Worldwide environmental contrasts — North America

  • Marilyn Bakker
  • Michael Gigliotti

Abstract

The American public consensus regarding packaging and the environment has moved beyond the hyperbole and hysteria that seems to surround the subject in other parts of the industrial world. In the American hierarchy of realistic ecological and environmental concerns, packaging, garbage, and solid waste handling rank rather low on the list. However, in an era of bankrupt communities, burdensome national and community indebtedness, taxpayer unrest, and general distrust of government and industry, these are significant and economic issues.

Keywords

Toxicity Furnace Mercury Chromium Foam 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Alter, H. (1988). The Greatly Growing Garbage Problem: A Guide to Municipal Solid Waste Management for Communities and Businesses. U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Publication No. 0113.Google Scholar
  2. Apotheker, S. (1991). Glass containers: how recyclable will they be in the 1990s? Resource Recycling, 10/6, June 1991.Google Scholar
  3. Attorneys General Task Force (1990). The Green Report: Findings and Preliminary Recommendations for Responsible Environmental Advertising.Google Scholar
  4. Attorneys General Task Force (1991). The Green Report-II.Google Scholar
  5. Beck, P. and Grogan, P. (1991). Minimum content legislation: an effective market development tool. Resource Recycling, 10(9), 90.Google Scholar
  6. Council on Economic Priorities (1990). Shopping for a Better World. 1991 edition. (New York)Google Scholar
  7. Council on Plastics and Packaging in the Environment (1991). COPPE Quarterly, 5/1 Spring 1991.Google Scholar
  8. Environmental Defense Fund (1990). Why McDonald’s did the right thing in saying no to foam. EDF Factsheet, December 6, 1990, and McDonald’s decision to phase out polystyrene foam. Press release, December 6, 1990.Google Scholar
  9. Food Marketing Institute (1989). Policy Statement on Solid Waste.Google Scholar
  10. Franklin Associates, Ltd (1988). Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in the United States, I960 to 2000. Prepared for U.S. EPA, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (Prarie Village KS: March 30, 1988).Google Scholar
  11. Greenpeace Action Plastics: An environmental menace. Greenpeace Action, position paper.Google Scholar
  12. Homer, J. and Faulkner, D. (1990). Packaging and the environment in the’ 90s: round table discussion. Canadian Packaging. November 1990, 42.Google Scholar
  13. Institute of Food Technologists (1991). Food Packaging, Food Protection, and the Environment. A Workshop Report. (Chicago IL).Google Scholar
  14. Institute of Packaging Professionals (1990). IoPP Packaging Reduction, Recycling, and Disposal Guidelines. (Reston VA: July 1990).Google Scholar
  15. Lodge, G.C. and Rayport, J.F. (1991). Knee-deep and rising: America’s recycling crisis. Harvard Business Review, Sept.-Oct. 1991, 128.Google Scholar
  16. Makower, J. (1991) Who’s in charge here? The Green Consumer Letter. (Washington, DC, August 1991).Google Scholar
  17. New York Public Interest Research Group, Inc. The toxics project.Google Scholar
  18. Poore, P. (1991). The future of garbage. Garbage: The Practical Journal for the Environment, 3/5, Sept./Oct. 1991, 4.Google Scholar
  19. Scanion, P.J. (1991). Trash-to-energy plants: a multi-dimensional approach to solid waste management. Resource Recycling, 10/4, April 1991, p. 76.Google Scholar
  20. U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment (1989). Facing America’s Trash: What Next for Municipal Solid Waste? OTA/O-424 (Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, October 1989).Google Scholar
  21. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1989a). Decision-Makers Guide to Solid Waste Management. EPA/530-SW-89-072 (Washington, DC: November 1989).Google Scholar
  22. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1989b). The Solid Waste Dilemma: An Agenda for Action. EPA/530-SW-89-019 (Washington, DC: February 1989).Google Scholar
  23. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1991). Guidance for the Use of the Terms ‘Recycled’ and ‘Recyclable’ and the Recycling Emblem in Environmental Marketing Claims; Notice of Public Meeting. Federal Register, 56/191, October 2, 1991.Google Scholar
  24. U.S. Food and Drug Administration (1992). Department of Health and Human Services. Statement for the record. March 10, 1992.Google Scholar
  25. Watson, T. (1991). The latest European import: wet/dry collection systems. Resource Recycling, 10/4, April 1991, p. 19.Google Scholar

General references

  1. Arrandale, T. (1991). Recycling: Getting Down to Business. Governing. V4 # 11, August 1991, pp. 31–60.Google Scholar
  2. Chertow, M.R. (1989). Garbage Solutions: A Public Officials Guide to Recycling and Alternative Solid Waste Management Technologies. National Resource Recovery Association and U.S. Conference of Mayors.Google Scholar
  3. Testin, R.F. and Vergano, P.J. (1990). Packaging in America in the 1990s. Paper written and a grant administered by the Institute of Packaging Professionals on behalf of various associations. Clemson South Carolina, August 1990.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marilyn Bakker
  • Michael Gigliotti

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations