Showing posts with label Waste. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Waste. Show all posts

Sunday, February 21, 2016

2217. E-Commerce Create a Mountain of Cardboard

By Matt Richtel, The New York Times, February 16, 2016


Ruchit Garg, a Silicon Valley entrepreneur, says that he worries that something isn’t right with his Internet shopping habit. With each new delivery to his doorstep — sometimes several in a day — he faces the source of his guilt and frustration: another cardboard box.

Then, when he opens the shipment, he is often confronted with a Russian nesting dolls worth of boxes inside boxes to protect his electronics, deodorant, clothing or groceries. Mr. Garg dutifully recycles, but he shared his concerns recently on Twitter.

A handful of scientists and policy makers are circling the same question, grappling with the long-term environmental effect of an economy that runs increasingly on gotta-have-it-now gratification. This cycle leads consumers to expect that even their modest wants can be satisfied like urgent needs, and not always feel so great about it.

The new arms race for Internet retailers is speed, making the old Federal Express commercial, “When it absolutely, positively has to be there overnight,” seem as quaint as delivery by horse and buggy. Amazon boasted in a news release in December about its “fastest order delivered to date” — a Miami customer’s craving for a four-pack of Starbucks vanilla frappuccino was sated in 10 minutes flat.

In 10 major regions, Google Express delivers in a little less than two hours from dozens of stores — including toys, drugs, hardware and pet supplies. Postmates, a San Francisco start-up, promises deliveries in less than an hour. It dropped off nearly one million packages in December.

Over all, the $350 billion e-commerce industry has doubled in the last five years, with Amazon setting the pace. Its Prime membership service has grown to more than 50 million subscribers, by one estimate. (And its new faster service, Prime Now, can “get customers pretty much anything in minutes,” its website says).

Uber calls its new UberRush service “your on-demand delivery fleet”; Jet Delivery offers “white glove” service in less than two hours; Instacart can deliver groceries to your door in less than an hour.

The environmental cost can include the additional cardboard — 35.4 million tons of containerboard were produced in 2014 in the United States, with e-commerce companies among the fastest-growing users — and the emissions from increasingly personalized freight services.

“There’s a whole fleet of trucks circulating through neighborhoods nonstop,” said Dan Sperling, the founding director of the Institute of Transportation Studies at the University of California, Davis, and the transportation expert on the California Air Resources Board. He also is overseeing a new statewide task force of trucking companies and government officials trying to reduce overall emissions from freight deliveries, including for e-commerce.

Dr. Sperling said that consumers shared as much responsibility for the environmental cost of the deliveries as the companies that provided the speedy services.
“From a sustainability perspective, we’re heading in the wrong direction,” he said.

There are possible trade-offs, for example. As people shop more online, they might use their cars less. And delivery services have immense incentive to find the most efficient routes, keeping their fuel costs and emissions down. For its part, Amazon said that delivering to consumers straight from huge warehouses cuts down the need to distribute to thousands of stores.

So far, though, shoppers appear to be ordering online while still driving to brick-and-mortar stores at least as much as in the past, according to Dr. Sperling and other academics. One recent study explored the environmental effect of Internet shopping in Newark, Del., and found that a rise in e-commerce in recent years by local residents corresponded to more trucks on the road and an increase in greenhouse emissions.

Ardeshi Faghri, a professor of civil engineering at the University of Delaware, said the increase of various emissions — which he estimated at 20 percent from 2001 to 2011 — “could be due to a multitude of reasons, but we think that online shopping and more delivery trucks are really one of the primary reasons.”

“Online shopping has not helped the environment,” he said. “It has made it worse.”
Other scholars say that, at least for now, online shopping appears to be complementing brick-and-mortar shopping, not replacing it.

“People who shop online also like to see and feel things,” said Cara Wang, an associate professor at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute who studies transportation issues and has written a paper about habits of online shoppers. “And they have to return things.”

Dr. Wang and other researchers say the demand for instant delivery, in particular, creates challenges for trucking companies trying to be efficient. Instead of taking big truckloads to single retailers they now make more scattershot deliveries.

Many drivers deliver just one item. This is often the case for Postmates, which has a fleet of 15,000 freelance drivers signed up to make deliveries of whatever the customer orders — an Uber-like service, but for deliveries. The cost typically starts at $5, and a 9 percent service fee applied to the cost of the item. (The company says it also has about 5,000 deliverers who go on bike or foot in dense urban areas).

And the push for speed from marketers gives shoppers little incentive to wait.
“Why select one week if I can get it in one hour?” asked Miguel Jaller, an assistant professor at U.C. Davis who studies urban freight patterns.

Such is the case for Monica Rohleder, who admits to using Amazon Prime so much that “my husband jokes we keep Amazon in business.”

Ms. Rohleder, who lives in Los Angeles and works at a public relations firm, said she liked overnight delivery, but “within a couple of hours is best” because she is busy with work and her two young children. So she often does not order something until it’s urgent. “There’s the immediate gratification of getting something and checking it off your list,” she said.

Nordstrom, for a Hawaii trip, including bathing suits, workout clothes and coloring books. Some of the clothes did not fit, so she returned them.

She thinks more about the cardboard that comes into her house than the truck emissions, she said. “It’s embarrassing,” she added of her mass of weekly recycling.

Dennis Colley, the president of the Fibre Box Association — the trade group for the corrugated paper, or cardboard, industry — estimated that the use of boxes for e-commerce was growing faster than most other market segments. However, he emphasized the industry’s efforts to be environmentally conscious, and that 90 percent of corrugated packaging were recycled.

