in the nation, withcollection wildly exceeding that of any other state.

We hope Vermont will continue to lead on producerresponsibility legislation, and that Vermonters will realize they can havetheir bottle bill and EPR for packaging and printed paper, too. We’ll have to wait and see whether thebeverage industry will support this concept. For now, they’re busy promoting EPR in non-bottle bill states.

For many of us who live in states with mature, successfulbottle bill initiatives, we want to have EPR for packaging and printed papertoo, but we’re not going to sacrifice the most successful recycling (and EPR)programs that we already have for the sake of winning industry support. Several provinces in Canada and many EUcountries have already figured this out: Bottle bills and EPR for packaging cango hand in hand.

Recycling Reconsidered

2012-01-09T06:58:00.000-08:00

Here’s an important new book just published by MIT Press. It builds a compelling casethat “Recycling as we know it today generates the illusion of progress whileallowing industry to maintain the status quo and place responsibility onconsumers and local government.” PPI willreview in more detail in future blogs; in the meantime, below are the publisher’sblurb and several endorsements (disclosure:I reviewed the book for MIT Press).

--Bill Sheehan

Recycling is widely celebrated as an environmental success story. The accomplishments ofthe recycling movement can be seen in municipal practice, a thriving privaterecycling industry, and widespread public support and participation. In theUnited States, more people recycle than vote. But, as Samantha MacBride pointsout in this book, the goals of recycling--saving the earth (and trees),conserving resources, and greening the economy--are still far from beingrealized. The vast majority of solid wastes are still burned or buried.

MacBride argues that, since the emergence of the recycling movement in 1970,manufacturers of products that end up in waste have successfully prevented theimplementation of more onerous, yet far more effective, forms of sustainablewaste policy. Recycling as we know it today generates the illusion of progresswhile allowing industry to maintain the status quo and place responsibility onconsumers and local government. Most disturbingly, it does so with the strongsupport of environmental social movements that defend recycling even as theygrapple with its shortcomings.

MacBride offers a series of case studies in recycling that pose provocative questionsabout whether the current ways we deal with waste are really the best ways tobring about real sustainability and environmental justice. MacBride does notaim to debunk or discourage recycling but to help us think beyond recycling asit is today. In the name of ecological citizenship, she challenges us toconsider larger problems of solid waste, the global range of environmentalthreats, and policy alternatives that go beyond curbside collection of cans,bottles, and paper.

MITPress $27.00 (CLOTH) 312 pp. ISBN-10: 0-262-01600-1 ISBN-13: 978-0-262-01600-1

About the Author

SamanthaMacBride teaches at Columbia University’s School of Public and InternationalAffairs and is a professional in local waste governance.

Endorsements

“With a thoughtful and critical eye, this study deconstructs municipal recycling,sorting the valuable aspects from those that just ‘feel good’ and reveals thestrategic tensions that arise when a social movement, the ‘zero waste’recycling movement, aligns with a business sector, the recycling industry. Witha comfortable mix of technical description, financial analysis and good storytelling the book challenges the simple notions of glass and plastic recyclingand ‘shared product responsibility.’ Recognizing the important role thatprivate enterprise can play in reuse, recycling and composting, this bookconcludes that good government policy remains a critical force in driving asustainable materials economy.”

KenGeiser, Professor of Work Environment, Director, Lowell Center for SustainableProduction, University of Massachusetts, Lowell

“Samantha MacBride has produced an outstanding study that asks profound sociological questionsabout the way our recycling systems are organized. Her concept of ‘busy-ness’is right on target: consumers, environmentalists, and governments are busyrecycling and feeling good while the waste industry pursues profits, and theultimate goals of sustainability and equity get lost in the shuffle. Shedemonstrates that the recycling movement itself is a big part of the problem,having never made it a priority to regulate, monitor, and focus onmanufacturers’ waste, and blindly embracing the consumer as the center of a“can-do” ideology, to the neglect of troubling ecological and market realities.Drawing on her years of experience as a recycling professional, MacBrideoutlines bold and sensible policy recommendations for a just and sustainable recyclingsystem and the broader materials economy. This book is a must-read forscholars, activists, and policy makers.

DavidNaguib Pellow, Don Martindale Professor of Sociology, University of Minnesotaand author of Garbage Wars: The Struggle for Environmental Justice in Chicago

“As the title implies, Samantha MacBride’s Recycling Reconsidered takes a serious,timely, and unvarnished look at recycling in the United States. Her agenda isclearly utilitarian—not to convince us of the environmental virtues ofrecycling or to offer a cynical appraisal of why it doesn’t work but to askthoughtful questions and make reasonable suggestions well beyond the oftentrite assessments that regularly appear in print. You can argue with herconclusions, but you cannot dismiss her data, her careful analysis, and herno-nonsense approach.”

MartinV. Melosi, author of The Sanitary City

Photo credit: MIT Press

Got Jobs? Bottle Bill States Do

2011-12-22T17:00:00.000-08:00

By Matt Prindiville, Associate Director

Just in time for the holidays comes a hopeful message about recycling and job creation from our friends at the Container Recycling Institute. Last week they released an exhaustive study on the job impacts of container-deposit-refund systems, more commonly known as bottle bills. For folks that live in states with bottle bills (like my home state of Maine), it probably doesn’t come as a surprise that these recycling initiatives create jobs. However, what may be surprising is just how much local economic activity they actually create, and the serious opportunities that exist to create jobs through the expansion of deposit-refund recycling laws.

Their chief findings were that:

· “Recycling creates many more jobs than disposal,” and bottle bills create the most jobs of all. While several studies have also confirmed this as a generally well-understood principle, CRI adds new comprehensive data and the added dimension of comparing container-deposit systems with traditional municipal-run recycling and solid waste programs.

· “Deposits create more jobs than curbside recycling relative to beverage containers.” CRI estimates that collecting bottles and cans through container-deposit systems yields 11 to 38 times as many jobs as collecting these same containers in curbside recycling programs.

· “Material throughput is the primary driver for recycling jobs.” This is a fancy way of saying, “the more you collect for recycling, the more jobs you create.” Because states with bottle bills collect three times more beverage containers than non-bottle bill states, CRI documents that they commensurately reap the benefits of the added jobs associated with collecting more material for recycling.

· “The secondary driver of container-recycling jobs is the amount of workers required to collect, sort and transport the containers.” With regards to job creation, bottle bills succeed here again due to the decentralized, entrepreneurial nature of container-deposit systems versus municipal recycling.

· “Jobs gained in recycling far outweigh any jobs lost in extraction of virgin materials, landfilling or domestic manufacturing.” CRI’s analysis effectively makes the case that increased jobs from recycling more materials significantly offsets – by an exponentially-wide margin – any potential job losses in landfilling, and/or extraction and use of virgin materials.

The CRI report complements the recent report by the Tellus Institute, which estimates that 1.5 million new jobs can be created by increasing the US recycling rate from 33% to 75%. If you’re a policy maker struggling to come up with job-creation policies, this is welcome news. When you consider that states with container deposit laws already achieve between 70 and 90% recycling rates for beverage containers today, increasing and expanding bottle bills seems to be a no-brainer.

For skeptics that think any new jobs created would be low-wage sorting jobs at materials recovery facilities or bottle depots, both the CRI and Tellus reports demonstrate that increasing recycling directly translates into reviving America’s manufacturing sector. According to the Tellus report, increasing the US recycling rate to 75% through container-deposit laws and other EPR initiatives could lead to an increase of 550,000 new American manufacturing jobs, an almost 200% increase.

Lawmakers now have compelling evidence that recycling isn’t just saving trees and energy. It can also be about growing good jobs at home and creating entrepreneurial opportunities, all while protecting the environment at the same time. Now, that truly is good news for the holidays!

EPA Sustainable Packaging Dialogue: Big Consumer Goods Companies Not All On Same Page

2011-12-12T23:24:00.000-08:00

By Bill Sheehan, Executive Director, Product Policy Institute

From September 2010 through August 2011, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency convened and facilitated a dialogue on how to finance recycling of consumer goods in the United States. The dialogue included four two-day meetings. Product Policy Institute was one of 30 invited organizations and businesses. Participants included representatives from ten consumer goods companies (such as Proctor & Gamble and Coca-Cola), two retailers (Wal-Mart and Target), seven state governments, five local governments, three environmental public interest organizations, and other non-governmental organizations [see report, Appendix B, p. 120]. The final report from the year-long dialogue was released on EPA’s website on December 9th and a public comment period has begun [see below].

The stakeholder dialogue showed a gaping divergence between public interest organizations and governments on the one hand, and the consumer packaged goods companies, on the other. Most of the former group entered the dialogue with the understanding that it would primarily focus on extended producer responsibility as the most promising solution to boost recycling of packaging materials in the U.S, the vast majority of which are wasted in landfills and incinerators. Governmental representatives made it clear that municipal recycling systems are maxed out, and that current taxpayer and ratepayer funding and decision-making is inadequate to achieve needed results.

Instead of exploring EPR, industry representatives insisted that the focus should be on financing the status quo (see Strategies for Optimizing the Current System). The discussion on Financing Strategies was diluted by industry’s insistence that all conceivable options be considered, including those which have been shown to be inadequate (e.g., taxpayer-funded municipal recycling) and/or are politically or logistically not viable (e.g., federal funding for recycling infrastructure).

In spite of the fact that these same companies participate in take-back programs in Europe, Canada and other places around the world, most consumer goods companies balked at the notion of assuming responsibility for their packages after consumers are done with them. “We’re not in the garbage business,” was a frequently heard refrain.

However, these companies were not all on the same page. During the Dialogue, a consultant hired by Coca-Cola issued a report supporting EPR for packaging (although the report was never discussed in the meetings). An Estée Lauder company, Origins, has been operating a voluntary take-back program for its cosmetic packaging, and Estée Lauder publicly advocates for individual producer responsibility. It was also evident that retailers are evaluating the potential for increasing customer traffic and loyalty from take-back programs.

With other significant dialogues on EPR for packaging happening around the United States and the likelihood of state legislation forthcoming, the large product manufacturers and retailers are going to have to make a decision. Will they support EPR policies – which many of them comply with around the world – for the truly sustainable management of packaging? Or will they be on the wrong side of history and continue to fight for taxpayers to subsidize the massive amounts of packaging waste they create?

*************

The report is: Final Report of the Dialogue on Sustainable Financing of Recycling of Packaging at the Municipal Level (PDF) (128 pp, 872K). EPA will accept comments on this report until February 9, 2012 . The docket for this rulemaking is EPA-HQ-RCRA-2011-0912 and can be accessed at Regulations.gov.

Below are highlights excerpted from the 125-page report:
-- an overview of the major “work products” of the dialogue, and
-- three major topics that “illustrated divergence among stakeholders.”

“Work Products” [page 7 >]

“Participating stakeholders identified, examined and evaluated a total of eleven strategic options for financing recycling of packaging and printed material, and also proposed the advancement of eight distinct projects to optimize the current system. Together, these two work streams considered opportunities for enhancing the funding available to the system while reducing the cost of the system’s operation.”

“Strategies for Financing Recycling"
The assessments were intended to provide a balanced summary of participating perspectives regarding the advantages and disadvantages of each strategy, providing a strong foundation for leaders in the public, private and civic sectors to determine how best to address the challenge of financing recycling. The strategies are categorized by general source of funding: producers, consumers, rate-payers, and taxpayers.

• Producer-funded strategies
• Consumer-funded strategies
• Rate-payer funded strategies
• Taxpayer-funded strategies”

“Strategies for Optimizing the Current System
Eight potential projects were identified as strategies for improving the effectiveness and efficiency of the existing recycling system, to meet the characteristics of success that the group discussed. The projects evolved out of the mapping exercise through which participants identified challenges or areas for improvement at each phase of the system. Participants jointly developed a set of project briefs…”

Major Topics [page 4 > & 19 >]
“The major topics that generated discussion and illustrated divergence among stakeholders included:”

“Extended Producer Responsibility
Many participants would have preferred to focus largely or exclusively on certain financing strategies they believed to be most promising, especially extended producer responsibility (EPR). At least some stakeholders believe the dialogue missed a critical opportunity for productive deliberation and cross-sector learning by not pursuing deeper analysis of EPR.”

“Some participants, however, including most brand owner representatives, expressed strong discomfort with any explicit emphasis on EPR. A handful of stakeholders expressed the view that EPR was in fact too broad a subject given the need for meaningful and near-term action, and that a somewhat narrower but still reasonably holistic focus on sustainable waste management – i.e., end-of-life management of key materials – would be most productive. The chapter below on Financing Strategies provides more detail on the group’s deliberations and stakeholder perspectives regarding EPR and other strategic options. [page 20:]”

“Materials
Some participants believed that inclusion of printed paper in the scope of inquiry was inappropriate since relevant industry sectors (e.g., paper manufacturing, printing and publishing) were not represented at the table. Alternatively, a few participants preferred a focus on priority material types (e.g., aluminum, cardboard, steel) rather than all forms of packaging.”

“Dedicated focus on recycling
Some participating stakeholders – largely from industry – raised concerns about the focus on recycling and advocated for a more holistic assessment of end use options, hoping to explore how best to maximize the recovery of value (in financial and environmental terms) from the municipal solid waste stream. They preferred to be able to consider an integrated waste management approach including composting and waste-to-energy, determining the appropriate management strategy for each set of circumstances. Also, some participants from various sectors emphasized the need for source reduction and reuse to play a more significant role.”

“The purpose of the project was to solicit a range of stakeholder opinion and identify promising options rather than attempt to achieve agreement among participants. This report therefore does not represent consensus views but rather serves as a summary of deliberations, including findings and some jointly developed recommendations.” [bold in original]

These Are a Few of My Favorite Things: Suggestions for a Greener Holiday Season

2011-12-07T20:28:00.000-08:00

By: Suzanna Baum, Membership Coordinator, Environmental Paper Network

Dec 2, 2011

With the holidays upon us, the choices we make to be environmentally conscious have more impact than usual. We can make decisions to help reduce paper waste however, which will leave you and your loved ones feeling good about lessening your footprint this season. Getting creative, purchasing recycled wrapping paper and cards, eliminating unwanted mail, and giving package-free gifts, will give you the room to boast that you're transforming the paper industry; a gift that Mother Earth and future generations will surely appreciate!

It's undeniable that wrapping (and unwrapping) gifts is a major part of the fun this time of year. Some ideas that you can feel good about are ones that have been around for ages. The good ol' brown paper packages tied up with string can usually stir up warm fuzzies, and re-used brown grocery bags work great. How about the colorful comics section of the newspaper? Or reusing materials around the house such as unused fabric from the sewing room, old maps, unused jars, or an old t-shirt that you never wear anymore? Ribbons wrapped around any of these make for a visual treat sure to be enjoyed under the tree.

Lacking the resources or time to be creative? Feel determined to use wrapping paper or send your highly anticipated cards? There is always the option to purchase convenient, recycled products. There are many resources to help you find recycled materials for the holidays. Conservatree, our featured EPN member this month, has put it all into a convenient chart for your viewing. Check it out here: Holiday Products Listing. Some other options: Twisted Limb Paperworks, My Good Greetings , Green Field Paper Company, Fish Lips Paper Designs, and Earth Love'n Paper Products. (Thanks to Greenline Paper for some tips)

All the paper waste doesn't necessarily come from our end at home though. I can recall a time when my mailbox was full of extra mail during the holidays with catalogs and special offers. I was able to eliminate that wasteful burden all year round through a wonderful tool offered by one of EPN's members, Catalog Choice. Get on board here: stop mail.

Aside from all of these options for paper conservation and recycling decisions, there is also the opportunity to donate gifts to your favorite non-profit, for yourself or on behalf of your gift-receivers. Instead of adding more stuff to the planet, you're growing a cause that you and/or your loved ones believe in. It's easy to donate to support the work of some of your favorite organizations in our Network here.

I hope these suggestions help you to enjoy your green season this year. Doing your part for the planet is a gift that will keep on giving. Happy Holidays!

About Our Guest Blogger
Suzanna Baum is Membership Coordinator for Environmental Paper Network. She blogs each month highlighting different featured members of EPN. You can find her blogs here.

Why Carpet Recycling Needs Product Stewardship Legislation

2011-11-29T22:39:00.000-08:00

By Bill Sheehan, Executive Director, Product Policy Institute

Over the last few years, the need for carpet stewardship programs has become increasingly urgent. State legislators are looking to manufacturers to help reduce the environmental and financial burdens of disposing vast quantities of carpet. Made overwhelmingly from non-renewable petroleum, carpet is a major contributor to both landfills and climate change.

In California alone, an estimated 1.3 million tons of carpet is disposed of in landfills annually, comprising 3.2 percent of all disposed solid waste in the state. California ranks carpet as a top contributor to the state’s greenhouse gas emissions. By the carpet industry’s own calculation, only 4.5% of the millions of tons sold nationally each year are recycled.

In September 2011, a year and a half of negotiations between carpet manufacturers, government regulators and other stakeholders broke down. The objective of the negotiations was to sign a 10-year Memorandum of Understanding to follow one that was expiring, signed in 2002. The primary purpose of both MOUs was to set recycling and landfill diversion targets for carpet. The 2002 MOU set a voluntary goal of 25% recycling by 2012. By 2010, after eight years of failed voluntary policies by the carpet industry, the recycling rate was essentially no higher than in 2002. [The 2012 MOU Report on Negotiations and related documents are posted on Product Policy Institute’s Carpet web page.]

The 2012 MOU negotiations collapsed over the issue of sustainable financing for carpet recycling. In 2010, California became the first state in the U.S. (and still the only one) to pass a producer responsibility law for carpet. Due to political realities contributing to the bill’s likely passage, it was eventually supported by the Carpet and Rug Institute and the Carpet America Recovery Effort. AB 2398 created a level playing field (all carpet makers selling into the state must participate), and a producer-based financing mechanism to build the infrastructure to recycle carpet. The California Carpet Product Stewardship Program requires that all carpet sold in the state be subject to a fee of five cents per square yard. The revenues from the fees are collected and used by carpet manufacturers to build recycling infrastructure and boost carpet recycling in the state.

The effects of the law are already apparent. Over the last year, collection and processing facilities in California grew from 4 to 18, spurring new economic development and creating new jobs. Nationally, California’s carpet stewardship law is the only initiative driving investments in recycling, not to mention the jobs that come with it.

Unfortunately, even though the implementation of California’s carpet stewardship law has been an early success, carpet manufacturers’ are opposed to any new state legislation. During the MOU negotiations they offered no alternatives to finance recycling. In September, the Carpet and Rug Institute joined a new trade association, the Product Management Alliance, to oppose all producer responsibility legislation in the U.S.

While all parties appeared to negotiate in good faith, and agreement was reached on several technical issues, the process revealed a fundamental disagreement about industry’s responsibility for life-cycle impacts of carpet, including when consumers are done with it. Carpet industry negotiators never really accepted the idea that they should bear primary responsibility (with costs passed on to consumers), or that market forces should be harnessed by incorporating the cost of recycling in to carpet prices. They spoke about carpet recycling as an added expense at a time the industry cannot afford it.

Hardened by a decade of virtually no progress on the 25% recycling goal, state regulators and NGOs felt the second time around that voluntary goals without a financing mechanism are unlikely to be any more successful than the 2002 MOU.

Carpet manufacturers proposed waiting three years to see how California progresses. State regulators argued that postponing consideration of sustainable financing is not a sufficient basis on which to sign a new MOU. California is not the only model, or even the best model. For example, specifying fees in legislation lets carpet makers off the hook if the program fails to achieve desired results. The 25 state producer responsibility electronics laws adopted since 2003 have shown the value of legislative experimentation. State regulators also understand that industry activity in California is unlikely to benefit other states.

In the 2012 legislative session, at least two state carpet bills will be in play: in Washington State, SB 5110 introduced by Senator Jeanne Kohl-Welles; and in New York, AB 492 introduced by Assemblymember Brian Kavanagh.

Without more state legislation that creates a level playing field and requires all carpet makers to finance recycling infrastructure by incorporating the cost in the price of carpet, it is highly unlikely that significant investments will be made to back up any recycling goals. If that’s the case, we’ll have another “lost decade” with most used carpet in America wasted in landfills and incinerators, instead of being reclaimed and remade into valuable new products. Gone too, will be the many new jobs that could have been created in collection, processing and manufacturing.

What we're thankful for...

2011-11-23T09:22:00.000-08:00

In addition to being grateful for our friends and family and all the good things in life, here are a few things that Product Policy Institute is thankful for this year:

· That EPR and policies to boost recycling can create 1.5 million American jobs.

· That legislators across the country are getting excited about the economic development potential of product stewardship.

· That Annie Leonard reminded us that there is enough money and ideas out there to build a truly sustainable economy.

· That big corporations are starting to support extended producer responsibility policies and cradle to cradle design.

· That people like you continue to support PPI’s efforts to mitigate the social and environmental impacts of consumer products, and build an economy that supports people and the planet.

From our staff, board and volunteers at the Product Policy Institute, we want to wish you and your families a very happy Thanksgiving.

REPORT: Recycling and EPR can create 1.5 million new jobs in the U.S.

2011-11-21T13:28:00.000-08:00

A new report claims that recycling 75% of municipal solid waste (MSW) and construction and demolition debris (C&D) by 2030 will result in 1.5 million new jobs and result in greenhouse gas and pollution reduction benefits.

The report, More Jobs, Less Pollution: Growing the Recycling Economy in the U.S.,was conducted by Boston-based Tellus Institute with Seattle-based Sound Resources Management. It was prepared for a coalition of labor, environmental and social justice organizations, including the BlueGreen Alliance, SEIU, NRDC, Teamsters, Recycling Works!, and the Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives.

Two of the four recommended policy options to achieve the 75% waste diversion rate are based on the principle of Extended Producer Responsibility:

Extended producer responsibility (EPR) regulations to encourage changes in product and packaging design that reduce volume/weight and toxicity and enhance recyclability or compostability.
A (national) bottle bill covering not only carbonated beverages such as soda and beer, but also bottled water, sports drinks, fruit juice, teas, etc., as has been adopted in California, Hawaii, and Maine.

From the press release:
“Never in our lifetime has it been more important to merge environmental progress with jobs,” said Allen Hershkowitz, senior scientist at the Natural Resources Defense Council. “The country is underachieving when it comes to recycling and we hear about high unemployment rates every day. This report raises hope. It confirms that organized labor and environmentalists can join together and reminds us that recycling still holds great potential to heal the planet in an ecologically and economically productive way. We want to educate and encourage policy makers at all levels of government about what they can do to create a more robust recycling system for our planet and our economy.”

Key findings
This study provides strong evidence that an enhanced national recycling and composting strategy in the United States can significantly and sustainably address critical national priorities including climate change, lasting job creation, and improved health. Achieving a 75 percent diversion rate for municipal solid waste (MSW) and construction and demolition debris (C&D) by 2030 will result in:

A total of 2.3 million jobs: Almost twice as many jobs as the projected 2030 Base Case Scenario, and about 2.7 times as many jobs as exist in 2008. There would be a significant number of additional indirect jobs associated with suppliers to this growing sector, and additional induced jobs from the increased spending by the new workers.
Lower greenhouse gas emissions: The reduction of almost 515 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (eMTCO2) from diversion activities, an additional 276 million eMTCO2 than the Base Case, equivalent to emissions from about 72 coal power plants or taking 50 million cars off the road.
Less pollution overall: Significant reductions in a range of conventional and toxic emissions that impact human and ecosystem health.
Unquantified benefits of reducing ecological pressures associated with use of non-renewable resources, conserving energy throughout the materials economy, and generating economic resiliency through stable, local employment.

A Glimpse into Waste Management in China

2011-11-17T21:06:00.000-08:00

By Stephanie Welsh, PPI Social Media Maven and former ex-pat in Shanghai, China

I admit, before I moved to Shanghai, China I didn’t think a lot about my garbage, or anyone else’s. When I arrived in Shanghai in 2007 with my family for a 2 year assignment, the changes to our daily lives were tremendous. So it was a few weeks before I started to realize that “waste management” is a whole different thing in China.

I moved to China from Portland, Oregon, where there is a very strong focus on recycling and the environment. It is deeply ingrained in me that we should recycle whatever we can. So when I realized that everything in our garbage went into a larger garbage receptacle for our apartment building, I was appalled. Where were the recycle bins? How could I recycle all the cardboard, plastic, etc? A few days later I got my first glimpse into how different their waste management system was in China. It happened when our new housekeeper asked for permission to sort through our trash and pull out the recyclable materials. I imagined there must be an industry of some sort here, otherwise why would she want it? Of course I granted her permission, and then asked what she did with it. My Mandarin language skills were quite poor at the time so I only partially understood her answer, but I understood enough to know that she would be able to sell any recyclable materials.

Over the next few months, I was able to observe how the entire system worked. The system in China started out the same as it does in America, with our family generating waste. Next, we sorted it to separate the waste from the recyclable material. But after sorting, instead of taking the garbage and recycling out to the curb, in China an amazing and entrepreneurial set of activities happened next.

When our housekeeper sorted through the garbage, she pulled out not only what she could sell to recycle (cardboard, glass, Styrofoam, etc), but she also retrieved anything she thought she could repair, re-use or re-sell. Which brings me to a major difference between China and the US. The primary focus in China is definitely on re-use, while the major focus here seems to be on recycle. Nothing that can be fixed or used in an alternative way makes it to a landfill in China, because there are multiple layers of sorting before it goes off to the landfill.

For example, we lived in an apartment complex. Our housekeeper sorted through the garbage first, then she took the garbage out into the hallway receptacle. The maids who cleaned the building and hauled away the trash would go through it a second time. Once the garbage made its way to the larger apartment complex dumpster, it was sorted through again. At every single stage, different items were pulled out. People did a variety of things with these items -- they repaired them, they sold them, they gave them to friends, they kept them for their own homes -- but if there was any use left in them at all, they did not go to the landfill.

So that’s re-use, but what about the recycling, how was it happening? In America, it leaves the curb and I have very little idea what happens after that. In China, when our housekeeper collected recyclable items, she sold them to the local “recycling guy”.

Collecting cardboard for recycling in Shanghai, China.

I don’t know what else to call him, he was a man on a 3-wheel bicycle cart who rode through the neighborhood once or twice a day ringing a cow bell to alert people that he was there. When people heard him they would come out of their households and sell him their recycling. The “recycle man” specialized in different materials, so you learned which guy was collecting which material and what his route and time usually was. After the recycle man purchased and collected a cart full of materials, he rode off to a local business that purchased the recycling. I don’t know precisely what happened to the Styrofoam, but if the business was cardboard, some of it was re-used right away by companies who were willing to purchase “used” boxes. The rest of it was sold to a processing plant that turned the cardboard into reusable post-consumer material. For all the recyclable materials, there was someplace to sell it to, otherwise there would have been no effort to collect it.

The interesting thing was that the government was nowhere in this system, and recycling wasn’t about saving the planet. Everything was about necessity, it was about using and re-using the materials that already exist until they literally fell apart. There were so many activities before it came to recycling. And when the material was at the recycling stage, the system managed to employ many people and each of those people were able to make a little bit of money along the way. And from what we observed, the system was highly effective.

Story of Broke and Welfare for Waste

2011-11-07T20:39:00.000-08:00

On November 8^th, Story of Stuff Project released a new web movie: The Story of Broke: Why There’s Still Plenty of Money to Build a Better Future.

Product Policy Institute has long talked about government subsidies for managing spent products and packaging as “welfare for waste,” enabling our throw-away society. Extended Producer Responsibility policies aim to put the responsibility for managing manufactured discards where it belongs – on the producers and consumers of products, rather than on taxpayers and garbage ratepayers.

Government subsidies for virgin materials extraction and waste disposal facilities are other forms of Welfare for Waste (see Welfare for Waste: How Federal Taxpayer Subsidies Waste Resources and Discourage Recycling, GRRN 1999). And there are lots of other examples of mismanagement of the public purse for the benefit of polluting corporations.

The new web movie, The Story of Broke (for which PPI was an advisor), is about such damaging subsidies. It explains a lot of what the Occupy Wall Street movement is protesting – as does another SOS movie, The Story of Citizens United v. FEC.

Read Annie Leonard’s blog:

“The concept for this new movie was born, quite frankly, of frustration.

“You and I both know that a better future is possible—that we can make Stuff in ways that are safe and healthy and fair. We know that clean energy and non-toxic chemicals exist. As a matter of fact, I just spent a few days with a group of Sustainability Engineers in Australia who know how to build everything from buildings to whole cities that conserve energy and water and reduce pollution, while also facilitating a strong community life.

“In fact, many better alternatives have been around for decades. Amory Lovins laid out a plan for a clean energy revolution when I was in grade school, which was more than a few years ago! Janine Benyus’s brilliant call for remaking our materials economy with biomimicry—technologies that mimic nature, rather than destroy it—was published a decade ago.

“So, why does today’s resource-consuming, pollution-spewing, toxic-laden dinosaur economy keep chugging on despite all the safer, cleaner, and cheaper alternatives?

               “One key reason is that we’re propping it up with our taxes, funneling billions of
              dollars more into this dinosaur economy than into the better alternatives.”
              Read more…     View The Story of Broke.

Environmental Legislators Hold EPR Forum

2011-10-25T12:17:00.000-07:00

By Matt Prindiville, PPI Associate Director

A few weeks ago, I had the pleasure of delivering the keynote address at the National Caucus of Environmental Legislators Forum on Extended Producer Responsibility. NCEL is a non-profit organization representing self-identified “environmentally-progressive legislators.” They provide their members with an “opportunity to coordinate their activities with respect to national legislative organizations, and to share ideas both on affirmative and negative environmental issues.” Throughout the year, NCEL organizes issue forums for their 900+ members around the country.

At the urging of many of their members, including Maine Representative Melissa Walsh Innes (who blogs on EPR issues here), NCEL organized a weekend forum on EPR and pulled together 25 legislators with dedicated experience on product stewardship, and 10 leading resource people working in the field of extended producer responsibility - from environmental agency program staffers, local government and solid waste officials, and NGO environmental protection organizations. It was a powerful, jam-packed couple of days with panel presentations covering everything from international developments, to EPR for packaging, to issue specific areas like electronics, pharmaceuticals and household hazardous waste.

One of the big questions from legislators was where to start and what to work on next. There is no “one-size fits all” answer to either of these questions, and legislators should take into account the needs and resources available for product-specific EPR programs in their home states. But a good starting point is the Canada-wide EPR Action Plan. Our neighbors to the North have developed and are implementing a plan to get pretty much everything in the waste stream into EPR programs over the next seven years. Phase 1 covers packaging, printed materials, mercury-containing lamps and other mercury-containing products, household hazardous waste (paint, pesticides, solvents, etc), electronics and electrical products (they define this as anything with a plug or battery, including the battery), and automotive products (tires especially). Phase 2 includes appliances, furniture, mattresses and construction and demolition debris.

It makes sense to move forward in conjunction with Canada and search for regional economies of scale and cross-border entrepreneurial opportunities. One of the presenters at the conference, from the British Columbia Ministry of the Environment, mentioned that the chief reason EPR was moving forward in Canada was because of economic development opportunities. That should be good news for legislators looking for new ideas to create homegrown jobs while promoting sustainability at the same time.

Trick or Treat? New Industry Trade Association Formed to address EPR Legislation

2011-10-19T13:24:00.000-07:00

By Matt Prindiville, PPI Associate Director

There’s been quite a bit of buzz about a new industry trade association called the Product Management Alliance, which announced its presence in a press release issued on September 27th. A close look at some of the members listed on the press release – American Forest and Paper Association (Georgia-Pacific, Boise, International Paper, etc), Toy Industry Association (Mattel, Hasbro, etc), Carpet and Rug Institute (Mohawk, Shaw, etc) – reveals that this is a trade association of trade associations rather than an association representing member companies (although one company is listed on the release).

Their stated goal is to “support voluntary market-based extended producer responsibility efforts and voluntary incentives for increased recovery and sustainable product and package design.” They oppose “broad extended producer mandates that solely shift the cost of product collection and reclamation to product manufacturers.”

You’ll note that the word “voluntary” is used twice in the opening mission statement. So they’re for voluntary “EPR” initiatives, but opposed to “EPR” that shifts costs for product collection from government to industry. Last time I checked, that is the definition of extended producer responsibility, so I googled it just to make sure.

Sure enough, the most widely-used definition for EPR comes from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), which defines EPR policies as “the shifting of responsibility (physically and/or economically; fully or partially) upstream toward the producer and away from municipalities.”

So after a cursory read of their press release and web site, it might seem that they could be cautiously supportive of EPR policies. In reality, this looks to me like it is an organized effort by certain industry sectors to combat EPR legislation in State Houses across America.

I have to say I wasn’t surprised by this. In 2010, I witnessed significant organized industry opposition to Maine’s framework EPR law. After the law was passed and the first Maine DEP report came out last November, 15 consumer product trade associations signed onto a letter and many submitted comments in opposition to the report recommendations, which included legislative provisions to create new EPR programs. Here’s a tidbit from the letter: “Product stewardship is not a principle for shifting the cost burden for product end-of-life management to producers.” Sound familiar?

The irony is that the report only included recommendations to create new EPR programs for paint, pharmaceuticals and medical sharps, so clearly the idea that an agency could make recommendations for EPR programs to a legislature garnered some solidarity among businesses worried that their product could be next.

Today, that informal coalition has turned into a formal, organized presence with an Executive Director in Boston-based attorney, Dan Connelly. I suspect those of us working on EPR legislation in the states will be seeing a lot of Mr. Connelly.

Now I don’t want anyone thinking that I believe this development is a bad thing for more EPR in the US. I don’t. The fact that select industries have mobilized into a trade association to combat EPR legislation shows how much ground has been gained over the past several years. The reality is that industry is all over the map when it comes to EPR (see my earlier blog post on the subject here). Some consumer electronics companies support EPR for their products; some don’t. Nestle Waters North America is touring the country promoting EPR for their products, while the Grocery Manufacturers Association is hiring consultants to seemingly kill EPR for consumer packaged goods. Each company and their trade associations are trying to make sense of the growing US movement for producer responsibility.

What’s clear is that EPR is not going away. It will be important for advocates, legislators, government officials, and leading waste management and consumer products companies to work together to ensure EPR moves forward systematically in the US.

To the companies involved in the Product Management Alliance (and those trying to make sense of what’s happening), I would encourage you to look around and see that EPR is the future. It’s taking hold all over the world. We need you to help design and implement these programs and policies rather than fight them. We need you at the table in order to make these programs work. You are the creators and innovators. You bring the best ideas to the table. If anyone can figure out how to make EPR work and even figure how to make it add to your bottom line, it’s you. We need to stop looking at each other as potential enemies, and instead see each other as allies in initiatives that benefit all of us: clean jobs, a growing, green sustainable economy and a healthy, thriving environment.

SC Johnson finds that financial incentives work

2011-10-10T20:38:00.000-07:00

Ever wonder why deposit-refund programs get two to three times the recovery rates of other recovery systems? The answer is in a new report by SC Johnson & Son, Inc. The report, The Environment: Public Attitudes and Individual Behavior — A Twenty-Year Evolution, is a follow-up to a report published in 1990, which they claim was the “first large-scale survey to measure both green attitudes and behavior” in the U.S.

SC Johnson’s research confirms what Coca-Cola discovered 100 years ago when they wanted consumers to bring back glass bottles for refilling: financial incentives work better than cajoling, appeals to altruism, or even advertising.

Concludes SC Johnson: “Interestingly, Americans say financial incentives and disincentives have a greater influence on their green behavior than pressure from family, friends and government. … For the population as a whole, Americans say that both financial incentives (49% say this is a major influence) and penalties (49%) have a greater influence on their green behavior than pressure from family, friends and government – with celebrities having the least reported impact on green behavior” (page 14).

Now … how to apply this finding to SC Johnson’s own packaging waste? Like Windex bottles, Pledge and Raid cans and Ziploc bags!

Measuring Product and Packaging Flows for Sustainability

2011-09-21T14:14:00.000-07:00

By Bill Sheehan, Executive Director, Product Policy Institute

The importance of product-focused measurement to sustainable materials management

EPA’s Municipal Solid Waste Characterization reports have been invaluable to the development of both Sustainable Materials Management and Extended Producer Responsibility alternatives to traditional waste management approaches. What has made the data so valuable is the distinction between manufactured (product) and non-product (organic and inorganic) wastes – a distinction that is possible through the materials flow method used by EPA but missing from the traditional end-of-pipe waste characterization perspective. To be sure, aspects of EPA’s reporting methodology and scope can and should be improved. But it is critical to continue and expand the use of production and life-cycle data to track the quantities of products and packaging generated and discarded for recycling, landfilling and incineration each year.

The distinction between product and non-product waste lines up pretty well with the concept of technical industrial and biological nutrients used by McDonough and Braungart in the book, Cradle to Cradle. It creates the possibility of talking about producer responsibility for manufactured discards and community responsibility for management of non-manufactured discards. Product Policy Institute used those data in a 2005 report to produce the influential graph above, which makes apparent the contribution of products and packaging (red bars) to the dramatic change in composition of “municipal solid waste” over the last century.

The EPA Municipal Waste Characterization Reports prepared by Franklin Associates track production statistics, adjusted for product lifespans as well as imports and exports. This product-focused approach is best suited to measuring product and packaging flows – recycling as well as waste disposal – as well as critically important industrial waste flows. Annual reports published by BioCycle magazine, in partnership since 2003 with Columbia University’s Earth Engineering Center, use state reports and questionnaires to waste managers to estimate amounts of material that is received at landfills and incinerators, as well as estimates on collection for recycling. The wastes tracked in the BioCycle reports include materials not covered in the EPA reports, such as construction and demolition debris, biosolids, special waste, household hazardous waste, alternative daily cover, and auto body scrap. Tracking for these materials varies markedly by state and jurisdiction.

The EPA and BioCycle approaches reflect different perspectives on the waste stream. The EPA/Franklin methodology focuses “upstream” and relies on Franklin Associates’ close association with industry trade associations. By contrast, the BioCycle/Columbia methodology is grounded in the waste management end of the waste stream and relies on a “robust network” of waste managers (Kaufman and Themelis, 2010). BioCycle is a trade journal for composters.

Is one approach more important to sustainable materials management? I contend that the EPA/Franklin product-focused approach is the more important of the two, for two reasons. First, the EPA approach opens the door to the study of industrial manufacturing solid waste, which is far more significant in impact than “municipal solid waste.” The last government attempt to measure U.S. industrial waste flows was done in the 1980s under the Department of Energy’s Waste Material Management Program (which sensibly looked at materials and energy together). A 1993 DOE booklet estimated that municipal solid wastes comprised only 1.5% of all “industrial” waste streams. Nonhazardous manufacturing wastes have a greater potential impact on sustainability than MSW yet industrial reporting requirements are largely lacking. This is an area in which EPA should do more. The EPA/Franklin product-focused approach can and should be expanded further “upstream” to include manufacturing wastes.

Second, the most problematic materials in the MSW stream are manufactured discards – products and packaging -- because they are the fastest-growing component of MSW and they are often designed for disposal or contain toxic components. The proliferation of toxic and throw-away products has been accommodated by an expanding municipal solid waste management infrastructure operating independently from the decision-makers that design, market and use products and packaging (Product Policy Institute 2005). Put another way, the separation of the costs of waste management from product prices is a market failure driving social costs associated with waste. Modern materials management policies, such as Extended Producer Responsibility, aim to correct this market failure. While accurate measurement of disposal is important, in a sustainable materials economy management of manufactured discards will increasingly become a producer responsibility, and less of a public sector responsibility. For those wastes, product-focused measurement approaches will become increasingly important.

The EPA/Franklin methodology should be more transparent, include the vast universe of hidden industrial waste flows and construction and demolition discards, and include reuse. However, it should be expanded, not abandoned. Governmental and non-governmental organizations developing effective policy measures to prevent waste at the source rely on US EPA’s valuable tracking reports.

Go beyond the blog, keep up with PPI on our Facebook page and follow our tweets @ProductPolicy.

From Green Consumers to Green Citizens

2011-09-09T14:58:00.000-07:00

By Bill Sheehan, Executive Director, Product Policy Institute

An opinion piece in the New York Times on September 7, “Going Green but Getting Nowhere,” questions the value of individual actions like recycling in combating global warming: “The reality is that we cannot overcome the global threats posed by greenhouse gases without speaking the ultimate inconvenient truth: getting people excited about making individual environmental sacrifices is doomed to fail.”

Sound like an anti-recycling rant from a right-wing free marketer? But it’s not. The author, economist Gernot Wagner from the Environmental Defense Fund, is on to something important.

As someone trained in ecology, I find Wagner’s basic question to be spot on: What actions will the planet notice? He’s right in stating that the magnitude of changes necessary to avert climate catastrophe are “so large and profound that they are beyond the reach of individual action.” And he points us to a key problem: “individual action … distracts us from the need for collective action.”

I’d go further. I believe that we have become so immersed in our consumer culture that our civic personas have atrophied. We see ourselves as consumers first and increasingly powerless as citizens. We don’t see that recycling, to take a prominent example of individual consumer action, has been embraced over reuse and source reduction by corporations because it doesn’t threaten profits and growth. Changing those priorities requires concerted civic action.

Wagner is correct that we need collective action to solve -- or even adapt effectively to -- global warming. That’s why I work with citizens for policies that require corporations to be responsible and bear the cost of the environmental impacts of the products they design and from which they profit. Called extended producer responsibility, these policies aim to send price signals to consumers that make the greenest products the less expensive ones. Collective action is needed for such planet-saving government policies. The public voice also needs to be at the policy-making table, along with the private sector voices of "stakeholders," to protect the public interest.

Where Wagner comes up a little short, I believe, is in not articulating the potential connection between individual lifestyle actions, like recycling, and collective action. Individual lifestyle actions need not distract us from collective action if the message is promoted and understood that lifestyle changes are necessary but not sufficient. Responsible consumerism will only make a difference in slowing global warming if it is a springboard to the collective actions that individuals must take to get governments to adopt policies that address fundamental problems.

Taking EPR to the airwaves

2011-08-31T14:52:00.000-07:00

By Bill Sheehan, PPI Executive Director

Recently I had the opportunity to speak on the radio show True South on WGAU (Athens, Georgia). The topic was waste, manufacturer responsibility and the work of the Product Policy Institute. I have done a lot of speaking about waste, extended producer responsibility (EPR), product stewardship, and PPI, but this was not my usual audience: WGAU also hosts programs by the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Neal Boortz and Sean Hannity.

Have a listen at the link below, my segment starts around minute 24:00: http://www.1340wgau.com/Player/101055521/

Got Jobs? Maine Company Grows with Passage of Expanded Manufacturer Responsibility Law

2011-08-25T09:41:00.000-07:00

By Representative Melissa Walsh Innes, Yarmouth, Maine

Being an elected public official, it's my duty to stay up to date on what's happening in my state and around the world. Time is short, so surfing web headlines is my way of staying connected. In these tough times, jobs are on every public servant's mind and that goes double for me. I'm especially looking for good news and fresh ideas to bring to the Maine State House.

Photo by Amber Waterman, Sun Journal

Unfortunately, for this optimist, most headlines are bad news and dour predictions of what's to come next. So you can understand how excited I was last week to see this headline, "New law enables Auburn, Maine recycling firm to expand."

The article describes the implementation of a new Maine law, which I sponsored, titled "An Act to Increase Recycling Jobs in Maine and Lower Costs for Maine Businesses Concerning Recycled Electronics." This law creates cost savings for all Maine businesses with under 100 employees by allowing them to participate in Maine's electronic waste (e-waste) recycling program.

This initiative began over five years ago and was the first extended producer responsibility (EPR) law for electronics in the United States. Just like bottle bills (container deposit laws) - which most people know about - EPR laws direct manufacturers to fund the collection and recycling of their products at the end of the product's useful life, promoting the sustainable reuse of materials and preventing the release of hazardous chemicals into the environment. In addition, they reduce costs for local governments and taxpayers and create jobs through the collection and recycling of formerly discarded products.

According to the Natural Resources Council of Maine, an environmental advocacy organization that worked with me to expand the law, Maine has recycled over 30 million pounds of e-waste, saved taxpayers more than $20 million, and prevented more than 6 million pounds of lead and other toxics from entering our environment, since the law's inception in 2006. Today, 23 other states have also enacted producer responsibility laws to recycle unwanted electronics and many more are working on bills this year.

Up to this point, only Maine households could participate, so this increase in electronics recycling will allow Maine businesses to recycle their old electronics at no cost. In addition, it will help Maine-based and regional recycling businesses to prosper. With the increased volume expected, and with enabling rules allowing them to also "demanufacture" the discarded electronics, the Auburn, Maine facility expects to create almost 20 new jobs in the next two months. Given that I'm from a small state without a whole lot of industry, the EPR law expansion is the best kind of news for those looking for work in central Maine.

On a final note, I'm happy to report that the passage of this law was a bipartisan effort. Republicans and Democrats came together to overwhelmingly pass it - every sitting legislator voted for it! Creating jobs was priority number one this year, and the Maine Legislature made progress by expanding one of their EPR recycling programs.

In Maine, we know that recycling products at their end-of-life creates ten times more jobs than land-filling or incinerating them. Given the job-growth potential, this can and should be duplicated elsewhere. The question now is, why aren't we doing this with all of the other products we throw away every day?

About Our Guest Blogger:

Melissa Walsh Innes is an elected State Representative in the Maine Legislature, and serves on Maine’s Joint Standing Committee on Environment and Natural Resources. Melissa focuses on the sustainable management of materials through product stewardship policy and initiatives, and was the sponsor of Maine’s first-in-the-nation Product Stewardship Framework Law of 2010. She currently works with legislators, businesses, NGO’s and consultants around the world to help foster a constructive dialogue in this policy area.

Melissa lives in Yarmouth, Maine with her husband Shawn, and three daughters. Melissa blogs at The Innes EPR Report, tweets at repmelissainnes, and can be found on Facebook at Melissa Walsh Innes.

Legislators' Interest in Producer Responsibility Grows

2011-08-15T14:10:00.000-07:00

Industry "All Over the Map"

By Matt Prindiville, Associate Director
Product Policy Institute

I just returned from the National Conference of State Legislatures in San Antonio, Texas, where I was asked to present alongside four representatives from industry on extended producer responsibility. There were about 70 people in attendance - the majority of them state legislators - with about 10 or 15 folks from private companies and industry trade associations. I was asked to speak at the last minute to "balance out" what was perceived as an "anti-EPR" industry panel by some involved in the planning for the session.

What I heard from the presentations was not that industry is "anti-EPR". Different industries and companies are all over the map when it comes to producer responsibility. While most of us working on sustainable consumption and production issues are aware of this, it is helpful for state legislators - who may assume that industry speaks with one voice on EPR - to know that there are a variety of nuanced perspectives on EPR within and across affected industries.

For example, while the representative from PhRMA was clearly opposed to drug companies paying for stewardship programs (the title of his talk was, "Why Pharmaceuticals don't fit the EPR Model"), the representative from the Consumer Electronics Association and Nestle Waters were advocating for EPR "that fits into company business models," as Walter Acorn, CEA's VP for Environmental Affairs said.

Here are my cliff notes versions of the presentations with comments:

PhRMA - EPR doesn't fit our products. Most of the envirionmental problems are from excretion; not flushing or landfilling of pills. The accidental poisoning and prescription drug crime issues are the result of people disobeying their doctors (i.e. not taking all their medication).

Despite the flood of pharmaceutical EPR legislation, PhRMA clearly has not budged at all from their previous position of "No way. No how." The representative played on the dramatic by asserting that the levels of drugs in waterways are barely detectable - in parts per billion or parts per trillion, which is like, "dropping a sugar cube into an Olympic sized swimming pool." What he didn't say was that many drugs are engineered to have effects on the human body at precisely those levels. Environmental Working Group also released a study demonstrating that 13% of the 200 most commonly prescribed medications have harmful effects at 100 ppb or less. As more legislators become aware that drug companies pay for EPR programs throughout Canada at relatively low costs to industry, PhRMA will most likely have a difficult time defeating additional state legislation.

International Paper - We are doing EPR voluntarily; don't put new EPR mandates on us. (How would you figure out who the producer is anyway? - i.e. too many "manufacturer" publications). We're working to ensure curbside collection is expanded throughout the country. More could be done to collect paper food packaging.

While the rates for printed paper collected for recycling are high (72%), and paper packaging collection rates (50%) are better than for other packaging, we still landfill 26 million tons of paper each year (according to US EPA data). When you take into account that 98 tons of materials are required to make one ton of paper, it's critical that consumer product manufacturers and the paper industry get involved to boost recycling rates to take the stress off our world's forests and waterways.

Consumer Electronics Association - There's a patchwork of state regulations which are difficult for industry to navigate; needs a national solution. Infrastructure through private retailers and municipal collection sites is increasing. We like EPR, just want it built into the way our companies do business. Voluntary EPR initiatives may help as well.

The electronics industry has come a long way from 2004, when I worked as an advocate with the Natural Resources Council of Maine, and we teamed up with Hewlett Packard - against pretty much the rest of the industry - to pass the first EPR law for electronics. Now, they're working together on compliance and implementation for the 24 state e-waste EPR laws. Moving forward, I think it's key for CEA to work proactively with government and NGOs to harmonize state e-waste legislation, and make a plan to move beyond monitors and TV sets to recycle all the other electronics not covered by most state laws.

Nestle - We support and are advocating for EPR; just not those pesky inefficient, costly bottle bills. We want to pay government to collect our bottles from consumers, and expand collection infrastructure to deal with containers consumed away from home. We want the rest of the food and beverage industry to get involved as well. Nestle has set a company goal (and aspirational industry goal) of collecting 60% of their containers by 2018.

While it's laudable that Nestle supports EPR and is working to move their industry toward accepting producer responsibility, it's disappointing that they consistently badmouth container-deposit laws (bottle bills), which are the original EPR laws in the US. As I've previously pointed out to Brian Flaherty, Government Affairs for Nestle and presenter at the conference, Nestle already meets their 60% aspirational goal - as do all other beverage companies - in states with bottle bills. It seems like the issue for the beverage industry should be making bottle bills more efficient to reduce or eliminate handling fees, not attacking the bottle bills.

My primary takeaway is that these industries and others are trying to make sense of the growing US movement for producer responsibility. As Canada and the European Union expand EPR programs for more and more of the waste stream, companies are struggling to make sense of what their obligations are - and the potential impact to their bottom line. Hopefully, they will see that incorporating the costs of green design and responsible recycling into the costs of doing business is the right thing to do, and will significantly reduce the environmental impacts of consumer products and packaging. As more of the world begins to develop their consumer markets, it's critical that we begin to transition to a much more materials and energy efficient economy. As the NCSL forum demonstrates, EPR will continue to have a big role to play.

Vancouver Strives for Zero Waste Using EPR and Proactive Actions

2011-05-16T10:19:00.000-07:00

British Columbia has the most comprehensive, industry-supported EPR approach in Canada. Now Vancouver BC has adopted a Zero Waste Strategy with multiple components. Below you can read about their focus on being a catalyst for more takeback programs.

