Blog

Hello and sorry I did not post yesterday! I am actually going to postpone blogging until I have gotten the necessary approval from those I include or intend to include in my blog. I recently realized that some may be uncomfortable with me sharing our conversations via email on my blog; in order to ensure that my relationships with these people are not compromised, I am waiting on their approval before I continue. Sorry for the intermission. I will resume with my recycling initiative narrative ASAP.

Tootles!

Happy Friday!

I finally figured out how to add tags to my posts, hurray!

After tagging it up, I tried searching one of my tags in the wordpress.com search engine. I started with “clamshells” and what I found was all sorts of crazy stuff. My favorite is “Death to the Clamshell” at: http://envirogy.wordpress.com/2009/08/25/death-to-the-clamshell/. Check out my reply, it’s the last one.

Anyway, while waiting for the educational tour guide’s response, I began researching incineration as a form of energy recovery for plastic packaging. As briefly discussed in my last post, Belgium is at a 96% packaging waste recovery rate because of their sophisticated recycling and incineration infrastructure. That which they can’t recycle, they incinerate. Why don’t we do that here, I wondered.

After several googling sessions, I stumbled upon this “new” technology called Polyflow. I called the number provided on the website…

After a quick Q&A with their rep, I was a little skeptical about this technology because it just sounded too good to be true. Because I didn’t know much about it, I sent Robert the following inquiry:

Hey Robert,

How’s it going? I saw Where the Wild Things Are this past weekend and it was AWSOME! You must see it at your earliest convenience.

Okay, I don’t want to be a nuisance, but have you heard of Polyflow? It is this new technology that breaks the plastic polymer chain down into its chemical components by vapor and then reconstructs the molecules in order to create diesel and fossil fuel and the monomers that make plastic polymers. This technology supposedly takes all types of plastics not currently recycled by single stream and provides the feedstock for the above mentioned products. I spoke with a representative from Polyflow and he says that this system will be economically and environmentally sustainable next year but that they are still in the pilot phase and need additional funding to construct the actual facility that will house this technology.

Any knowledge about this waste management alternative?

Moreover, I have not heard back from the Environmental Director of Starbucks and was wondering if you had unearthed any contacts at your organization that would be able to help me implement my recycling program. I have a dialogue going with SPI, our industry association, but they don’t think the economics will support it.

Hope all is well!

Best,

Chandler

My reference to SPI, the Society of Plastics Industry, was legitimate; I had spoken with one of their reps about my concerns about the environmental and plastic, specifically, recycling, and it went no where.

I first spoke with the Senior Director of State Affairs, who does a lot of petitioning for plastic on our industry’s behalf. She was aware of all the obstacles facing our industry but didn’t seem interested in helping me increase the recycling rates of plastic packaging because, as she explained, it is just not economical: If people can buy virgin resin for cheaper than recycled resin why would we work to create an end-of-life market for mixed rigid plastic packaging?

My one suggestion was to change the SPI resin ID numbers on the back of plastic packages. For instance, the number “1” indicates PET but doesn’t specify the various fillers added to the PET polymer to enhance/alter its properties. Therefore, we manufacture APET, RPET, RPETG, PETG, etc. and they are all labeled as “1” as mandated by the SPI. Because of the different additives in these polymers, the recycling facility won’t accept any thermoforms labeled “1” because they do not know how that specific additive will influence the overall integrity of the bale. Therefore, although it may be the same material as that in PET bottles, they can’t integrate it into the bales to be reprocessed for fear of contamination.

As an aside, PLA is just making its introduction into the market and I don’t know if it has been assigned a resin ID number; therefore, sorters may not be able to distinguish PLA bottles from PET bottles, thereby increasing the chances that the PET stream will be contaminated by PLA. I don’t know what the PLA people have to say about it…I will follow up with some more research in future posts.

Do check out this article; it may provide insight into the ramifications of incorporating into the PET recycling stream: http://www.linkedin.com/news?viewArticle=&articleID=107200234&gid=160429&srchCat=RCNT&articleURL=http%3A%2F%2Fblogpackaging%2Eblogspot%2Ecom%2F2010%2F02%2Fbioplastics-and-oxo-degradables%2Ehtml&urlhash=oSuc.

