It seems that I did not give credit
due to the term, "product stewardship", at least according to
see the EPA site:
But not all describe it this way. The
wikipedia definition doesn't make product stewardship sound P2 friendly:
anyway, I freely admit my ignorance
on the P2 connections to product stewardship, and that it
can deliver some P2 outcomes.
P2RIC, the Pollution Prevention
Regional Information Center, is
a proud member of the Pollution Prevention
Resource Exchange, P2Rx.org.
Rick Yoder <email@example.com> Sent by: firstname.lastname@example.org
01/24/2006 02:22 PM
Please respond to
Rick Yoder <email@example.com>
Rant: Who took the P2 out of Resource
The RFIP (described and linked below), "Resource Conservation Challenge
(RCC) Grants Program (FY06" has three priorities to be funded at the
national level; none of which include source reduction; all have a heavy
emphasis on recycling. The closest language to P2 is in the
first priority in section 1B: "(1) Reduce the generation and disposal
of the following materials and waste streams through reuse, recycling,
composting, market development or product stewardship:"
Where in the description of how, i.e., " through reuse, recycling,
composting, market development or product stewardship" does the prevention
component (the reduced source generation) exist? Only through reuse,
I guess. And not at all in priorities #2 & #3. As such, I don't
see how the solicitation encourages proposals that address the "Reduce
Waste Generation" portion of the EPA Strategic Plan Goal 3 Objective
3.1 Sub-objective 3.1.1 or the "Prevent Pollution" element of
Goal 5 Objective 5.2 Sub-objective 5.2.2
I wonder who will be reviewing the proposals? I now assume that it
will be a panel comprised of individuals who favor recycling.
With only $250,000 available at the national level, I would expect two,
maybe three, projects. With the priorities described, it seems evident
to me that P2 is pretty well taking a back seat to recycling. To the old
geezers on this list - remember when there was a time we used to debate
what is or is not P2? I'm not saying that was a good thing, but I
feel the pendulum has swung too far the other way.
Is this important enough for NPPR or some other group representing P2
specialists to draft & send a letter?
I guess I wouldn't mind so much, but for this:
1) I was first introduced to P2 while working in the RCRA program
back in '91 - P2 has decent regulatory roots in RCRA that seem to me to
be abandoned with the stated priorities.,
2) If RCC wants to do recycling, that's fine, it's their money. But
they should call it that, and not try to describe it as a reduction in
the generation of waste. It's not. It's handling the waste
3) The national public still holds a prevalent belief that when they recycle
they are doing the best they can do for the environment. If EPA won't
continue to reach for the elegant solution of source reduction, why should
the public? I don't think sustainability can be reached by recycling
Just a thought.
Resource Conservation Challenge (RCC) Grants Program (FY06)
City or township governments
Private institutions of higher education
Native American tribal governments (Federally recognized)
Special district governments
Public and State controlled institutions of higher education
This notice announces the availability of funds and solicits
proposals from eligible entities that address solid waste reduction,
recycling and management, and priority chemical reduction. The aim of
this solicitation is to stimulate innovative ideas for waste reduction
and recycling with the goal of fostering positive change.