Vancouver BC’s Zero Waste / Takeback Strategy
Strategies for Zero Waste
1.         Nurture a Zero Waste Culture
2.         Make Reducing and Reusing a Priority
3.         Capture the Organics
4.         Be a Catalyst for More Takeback Programs
5.         Keep Recyclables Out of Landfills and Incinerators
6.         Enhance Construction, Renovation & Demolition Recycling
7.         Foster a Local Closed-Loop Economy

Be a Catalyst for More Takeback Programs
Almost 70% of garbage consists of thrown-away products and packaging. To address this problem, waste management is evolving in a way that makes companies responsible for taking back and recycling their products once they become waste. These takeback programs are the cornerstone of our zero waste plan and key to achieving a green economy.

Takeback programs are based on the principle of extended producer responsibility (EPR), also known as industry product stewardship. EPR shifts the responsibility for managing discarded products to the companies that produce them, rather than local governments. EPR is fostering a new wave of corporate responsibility, where companies extend their responsibility past the factory gates and deal with their discarded products. Connecting brand names to waste can motivate companies to redesign their products and make them less wasteful from the start.

The best-known example in British Columbia is the deposit-refund system for beverage containers.The program started in 1970 to tackle the problem of litter. Today, with a 92% return rate, the beer program achieves the kind of recycling rates needed to reach our longterm goal of creating zero waste.

British Columbia also has takeback programs for electronics (like computers, TVs, audio-visual equipment, cell phones, batteries), paint, pesticides, solvents, gasoline, used oil and empty oil containers, oil filters,tires, lead acid batteries, compact fluorescent bulbs, thermostats and unused medications. Programs forantifreeze and empty antifreeze containers, as well as small appliances will be introduced this year. In 2012, all electronics will be covered.
These takeback programs inject $125 million into BC's economy, creating 1,600 direct and 500 indirect green jobs. By recirculating resources that have already been harvested, the programs save as much greenhouse gas emissions as taking 73,000 cars off the road for a year.

Over the life of the Greenest City Action Plan, the number of takeback programs will expand significantly thanks to a national plan for extended producer responsibility. Under this plan, the government of British Columbia is committed to working towards mandatory takeback programs for packaging, printed paper, and hazardous waste by 2015. Construction and demolition waste (or building products), carpet, furniture and textiles will follow by 2017. Together, these product categories cover more than 60% of garbage going to landfill or incinerator.

ACTIONS for Be a Catalyst for More Takeback Programs

Advocate for New Takeback Programs
Working with Metro Vancouver and other local governments, advocate for the province to introduce producer responsibility (or takeback) programs as recommended in the national plan for producer responsibility. Industry would then be responsible for managing packaging (including shopping bags), printed paper (newsprint, magazines, etc.) and hazardous waste by 2015. Construction and demolition waste (building products), carpet, furniture and textiles would follow by 2017. Together, these categories make up about 60% of garbage.
Encourage Coffee Companies to Set Up Takeback Programs for Coffee Cups
Form a task force with coffee companies and community stakeholders to explore and test-run takeback models for coffee cups. This would address a litter problem, reduce street cleaning costs, and could help shape a province-wide takeback program for disposable cups and fast food packaging. (Under a national plan, the government of British Columbia is committed to working towards requiring industry to provide takeback programs for packaging by 2015.)
Co-Sponsor a Zero Waste Food Court
Develop partnerships to co-sponsor a local food court to go Zero Waste. A waste-free food court would showcase reusable dishes for eating on-site, which could be returned through refundable deposits. All take-away dishes and utensils would be converted to compostable or recyclable materials. The program could be a model for a province-wide takeback program for fast food packaging. (Under a national plan, the government of British Columbia is committed to working towards requiring industry to provide takeback programs for packaging by 2015.)
Help Expand the Collection Network for Existing Takeback Programs
Use the City's zoning authority and development approval processes to expand the collection network for existing takeback programs, including privately-operated recycling depots and in-store return locations.
Facilitate a Voluntary Takeback Network for More Products
Facilitate and promote a voluntary Takeback Network to encourage retailers to take back their products for reuse and recycling. Target products that are abandonned in laneways, as well as products that are recommended in the national plan for new takeback programs. These include mattresses, couches, other furniture, carpet, electronics, large appliances and packaging.
Build a Coalition of West Coast Cities to Advocate for New Takeback Programs
Build a coalition of mayors in major cities in the Pacific Northwest to call for new takeback programs. The more provinces and states with mandatory takeback programs, the greater the market share, and the greater the incentive for companies to redesign their products and stop waste at the source. A coordinated effort in the Pacific Northwest could also stimulate investment in recycling technologies and infrastructure.
###

Shareholders Ask Major Packaged Goods Companies to Adopt EPR

2011-04-27T14:00:00.000-07:00

Press Release from As You Sow:

SAN FRANCISCO, April 27 – The shareholder advocacy group As You Sow will file shareholder resolutions this week with consumer packaged goods giants Procter & Gamble (P&G) and General Mills to adopt Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) programs aimed at elimination of post‐consumer waste. The proposals are the first to be filed by shareholders on this issue and will press the companies to take a first step toward this goal by collecting and recycling product packaging (plastic, glass, metals, paper) in their U.S. operations.

These new proposals follow As You Sow’s successful efforts in pressing Coca‐Cola Co., PepsiCo and Nestle Waters North America to take responsibility for more than 50% of their U.S. product packaging.

The P&G and General Mills proposals ask the companies to report to shareholders on how taking responsibility for post‐consumer product packaging can reduce carbon emissions as well as air and water pollution and lead to re‐evaluating the way they design, use and re‐use the resources and materials that go into their packaging. The proposals also ask the companies to take the lead in emerging public policy debates under way in several states on how to manage and finance EPR policies.

The shareholder proposals to General Mills and P&G were co‐filed by Green Century Capital Management and Walden Asset Management; the proposal to P&G was also co‐filed by Trillium Asset Management.

“We’re burning and landfilling 40 million tons of recyclable packaging materials estimated to be worth $15 to $23 billion every year.” said Conrad MacKerron, As You Sow’s Senior Director for Corporate Responsibility. “We can no longer afford to discard packaging containing valuable resources. As shareholders we see this as throwing away revenue and we need to stop it immediately. ”

EPR has already proven a success in Canada and the EU on a broad range of products and for electronics recycling in the U.S. with 23 states adopting laws making producers responsible for collection and recycling. As You Sow has been at the forefront of these efforts working with HP, Dell, Apple and Best Buy one‐waste recycling programs.

“We believe it’s time for companies to manage the full life cycle of packaging as efficiently as they manage design and marketing of products,” said MacKerron. Taking responsibility for environmental externalities is a core goal of As You Sow’s Corporate Social Responsibility Program and EPR is a key step towards an industrial system of sustainable production and consumption. EPR commitments can provide a triple benefit of: 1) more efficient and sustainable use of materials; 2) reduced pollution emissions; and 3) a stronger product stewardship profile for stakeholders.

“For decades companies have passed the costs of onerous environmental externalities onto U.S. taxpayers. Increasingly an essential component of environmental leadership is taking responsibility for post‐consumer packaging and end‐of‐use waste," said Tim Smith, Senior Vice President of Walden Asset Management, a co‐filer of both proposals. "Electronics companies are now addressing this challenge.

We're asking P&G and General Mills to constructively engage with stakeholders to identify how successful EPR laws in Europe and Canada can be best applied to the U.S."

EPR laws in Europe have led to some impressive successes. In 2007 the average packaging recycling rate across 27 participating EU countries reached 59%. Belgium's FOST Plus system recycled 93% of consumer packaging in 2009. 32 million tons of packaging was recovered by EPR programs in EU countries in 2009 saving 25 million tons of CO2. EPR has shown it can decouple packaging growth from economic growth. Between 1998 and 2007, four main elements of the packaging waste stream‐‐glass, metals, paper and cardboard, plastics grew at just half the rate of GDP, according to the European Environmental Agency.

Several factors suggest that the time is right for companies to take responsibility for packaging:

· Coca‐Cola and Nestle are Early Endorsers: Coca‐Cola and Nestle Waters NA are supporting EPR state legislation that would make them responsible for post‐consumer collection and recycling; and the companies are urging peers to support it as well.

· Reducing Our Carbon Footprint: A recent analysis of U.S. Environmental Protection Agency data concludes that the energy needed to produce, use and dispose of products and packaging accounts for 44% of total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. Recycling post‐consumer packaging can therefore have a substantial impact on carbon footprint reduction. For example, making cans from recycled aluminum instead of virgin ore uses 95% less energy and creates 95% less greenhouse gas emissions.

· Reducing Waste Collection Costs: States and municipalities are looking favorably at EPR systems as a way to reduce municipal solid waste collection costs at a time of record state and local budget pressures.

· State EPR Laws Already in Place: EPR laws are already in effect in 23 states for electronic waste recycling and in a smaller number of states for collection of hazardous items like paint, pesticides and mercury thermometers.

As You Sow is asking companies to:

· Acknowledge responsibility for post‐consumer packaging collection and recycling;

· Report to shareholders on costs and benefits of existing EPR mandates companies are subject to in other countries, including the benefits of more sustainable packaging design, more efficient use of materials, and reduction in air and water pollution emissions;

· Work with stakeholders to determine what actions the company can take to independently promote EPR for packaging systems;

· Actively engage with stakeholders in the public policy debate on the best way to implement EPR for packaging legislation in the U.S.; and

· Integrate EPR concepts into in corporate and public policy initiatives that are producer financed and managed, subject to aggressive recycling goals set by government, and not specifically aimed at repealing existing container deposit laws.

###

As You Sow is a nonprofit organization that promotes corporate responsibility through shareholder advocacy, coalition building, and innovative legal strategies. For more information visit www.asyousow.org.

Rethinking Single-Stream Curbside Collection

2011-04-13T22:27:00.000-07:00

Guest blog by Helen Spiegelman, Board President Product Policy Institute

I think it's time to put forward the fundamental question of what materials are suited to curbside collection and what are not. The widespread introduction of single-stream collection (collecting all recyclable materials mixed together at curbside, to be sorted out at a sorting facility) brought us face-to-face with the challenge of collecting glass with other commodities. I think this is the thin edge of a wedge.

Some communities and haulers are now trying to get customers NOT to put glass in the cart. Nevertheless, in practice lots of people continue to put glass in, either because they don't know about the new rule or because they really want to recycle glass...just like they put all sorts of other stuff that they really want to recycle into the cart, which must be pulled out at the other end and sent to landfill. Bottom line, once you open the Pandora's box of "multi-material" curbside recycling you build in inefficiencies and problems (glass is just the beginning).

I think responsible operators of curbside programs should take a hard look at their actual operations and answer these questions:
-what commodities deliver the highest payload in the system?
-what commodities incur the lowest direct costs to the system?
-what commodities create the least problems (contamination, confusion, etc.) in the system?

My strong sense is that the answers to these questions will make a good case for operating curbside programs that collect PAPER ONLY. As soon as you introduce other stuff, you have problems. Problems for the customer knowing what's in and what's not. Problems for the sorting facility (usually called the materials recovery facility, or MRF) cleaning up the materials. Problems for the markets using the commodities.

I think municipal and commercial haulers need to be really clear about who their customers are. You are supplying paper mills and plastic convertors with feedstock -- this is recycling's bottom line. It is time to tailor the collection system to the needs of this market - not the so-called "convenience" of residents and institutional, commercial and industrial (ICI) customers.

It will be challenging to withdraw services to residents and ICI customers that they have become accustomed to -- especially when these services have been possible because they are seen as a community service, like libraries and public parks. But the bottom line is that trying to be all things to all people has a cost and it's time we stopped ignoring that cost. Curbside is a good system -- for some commodities. Let's use it for what it's good for, and find something else for the other commodities.

British Columbia Trip Report: A Window into EPR in Canada

2011-03-26T11:41:00.000-07:00

By Bill Sheehan, Executive Director, Product Policy Institute

I spent week of March 6-12, 2011, in British Columbia -- in Vancouver, the largest city, and Victoria, the provincial capital. My mission was to see first-hand how the BC approach to Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) is working. PPI has been promoting the BC approach since our founding in 2003 and I think it is accurate to say that we had an influence in getting California to adopt the essence of the BC results-based approach to EPR, and through California, helped set the terms of debate for the rest of the US. Although we have been promoting the BC approach, I had only caught glimpses of the programs on the ground over the years.

I came away energized. The core of the BC results-based approach to EPR is the idea that environmental product stewardship should be based on producer and user responsibility (those who design and benefit from products), and it is governments role to regulate and industry’s role to do. Although it is still a work in progress, what I saw evolving is a rich, market-based system in which the key word is diversity -- diversity of product categories separately and carefully regulated, diversity of stewardship organizations, and diversity of consumer-tailored options for collecting products and packaging. It may be PPI's important role to research and communicate the BC approach to EPR, with all its warts, and translate it to an American audience. Ontario and Manitoba are getting most of the attention as examples of Canadian EPR programs for packaging and hazardous products. I think BC has invented something unique that is working better than the Canadian and Manitoba programs and that improves on even European programs.

During the week I had meetings with: two of the provincial regulators who originated the approach in the mid 1990s; the current BC Environment Ministry EPR team including two department heads; key contacts at two industry stewardship organizations and a consultant to one of them; a retired plastics industry executive; members of local government; the head of a depot association; several NGOs and citizen activists; and an academic (the originator of the ecological footprint concept). I stayed at Helen and George Spiegelman’s house and Helen accompanied me on some of the outings.

My most interesting meeting was with Dennis Kinsey. He developed a model for taking back beverage containers and other packaging at one of the big supermarket chains. Mr. Kinsey’s work has been carried forward since he left several years ago. What he saw was an opportunity for the retail industry to get customers to return packaging to their stores. He created clean, well-lit, in-store return centers called Changes. They service a certain demographic of customer: those who shop weekly and like to return 10 or 20 containers at a time to a clean place. The customers are incentivized by refunds on deposit containers and by receiving “points” that can be redeemed in the store for specific other packaging that is returned (based on agreements with participating brand-owners). The owner of the chain was able to see this opportunity to build relationships with his customers.

The interesting part of the story is the fact that Changes is just one of a rich diversity of return options available in many BC localities, options that are customer-specific and that have evolved organically. The major stewardship organization for non-milk beverage containers, Encorp Pacific, contracts with Return It depots that people generally drive to and deliver large quantities of containers. The one Return It depot we visited was rather grubby compared to the Changes center we visited, and I was struck by the inefficiency of not crushing the thousands of soft drink containers full of air, which are then trucked to their next stop. Beer containers returned to the depot under a separate contract with the beer industry, by comparison, are crushed before shipping (800 to 1,000 aluminum beer cans into a brick the size of a shoe box).

Here’s a description by Mr. Kinsey of the diversified system of take-back opportunities for containers that has evolved in his suburban community of Maple Ridge. He concludes: Maple Ridge is serviced by a combination of Return to Retail, Municipal Blue Box, Centralized Depot and Encorp large volume Return It Centres, each catering to a specific consumer demographic in the area.

I am a resident of Maple Ridge BC and also sit on the board of the Ridge Meadows Recycling Society http://www.rmrecycling.org/, so I have a very good knowledge of the area. Currently there are several systems for Residents of Maple Ridge to choose when recycling both their deposit containers and recyclables. I will offer a brief description of the options and what they provide:
Two (2) Changes Recycling Centres - these centres are part of the Overwaitea Food Group Save On Foods stores http://www.owfg.com/. These centres pay full deposit for all non alcohol beverage containers and offer incentives for non deposit packaging from participating brand owners. The centres cater to medium to small volume consumer returns.

Two (2) Encorp Return It Centres www.encorp.ca - These centres offer full deposit paid on all beverage containers both alcoholic and non alcoholic. These centres tend to cater to consumers with larger volume returns. They also cater to commercial accounts such as bars and restaurants. They also accept electronics.

One Safeway retail store - which accepts limited returns on non alcoholic containers.

One Coopers Foods store - part of the Overwaitea Food Group, does not have a Changes Centre attached but accepts limited returns.

One government liquor store which accepts alcoholic beverage containers ( wine and spirits and beer.

Six private liquor stores - which accept limited returns on alcoholic containers.

A blue box curbside program, operated by the municipality in conjunction with the Ridge Meadows Recycling Society, which services approx 80% of Maple Ridge Residents and accepts all types of recyclable materials.

One centralized Drop Off Depot, again operated by the Ridge Meadows Recycling Society - open seven days a week and services Maple Ridge residents which don't have access to blue box. It also services residents with large volumes of recycling and provides a commercial service as well.

Another striking thing about BC is how rapidly new product categories and new stewardship organizations are coming on-line. The excellent BC Recycling Handbook (aimed at consumers) is barely a year old and is already out of date, as there are four new industry stewardship organizations (12 total) that have been created since it was produced. Encorp’s Neil Hastie says the Handbook will be updated this summer. On March 16^th the 12 BC stewards released a 14-minute video explaining the BC approach: see http://www.encorp.ca/bcstewardship/

PPI plans to organize a workshop in British Columbia for key American contacts working on EPR. In addition to hearing directly from some of the people I met with, we’ll take them to a community like Maple Ridge, and we’ll go through a department store and point out what products are currently under EPR stewardship programs, what products will be coming online in the next two years, in four years, etc.

But there are warts in the BC system. A big one is governance of stewardship programs, where the neighboring province of Alberta may have some instructive experience It will be useful to tell these stories also.

Below is info from the BC Environment Ministry’s website indicating the breadth of EPR programs -- http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/epd/recycling/ipsp.htm

Stay tuned to this blog and our Facebook page, PPI plans to continue to keep EPR advocates updated on the happenings in British Columbia, and across Canada.

