2012 conventions 2012 election 2013 session arts arts and culture author ballot measures basketball bomb books boy scouts budget bullying business charlie hales children clackamas climate change coal college courts crime culture culture club democrats drugs economy education environment family film fluoride food gay rights guns handguns health health care health insurance high school history housing immigration internet kitzhaber language law legislature lgbt literary arts living marijuana marriage media medicine mental health military minor parties mohamed mohamud movies music native americans news newspaper obama olympics oregon our town parenting pers photography police politcs politics port portland portland business journal president prevention public safety religion republicans rnc romney rural salem sam adams sandy hook schools science shooting sports suicide supreme court taxes technology television terrorism theater third parties transportation union university of oregon washington wildfire women

What does Jerry Powell and Peter Spendelow think about the practicality of expecting the "Producer Responsibility" concept that the new "e-recycling" law has developed for computers and t.v.s... to other items... packaging or other products, etc? How would this effect the economic system for recycling?

posted 4 years, 5 months ago
view in context

In the 35 years that I have been in the business I have seen recycling prices drop to levels where collection costs exceed sale prices and people argue whether or not ?recycling makes sense?. However I have never seen the prices go down so fast, so far and across so many commodities at once. But none of this is any excuse to stop recycling?however, it may be a time to evaluate who pays for it.
The biggest benefit to our planet through recycling is not about reducing stuff that goes to a landfill but rather in reducing the need for stuff to be extracted as natural resources? whether they are mineral or biological (i.e. forest resources, etc.). Scientific research indicates that the carbon impact, energy conservation, air and water pollution reduction benefits achieved through using recycled material over extracted ?virgin? materials are over 100 fold greater than the benefits of just keeping stuff from going to the landfill. (I not saying that it?s not important to keep stuff from being wasted through diversion efforts, etc? just that the relative impact of benefit is so much more important upstream in the material extraction, manufacturing, consumption, and discard cycle.) (check with David Allaway at ODEQ).
The most ?self correcting? consumption cycle would be where the waste generated by the product is the responsibility of the person making the product. Oregon?s new electronic take-back law provides that manufactures of computers and televisions who sell their product to Oregon consumers are now required to be responsible for the take back (and environmentally responsible disposition) of those products. This type of ?producer responsibility? system creates a vested interest in those manufacturing the product to look at its recyclability both in the materials used and how they are assembled (and can be disassembled) as well as in practical logistical programs to recover them. Scrutiny of and work to perfect the working of this new law going into effect the first of the year will pay dividends to showing the way to expanding this concept eventually to all goods that we consume.
Of course if anything good can be said about this unfortunate economic difficulties we are all coping with is that it is an opportunity for us, both personally and as a society to re-examine our addiction to consumption? for us to re-evaluate our economic (and social) systems that focus on consumption? to reassess our ?values?, our ?needs? and our ?wants?. This is not something that can be done quickly or easily? but this is certainly a time to consider such.

posted 4 years, 5 months ago
view in context