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

I may have learned something already Re: Rant: Who took the P2 out of Resource Conservation?

Yes. This: "(1) Reduce the generation and disposal of the following materials and waste streams through reuse, recycling, composting, market development or product stewardship:" appears to specifically exclude source reduction (except between the lines as an element of product stewardship) as a strategy to get to the  goal of reducing the generation and disposal of the materials. They should rewrite the solicitation.

I heartily agree with your thought that "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 generated." However, a look at the Resource Conservation Challenge website (http://www.epa.gov/rcc/) states that waste reduction and the reduction of toxic chemicals are 2 of the four  RCC goals. So, I would think that protesting the exclusion of source reduction as a fundable strategy in this solicitation would be appropriate.

However, your other thought, we can't do it by recycling alone, while true, runs the other way as well. I think that we also can't do it by p2 alone and that the holy grail of "sustainability" is at least as dependent on issues around materials use (recycling and the flow of materials through the economy) as it is on efficiency (p2). We should recognize the issues are intimately connected and perhaps have equal value. I have found "The Natural Step" a good framework for thinking about this and I don't think it values any one of the "system conditions" over the others.

Ok, this is heresy. I thought long and hard about the relationship of source reduction (as practiced in our haz waste source reduction program here in California) and sustainability, and came to the conclusion that of all of my dept's programs, the brownfields group probably contributes most significantly to "sustainability."

Just some thoughts. All that said, these last thoughts directed to us in the p2 community. As you point out, the public at large isn't too aware of or keen on the "reduce" part of "reduce, reuse, recycle". Not the American way, methinks. As you said, they shouldn't try to disguise recycling programs as p2. They should rewrite the solicitation--or call it something else. 

Kathy Barwick
Sacramento Region Pollution 
    Prevention Coordinator
Dept. of Toxic Substances Control
(916) 255-6421
fax (916) 255-3595

>>> Rick Yoder <ryoder@mail.unomaha.edu> 01/24/06 2:33 PM >>>
It seems that I did not give credit due to the term, "product 
stewardship", at least according to some:

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.

glad to learn of this omission and share it.


Richard Yoder, PE
Director, P2ric.org
University of Nebraska at Omaha
6001 Dodge Street, RH308
Omaha, NE 68182
vox: 402-554-6257
fax: 402-554-6260


* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
P2TECH is hosted by the Great Lakes Information Network:
To unsubscribe from this list: send mail to majordomo@great-lakes.net
with the command 'unsubscribe p2tech' in the body of your message. No
quotes or subject line are required.
About : http://www.great-lakes.net/lists/p2tech/p2tech.info.
A map of P2TECH subscribers can be viewed at http://www.frappr.com/p2tech.

This list is managed by the Great Lakes Regional Pollution
Prevention Roundtable (http://www.glrppr.org), part of the
P2Rx national network of regional P2 information centers
(http://www.p2rx.org ).