"Spotlight on EPR" in eMagazine.com

2011-03-10T23:24:00.000-08:00

An Interview With Bill Sheehan

March 1, 2011 | Jim Motavalli |

Bill Sheehan cofounded the Product Policy Institute (PPI) with Helen Spiegelman in 2003, and serves as its executive director. In his work at PPI, he tackles waste from every angle—from championing waste-reduction methods to promoting cleaner manufacturing processes and the use of less-toxic materials. Sheehan has been a major supporter of bringing extended producer responsibility (EPR) to the U.S., and his work has led to the formation of Product Stewardship Councils in California, New York, Texas, Vermont and other states. Here, he talks to E about the promise for widespread adoption of EPR in the U.S.

E Magazine: Is EPR reaching a tipping point in the U.S.?

Bill Sheehan: Yes. EPR is in a high legislative phase. The question now is what kind of EPR recycling we will have. The danger is that powerful corporations—in concert with the garbage industry and public sector waste departments—will water down EPR so that it does little to move the needle towards sustainability. If all EPR does is throw industry funding at programs that collect masses of mixed material that are sold on low-grade global commodities markets, we won’t get meaningful change.

E: What kinds of EPR schemes are being advocated for packaging?

B.S.: Two camps are squaring off. One approach is the mixed-basket-of-goods approach proposed by the beverage industry in Vermont as an alternative to beverage container deposits. This employs industry financing for a “comprehensive” material-based program for all packaging and printed paper. In practice, it relies on industry financing of government-delivered curbside programs. In Canada, this approach has been implemented in Ontario and Manitoba and has delivered poor results.
The second approach, pioneered in western Canada, is phased and targeted EPR. Government targets specific product categories—such as soft drinks, fast food, detergents and cleaners, and lets producers engage with consumers to innovate new programs. That’s how it has worked with the successful EPR programs for household hazardous products that are underway.

E: Should local and state governments pay part of the cost of EPR programs, or should corporations bear the burden alone?

B.S.: The central principle of EPR is that those who design, market and use products and packaging—producers and consumers—should pay for all of the environmental management costs. Experience shows that good EPR programs do not require any further subsidies from state or local governments. In fact, they work better when government sets the bar and then lets industry design and operate the most effective programs. One of the opportunities in EPR is that it offers brand owners an opportunity to build a relationship of trust with the consumer.

E: How do you view the beverage industry’s proposal for EPR for packaging in the Vermont legislation?

B.S.: Coca-Cola and Nestlé have made a fundamental concession: They admit that they have a moral responsibility to provide stewardship of their empty containers. But repealing effective, industry-managed container deposit programs makes no sense from a sustainability perspective.
Deposits get more than double the recovery rates of mixed curbside collection, they yield clean material that is used to make new products, they work for beverages consumed away from home and they engage consumers rather than taxpayers or garbage ratepayers. Industry-managed bottle deposits are the grandmother of North American EPR programs—they should be improved and expanded, not abandoned.

E: Is the Maine law a model for the rest of the U.S.?

B.S.: Maine’s first-in-the-nation framework law establishes the principles of EPR in policy, and also a process for identifying priority products in the waste stream for new product stewardship programs. Maine has more EPR laws than any other state, a strong state environmental agency and, not insignificantly, a campaign finance reform law.
Maine also has a collegial culture that allowed the bill’s author to get support from the business community through the Maine State Chamber of Commerce. States with less experience and capacity than Maine may need to first pass several product-specific EPR bills. Those can ultimately be rolled into a framework regulation as British Columbia did in 2004.

E: Why is Congress so unfriendly toward EPR?

B.S.: I think it’s more a matter of neglect. Recycling has never been a major focus of our federal government. In Europe and Canada, they’ve moved beyond debating whether EPR is the right policy and are asking how to make it work. Ultimately, harmonized federal or national EPR policies make sense. But brand owners are more powerful in Congress than in the state legislatures.

E: How does the Product Policy Institute see its role?

B.S.: PPI was the first environmental organization in the U.S. to raise the fundamental question of whether local communities should be bearing the burden of cleaning up after the throwaway economy. We told the story of the history of waste: how the provision of convenient municipal garbage collection, at no cost to those who design and market consumer goods, encouraged the proliferation of toxic and throw-away products and packaging.
We challenged—and still challenge—end-of-pipe services by local governments and waste haulers that don’t solve the waste problem, but perpetuate it. We think it’s time for the public to demand “cradle-to-cradle” product stewardship from the companies they do business with, so that consumers can return products and packaging rather than resorting to garbage trucks, landfills and incinerators.

http://www.emagazine.com/magazine/spotlight-on-epr

A Collection of Responses to Kim Jeffries, Nestle CEO

2011-01-17T15:53:00.000-08:00

An article by Nestle CEO, Kim Jefferies, Why It's Time to Rethink Recycling in the US, was posted to greenbiz.com right before Christmas and has been widely circulated. Jefferies embraces a version of Extended Producer Responsibility that would do away with industry-managed beverage container deposit-refund laws and replace them with industry-managed, government-delivered curbside programs. Jefferies’ description of “EPR” as an alternative to deposit-refund systems is echoed in a recent report funded by Coca-Cola, noted below. It seems to be part of a coordinated beverage industry campaign to co-opt EPR rather than fixing bottle bills and making container deposits the cornerstone of EPR for packaging.

A few comments from greenbiz.com pasted below highlight inaccuracies in Jefferies’ description of bottle bills. Read the article and all comments at: It's Time to Rethink Recycling

Peter Spendelow, Oregon Department of Environmental Quality -- December 23, 2010 - 15:41

It is unfortunate that Mr. Jeffrey states that "the problem with bottle bills is they create an enormous government bureaucracy," because that certainly is not the case here in Oregon. Oregon was the first state to pass a bottle bill (in 1971) and the bill has been enormously successful since then. Yet there is no employee of the State of Oregon whose main job is to administer the bottle bill. In my work for the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality as a solid waste policy analyst since 1985, less than 5% of my time has been spent on bottle bill issues, yet I am the person who has done the most work on these issues for the State of Oregon. In fact, the bulk of implementation of the Oregon Bottle Bill is done by an industry group - the very capable Oregon Beverage Recycling Cooperative (OBRC). OBRC is a cooperative representing almost all of the distributors and beverage companies operating in Oregon, including Nestle. An industry group taking care to make sure that beverage containers get recycled - that is really what extended producer responsibility is all about, and that is what the industry cooperative OBRC does in Oregon under the auspices of the bottle bill.

Mr. Jeffrey also stated that bottle bills do nothing to address the paper recycling infrastructure. Actually, indirectly they do, by making the recycled paper supply much cleaner. In states without bottle bills, much of the curbside recycling is collected commingled, which means that all those glass and plastic containers are mixed in with the paper. Broken glass is a major contaminant in the paper, costing our paper mills millions of dollars in damage to equipment and forcing them to install additional cleaning technology. Much of the glass collected in those curbside programs also ends up being too contaminated and broken to be used to make new glass containers, and so it ends up being used as landfill cover or fill. In contrast, most of the glass collected in Oregon is collected under our bottle bill, and that glass goes back to a glass plant to be made into new bottles. Our paper recycling industry is thankful that we have a bottle bill in Oregon that helps keep all those bottles and cans out of their recycled paper. This may be one reason why Oregon has always been a leading state in curbside and other forms of recycling, as well as the first state with a bottle bill.

Stephen M Bantillo, Former Director of California’s Beverage Container Deposit Program -- December 28, 2010 - 15:40

Mr. Jeffery stated on NPR a couple years ago, “"Everybody that sells a plastic container that's recyclable should have some deposit on it if we're going to do this thing the right way." It appears somewhat disingenuous now for Mr. Jeffery to flog beverage container deposit programs where consumers have their deposit refunded if they recycle, and instead promote an industry-designed system of Producer Responsibility that assesses a fee on the consumer to pay for government systems. Mr. Jeffery also states that the government bureaucracy only does “a reasonable job of diverting a very small portion of the waste stream”, yet he wants to implement a system funded by the consumer that achieves a lower recycling rate than the average of the 11 bottle deposit states. In fact, the beverage container recycling rates in bottle deposit states are two to three times higher than the national average! And Mr. Jeffery wants us to Rethink Recycling? Hmmm...

Laura Haight, NYPIRG, December 23, 2010 - 14:58

My jaw dropped when I came to the line "The problem with bottle bills is they create an enormous government bureaucracy". Here in NY we have less than one fulltime staff person in the DEC overseeing the program; is this what Nestle's calls "enormous?" With an average return rate of over 70% and more than 6 billion bottles and cans recycled each year in NY alone, the bottle bill is a great example of how effective EPR can be -- all at virtually no cost to taxpayers. The states with the highest recycling rates have both curbside recycling programs AND bottle bills. We have ample documentation in NY on how deposits reduce litter - something curbside programs are not designed for or effective at. If Nestle's is trying to project an image of being an environmentally responsible company, this article fails dismally.

Bill Shireman, Future500, January 3, 2011 - 06:08

I agree - bottle bills actually create tiny bureaucracies. It's one of their best features. California is the only exception, and that's because the savings under that model - due to the central fund - can be used for other purposes. The recent abuses by the states of CA, NY, and CT make a good case for a third-party fund.

It would be nice to see some fresh thinking on the pro-deposit side. It would sure make life easier for those of us sincerely working to find solutions that can bring the two sides together. It's comforting to assume there's no possibility of a genuinely better approach, and just keep losing, but it's better to win.

Ben C -- December 23, 2010 - 08:07

Rethink bottled water.... This is all an effort to pass the buck on to the consumer. Now waiting for Keep America Beautiful to sign on. It's not time for Extended Producer Responsibility, it's time for FULL producer responsibility. How about being fully responsible for litter clean up, fully responsible for the pollution of making your products, fully responsible for the health impacts of your products on consumers and communities where your products are made. Interesting to note that Nestle's consultant and likely ghostwriter of this simplistic and self-serving piece is likely, Bill Shireman, the father of California's highly successful bottle bill. Also, Natural Logic... how about disclosing your client in this effort to kill bottle bills is Coke?

Gil Friend, Natural Logic -- December 24, 2010 - 14:37

I hope the people who reference the Natural Logic's EPR white paper have actually read it. (http://www.natlogic.com/EPR) It doesn't oppose bottle deposit policies (which several commenters have correctly called "the first EPR"). It does propose extending the effectiveness of well-designed financial mechanisms to a more comprehensive materials management solution.

Bottle bills work -- for bottles. Deposits on computers, tires, car batteries, etc work -- for those commodities. But though recovery rates are high, these are a small fraction of the waste stream; the challenge we face is to reduce, reuse, recover and recycle _most_ of that waste stream, not just subsets. EPR can put the responsibility for effective recovery and recycling of materials that will become "waste" on the producer (or first importer) of those materials. That financial responsibility can provide: financial incentive to producers to redesign products and packaging to be less resource intensive, less toxic and more recyclable; financial incentives to support or create effective end-of-life recycling; and financial relief to local government that bear much of that burden today.

The good news is that there's momentum for EPR around the country. Here in California, CalRecycle "seeks a comprehensive approach for advancing EPR" and its predecessor, the California Integrated Waste Management Board, "adopted a set of Strategic Directives that included Strategic Directive 5: Producer Responsibility: This policy directs staff to seek statutory authority to foster "cradle-to-cradle" producer responsibility and develop producer-financed and producer-managed systems for product discards. Numerous local governments in California have demonstrated their support by adopting producer responsibility resolutions (hosted by the California Product Stewardship Council)." But it can't succeed fast enough if it proceeds only product by product. We need "framework" legislation that greatly broadens the reach of the Extended Producer Responsibility / Product Steward approach.

To Sara Ost and Ben C's comments on putting the costs on the consumers: We disagree with Mr Jeffery's suggestion that consumers pay fees associated with their purchases, and tend to favor having producers pay fees associated with their production. There are arguments for both approaches, and we have not yet done the modeling to assess their relative merits. But it's not a simple either/or. If the fees are borne by producers, they may choose to pass costs on to consumers; on the other hand, producers that do a good job of lightening their footprints would pay less, and thus gain a market advantage. (By the way, to Ben C's call for "full" not "extended" producer responsibility, we completely agree; we just used the currently familiar term.)

There are many questions to be resolved -- some of them technically or logistically difficult, and some which require challenges to long-held and comfortable habits. But that's how innovation happens, and that's the kind of dialog we hoped to contribute to in producing our White Paper.

Yes, our work was conducted under contract to Coca-Cola -- and we made clear at the start that while our brains are for hire, our integrity and opinions are never for sale. We listened to Coke, to the stakeholders who participated in our Innovation Charrette, and various other reviewers. We took all their perspectives into account, and we drew our own conclusions (as we do in all out efforts to help companies and communities design, implement and measure profitable, effective sustainability strategies). And we made the recommendations that we thought best. We look forward to further exploration, and we're happy to participate in any forum in which our perspective and experience might be helpful.

Tex Corley, Strategic Materials -- December 24, 2010 - 06:26

Mr. Jeffery points in the right direction?

Years ago Jeffery said Deposits were the answer. The Natural Logic Paper was paid for by the Beverage industry to support their position against deposits. Deposits --- the first EPR --- work --- period.

So you think throwing everything into one bucket then crushing the heck out of it is the answer? The question must be --- How do you make junk? Talk to the companies that, either use or process that junk --- they all know Single Stream is the problem, not the answer. Can single stream get better? Maybe, but once the egg is scrambled it is very difficult and costly to unscramble it.

EPR as a Consideration in Holiday Shopping

2010-12-14T13:01:00.000-08:00

By Stephanie Welsh, PPI's social media maven, mom of 3, and crazed holiday shopper

As holiday shoppers rush to and fro, a growing number of people are adding a new criteria to their decision-making when they make purchases. Are people thinking about Extended Producer Responsibility when they make a purchase? Not in such a formal way, but in many other smaller ways that add up.

Let's face it, it's a hectic time of year and the added pressure of figuring out how to make environmentally educated and responsible purchases can make a person slightly crazy. But consider this, we know that consumers wield considerable power with their checkbooks and credit cards. This is an incredible time of year to exercise that power.

Here are a few things we're doing to get into the "green" spirit this season:

Waterfalling old electronics to kids rather than buying new.
Reading the recycling report card to figure out which manufacturers get the good grades before buying any electronics.
Taking re-usable shopping bags to the mall as well as the grocery store.
Considering packaging when making a purchase (all else being equal, which product has less packaging or packaging that can be recycled?).

Read through some of the information below and see if you can make a small change, or a big one, this buying season that will help send the message of EPR.

New electronics are hot sellers around the holidays, but commentary like that in The Story of Electronics by Annie Leonard is making people think about whether they actually need that next gadget right now.

Bloggers are talking about e-waste and where the electronics we dispose of really end up.

The Going Green blog: A New Shopping Season, a New Flood of E-Waste

E-waster Impacts Loom Over Black Friday

The Electronics TakeBack Coalition publishes a report card(http://www.electronicstakeback.com/hold-manufacturers-accountable/recycling-report-card/) for electronics manufacturers so consumers can see which companies are working on responsible recycling.

Beth Terry, creator of Fake Plastic Fish, blogs about reducing plastic from our lives and works on campaigns to get companies to take back their products at the end of life.

Musings on Ontario's WEEE program - is it the worst and costliest?

2010-10-22T11:35:00.000-07:00

The following blog was written by Guy Crittenden for Solid Waste & Recycling Magazine. His commentary brings some interesting truths about Ontario's WEEE (Waste Electronics & Electrical Equipment) program to light. Read on:

Ontario WEEE program world's costliest and worst?

I’m a great fan of the concept of extended producer responsibility (EPR), in which (as anyone who reads Solid Waste & Recycling regularly knows) brand owners and other producers pay for the end-of-life management of products and packaging (rather than municipal ratepayers). Among the many potential virtues of EPR is that the polluter pays principle eliminates municipal subsidies and allocates costs where they belong -- with the people who can change the products -- and offers an economic incentive for waste minimization and design for environment (DfE) changes.

That being said, I’m not much of a fan of so-called “product stewardship” in the sense that, unlike EPR (with which it's often confused), many of the “first generation” product stewardship programs have simply seen an advance recycling fee stuck on various products (e.g., tires, motor oil, etc.) which are then managed by a collective. While product stewardship does have the benefit of getting some materials out of the municipal waste stream, the programs so far have been plagued with problems, including lack of accountability (in some cases), poor program performance (without repercussions), and high costs. Fact is, many of the programs lack things we take for granted as beneficial in the marketplace such as competition, which lowers costs and improves services over time. For some strange reason the very companies that swear by free markets for the products they sell at the retail level suddenly become Castro-style socialists when it comes to end-of-life management of discards, settling for production quotas and service monopolies that time and again have led to underperformance everywhere else they've been imposed.

There is perhaps no better example of the shortcomings of product stewardship than Ontario’s program for waste electronics and electrical equipment (WEEE), which has been expanded in a second phase to collect and supposedly divert a wide range of materials from disposal, including everything from cell phones to old TVs. The program sounds fine in theory and has given more than one environment minister a nice photo op and chance to say they’re “doing something for the environment.” However, when the program was being designed and discussed, our magazine and its contributing editors argued vociferously that the program would potentially become an enormous boondoggle for consumers, conceived as it was with the usual industry collective managing the materials in a quota system.

The program was introduced anyway, over our objections, so we waited to see. Now the results are coming in, and it ain’t a pretty picture. Turns out that Ontario’s WEEE program is not diverting anything like the amount of material it was supposed to. Worse, consumers are being dinged a lot of money at the cash register in the form of eco fees on things like new flat screen TVs, supposedly to pay for lots of waste diversion of old electronic equipment. Sadly, consumers aren’t getting value for money, by any yardstick. The program taking in large amounts of money and diverting very little waste. It appears that Ontario residents are paying for the world's most expensive, least effective product stewardship program for electronic waste.

Here are some quick Ontario WEEE facts that pretty much speak for themselves. The situation makes the recent debacle over household hazardous and special waste eco fees look like a well-thought out plan:

1. Ontario Electronics Stewardship (OES) – the collective that administers the program -- had budgeted to collect $74.4 million (See program plan at Page 109) for its first year of operation and collected well over $60 million (they claim reduced revenue due to the economic downturn);

2. In the first full year of operation OES recovered 17,000 metric tonnes of e-waste (Source: Waste Diversion Ontario [WDO] staff report); so

3. The OES program costs anywhere from $3,500 to $4,400 per tonne – by far the costliest e-waste program in the world;

4. Therefore, with Ontario consumers having paid over $60 million in electronic eco-fees the program has recovered 44% of the diversion target that it set for itself and only 18% of what is available in Ontario annually (96,841 tonnes as per the plan at page 27). The remaining 82% is headed where? South East Asia?

So, not only is it the most expensive per tonne; it’s also the world’s most ineffective. To further make the point,

5. Alberta recovers 4.74/kg of e-waste per capita at a cost of $1,900/tonne while Ontario recovers 1.42 kg/per capita. And even Alberta's program is no great shakes. As an absolute comparator Switzerland recovers about the same amount per capita as Alberta does at about half the cost.

6. Waste Diversion Ontario and Ontario Electronic Stewardship have not published a report on the performance of the Ontario WEEE program contrary to the Waste Diversion Act 2002 S 33. (1) “Each industry funding organization that is designated by the regulations as the industry funding organization for a waste diversion program shall, not later than April 1 in each year (a) prepare a report in accordance with this section on its activities during the previous year; and (b) provide a copy of the report to Waste Diversion Ontario and make the report available to the public.”

Maybe they're just really busy folks, but it’s pretty easy to imagine why no one wants to publish the results: the program is failing and is something of an embarrassment. One could cut the program operators some slack with the excuse that “it’s new” and time is needed to improve performance. That’s rubbish! The program is fatally flawed by its very design. Private electronics recyclers, including some of the leading companies in the world, have been suggesting program changes repeatedly – changes that would do away with the quotas and create incentives for competition and investment in this industry, with their suggestions falling on deaf ears.

It’s time for the environment ministry to take action, or for voters to voice this displeasure in next year’s provincial election.

Is the goal of EPR landfill diversion or sustainable resource use?

2010-10-12T12:54:00.000-07:00

Increased interest in Extended Product Responsibility, aka Product Stewardship, in the US is bringing into focus very different ideas on what the goal should be. The following comments by Heidi Sanborn, relayed with permission, highlight different perspectives pertaining to carpet. But the same could be said for packaging, where there is a renewed focus on burning. Heidi's comments are in response to an assertion that the "entire concept" of the Carpet America Recovery Effort (CARE) goal is landfill diversion.

Heidi Sanborn, Executive Director
California Product Stewardship Council:
"I must say I was not at all aware that CARE’s goals are about “landfill diversion”. In California, that has never been the goal since AB 939 passed in 1989 when we developed our waste hierarchy of source reduction first, recycling and composting second, and landfilling/incineration last – that hierarchy was developed with a goal of highest and best use of resources. I certainly hope if that is not the current goal of CARE, that the mission and vision be revisited to make it a goal to best manage resources, not just divert from landfills.

I am just returning from almost 3 weeks in Switzerland, France and Belgium and I met with many professional stewardship organizations for everything from beverage containers to batteries and electronics. I attended and presented at two conferences: an international EPR conference on packaging and one European conference on WEEE (electronics). I heard speakers who literally wrote the book on Cradle-to-Cradle and an EU Commissioner of the environment. Without a doubt, the rest of the world is focused on running towards the green economy based on efficient use of resources to be “sustainable”. I certainly hope the carpet industry will be part of bringing the US into the green economy by focusing on efficient and sustainable use of resources. “Landfill diversion” is short- sighted in that if we must get oil, a non-renewable resource, to make the carpet and ‘divert” it from landfill by burning it for energy, we have to get more non-renewable oil to burn hence, it is not sustainable.
As Professor Michael Braungart says, that is just less bad, not doing good. His colleague Bill McDonough wrote a letter of support to get the carpet bill passed. I hope we don’t let them down by ignoring the design changes that need to be made to carpet to make it a sustainable product."

Pic: stockXCHNG, photo by Kriss Szkurlatowski

WASTE: Climate Change, Peak Oil, and the End of Waste!

2010-09-27T20:53:00.000-07:00

Bill Sheehan, Executive Director
Product Policy Institute

I'm happy to announce Product Policy Institute's inclusion in the forthcoming book, The Post Carbon Reader: Managing the 21st Century's Sustainability Crises. Our chapter, "Climate Change, Peak Oil & the End of Waste" examines the intersection of waste policy, consumption and climate change, and describes a materials management approach that can contribute to building sustainable, resilient communities.

As a preview of the book, a PDF of our contribution is available here: http://www.postcarbon.org/report/

Along with PPI's chapter, The Post Carbon Reader explores key drivers shaping the 21st century, from renewable energy and urban agriculture to social justice and systems resilience. The book features a number of important thinkers and activists, most of whom are my peers at the Post Carbon Institute: Bill McKibben, Wes Jackson, Sandra Postel, Richard Heinberg, David Orr, Stephanie Mills, Michael Shuman, Erika Allen and Richard Douthwaite, among others.

We're excited about the Reader as it showcases many aspects and challenges of the work we do, tying it to the knowledge and efforts of our colleagues at Post Carbon Institute, an international think tank dedicated to the transition to a more resilient, equitable and sustainable world.

The Post Carbon Reader will be available on October 10, 2010 from Watershed Media.

I hope you enjoy what we've written and find it engaging enough to share with your friends and colleagues.

Refillable Beverage Containers-The Return of a Good Idea?

2010-09-23T10:46:00.000-07:00

Do you recall the glass bottles from decades past? Americans used to drink their soda from glass bottles that are collector's items today. But more importantly, do you remember how those glass bottles were used? The bottles were returned to retailers and then refilled before they were sold again! Could it be that we had a very efficient recycling system to start with, and then we lost it?

Here's a glimpse of a blog post from "Zero Waste Europe" about this very idea:
"Not many decades ago beverages were generally bottled in refillable containers with deposits. Deposits are a sum of money we give as a security for an item acquired for temporary use, once we give back the item we get back the money. In the last decades and years, this has changed; the trend goes towards throw-away one-way packaging. This is a very inefficient way of using resources."

Read the rest of the blog and see the results they are getting in Europe with beverage container deposits:
http://www.zerowasteeurope.eu/beverage-packaging-and-zero-waste/

PIC: stock.XCHNG

A Zero-Waste Future: Pipe Dream or Reality?

2010-09-21T07:10:00.000-07:00

By guest blogger:
Matt Prindiville, Clean Product Project Director, Natural Resources Council of Maine

What would you say if I told you that consumer product manufacturers are teaming up with local solid waste officials to eliminate the concept of "trash" altogether? Does that sound like an eco-pipe dream?

Well, it's not. Right here in Maine, electronics manufacturers have already set up and are financing collection and recycling programs for unwanted television sets, computers, monitors, cell phones, mercury containing light bulbs and more.

The goal of these programs is to divert these products from landfills and incinerators and get them into recycling operations where they can be broken down and turned into new products. While, Maine's been on the cutting edge of this policy approach known as product stewardship (or extended producer responsibility), we're well behind places like the European Union and Canada, which are implementing stewardship plans to get pretty much everything you can think of out of the waste stream and into recycling operations.

And, here's the kicker - it's all done by private companies and the costs are incorporated into the price of the product, instead of left to taxpayers and local governments to figure out what to do with all the unwanted stuff.

Pretty soon, we won't be talking about "solid waste" policy anymore. We'll be talking about "sustainable materials" policy, and that, my friends, is a heck of a lot more exciting and truly has the potential to revolutionize the way we manufacture, use and dispose of consumer products. Rather than designing products for disposal, manufacturers will now have the incentives to design their products - and packaging - for their next uses, and will create the systems to capture those unwanted products and turn them into something new and valuable."

You can read more of the Natural Resources Council of Maine Blog at http://blog.nrcm.org/

PIC: stock.xchng

West Coast Climate Forum Looking For Feedback

2010-09-14T21:56:00.000-07:00

The West Coast Climate Forum wants feedback on the “Beta version” of a Climate Change Toolkit. The West Coast Climate Forum was convened by US EPA Regions 9 and 10 and comprised mostly of state and local government people from California, Oregon and Washington states. Product Policy Institute was also part of the team.

Shannon Davis, the West Coast Forum co-lead, is soliciting input on the Climate Change Toolkit, see below for what she's interested in, then check out the Toolkit and send comments to davis.shannon@epa.gov by October 15^th.

Materials Management Approaches for State and Local Climate Protection. Shannon Davis, U.S. EPA Region IX (WST-1)

A small group has been working very hard over the past year to develop this resource using a wiki format. Now we need your help. Please take a few minutes to click on the wiki link - http://captoolkit.wikispaces.com/ - and review this climate toolkit. As you read through it, here some questions to keep in mind:
- How can we improve content of this toolkit?
- Do you have Climate Protection Actions to suggest that are not included in this toolkit?
- Are there additional measurement tools that should be added?
- What elements of this toolkit are most helpful? - Other web resources to recommend?
- Can you recommend other Climate Action Plan best practices or good examples?
- Do you have suggestions for the format? - Do you have other feedback on this toolkit?

You should find this toolkit ready to use, and we hope you will find it to be a valuable resource. We will be continuing to make improvements to it, with a particular focus on adding to the section named Climate Protection Actions .

To date, the Workgroup has focused primarily on content and not on design. After this round of review, we will turn our attention to layout and design for a final web based tool.

Please send your comments to davis.shannon@epa.gov by Friday, October 15, 2010 or you can use the "we want to hear from you" link in the wiki.

Local government in Rhode Island votes for EPR Framework

2010-09-10T09:28:00.000-07:00

Once again, we see local governments taking the initiative and pushing EPR to the next level!
Rhode Island already has three laws addressing Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) for products that create hazardous waste. But what Rhode Island doesn't have is a "framework EPR approach". A framework approach is meant to take the concept of EPR and expand it beyond laws that address single products into a whole variety of products and packaging. Now the Narrangansett Town Council has passed a resolution to get the conversation about EPR framework for Rhode Island on the state's agenda.

Read the press release below from Jonathon Berard at Clean Water Action:

NARRAGANSETT TOWN COUNCIL APPROVES RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF PRODUCER RESPONSIBILITY

NARRAGANSETT, Sept 8, 2010 – Last night, the Narragansett Town Council voted unanimously to pass a resolution in support of a framework extended producer responsibility approach to waste management for the State of Rhode Island. Councilwoman Susan Cicilline-Buonanno introduced the resolution.

Producer responsibility redefines the way municipal waste is managed. Traditionally, the cost of waste management is borne solely by municipalities, who pass those costs down to residents in the form of taxes. In contrast, producer responsibility places the primary obligation and control of product end-of-life management with the producer, who builds those costs into the price of the product. This approach results in a significant decrease in costs for cities and towns and ensures that convenient and efficient recycling and disposal services are available to all. Beyond that, producer responsibility encourages product design innovation and foments small business growth in the recycling sector, which results in the creation of green jobs.

Rhode Island currently has three such laws on the books. The collection of mercury auto switches, electronic waste, and mercury thermostats are managed through programs that are created and funded by manufacturers. These three pieces of legislation define producer responsibility policies for specific item, but crafting laws in this fashion is time consuming and legislatively inefficient. Framework legislation would create a means to identify products and create subsequent management policies in a much more timely and efficient fashion.

“A framework approach takes what we have learned through the management of individual products and applies it to a wide range of goods,” said John Berard, campaign organizer for Clean Water Action. “It is the next step in the natural progression of producer responsibility policies.”

Framework approaches to product stewardship have been successful elsewhere, particularly in Canada. Ontario, Manitoba, and British Columbia have all enacted successful framework laws for managing waste, and the Canadian government is currently exploring the feasibility of a national framework policy. Earlier this year, Maine became the first state in the United States to pass framework producer responsibility legislation, and similar legislation has been introduced in five other states: California, Minnesota, Oregon, Vermont, and Washington.

“It is the towns and cities of this state who pay for the old, inefficient system of waste management,” continued Berard, “so it is appropriate that they are the ones who are urging the General Assembly into action. We praise the Town of Narragansett for their proactivity in this matter.”

Johnathan Berard, Campaign Organizer Clean Water Action

New conclusions about how to be green?

2010-08-17T20:15:00.000-07:00

If you read the title "Everything You Know About Going Green Is Wrong", would it make you hesitate a bit before clicking? It caused this reader to pause for a moment. Why, you ask? Because I like to think that I'm making good, responsible, environmental-friendly choices! Do I really want to read something that's about to turn that all upside down? Not really, but I braved it anyway. And to my surprise, it wasn't a commentary on how everything we're currently doing is wrong, it's more about how we're focusing on actions that have a small effect, not the actions with the largest effect.

One of the insights from the blog: "As a nation, the products we buy, and the plastic and paper those products are packaged in, account for 44% of our greenhouse gas emissions -- dwarfing all other sources of pollution. It's all about stuff. Good stuff, bad stuff, fuel-efficient stuff, organic stuff: The problem is too much stuff."

This insight succinctly highlights why PPI focuses its work where it does. PPI's goals are to help local governments across the nation take action by getting producers to share in the responsibility of waste management, rather than producing products and expecting governments to find a way to dispose of all the products and packaging.
Read the entire blog entry "Everything You Know About Going Green Is Wrong" here:
http://www.ill-conditioned.com/2010/08/everything-you-know-about-going-green.html

Pic: stock.XCHNG

Defending EPR in Ontario

2010-08-05T22:12:00.000-07:00

While laying out why Ontario should keep its Hazardous Household Waste Program, David Suzuki says "Call it Extended Producer Responsibility, call it Eco Fees, call it what you'd like, but the bottom line is that hazardous substance manufacturers understand one thing best: if it costs them to pollute they're going to pollute less -- often a lot less.
That's the fundamental principle underlying Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) policies such as the government of Ontario's Household Hazardous Waste Program -- a program the official opposition has inexplicably threatened to tear down if it gets the opportunity." His comments were published in The Ottwawa Citizen. Read his entire argument here: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/technology/dump+this+program/3361012/story.html#ixzz0vnP20VxX

California reaches 100 local resolutions seeking EPR

2010-07-28T20:49:00.000-07:00

The movement is nationwide, in red states and blue states, on both coasts and in the heartland. Local governments are leading the charge by adopting resolutions calling for state policies for extended producer responsibility (EPR), otherwise known as product stewardship. In California, the City of Roseville became the 100^th local government, agency or association to adopt a local EPR resolution.

Local resolutions have been adopted in five other states around the country, often by members of state Product Stewardship Councils: New York (7 resolutions), Texas (4), Minnesota (6), Massachusetts (4), and Rhode Island (1). The resolutions call for extending producers’ responsibility for product waste beyond the sale to ensure products and packaging are properly reduced, reused and recycled. These resolutions also call for state legislatures to pass legislation that shifts financial responsibility for recycling product waste to producers and consumers, rather than costs falling solely on local governments via taxpayers and garbage ratepayers.

Pic: stock.XCHNG, courtesy of aschaeffer

More recycling is good, but what is better?

2010-07-23T11:46:00.000-07:00

People often feel like product stewardship makes sense but aren't sure how to make the concept into reality. One idea that is frequently hit upon as a first step is expanding a community's recycling program. But is this the best path to product stewardship? Here are some thoughts from Bill Sheehan, Director of Product Policy Institute:

More recycling is good, but it matters who does it and who pays for it. Building up municipal infrastructure (“capital investments for single stream recycling") is welfare for waste and ultimately encourages the continued production of throwaway products and packaging. And single stream is the worst system for transitioning to EPR. If individual producers were responsible for getting their stuff back when consumers are done with it, they would never use single stream. Imagine if everything at Home Depot were all jumbled and mixed together before you bought it! Producers can get an amazing array of stuff into stores; they can use the same ingenuity (called reverse logistics) to get it back.

I know this is a radical paradigm shift, but it is the truth. The difficulty of trying to convince people bought into the municipal responsibility model (that’s most of us) is why I spend significant time in states where people get this shift. Below is a link to an article by a local government person from Texas: Kim Mote, Solid Waste Manager for Fort Worth. He has seen the light and is now organizing local governments in Texas through the Texas Product Stewardship Council. Read his position: http://www.nctcog.org/envir/features/2008/dec/regvoice.asp

Pic: stock.XCHNG

The Story of Cosmetics

2010-07-21T10:54:00.000-07:00

Annie Leonard, a Berkeley activist who we have highlighted for her ability to get the word out to consumers about complicated environmental issues, has released a new video. "The Story of Cosmetics" is a 7 minute video intended to show people that many cosmetics ingredients are unsustainable toxic petrochemicals, and that the system of regulating chemicals in personal care products is, like other chemical policies in the US, badly broken. They outline solutions and directly link to online actions. Watch the video now at: www.storyofstuff.org/cosmetics.

Pic: stock.XCHNG

CAUTION: EPR Eco-fees become targets of anti-tax fever

2010-07-19T13:48:00.000-07:00

As the concept of Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) takes hold, the serious discussion of how recycling is paid for enters the discussion with equal vigor. Two areas active in EPR, Ontario and California, are in the throes of these discussions now.

This article from the Toronto Star describes a fire storm over EPR eco-fees in Ontario: Eco-fee agency says levies could be buried in price

In California, a proposed ballot measure for November 2010 is designed to shift the burden of paying for the cost of pollution from the companies that pollute to ordinary taxpayers. This “Polluter Protection Initiative” is funded entirely by corporations and organizations that do not want to pay for the harm they cause. “Oil companies Exxon Mobil, Chevron, and Connoco Philips; alcohol companies such as Anheuser-Busch, and MillerCoors; and the tobacco company Phillip Morris (through a half-million dollar contribution to the California Chamber of Commerce Political Action Committee) have already raised over two million dollars to qualify for the ballot.” Read more: Polluter FAQ v2.doc

For Product Policy Institute’s perspective on eco-fees, read our discussion document: To Fee or Not to Fee: That is the Question. Where do you weigh in?

Picture: Toronto Star - Eco-fee agency says levies could be buried in price

Costs for Added Service: "Eco-fees"

2010-07-15T00:00:00.000-07:00

Guest column by Helen Spiegelman

In Canada, producers are beginning to add recycling costs ("eco-fees") onto the prices of their products. These fees are coming under a lot of fire. Environmentalists who support producer responsibility are concerned that corporations are slapping these "fees" on without adequate government oversight. The general public in Canada sees the fees as a government tax -- coming hard on the heels of a "harmonized sales tax" (HST) that adds cost to some consumer goods. It is important to help the public understand the underlying facts so they can hold both corporations and the government accountable.

First, EPR "eco-fees" are not a tax but a price increase reflecting an added service being provided by producers to consumers. It is a cost, like the other costs that are incurred in producing and marketing products, that has to be factored in when the producer sets the price of the product. Pricing is flexible, of course: producers can choose to absorb some costs temporarily, but ultimately all costs have to be covered or the producer goes out of business.

Where EPR gets into trouble at this stage of its evolution is that government has allowed all producers of a given product (e.g. electronics) to use the same company to manage their recycling function, creating a monopolistic/monopsonistic situation. For this reason, really robust government oversight is needed, such as the delegated administrative organization in Alberta, to make sure that the consortia don't abuse the consumers. But there will be a natural tendency for producers to bolt from consortia when they can come up with a lower cost way of providing the same services. This is why good EPR legislation allows producers to manage their own recycling functions or form new consortia.

Talking the Talk - What Does It Really Accomplish?

2010-07-14T08:59:00.000-07:00

By Stephanie Welsh, PPI Social Media Consultant
It's hard to think of an industry that doesn't have its own jargon and acronyms and slang. When you join a new industry, it feels like people are speaking a different language, but gradually you start to clue in and even throw in a few acronyms and try out a piece of jargon once in a while. Over time, it becomes common place to use the jargon and acronyms. In fact, it makes you feel like you fit in, like you're part of an exclusive club.

The only time you think twice about the way you speak about your job, your passion, your industry, is when you're at a party or the dinner table and you look around to see that everyone is listening but their expressions clearly say "what are you talking about?" That's when you realize you have to find a way to talk to people outside your industry or you'll be talking to yourself.

Annie Leonard, a Berkeley activist focused on the environment, is doing an incredible job speaking to people outside the environmental sector. She's no longer using language that restricts her to the activist or environmentalist "clubs", she's talking to EVERYBODY. And she's doing it in a way that is catching people's attention. Her web video, "The Story of Stuff" has been viewed by more than 12 million people. You can read more about Annie Leonard in the LA Times: http://www.latimes.com/news/science/environment/la-me-story-of-stuff-20100713,0,2775603,full.story

Here at Product Policy Institute, we work on Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR), also known as Product Stewardship. Whether you use the full words or the acronym, it's hard for people to understand exactly what it means. There are moments when it's hard to describe what Extended Producer Responsibility is without getting into jargon and geek-speak.

Have you ever tried to explain EPR to someone who knew nothing about it? How did you do it? What words seemed to make your point? Did you use an analogy? Did you see a spark of understanding?

We'd love to hear from you about how YOU speak about EPR and Product Stewardship. Comment below and tell us your EPR explanation stories. Not only are we listening to what Annie Leonard has to say, but we're paying close attention to how she says it and how effective she is.

PPI recommendations catch Seattle's attention in quest for carbon neutral city

2010-07-07T21:28:00.000-07:00

Seattle is attempting to become the first carbon neutral US city. That sounds daunting enough, but Seattle's City Council has realized they must consider carbon emissions AND embedded carbon in creating their carbon neutral policies. Richard Conlin, president of Seattle's City Council, has looked for ideas to create an authentic carbon neutral policy. He has found PPI & EPA's call for a "life-cycle analysis of products that includes green degisn, waste prevention, and recycling" to be the kind of robust recommendation they need. You can read more from Richard Conlin in this article from "Yes" magazine: www.yesmagazine.org/blogs/richard-conlin/but-what-about-embedded-carbon

Ontario Postpones Transition to Full EPR

2010-07-05T12:18:00.000-07:00

“Ontario has … postponed one of the most important pieces of constructive environmental legislation in a generation. … Product stewardship and extended producer responsibility (EPR) are sweeping across the continent and Europe. Ontario has started to position itself as a leader in this area, and was about to introduce legislation that would have made it the talked-about role model across Canada and the United States. The province was poised to steal the crown from places like British Columbia…”  - Solid Waste & Recycling magazine.
Read the entire Editor's Blog here: http://blogsw.solidwastemag.com/2010/06/mcguinty_liberals_fumble_major.html

Swimming Upstream: Product Stewardship and the Promise of Green Design

2010-06-20T12:03:00.000-07:00

One of the major rationales for extended producer responsibility policy approach is the promise of promise of influencing product and packaging design. David Stitzhal (PPI Vice President and principal of Full Circle Consulting) has produced an excellent white paper for the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality’s Product Stewardship Stakeholder Group.

Here’s a summary of Swimming Upstream: Product Stewardship and the Promise of Green Design

Product‐oriented policies reflect an awareness of – and an attempt to address – the impacts products have at end of life, as well as throughout the product’s life‐cycle. Ideally, such product stewardship policies establish built‐in mechanisms and incentives that minimize environmental impact at time of disposal, as well as during design, production, transport and other life‐cycle stages. This is often achieved by building the costs of such impacts into the consumer‐manufacturer transaction, rather than covering such costs through solid waste rates and taxes.
Many mechanisms exist and are emerging that establish level regulatory playing fields, thus allowing industry to compete on improving their environmental footprint, rather than simply cost and performance. These mechanisms rely on different engines, ranging from leveraging purchasing power (EPEAT, Top Runner) to restricting materials (RoHS, food service packaging), to requiring manufacturer take-back (Paint, EWaste). These approaches provide lessons and experience from which Oregon can draw when exploring continued product‐oriented policies as a tool for decreasing waste and toxicity in the State. Several lessons and policy recommendations are suggested.

Links to the Oregon DEQ site -- and to several other important papers on the subject -- are posted at http://www.productpolicy.org/content/green-design

Graphic from libkcad.ferris.edu/images/green.jpg

New blog from the front lines of Product Stewardship in Maine

2010-06-17T22:21:00.000-07:00

When it comes to EPR, the state of Maine has bragging rights for passing the first extended producer responsibility "framework" legislation in the United States. Now that bill’s author, Maine Rep. Melissa Walsh Innes (D-Yarmouth), has started her own blog to share her contemplations about product stewardship. http://confessionsofaproductstewardshipgeek.blogspot.com/

U.S. Conference of Mayors Adopts Producer Responsibility Resolution

2010-06-14T16:12:00.000-07:00

“Hat Trick” of National Associations of Elected Officials

The U.S. Conference of Mayors (USCM) joined the National League of Cities and National Association of Counties in adopting a resolution calling for state and federal producer responsibility legislation that shifts the costs of managing problematic product and packaging waste away from taxpayers and local governments to producers and the consumers of their products.

The USCM resolution, adopted at their annual meeting in Oklahoma City on June 14^th, is based on a model developed by the Product Policy Institute (PPI) that has been adopted by 96 local jurisdictions and local government associations in California since 2006, as well as by jurisdictions in New York, Massachusetts, Minnesota and Texas.

“Product Policy Institute has been working with governments for seven years to find solutions to the mounting burden of product and packaging waste facing communities,” said Product Policy Institute Executive Director Bill Sheehan. “Today the U.S. Conference of Mayors planted their flag in the waste pile and said, “no more.” They asked product manufacturers to take primary responsibility for their toxic and non-recyclable products. We’re proud of their leadership on this issue.”

USCM is the official nonpartisan organization of cities with populations of 30,000 or more, promoting effective national urban/suburban policy. The USCM resolution supports state and federal producer responsibility legislation that levels the playing field for corporations that take “cradle-to-cradle” responsibility for their products and packaging, and urges Congress support the ability of state governments to establish producer responsibility legislation.

The USCM resolution lead sponsor was Mayor Christopher Cabaldon of West Sacramento, California - whose city adopted a similar resolution in 2009. The list of signers included five U.S. states:

· The Honorable Christopher Cabaldon, Mayor of West Sacramento, California

· The Honorable Mike McGinn, Mayor of Seattle, Washington

· The Honorable David Maher, Mayor of Cambridge, Massachusetts

· The Honorable Patrick Hayes, Mayor of North Little Rock, Arkansas

· The Honorable Mark Burroughs, Mayor of Denton, Texas

· The Honorable Kevin Johnson, Mayor of Sacramento, California

“Local governments are in serious financial trouble and can better use resources currently going to manage waste products like batteries, needles and fluorescent lamps to fund police, fire and basic public health services,” said Mayor Cabaldon. “We need manufacturers to take responsibility for what they make, not leave it to the taxpayers and ratepayers to clean-up the mess at very high costs.

National associations of elected officials representing cities and counties have already adopted producer responsibility resolutions. The National League of Cities and the National Association of Counties both adopted resolutions last year.

The resolutions are part of a movement that calls for Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR), also known as Product Stewardship. EPR is a policy approach common in Europe, Japan, Canada and other industrialized nations but relatively new to the United States. In the US, 22 states now have laws for discarded electronic products that require producers to finance or manage collection and provide responsible recycling.

“We cannot continue to expect government and taxpayers to design, fund and manage every product sold, said Heidi Sanborn, Executive Director of the California Product Stewardship Council. “Taxpayers and garbage ratepayers have hit their limit and so have our landfills! Requiring producers of problem products like batteries and fluorescent lamps pay for their recovery, utilizes free-market competitive forces to drive down recycling costs and creates jobs in the private sector, not in the public sector.”

Product Policy Institute has been leading the producer responsibility movement by conducting research and education on product stewardship, and by helping local and state government officials and other stakeholders like national associations work collaboratively towards this policy approach. PPI helped local governments organize Product Stewardship Councils in California, Texas, New York, Massachusetts and Vermont; the Councils serve as hubs that bring together all stakeholders to develop sustainable solutions based on the framework principles.

More information:

· Link to USCM resolution on Product Policy Institute’s producer responsibility resolutions web page: http://www.productpolicy.org/content/local-epr-resolutions

· Link to extended producer responsibility background: http://www.productpolicy.org/content/about-epr

· Link to Joint Framework Principles for Product Stewardship Policy http://www.productpolicy.org/content/framework-principles

· Link to US Conference of Mayors: http://www.usmayors.org/

British Columbia E-Waste Program Success Story

2010-05-11T18:06:00.000-07:00

Guest Column
By Helen Spiegelman
Zero Waste Vancouver Blog

In BC we take computers back to be recycled in a program that is authorized by Sony, Dell, HP, Apple, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.

All those good names and logos are on the line that our e-waste won't end up in the place pictured here.

This is the place where our federal government sent its e-waste until good work by the Basel Action Network brought images like this home.
The timing couldn't have been better. British Columbia's landmark, earth-changing Industry Product Stewardship legislation was shining the spotlight on major brand-owners, calling them to the table, saying: "This is your problem. Solve it."

The brand-owners got it. Seeing the handwriting on the wall (that they were going to have to take back our e-waste and recycle it) they developed a sheet of Vendor Qualifications setting out for companies wanting to do business with them what could, and couldn't, happen to all those products bearing their brands that came back from consumers. What couldn't happen: prison labour or export.

The Electronic Stewardship Association of BC is the group of brand-owners that oversee what happens to ewaste in our province. They are asking their Advisory Committee (on which Zero Waste Vancouver has a seat) what should be their priorities for the coming year. They will be sitting down in the fall to develop an Annual Plan for 2011.

What should I tell them on your behalf?

For myself, I'm going to ask them what they are doing to avoid the public relations disaster being suffered this week by the Ontario government!

Pic: Huffington Post -- The World's Most Bizarre [and heartwrenching] Man-Made Disasters.

Letter to WalMart from Local Government: "Stuck With Your Products"

2010-05-06T18:46:00.000-07:00

Guest Column

Letter to Kenneth Woodlin, Walmart
Kenneth.Woodlin@wal-mart.com

From: Rob Darcy
Santa Clara County(CA) Hazardous Program Manager

May 06, 2010

RE: Voluntary Fluorescent Lamp and/or Battery Recycling Partner

Ken,

With all due respect, I am very disappointed with your decision to refuse to participate in Santa Clara County's Retail Take-it back Network. Simply put, we need your help serving the public We have 66 voluntary locations accepting batteries and 35 accepting fluorescent lamps. Your competitors recognize the need to do their part to help consumers dispose of the very same products you sell and profit from at your stores. If you recall, we sat on the Lighting Task Force together to try and solve the problem facing local governments and our environment and were unable to agree on who should fund sustainable collection programs for end of life hazardous products. So for now, local governments/taxpayers are stuck.

I always find it surprising that businesses scream about regulations and how they should be allowed to thrive in a free market unfettered by laws and regulations. After all, the free market will fix all our problems and self-correct when needed. These same businesses are vigorously opposing current producer responsibility/product stewardship bills in the legislature today. They want free markets but are quite content to enjoy the waste subsidy that local governments provide when cleaning up after the hazardous products that are spewed into commerce. Local government should not be in the business of end of life management and instead it should be a function of the marketplace allowing business innovation to thrive and compete.

Wal-Mart has a market and moral responsibility to be part of the solution and participate in Santa Clara County's Retail Take-it-back Network. All your stores are already managing these very same waste streams as we speak. Your stores generate these wastes in the course of your every day business operations. Some of your stores, in fact, have serious problems with managing hazardous waste you generate throughout the state. Why not embrace the need to do it right, train your employees to be compliant and open it up to the public. This would be an impressive step toward sustainability and a PR success story.

I ask you to reconsider. After all, you are already managing these products in the every day course of your business. I would also like to point out that you are currently accepting batteries, fluorescent lamps or sharps at your stores in Paso Robles, Arroyo Grande and Roseville.

As you know, I am a proponent of Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) and I'm surprised that a company like Wal-Mart who claims to be progressing toward a sustainable business model isn't leading by example and assisting its customers with full life cycle product assistance. A battery or fluorescent lamp is in the same condition whether sitting on your shelves as a product for sale or sitting in the warehouse awaiting recycling. The only difference is utility.

The state of Maine recently passed an EPR Framework bill where the Chamber of Commerce supported the effort. Most businesses are lining up in support of EPR because they recognize that local governments cannot sustain an end of pipe approach to toxic product management. Most organizations understand that EPR shrinks the size of government and reduces taxes and rates. And let's not forget, that it expands those free markets.

I eagerly look forward to your response.

Rob D'Arcy

Hazardous Materials Program Manager
Hazardous Waste Recycling and Disposal Program
Department of Environmental Health
County of Santa Clara
1555 Berger Dr Suite 300
San Jose, CA 95112
Rob.Darcy@deh.sccgov.org

A small group of thoughtful people could change the world. Indeed, it's the only thing that ever has. Margaret Mead

A Heads Up to CFOs About Making Recycling a Producer Responsibility

2010-04-19T08:46:00.000-07:00

From CFO Magazine, April 19, 2010:

Just whose trash is it, anyway? In March, Maine became the latest state to mandate that certain products and forms of packaging remain the responsibility of those who make them, up to and including the time the products are thrown away. ...

Advocates of EPR say that only by shifting these costs to manufacturers or importers will they have any incentive to design products that use less (and less toxic) materials and packaging. "One of the goals of extended producer responsibility is to drive green design," says Bill Sheehan, executive director with the Product Policy Institute. "Right now, we have a broken feedback loop where disposal isn't part of the product price."