Amazon is aware of the cardboard issue. Since 2009, it has received 33 million comments, ratings and photographs about its packaging as part of its “packaging feedback program.” Amazon said it used that feedback to make sure that cardboard box size was consistent with the size of the product. It also works with manufacturers to send some products without additional cardboard packaging, said Craig Berman, a company spokesman.

Though recycling can make consumers think they are helping the environment, the process has its own costs, including the emissions from shipping it to recycling centers, which use a lot of energy and water. Don Fullerton, a professor of finance and an expert in economics and the environment at the University of Illinois, said one possible solution would be to make the retailers responsible for taking back the boxes. That would create incentives for them to come up with solutions for less packaging.

“And maybe not put a box inside a box inside a box,” he said.

Robert Reed, a spokesman for Recology, San Francisco’s main recycling processor, which collects 100 tons of cardboard every day, has a simpler solution: “Slow down consumption,” he said. “Slow down.”

Tuesday, April 22, 2014

1392. Book Review: Waste: Uncovering the Global Food Scandal

By Linda Christmas, The Telegraph, July 16, 2009

Tristam Stuart’s exceptional book describes the hideous problem of food waste. The average UK household bins £8 of food each week and supermarket profligacy fills him with contempt. Instead of leaving the reader feeling impotent and gloomy, he offers a list of improvements from one end of the food chain to the other: from farmers through food producers, supermarkets and restaurants to consumers and governments. His action plan at the end of the book leaves the reader feeling that solutions, though not easy, are possible – and that such solutions could aid those facing famine and help Britain to meet international targets on climate change. Waste is an uplifting book.

It is also brave. Stuart has produced, for the first time, a league table of the amount of food waste generated by supermarkets. He does this by foraging through scant data, carefully explaining his methodology, and then states that if he’s got something wrong it is merely an argument for making the supermarkets release more accurate and complete data. “The Co-op is the best performing supermarket, 27 per cent more efficient than average. Sainsbury’s is the worst, apparently 14 per cent more wasteful than the average and 55 per cent worse than the Co-op. Morrisons and Tesco are about average and Waitrose and Asda are slightly more wasteful than average and around 47 per cent worse than the Co-op.”

The Co-op heads the list because it resists the temptation to overstock for the sake of a bountiful display. My local Co-op has scantily filled shelves and now that I know that this is part of their attempt to cut waste I shall applaud their less than laden shelves. Furthermore, the Co-op group has a policy for reducing the price of products near the sell-by date. Most supermarkets do this to some extent but none as much as they could. Similarly, most supermarkets donate surplus food to redistribution charities such as FareShare who then pass them to community centres and homeless shelters. Stuart feels they could give more and further reduce the tonnage going to landfill.

Stuart is concerned by the amount of food that ends up in landfill because the waste releases methane, a relatively damaging greenhouse gas. No food goes to landfill in South Korea and Taiwan. Those countries think we are mad. They feed their food waste to pigs. We did that until 2001 when the practice was banned by Britain and the EU after the outbreak of Foot and Mouth disease that originated in a farm feeding swill to pigs. The farmer had not been observing the law and boiling the food waste to get rid of the pathogens. Stuart suggests that a temporary ban would have been enough, followed by stricter enforcement of sterilisation procedures. Instead the ban remains. Pig farmers are now going out of business because they have to use expensive feed instead of cheap swill.

Stuart admires the “Islands of Hope”, as he calls them – Japan, Korea and Taiwan. Their governments have chosen to make it mandatory for food businesses to reduce waste by 66 per cent. He would like to see the same policy here. Our Government prefers to nag the consumer and seek voluntary deals with businesses. Last month, after this book was completed, the Environment Secretary announced new initiatives to boost the Government’s “War on Waste”. These include proposals to increase alternatives to landfill, produce new packaging sizes to cater for the increasing numbers who live alone and to rethink “best before” and “sell by” labels which are a guarantee of quality rather than a guide to food safety.

Food waste is hardly a new issue. In recent years there has been widespread media coverage, but bite-sized articles and one-off programmes can be confusing or rejected as hype. This book offers a rigorous – there are 67 pages of endnotes and 48 pages of bibliography – and accessible A to Z of the issues and its author is so passionate about the subject that he motivates the reader to want to do something to help. Few of us will follow Stuart and become “freegans”, rummaging through the black sacks at supermarket backdoors and feasting on their cast-offs, and we will ignore his suggestion that if we don’t eat crusts we should not eat bread. None the less, each of us could easily buy less and not feel like cheapskates as we reach for the marked down items. We are helping and the financial climate invites us to be thrifty both as individuals and as a country.

*     *     *
By Tristram Stuart, TED.com, 2012

Western countries waste up to half of their food. This is an injustice Tristram Stuart has dedicated his career to fixing. In his newest book, Waste: Uncovering the Global Food Scandal, Tristram shows how changing the systems that result in food waste could be one of the simplest ways to reduce pressure on the environment.

The winner of the international environmental award The Sophie Prize in 2011, Tristram is the founder of Feeding the 5000, a consciousness raising campaign where 5000 members of the public are given a free lunch using only ingredients that otherwise would have been wasted. Held in Trafalgar Square in 2009 and 2011, the event has also been held internationally.

In addition, Tristram works with a range of NGOs, governments, and private enterprises to tackle the global food waste scandal.