06-Dec-2006
The mystery of the Mobius Loop
Well, the good folks at MGA Entertainment (makers of Bratz dolls - see David Cameron's Diary: Dratz.....itz Bratz again ) have responded to my complaints & questions.
I am encouraged to hear that are looking at alternative packaging and that they are participants in the "Green Dot" scheme otherwise known as the Mobius Loop.
I would like to take a section of their response and invite anyone who knows about the detail within the waste regulations to advise what this means in practice.
Now that intrigued me as I had seen the symbol of the circles inside the circle but didn't know that there was an organisation behind it, so I did some digging and came across a company ( Valpak ) that helps companies operate in the UK and "contribute" to the costs of recycling the packaging......but what about the products inside the packaging?
What angered me on that site was a statement attributed to Corus on this page:
Reading the site further, it appears that companies are charged on the basis of the proportion of packaging actually recycled and as we know, the current regime in the UK does not support households in their recycling activities...in fact it is a punitive regime as proposed.
Can anyone tell me who pays for the end product recycling (or any costs of landfill)?
I see that the Chancellor has today announced a ridiculously modest increase in Landfill taxes from £21 per tonne to £24 per tonne and is considering much steeper increases.
Of course, at the end of the day, the costs will be passed on to the consumer, but as we know, in this competive age of looking for the last cent of margin, companies will look to reduce their costs and packaging is an element of that, but also will encourage the development of even more recyclable materials to displace materials that are not.
This isn't the full answer......it is never easy to provide a holistic solution. Thought needs to be given as to how we as consumers would then continue or improve our social responsibility to recycle wherever practical....the answer has to be in somehow making it easier and consistent across regions to enable maximum recycling.
One thing I am clear on is that if the increased costs end up with the consumer or the "disposer", then we will see more and more waste removal "specialists" avoiding the costs by fly-tipping on an even bigger scale than we have today. If the producer pre-pays for disposal at end of useful life then we should eliminate the need for fly-tipping.
Apologies for such a long posting....I hope that you found it interesting reading, and if you can add any comments to it, please do, especially if you are in the industry.
Link
I am encouraged to hear that are looking at alternative packaging and that they are participants in the "Green Dot" scheme otherwise known as the Mobius Loop.
I would like to take a section of their response and invite anyone who knows about the detail within the waste regulations to advise what this means in practice.
"We include the mobius loop on our outer packaging which is accepted as the
traditional, universal recycling symbol. This alerts our consumers that
packaging can be recycled if the regulations and/or ordinances of their local
community provide for its collection. Additionally, MGA is a participant in the
Green Dot program utilized in Europe. The Green Dot signifies that MGA
financially contributes to the cost of recovery and recycling in countries such
as Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, and many others"
Now that intrigued me as I had seen the symbol of the circles inside the circle but didn't know that there was an organisation behind it, so I did some digging and came across a company ( Valpak ) that helps companies operate in the UK and "contribute" to the costs of recycling the packaging......but what about the products inside the packaging?
What angered me on that site was a statement attributed to Corus on this page:
"..a good insurance policy.....compliance in the future, at good value"I believe that this statement suggests that Valpak can assist companies such as Corus to meet compliance on the cheap and avoid any additional overheads of being a good corporate citizen.
Reading the site further, it appears that companies are charged on the basis of the proportion of packaging actually recycled and as we know, the current regime in the UK does not support households in their recycling activities...in fact it is a punitive regime as proposed.
Can anyone tell me who pays for the end product recycling (or any costs of landfill)?
I see that the Chancellor has today announced a ridiculously modest increase in Landfill taxes from £21 per tonne to £24 per tonne and is considering much steeper increases.
Somewhat as an aside to the recycling story, at the same time the Chancellor signalled an intent to raise Vehicle Road Fund Licence to £2,000pa for band G vehicles, which will in many cases be more fuel efficient, creating less pollution than some of the older vehicles on the road today. The Chancellors idea still does not necessarilly reflect the actual polluter pays policy if the vehicle is little used, but I do welcome the pay as you go increase of ~5.6p/gallon on Fuel duty if it goes to green campaigns and funds some environmental activities.