Anyway, I suggested that SPI be proactive and work with recyclers to develop the best labeling for resins to increase the recyclability of plastic packaging.?Although this contact did not know?exactly how?the SPI was handling the resin ID number situation, she did say that they had a?subcommittee devoted to the investigation of these issues and she would follow up with me about this subcommittee...??

Tune in Monday to see Robert’s response to my Polyflow inquiry. Good stuff to come; have a splendid weekend!

The next day I received the following email from the educational tour guide at Recycle America:

Chandler,

I just received this and will gladly answer as best I can but it will not be until tomorrow as I have tours.I appreciate your patience.

Lisa

Okay…what else can I do in the meantime to move this initiative forward?

I thought back to the lectures at the SPC’s members-only meeting in Atlanta. The president of Environmental Packaging International (hereafter, EPI) gave a very honest presentation about environmental marketing. Basically he explained what kinds of environmental claims on packaging are misleading or manipulative and what kinds are acceptable. Because the FTC is being restructured, he explained, they have not been able to investigate the environmental claims on packaging; however, that will change, and those making unsubstantiated or vague claims will be sought out by the FTC. Therefore, he explained, it is in all of our interest to only make claims that can be validated via scientific analysis.??

Hurray, I remember thinking. Finally, marketers will be held accountable for manipulating consumer’s desires to do well by the environment.

To be honest, I probably would not have a job at Dordan as the Sustainability Coordinator if people in our industry were not greenwashing. In other words, it was because my father, the CEO of Dordan, didn’t know how to interpret the claims being made by our competitors that he hired me to investigate them. And what I found, more often than not, was because the FTC didn’t have the man power to investigate environmental claims our industry was in sort of a Wild West limbo where marketers could get away with saying almost anything. This Wild West limbo was catalyzed by the recent consumer research that showed how most consumers would buy the product with the better environmental profile if at a comparable cost and performance to other, less environmentally friendly products. I am sure we are all familiar with this…

Anyway, I remember the President of the EPI discussing the Mobius Loop symbol and how that can be a form of greenwashing in and of itself insofar as it implies recyclability or recycled content. All of our packages have this symbol, which houses the SPI resin identification number; both the symbol and ID number were mandated by SPI (Society of Plastics Industry) decades ago.

I sent the President the following email, hoping to get some clarification about the applicability of this symbol to our packages:

Hello,

This is Chandler Slavin with Dordan Manufacturing—we spoke briefly following your presentation in Atlanta entitled, “Are the Labeling and Green Claims on Your Packaging Meeting FTC and Retailer Requirements?” First, I wanted to take this opportunity to express my gratitude for your presentation: it was the most honest, direct, and educationally insightful discussion I had yet experienced at the forum. At the same time, however, there are some questions still lingering.

For instance, you said that the mobius loop i.e. chasing arrows symbol, which houses the SPI resin identification number, implies to the consumer that the package is either: (1) made out of 100% recycled material or, (2) is 100% recyclable. After telling this to the president of our company, we were confused because we thought that this symbol was mandated by the SPI. Are you and the FTC suggesting we remove this symbol from our packages? Is there someone at the FTC we could talk with for clarification? Is there someone at SPI that would be of assistance?

Sorry for the quick-fired questions: this is all new to us and we are trying to be honest with our labeling in order to inform our customers about the sustainability of our packages. Additionally, I would really like the opportunity to talk to you about industry-led EPR initiatives in the U.S. When would be a good time to reach you?

Best,

Chandler Slavin

The same day, I received the following email from the President of the EPI:

Chandler,

The SPI code as required by 39 State Laws are allowed if used as prescribed by those laws. If you placed it in an inconspicuous location on the container (e.g., embedded in the bottom of the container) it would not constitute a claim of recyclability or recycled content and is allowed.

If you have a questions let me know, Hope this helps.

Phew…I thought to myself; we only place the chasing arrows symbol on the bottom of our packages. We are FTC clear, at least for now.

Tune in tomorrow for more recycling in America tantalizing tid bits.

Sorry I didn’t post yesterday! I was on a deadline to finish a condensed version of my research on sustainability and packaging titled, The Facts.

Okay, back to the story:

The day after I received the “ok” from Robert, I sent the Environmental Director of Starbucks the following email:

Hello,

My name is Chandler Slavin—I am the Sustainability Coordinator at Dordan Manufacturing, a Midwestern based custom thermoformer. I was given your information from Robert Carlson with the California Integrated Waste Management Board, whom I met in Atlanta at the SPC members-only fall meeting. I believe I also met you (sort of) in one of the break out seminars on “Closing the Loop” (where you the one who asked how Starbucks cups could be integrated into the existing recycling infrastructure?)

Anyway, Robert said you may be of assistance because you were involved with implementing the pilot recycling program in several New York Starbucks stores and I am trying to implement a pilot recycling program in the Midwest for reclaiming thermoform PET clamshells, blisters and components. I have so many questions for you I don’t know where to start: Are the Starbucks cups compatible with the existing recycling infrastructure i.e. can they be recycled with other paper/cardboard products or do they need to be sorted? If sorted, by whom and where? Did you begin with the municipalities and the local MRFS to determine what can be recycled in your region and what is needed to allow a new product into the recycling stream? Where is the funding for this program coming from?

Yikes! The list could go on and on. Would it be possible to speak with you about your sustainability efforts at Starbucks over the phone? I would love to set up a phone interview with you at your earliest convenience. Please let me know when and where I can reach you.

Thank you so much for your time and I look forward to speaking with you soon!

Best,

Chandler

After sending, I automatically received an “out of the office” reply. Rats!

Luckily I scheduled a fieldtrip to the Recycle America Waste Management Facility in Grayslake with the Institute of Packaging Professionals. It was the first time I got to see a modern MRF in action!

The Dordan Sales Force and I set out on our journey to Grayslake; the wind was in our hair, the pastoral scenery was all around, and Tony’s Famous Subs were in sight. After a scrumptious filling of salami and ham, we made it to the recycling facility.

The two hours we spent at the Grayslake facility were jammed packed: we had a tour of the facility, got to watch live footage of the process of recycling, and had a Q&A session. During the Q&A session, my fears were confirmed: Most plastic clamshells do not get recycled at this current time, even if they make it to the material recovery facility. Ug!

While Waste Management says that it accepts plastics 1-7 for recycling and tries to find an end-market for these materials, only PET beverage bottles are currently being processed at this facility because of the current market demands; this changes with the ebbs and flow of the market, however. Our educational tour guide did explain that this is because the buyers of the PET bales specify that they do not want any thermoforms in the bale, even if it is the same material type.

As an aside, on the East and West coasts, mixed rigid plastic packaging is collected and recycled because of the different markets available and the overseas demand.

The day after our field trip, I sent the following email to our educational tourguide:

Hello,

This is Chandler Slavin—we met yesterday at the Recycle America Waste Management facility in Grayslake. I was with the Institute of Packaging Professionals and I kept asking about how we could create a recycle stream for non-beverage PET flake i.e. clamshells, blisters and trays.

I just wanted to drop you a quick email thanking you for allowing us to visit the facility and for presenting such an honest discussion of waste management and recycling in this region.

Being a representative from the plastic packaging industry, I was wondering if I could pick your brain in regard to the following:

1. As you explained, you would like to find a home for every kind of material; however, that is not always the case because a material’s ability to be recycled is often determined by the quantity of material available in the waste stream. Watching the live feed video yesterday, I was startled to observe that no clamshells, blisters, or plastic packaging of any kind was making its way through your sorting system. Why is that? Is there just not that much plastic packaging out there, (which I find unbelievable), or, are these materials being sent somewhere else or just thrown in the garbage? If sent somewhere else, where? And if just thrown into the garbage, why?
2. If I want to attain my goal of being able to implement a recycling program for non-beverage PET flake in this region, where do you suggest I start? Should I begin a dialogue with all the plastic packagers in the region to find a way to reclaim our packages in order to divert them from ending up in a landfill? Should I begin with the local municipalities? Or with the waste management facilities?
3. How do you feel about incineration as a form of waste management?
4. Today in the packaging world, there is a lot of marketing that positions one packaging material as more “environmentally friendly” than another; often this debate places paper in opposition to plastic. After performing several months of research on this debate, I have discovered that while plastic comes from oil (which is obviously not a renewable resource) and requires more energy to create than paper, it doesn’t release as many VOC and greenhouse gases into the atmosphere as does the paper and pulp mills in the US. Therefore, it is a trade off and packaging material should be selected on a case-by-case basis depending on the application of the package. I was just wondering, where do you stand in the paper versus plastic debate? How can plastic packaging become more sustainable?

Dennis and I chatted again over the next several days. Unfortunately, because we just joined the SPC, my Superior didn’t want to join another industry group because of the associated fees. Rats!

Discouraged that we had to pay to be a part of an organization that had the same idealistic goals I did, I sent Robert the following email:

Hey Robert,

Thanks for hooking me up with Dennis-- he is super nice and wants Dordan to become members of NAPCOR. At this point in time, however, we don't think it would be wise to join another association because of the membership fees. Moreover, although they have a thermoformer division of the NAPCOR who are working towards re-capturing PET clamshells through existing recycling infrastructures, they have yet to successfully implement a recycling program. It's hard to say what the best approach to this issue is, as it doesn't appear as though the economics support it (in other words, the cost of collecting, sorting and cleaning PET clamshells exceeds the cost of virgin PET). Regardless of the economics, however, I am still working towards achieving this goal (to the dismay of my Superior) and am developing an initiative to present to a retailer that would allow us to reclaim our packages to be reground on-site and sold back to our material supplier.

As per my last email, I am still very interested in the Starbucks recycling pilot in New York and how, as a business, they are able to keep the cost association low enough to implement the program. I know you are super busy and I don't expect you to continue to be such a doll, but if you have any contacts at Starbucks or anyone you think would be of assistance to me in regard to implementing a cost-effective recycling program that is compatible with the existing infrastructure, I would be tickled pink!

Again, thank you for all your help. It is nice to have a contact outside the business world who is committed to sustainability, not as a marketing incentive, but as a moral imperative.

Stay dry in rainy Cali and I look forward to speaking with you soon!

Best,

Chandler

My reference to getting a retailer on board with this recycling initiative stemmed from an article I found about Marks and Spencer, a UK-based retailer that actually has their customers de-rob their products from their packages after the point of purchase. Sort of like how Best Buy has a bin to dispose of batteries in, this retailer has bins specifically for reclaiming packaging waste post-consumer. I also thought a retailer may be a good place to start because a lot of the sustainability movement in the context of packaging has originated from retailers, specifically Walmart, with their proclamation to reduce packaging weight by 13% in 2010 via the packaging modeling software created by ECRM.

Any woo I am getting off track.

After a delicious lunch of Porillios’ Italian beef with sweet peppers, I returned to the office to find the following email from Robert:

Chandler,

The person you want to talk to is the Environmental Director of Starbucks.? He's actually an SPC member as well and was at the meeting in Atlanta.? He's a great guy and he said he'd be happy to chat with you about what they're doing in NY.

You might also be interested in speaking with somebody from our department that works with local governments.? They have a lot of knowledge of how local infrastructure works and they work with businesses all the time trying to assist them with increasing recycling rates.? I'll check around and see if I can find the best person for you to talk to over there.?

Good luck with all of this, and please don't hesitate to contact me with more questions or for updates!!

Robert

Groooooovy. Next task: Schedule a phone interview the Environmental Director of Starbucks. Tune in tomorrow to see where we go next in the splendid land of recycling in America.

Happy Friday! I just got word that there is a plastics recycling conference in Texas in March; I hope I can go!

