Last week, I wrote an article about banning plastic water bottles. This is clearly one of the easiest measures the world can take to reduce environmental damage and to decrease carbon emissions. There aren't many easy options like this one, but there are a few. Junk mail seems like another simple and obvious target if we want to improve the environment and reduce wasteful energy use. It is another completely unnecessary product that most people throw away without even reading.
If many areas, of course, it is possible for individuals to opt out of receiving junk mail, either through registries, or simply by putting up a notice by the mailbox. This doesn't always, work, though, and while it is good people are doing this, it isn't going to solve the problem. It doesn't help with the other 5.8 million tons of waste in the US every year, according to one estimate. That's about 100 million trees required yearly to produce all the junk mail in the US.
Recycling isn't the answer either. It still takes energy to recycle the paper (and the plastic wrapping its sometimes put in), which just generates more carbon emissions. It's much more effective to reduce and reuse as this can reduce the resources used and emissions generated throughout the chain of production, including transportation. With millions of trees spared, we should have more than enough paper for our needs.
The only potential drawback from eliminating junk mail is that some companies may need to change how they do their marketing. There are many other ways to market today, including using the Internet, and there is little doubt companies can adapt. But even if there is difficulty for some companies, that is not a sufficient reason to justify the massive waste caused by junk mail and its contributions to global warming and resource depletion. In fact, reducing advertising is perhaps a beneficial step towards reducing our massive overconsumption.
Junk mail doesn't only include paper, but sometimes there are product samples, CDs or DVDs, and other materials. This is more waste that can be eliminated. Credit card applications are also frequently delivered. US credit card debt is at a record high, so by eliminating these, people's debt might be improved, and excess consumption reduced.
Junk mail is one of the few products that can be easily eliminated without any impact on people's lifestyles and without large infrastructure changes, yet can still deliver significant emissions reduction. It needs to simply be banned. The countries meeting at Copenhagen need to consider a ban on junk mail as part of the international agreements they are working on. Unlike many of the other hard decisions that are needed, this one is likely to be very popular among voters.
Posts
9 comments:
Great post! I think banning junk mail will not only improve our overall quality of life (and environment, obviously), it will also reduce our already overburdened postal service. If we can get rid of all this paper waste, USPS can concentrate on getting out "real" mail and not raise the postage rates while cutting back on necessary services, and maybe - just maybe - they will be able to justify the move to reduce the six days of mail down to five. Sounds like a win-win to me! Now, if we can only get our politicians on board…two days after Election Day here in NYC, I am STILL receiving mailers in TRIPLICATE from just one politician alone! Not to mention the fact that I also received two HUGE voter guides in English the day AFTER the election (the THREE I had received previously had all been in Korean which, last time I checked, was not the official language in America)! BLARGH!
Jen, it seems like this would be an easy thing for a politician to campaign on. Promise your voters you'll get rid of all their junk mail, and watch the votes come in! :)
I'd vote for them! I used to work for the USPS, and it never ceased to amaze me, how unbelievably stupid management was. Oh, AND how they always seemed to blame the Carrier or the Clerk(You know... the ones that do all the work cleaning up the ignorance of the Management).
Hi Canada Guy, great post. I agree totally.
New York Crank said...
My my, Canada Guy, you were certainly off-topic when you posted the thoughts above on my blog. [http://thenewyorkcrank.blogspot.com/2009/10/should-junk-mail-writers-be-licensed.html]
I was talking about the potential danger of licensing free expression. You tried to change the subject to talking about the environment.
But although you were way out in left field, have to respond to some questions you've raised, however inappropriately you raised them on my blog.
In any society that's past the hunter-gatherer stage, people will want to sell things to other people. How you gonna manage that, Canada Guy? I'm assuming, of course, that you don't want all of us to spend our lives in the forest eating nothing but berries , roots, and animals we've shot with our bows and arrows.
Are we all going to drive to the market place and emit hydrocarbons? Are we gonna relentlessly fill your e-mail box and mine with spam? How about a constant shower of phone calls at dinner time? Or salesmen pounding on your front door? We've stopped filling up newspapers with ads (most of which no one reads) and the consequence is, our sources of hard news are drying up.
Direct mail saves us from other more intrusive forms of selling, and other more eco-hostile forms of buying. Here in the United States, it's also helping to keep the post office alive. Most of its revenue comes from junk mail.
One last question. Who gets to decide what's junk mail and what's legitimate communication? If I write to you and say, "Hey, I just ate in a great restaurant named The Organic Poop, is that junk mail or a personal recommendation? Or will it depend on whether I write it on glossy paper, rag paper or toilet paper? Or whether I mention it in three letters or fifty letters? Or whether the Organic Poop gave me a free dessert last night? See where this is going?
Put that in your pipe and smo...whoops! Sorry. As an environmentally conscious dude you probably don't smoke. Oh well. Stuff it in your mouth and swallow it.
Yours Very Crankily,
The New York Crank
Thanks New York, your point is well taken. I thought we had a bit of common ground on junk mail, but I suppose not.
You're right, we should continue to allow mass junk mail because it's difficult to categorize it and it might inconvenience small business. God forbid we have to draw a line somewhere.
So, if I understand you, there's no way to market other than junk mail, so the economy will collapse and we will all be left foraging in the forest.
I submit, I have no response to that.
Along the lines of changing our culture and our habits of consumption, I highly recommend reading this article and others of the series.
http://www.grist.org/article/2009-10-14-the-absent-heart-of-the-great-climate-affair
Quite eye-opening.
And, Canada Guy? You are sooooo polite!
Thank Gail. I would hate to violate the stereotype. :)
New York Guy:
Everyone has the right to free speech, but no one has the right to be heard. Marketers do NOT have the right to harass me. If I don't wish to receive junk mail, telemarketing phone calls, soliciters; that should me my freaking RIGHT. I should be able to opt-out. I have the right to be left freaking alone!!
There's no reason that we should subsidize the junk mail either. We don't subsidize super bowl ads, so why should we subsidize junk mail?
There are other forms of marketing you know, like TV/radio commercials, email marketing and banner ads. These are much less intrusive and is completely voluntary-you can turn off the idiot-tube or the radio.
Post a Comment