Back to Mobius and recycling......
In my opinion, we must target the costs of landfill & recycling with the producers. The costs are generated by the production of the product or packaging it for sale (even then the packaging is made by a producer), so lets see the full cost of recovery built in to the price of the product. At the moment, it seems that companies are potentially seeking to become compliant, but not necessarilly behaving as a good corporate citizen and absorbing the full cost.Of course, at the end of the day, the costs will be passed on to the consumer, but as we know, in this competive age of looking for the last cent of margin, companies will look to reduce their costs and packaging is an element of that, but also will encourage the development of even more recyclable materials to displace materials that are not.
This isn't the full answer......it is never easy to provide a holistic solution. Thought needs to be given as to how we as consumers would then continue or improve our social responsibility to recycle wherever practical....the answer has to be in somehow making it easier and consistent across regions to enable maximum recycling.
One thing I am clear on is that if the increased costs end up with the consumer or the "disposer", then we will see more and more waste removal "specialists" avoiding the costs by fly-tipping on an even bigger scale than we have today. If the producer pre-pays for disposal at end of useful life then we should eliminate the need for fly-tipping.
Apologies for such a long posting....I hope that you found it interesting reading, and if you can add any comments to it, please do, especially if you are in the industry.
Labels: Bratz, landfill, MGAE recycling, mobius, recycling
Link
01-Dec-2006
Name & Shame Time - Excessive Packaging
It was my daughter Lindsey's 5th birthday today and as you can imagine there were a range of presents, but none worse than the Bratz doll that took my wife and I a full 10 minutes to get out of the packaging without damaging the doll.
In a world where we are being encouraged to recycle, it becomes a pain when packaging is not simple, is bloated and downright unnecessary.
Just taking this one doll as an example.....The the outer box - cardboard with a plastic clear window.
Then once opened, the doll is secured to cardboard with sewn in thread as well as plastic collars as well as wire ties. Then to make matters worse there is another layer of cardboard glued onto the back to hide and secure all the fixings. Why? It has sparked me to email the manufacturers MGA Entertainment (http://www.mgae.com) to ask what their environmental policy is as I am sure that the packaging can only end up in landfill with all the contaminants. Multiply this by 1,000s or even 1,000,000s as we hit Christmas and the problem is huge.
It probably isn't fair to single out MGAE for their Bratz range as every toy now seems to come in the same type of obstinate packaging (maybe even all packed in some mega sized Chinese or Taiwanese factory for everyone)
Give me other examples and tell me which companies you have encountered whom you think are neglecting the environment with excessive packaging with the ugly details and I will try to get their responses and environmental policies. I will then name the good, bad and ugly - though that list may require another blog or full blown website on its own.
In a world where we are being encouraged to recycle, it becomes a pain when packaging is not simple, is bloated and downright unnecessary.
Just taking this one doll as an example.....The the outer box - cardboard with a plastic clear window.
Then once opened, the doll is secured to cardboard with sewn in thread as well as plastic collars as well as wire ties. Then to make matters worse there is another layer of cardboard glued onto the back to hide and secure all the fixings. Why? It has sparked me to email the manufacturers MGA Entertainment (http://www.mgae.com) to ask what their environmental policy is as I am sure that the packaging can only end up in landfill with all the contaminants. Multiply this by 1,000s or even 1,000,000s as we hit Christmas and the problem is huge.
It probably isn't fair to single out MGAE for their Bratz range as every toy now seems to come in the same type of obstinate packaging (maybe even all packed in some mega sized Chinese or Taiwanese factory for everyone)
Give me other examples and tell me which companies you have encountered whom you think are neglecting the environment with excessive packaging with the ugly details and I will try to get their responses and environmental policies. I will then name the good, bad and ugly - though that list may require another blog or full blown website on its own.
Labels: Bratz, excessive packaging, landfill
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]