After receiving the email from Robert that explained that he would contact Dennis about me contacting him, I did a little research on NAPCOR, just in case he agreed to talk with me about recycling thermoforms. NAPCOR stands for the National Association for PET Container Resources, which is the trade association for the PET plastic industry. As stated on their website, NAPCOR’s platform is to “promote the introduction and use of PET packaging, facilitate the recycling of PET packaging, and communicate the success of the PET container as an environmentally sustainable package” (http://www.napcor.com/).

Splendid, I remember thinking upon finding this organization; that is just what I want to do—facilitate the recycling of PET thermoforms. This should be good.

Later that day, I received the following email from Robert:

Chandler,

As you can see below, your timing is perfect!!? Dennis is the Executive Director at NAPCOR and it looks like he'd be happy to chat with you about your efforts.

Robert

From: Dennis Sabourin

To: Carlson, Robert

Subject: RE: Long Time

Robert,

Thanks for reaching out; it is great to hear from you.

I am happy to hear all is going well with you despite the challenges we all face in California.? Keep your positive spirit.

Your points on the recycling of thermoformed packaging is timely; this is a major work plan for NAPCOR.? Since expanding our membership to include PET sheet and thermoformer manufactures we now have 10 NAPCOR members from this industry segment.? I would be delighted to discuss what we are doing with your Midwest contact.? By all means pass my contact information on to her.

Let’s stay in touch!!!

Dennis

Executive Director

National Association for PET Container Resources (NAPCOR)

Groovy! Time to call Dennis.

Dennis and I chatted for close to an hour that day; he explained to me the history of NAPCOR and its main goals and approaches to actualizing said goals. He also sent me a presentation from their last meeting in October, 2009, which provided much insight. What I learned was that while NAPCOR focuses specifically on the recycling of PET beverage bottles, it does have a thermoform division, which looks to find a way to recycle PET thermoforms.

This is awesome, I remember thinking as a flipped through the presentation. It is so funny (is that the right word?) when you have an idea that you think is original only to discover that in fact it is not original; not even close. Clearly my brainchild of spear-heading an industry led thermoform recycling initiative has also been the brainchild of NAPCOR, who have invested a considerable amount of time and money into exploring the potential of this idea. NAPCOR is defiantly someone that I should be working with.

Let’s suggest joining the thermoform division of NAPCOR to my Superior!

Tune in Monday to see what happens next in the crazy world of recycling in America.

So it turns out that if you click on the graphs (from yesterday’s post) you can see a full screen image of the graphs, which should clarify any confusion created by the fuzzy images; hurray for technology or what not.

Anyway where am I? Oh, that’s right; I had the brain child of spear-heading an industry led initiative that looks to reclaim our packages post-consumer. Grand.

I remember arriving to the office on Oct. 19^th and not really knowing where I wanted to go with this recycling initiative…I was still really new at Dordan so I had the luxury of researching what ever I thought was pertinent to my role as the Sustainability Coordinator. As I opened my inbox I was quite relieved to have a message waiting for me from Robert Carlson; perhaps he would provide some direction…

Chandler,

That sounds like an exciting initiative!? I’m actually interested to know a bit more about what you’re planning on doing, who in industry you’re planning on getting to help you, and whether you’re planning on tapping into the PET stream from beverage containers or if you’re hoping to start a new market for non-beverage container PET flake.?

Do you know about NAPCOR (National Association for PET Container Resources)?? It’s based here in California and I know the Director if you need an introduction.

Exciting stuff!!? Oh and BTW, it’s our first big storm of the season, so the wind is howling, the rain pouring down and the power has already been off in the office this morning once…

Hope you’re enjoying things in Illinois!!? Snowing there yet?

Hmmmm, I thought to myself…who in the industry am I planning on getting to help me…

…do my brothers count?

Shall I attempt to integrate our packages into the PET stream from beverage containers or do I want to start a new market for non-beverage container PET flake? I just don’t know…

All of a sudden I felt very silly; I hadn’t even asked myself these questions yet. I was simply swept away by what I thought was a splendid idea; it didn’t occur to me, however, that I had NO IDEA how to logistically and economically implement it.

Well, we all got to start somewhere, right? I was still on a high from being crowned the MVP of the religious studies department at DePaul and graduating Summa Cum Laude; I thought I could do anything if I simply put my thinking cap on. Heck, I told myself, I had written a 50 page thesis on Charles Taylor’s A Secular Age, which, might I add, is no small feat; how hard can it be to learn the ABC’s of recycling?

Motivated by my own ego, I sent Robert the following email:

Hey Robert,

Thanks for the quick reply. So far our recycling program initiative is in its infancy insofar as it is only a theoretical idea that we have been researching how to implement. We have a contact at Microsoft that introduced the idea to us, and we are considering engaging with as many material converters in the Midwest as there are available. I have been researching grant opportunities and am waiting on approval from my superior before I approach the SPC with the project initiativ

In regard to your question: I am planning on starting a new market for non-beverage container PET flake i.e. thermoformed packages, because that is what we manufacture and are consequentially responsible for. Greenerpackage.com just covered the pilot recycling program launched in several Starbucks stores in New York to reclaim their paper cups and I assume a similar program could be initiated by material converters in the Mid West.

Thank you for suggesting the NAPCOR—in all my academic research on recycling I had yet to stumble on this trade association. I would love to take you up on your offer to introduce me to NAPCOR’s director! Please provide his/her contact information at your earliest convenience.

Best,

Chandler

The contact at Microsoft I was referring to was this gentleman I met at the SPC meeting in Atlanta; he had a catchy marketing slogan for if we were able to find a way to reclaim and recycle our packages: “Our packages are made out of our competitor’s packages.” Awesome, I thought to myself when he told me. Now all we got to do is find a way to reclaim and recycle our packages; swell!

After lunch that day, I received the following email from Robert:

Chandler,

I’ve sent an email to Dennis at NAPCOR, introducing him to what you’re looking to do and asking him if it’s something he’d be interested in/chatting with you.? I find it works a bit better to speak with him first myself and then making the introductions, rather than setting you up blindly to make a cold call.

I’ll let you know what I hear.? In the meantime (if you haven’t already found them) their website is www.napcor.com

I’m glad you guys are taking such a proactive role in pursuing this kind of product stewardship role.? Starbucks has also been out in front with their packaging and I’ve been working with them on overcoming the technical and logistical obstacles as well as the sociological challenges.? I wish you well in your efforts and please feel free to use me as a resource, or as a sounding board.

Robert

Wow, I thought to myself…this could be really great. Tune in tomorrow to see what happens next (I am still brainstorming on a signing off phrase…let me know if you come up with anything that is better than “tune in next time,” which, if you are not from the 1950s, should not be hard to do).

So what did I do with this information? Nothing; I filled it in the “miscellaneous” section of my research hoping to return to it on a rainy day. After several days of stewing over my ethical quandaries about information classified as “proprietary,” I realized that these concerns shouldn’t be the ones dictating the direction of my research. Instead, I should be concentrating on real issues; issues, that if dealt with logically and by someone with a genuine commitment to sustainability, could enhance the sustainability profile of the plastics industry. What is the main problem with our industry’s current approaches to production, use and disposal of packaging materials, I asked myself?

I thought back to the SPC meeting in Atlanta; one of the speakers was the CEO of the Fost Plus system in Belgium, which is, in a nut shell, the business manifestation of an industry-led initiative that looks to increase the material recovery rate of packaging materials post-consumer. Because Belgium foresaw the ramifications of the 1994 EU Directive on Packaging Waste, it was in their interest to set up an economically sustainable material recovery infrastructure to meet the future legislation’s requirements. And the result: Belgium is at a 96% packaging materials recovery rate. WOW.

So where does this bring me? It brings me to the real issue: the recycling infrastructure in America. Looks like it’s time to do more research. Tune in tomarow to see the latest facts and figures about recycling in America.

Check out what I found:



Wow, 52% of Municipal Solid Waste was attributed to paper and paperboard products in 2007? Who’d thunk?



