[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: P2 and ISO 14000 -Reply

As a way of seconding Bob's point, I'd like to repeat something I heard at
a panel session back in November, chaired by Loch McCabe from 
the  Environmental Captial Network.  according to one of the speakers
(who works with a California-based venture cap firm), although P2 deals
are still but a sliver of the total "environmental technology market," P2
represents the fastes growing segment of this market.  

I cannot vouch for the accuracy of this statement, so I won't. 
Nevertheless, this is music to the ears of those (of which I am one) who
think that the road to "success'' for the preventive approach to
solving enviromental problems will necessarily be through the

Ed Weiler (USEPA-Pollution Prevention Division)
Washington, D.C.
 Phone: (202) 260-2996 

>>> <rpojasek@sprynet.com> 01/08/98 08:46am >>>
There is a list server that just deals with ISO 14000.  There was an
string of comments on P2 not too long ago.  You can search their digest
on the 
Internet  http://www.quality.org/ISO14000/digest-archives/14digest.html 
recollection is that most ISO 14000 practitioners are not paying mucb
to "the prevention of pollution."  It is a very minor issue to them.  They are

still debating whether an ISO 9000 practitioner is more qualified than an 
environmental person to conduct an ISO 14001 project.  By the way,
prevention in every other language translates into English as the
prevention of 
pollution.  Think about it.  Every time I see a company win a governor's
for a closed loop system (for water), I think about all the other wastes
this ancillary operation is causing.  If they used process mapping, they
would see that TRUE P2 is still the way to go.  We do not need to order 
companies to go there.  Those that want to stay in business will have to
out for themselves.

Bob Pojasek
Cambridge Environmental Inc.
58 Charles St.
Cambridge, MA 02141
(617) 225-0812
(617) 225-0813  FAX