Read article

Consumers Are Not the Same as Taxpayers or Ratepayers

2010-04-11T05:40:00.000-07:00

By Heidi Sanborn

I made a presentation to the California Manufacturers and Technology Association on April 8th. I was asked these questions: Why do producer responsibility proponents oppose having taxpayers/ratepayers pay for product waste? Aren’t they the same as consumers?

This was my answer:

A consumer buys something – they make a choice to buy a product based on prices and many other variables. Their choices provide economic feedback to the product designer and manufacturer. A taxpayer/ratepayer is a person paying taxes or garbage rates. They make no direct connection between the product disposal cost and the tax/rate. Additionally, rates and taxes are not economically connected to producers to close the economic feedback” loop that will drive green design.

The problem with externalizing End of Life (EOL) costs onto the taxpayer/ratepayer is that there is literally no consumer understanding of the full product costs so they cannot make a fully informed decision when purchasing a product. When EOL externalities are internalized into the product price, the consumer can make a fully informed consumer choice. This provides for personal responsibility – a 1:1 decision to cost implication versus an everyone-pays-for-everything socialism model that we have now.

If we want the free market to work, stop growing government, create private sector jobs, and allow the private sector to compete to drive recycling costs down, we can begin the transition away from externalizing product EOL costs onto the public sector.

I urge all of your members to watch the short video on the home page of the California Product Stewardship Council at www.calpsc.org. It shows economist and Ventura County supervisor, Steve Bunnett, talking about this very issue.

Product stewardship moves us away from socialized product waste management to private sector free-market waste management. Product stewardship, when implemented properly, is the most conservative policy there is in waste management. It will ensure smaller government, properly operating free-market, and lower taxes/rates. Consumers who buy the biggest TV can pay for its EOL costs, not spread those costs across all their neighbors. The free-market can then work to drive down EOL management costs without command and control regulations.

Heidi Sanborn
Outreach Director, Product Policy Institute
Executive Director, California Product Stewardship Council

Sign-on Deadline April 14th: Add Products and Packaging to US Greenhouse Gas Inventory

2010-04-10T08:34:00.000-07:00

It was pointed out to us that the sign-on deadline for the EPA letter is actually April 14th. So there is still time.

This is a great opportunity for your voice to make a difference and get the climate impacts of products and packaging added to the U.S. Greenhouse Gas Inventory.

Sign on by April 14 (noon Pacific) at http://www.productpolicy.org/sign-on/greenhouse-gas-analysis

Organizational and individual signers welcome.

Most Oregon greenhouse gas source not what you might think

2010-04-05T10:02:00.000-07:00

An inventory conducted by Metro concludes that driving our cars and heating our homes aren't the region's biggest sources of greenhouse gas emissions.

It's how we make, move and toss away all the stuff we consume.

Read the article in The Oregonian, April 2, 2010

Sign-on Letter to US EPA to Add Products and Packaging to US Greenhouse Gas Inventory

2010-04-01T20:07:00.000-07:00

EPA has published a draft update of the US Greenhouse Gas Inventory (1990 – 2008).

This is a great opportunity for your voice to make a difference and get systems/ consumption-based greenhouse gas emissions added to the US Inventory! Please encourage US EPA to include products and packaging in the US Greenhouse Gas Inventory.

Sign on at http://www.productpolicy.org/sign-on/greenhouse-gas-analysis
SIGN ON BY APRIL 8, 2010!

To view the draft Inventory, go to http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/usinventoryreport_comment.html

*********************************************************
April 8, 2010

Mr. Leif Hockstad

Environmental Protection Agency

Climate Change Division (6207J)
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20460

Dear Mr. Hockstad:

We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the Draft US Greenhouse Gas Inventory.

We believe that a major opportunity is overlooked in the Draft Inventory – an opportunity that EPA itself highlighted in the path-breaking report released in September 2009, Opportunities to Reduce Greenhouse gas Emissions through Materials and Land Management Practices. The report viewed greenhouse gas data from a systems-based perspective, which sums all the greenhouse gas impacts “embodied” in goods and materials – from resource extraction, manufacturing, and transport to final disposal. The EPA report showed that production, transport, use and disposal of goods and materials contributes 37 percent to the nation’s GHG inventory. That’s more than building energy consumption, passenger transportation or food.

The global impact of US consumption of goods and materials is even greater. A supplemental white paper released simultaneously by the Product Policy Institute, Products, Packaging and US Greenhouse Gas Emissions, shows that when emissions from products made abroad and consumed here are included, and exports are subtracted, the number rises to 44 percent. When viewed from the perspective of consumption, the greenhouse gas impact of the US is higher than suggested by the traditional IPCC accounting standard. This is of great importance: consumption is the root cause of emissions, and failure to at least acknowledge the impacts of consumption exposes EPA to unnecessary criticism that the US Inventory is providing an incomplete picture of how the nation contributes to emissions (and indirectly, rewarding off-shoring of emissions and associated jobs).

Both traditional sector-based and the newer systems-based and consumption-related views are useful. But the systems-based view is more conducive to materials management policies and programs actions that offer a potent way for governments and communities to reduce GHG emissions. Materials management policies and programs are valuable approaches because they:

can result in communities, counties, and state agencies achieving faster and cheaper progress in reducing GHG than would be made otherwise;
are often more directly under the control of communities and jurisdictions than are energy supplies and regional transportation;
are subject to government purchasing power; and
increase local businesses and jobs – by increasing product stewardship¸ reuse, recycling and composting.

We endorse these recommendations:

1. The US Inventory should integrate “systems-based” greenhouse accounting -- and present it alongside the traditional sector-based view.

2. Consumption-related emissions should be formally acknowledged in the US Greenhouse Gas Inventory. The US Greenhouse Gas Inventory should be much more explicit in stating that the inventory is limited to emissions that physically originate within the national borders of the US. It should explain that the US also contributes to emissions that are counted in the inventories of other nations, as a consequence of imports.

3. Given the need to reduce the short-term impacts of greenhouse gases, the US Inventory should portray results using both 100-year, and 20-year Global Warming Potentials. While the IPCC standards require the use of 100-year Global Warming Potentials (GWPs), the Inventory correctly points out that other GWPs are also available, and including that analysis would be helpful to planners, policymakers, and the public.

Sincerely,
[your name and/or organization here]

Sign on by April 8th at http://www.productpolicy.org/sign-on/greenhouse-gas-analysis

VIDEO: Maine Product Stewardship Bill Signed Into Law

2010-04-01T12:45:00.000-07:00

From youtube.com:
March 30, 2010 — Maine Governor John Baldacci signed a first-in-the-nation framework product stewardship law. The law creates a systematic approach for identifying troublesome products in the waste stream for new product stewardship programs which assign end-of-life recovery and recycling costs to product manufacturers. The approach will be similar to Maines electronic waste (e-waste) law, signed in 2004, which has resulted in the successful recycling of more than 25 million pounds of e-waste, keeping toxic materials out of land fills. Watch the video below, or check it out on youtube.com .

First U.S. Framework Product Stewardship Law Signed Today

2010-03-25T15:02:00.000-07:00

Today, after a show of unanimous bi-partisan support in the Maine legislature, the first extended producer responsibility "framework" legislation, LD 1631, was signed into law by Governor John Baldacci. Not only is this the first framework law in the nation, but the bill passed the legislature unanimously.

Business, environmental groups and legislators came together to make it happen. On a national press briefing this morning (organized by Product Policy Institute), the bill’s author, Rep. Melissa Walsh Innes (D-Yarmouth; photo at right), was joined by Chris Jackson of the Maine State Chamber of Commerce and Matt Prindiville from the Natural Resources Council of Maine (the state’s leading environmental advocacy organization).

To emphasize the national scope of the producer responsibility movement, we were joined by leaders from two states with framework bills in play: Rep. Paul Gardner of Minnesota and Rob D’Arcy, Chair of the California Product Stewardship Council.

Product Policy Institute has been working for five years to bring the framework producer responsibility approach to the U.S. We developed the model framework producer responsibility legislation that was the starting point for Maine and several other states.

The movement is beginning to take hold. We’re excited to see it finally bearing fruit in Maine. It’s especially significant that the business and environmental communities worked together to make it happen. Read PPI’s press release, and NRCM’s release.

To Rep. Walsh Innes, Matt Prindiville and Chris Jackson: You rock!

Put Products and Packaging into US Greenhouse Gas Inventory

2010-03-17T19:51:00.000-07:00

Submit Comments on the Draft US Greenhouse Gas Inventory by April 8th

EPA’S draft update of the US Greenhouse Gas Inventory (1990 – 2008) is open for comment. This is a great opportunity to get the systems -based, greenhouse gas accounting view added to the US Inventory.

While the US Inventory is required to follow international protocols (for the sake of consistency with other nations), EPA does have the latitude to include additional analysis, and to more clearly explain what the inventory is – and isn’t – portraying.

Both an EPA report and a Product Policy Institute (PPI) white paper issued in September 2009 showed that products and packaging (or goods and materials) are responsible for the largest share, by far, of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions – 44% when you include global emissions of products produced abroad and consumed in the US. Links to both PPI and EPA reports and a New York Times article are here.

Comments are due by April 8.

To view the draft and submit a comment online, go to this link. Please ask EPA (in your own words) to consider the following:

1. The US Inventory should integrate the systems-based view and present it alongside the traditional sector-based view. EPA recently published a “systems-based view” see chart, p. 11, of GHG emissions. Coupled with the traditional sector-based view, the systems-based view offers a much more comprehensive perspective on how the US contributes to GHG emissions. The general public and local policy makers find the systems-based view to be very informative and instructional in developing personal and policy actions to address climate change.

2. Consumption-related emissions should be formally acknowledged in the US Greenhouse Gas Inventory. The US Greenhouse Gas Inventory should be much more explicit in stating that the inventory is limited to emissions that physically originate within the national borders of the US. It should explain that the US also contributes to emissions that are counted in the inventories of other nations, as a consequence of imports. The emissions associated with US exports are less than those associated with US imports. When viewed from the perspective of consumption, the greenhouse gas impact of the US is higher than suggested by the traditional IPCC accounting standard. This is of great importance: consumption is the root cause of emissions, and failure to at least acknowledge the impacts of consumption exposes EPA to unnecessary criticism that the US Inventory is providing an incomplete picture of how the nation contributes to emissions (and indirectly, rewarding off-shoring of emissions and associated jobs).

3. Given the need to reduce the short-term impacts of greenhouse gases, it would be very helpful if the US Inventory portrayed results using both 100-year, and 20-year GWPs. While the IPCC standards require the use of 100-year Global Warming Potentials (GWPs), the Inventory correctly points out that other GWPs are also available, and including that analysis would be helpful to planners, policymakers, and the public.

From Newsweek’s review of Story of Stuff

2010-03-15T18:21:00.000-07:00

Leonard’s motto: “You made it, you deal with it” (page 233). That means that manufacturers who produce toxic stuff need to deal with (and pay for) its disposal, a form of corporate responsibility that she calls Extended Producer Responsibility. Leonard suggests putting in place more policies like the one in 19 states that requires producers to take back old, unusable goods, such as computers, and pay for their recycling costs.

Her argument: “This is a great incentive for the producers to think hard about ways to eliminate toxics and design for repair and recycling, since they have to bear the cost of dealing with the stuff” (page 205). http://www.newsweek.com/id/234957

Story of Bottled Water -- Coming March 22

2010-03-12T13:20:00.000-08:00

Coming March 22: The Story of Bottled Water. “Cities all over are spending millions of dollars to deal with all the plastic bottles we throw out. What if we spent that money improving our water systems or better yet, preventing pollution to begin with?”

PPI is quoted in the accompanying script:

Three-quarters of the waste material that local governments are responsible for managing in North America is products and packaging; the costs of collecting PET bottles alone runs about $900 per ton. That amounts to welfare for the makers of products and packaging. Citizens and their governments would be better served if those funds were supporting schools, police and parks, and other services that the market cannot or will not provide, like public water fountains … In a time of tight budgets many local governments are asking why taxpayers and ratepayers, and not producers and consumers, are the ones paying to pick up products and associated packaging ‘designed for the dump.’ The costs of recycling and litter clean up should be the responsibility of producers and included in the purchase price.

Producer Responsibility Tidbits

2010-03-11T09:05:00.000-08:00

New York State now has three local product stewardship resolutions.

California Product Stewardship Council has reached 81 local govt resolutions. Congrats!

New Spanish translation of Product Stewardship Councils’ Framework principles [PDF]

Reusable Packaging Association: Product Stewardship Policy and Framework Principles [PDF]

Product Policy Institute Featured in Miller-McCune Article

2010-02-28T16:41:00.000-08:00

Executive Director of PPI, Bill Sheehan was quoted in an article about the growing resistance of US cities and states to pay for waste disposal.

From the article: Because of industry opposition in California, it's fallen to Maine, the most sparsely populated state east of the Mississippi, to take the legislative lead. Maine faces a $400 million budget shortfall, and the bill, "An Act to Provide Leadership Regarding the Responsible Recycling of Consumer Products" stands a good chance, said Rep. Melissa Innes (http://www.maine.gov/legis/housedems/minnes/), D-Yarmouth, the author. A joint state House and Senate committee hearing on the legislation is set for Jan. 22. Democrats have a majority in both houses... Maine may be ahead, but California is giving it a push, said Bill Sheehan, executive director of the Product Policy Institute, an Athens, Ga.-based nonprofit group that advocates for a "zero-waste" society. "Maine is clearly a leader in being first and most prolific," Sheehan said. "They 'got it' early on. But a lot of the energy for extended producer responsibility is coming from local governments, and that movement is sweeping down the West Coast."...

Read the full article

Left at the Altar? The future of Maine's Product Stewardship leadership

2010-02-27T17:03:00.000-08:00

Last week Maine held public hearings on a new policy attempting to introduce comprehensive “framework” for producer responsibility. Maine has led the nation in product stewardship, but efforts to hold producers responsible for the damage created by their products may be derailed by some in the business community who oppose the new law. Maine State Rep. Melissa Walsh Innes reacts to last week's public hearings on LD 1631, An Act to Provide Leadership Regarding the Responsible Recycling of Consumer Products on her blog:
Will Maine leave Product Stewardship at the altar?
"Okay, so Maine has over five product stewardship laws right now (leading the nation, a great thing), and we know that the laws have created jobs (just ask eWaste Recycling or Uniwaste), so why is the Maine business community getting cold feet and running from the altar? Maine has already been 'engaged' to product stewardship ever since we passed the well-known (or should I say infamous) bottle bill many years ago. Let's say it's been a long engagement, and Maine has recently become more and more committed to the idea, with the recent passing of extended producer responsibility laws in the last six years. Isn't it now time to take that next, big step, and profess our union with product stewardship by passing LD 1631, An Act to Provide Leadership Regarding the Responsible Recycling of Consumer Products, and setting up the process to allow our very knowledgeable DEP the administrative process of determining more products ripe for producer responsibility?

"I say yes, and over two dozen other people and organizations from Maine (and Nova Scotia!) said yes at the recent public hearing for the bill on Friday, the 22nd, in front of the Joint Standing Committee on Natural Resources (more support is flowing in via e-mail). Product Stewardship is an economic train that's already out of the station. Florida and Massachusetts recently made declarations that they will be moving toward producer responsibility, and more and more States are realizing that they are being left with a mounting bill for their waste managment costs because producers continue to make products that contain toxic materials and/or they don't want to bother with recycling their consumers' discarded products into new products.

"Let's change the term Solid Waste Management to Solid Resource Management, and create new markets for products' reuse and recycling by committing and marrying the policy of product stewardship for Maine. Who will benefit? Everyone, even producers, even though they won't admit it now. The playing field will be fair, they will be more sustainable in their production to keep their product life-cycle costs down, and their will be less toxic products in our landfills and air. Let's get this done now."
Click here for bill information
Original post.

Product Policy Institute founder attends the Post Carbon Institute Fellows Retreat

2010-02-22T23:46:00.000-08:00

Product Policy Institute founder, Bill Sheehan will be participating in a retreat for fellows of the Post Carbon Institute this weekend (Jan 22-24).

Post Carbon Institute fellows are 28 of the world's leading minds in the areas of economic, social, and environmental sustainability. While their areas of expertise range far and wide, one shared question binds them:

How do we manage the transition to a more resilient,
equitable, and sustainable world?
Bill Sheehan co-founded the Product Policy Institute with Helen Spiegelman in 2003 and serves as its Executive Director. Bill advocates for public policy that protects public health and safety and slows climate change by encouraging waste prevention, clean production and reduced use of toxics in products. He developed, with Spiegelman, a historical analysis that showed how municipal recycling and waste management services enable product manufacturers to design and sell goods without considering disposal costs and impacts.

Hearing on Maine’s producer responsibility framework

2010-02-22T09:29:00.000-08:00

The State of Maine has the most producer responsibility laws in the United States. Now Maine may become the first state to adopt comprehensive “framework” producer responsibility legislation that is, setting up a process to apply the principles of producer responsibility to numerous problem products. On Friday January 22nd the Maine Natural Resources Committee will hold a hearing on LD 1631, An Act to Provide Leadership Regarding the Responsible Recycling of Consumer Products.

To see the map of all states with ERP policies, check out the framework map on PPI's website

Welcome to the Product Policy Institute's New Blog!

2010-02-21T11:20:00.000-08:00

Check this space often for the latest information on PPI and friends.