Okay…so while paper is the largest contributor to landfills, it has a recovery rate of above 50%. That’s pretty great. Plastic, on the other hand, has a much lower recovery rate. Why is that?

Now take a gander here:



So PET has the best recovery rate for plastic materials. We manufacture a lot of PET; that must mean a lot of our packages are recyclable. Hurray!

And enter reality: Only PET BOTTLES are recovered in most American communities. Most other PET products, including our packages and anything labeled with the SPI resin identification #1 that does not have a thin neck ends up in a landfill. And this is because…

And lastly:



Okay, so there is a lot of energy stored in plastic, most of which ends up in a landfill. That seems silly, especially with the Al Gores of the world propagating the idea that we are running out of fossil fuel and must look for alternative sources for energy. Why look for energy from algae, which is awesome, don’t get me wrong, when we could just establish a better infrastructure for recovering the stored energy in plastic, a.k.a WTE? Europe is all over incineration and energy recovery…what gives?

Why not spear-head an industry-led initiative that looks to integrate non-bottle plastic packaging into the existing recycling infrastructure, I thought to myself? After all, the fact that all the plastic packaging besides bottles ends up in a landfill is bizarre; therefore, we not collaborate with those along the supply chain to find an end-of-life option for plastic packaging? Sounds like a great idea, I thought to myself.

I then followed up with Robert Carlson after my thought baby of starting a recycling initiative:

Hey Robert,

Thank you very much for the email—I understand you are busy so I really appreciate you taking the time to respond to my inquiries. I am in the process of trying to spear-head an industry led recycling program aimed at recapturing PET clamshell packages for material recovery. Yippee!

Hope all is well in sunny California . Take care and I look forward to speaking with you again in the future. If you come across anything about sustainability and packaging that you think would be of interest, please don’t hesitate to send it my way.

Best,

Chandler Slavin

Tune in tomorrow to see Robert’s feedback, which marks the beginning of a very long and convoluted attempt to alter the recycling infrastructure in America.

After nearly missing the train from Chicago to Woodstock and spilling coffee on my new pencil skirt, I made it to the office, hoping that something would be waiting there to lift my spirits: 1 new email from Robert Carlson! Yippee!

Chandler,

It was nice meeting you as well.

I don't have a lot of time just now to address your question, but I'll try to point you to the most likely location of that info and then do some research a bit later when I have more time.? I'd suggest looking at the AF&PA's website (American Forestry and Paper Association). They have a lot of information although a fair amount of it must be paid for.?

My experience has been that this info can be difficult to get for a few reasons...1) some people don't like to talk about this stuff, they call it proprietary or they think it will taint their image...2) It varies considerably from mill to mill depending on if they're using scrap from the timber industry for energy or if they're using natural gas or grid electricity... Anyway, have a look at AF&PA and if that doesn't pan out for you, I'll try to look through some of my resources a bit later on.

Hope you're doing well, Robert

Hmmm I thought to myself as I scrolled through the email; I had never thought of data about the environment as being proprietary…shouldn’t the public have access to the information about how certain consumer goods and packages impact our world? I guess if people don’t even check where their clothes or shoes or Gucci bags are made and in what kind of conditions (ahem, dormitories in factories anyone?) they obviously don’t care to investigate the repercussions that their buying decisions have on the environment—especially when it comes to packaging! But that’s changing, I thought to myself, as I clung on to the shred of idealism still remaining from college. And, I continued to reason, it is my job as the Sustainability Coordinator at a plastic packaging company to know the effects that packaging has on the global community. How hard can it be, I questioned?

Having spent the last four years in the cushy atmosphere of college where one little user name and password grants you access into some of the most powerful databases in the world (LexusNexus, for one), I reasoned with myself that I could find the information I was looking for; little did I know, however, the extent to which the “proprietary” bubble expanded into the blurring world between business and the environment.

Tune in Monday to see how, by law, chemical manufacturing companies can hide behind a veil of secrecy; otherwise know as the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act.