On June 5, 2009, the National Recycling Coalition's Board of Directors approved a proposal from national nonprofit Keep America Beautiful, Inc. (KAB) that would combine operations of the two organizations.

The purpose of this forum is to actively engage the National Recycling Coalition (NRC) membership and seek your feedback about the proposed combination. Through this online forum, both organizations hope to answer all your questions, share your comments in an open and public dialogue, and provide you with all of the information you need to cast an informed vote about the future of NRC.

On this Web site, the leadership of both NRC and KAB are available to respond to your questions, comments and concerns. We invite your participation in this forum, and ask all participants to be thoughtful in your participation, and respectful of the opinions reflected here.

Ultimately, your vote for or against this combination will have a significant impact on the future of recycling in America. Whatever your opinion, it is vitally important that you cast a ballot and let your voice be heard.

Wednesday, July 15, 2009

Questions for KAB (open comment)

Posted by at

10 comments:

  1. AnonymousJune 27, 2009 at 9:51 AM

    I've heard that KAB has been against efforts to create bottle bills in new states because bottle bills don't sit well with their corporate sponsors. Is this true?

    ReplyDelete
  2. KABJuly 2, 2009 at 2:21 PM

    Contrary to some online accusations, KAB is not involved in any proposed legislation and has not lobbied against bottle bill efforts anywhere in the United States.

    Just like NRC, Keep America Beautiful takes no position – either for or against – any local legislation. The reason is unrelated to corporate sponsors, but rather reflects KAB’s belief in local autonomy of its affiliates.

    Bottle bills are intensely local propositions, requiring local political will, funding mechanisms and infrastructure for success. KAB affiliates (both statewide and local) are free to support, oppose, or remain neutral on all local/state legislation, and this has absolutely no bearing on the affiliates’ status or eligibility for grants and program resources. The national KAB organization values the judgment of its affiliates, and defers to them on all local matters.

    Without a doubt, corporate America is divided on issues of recycling in general and bottle bills specifically, and KAB’s board and roster of sponsors represent the full spectrum of opinions on the matter. By maintaining neutrality, our affiliates are able to explore multiple pathways and innovations, and KAB is better able to deliver programs and resources that fulfill its overall goals: reducing waste, preventing litter, and building greener, more sustainable communities.

    ReplyDelete
  3. AnonymousJuly 15, 2009 at 10:48 AM

    What will happen to national education programs each organization promotes (i.e. Recyclemania, Great American Clean up, etc)? Will programs be sponsored by KAB in conjunction with NRC, or will each keep their old programs only under direct sponsorship by KAB?

    It seems NRC will be under the jurisdiction of KAB and thus KAB will begin to promote or co-sponsor NRC programs. What is KAB's stance on encorporating more recycling and waste reduction programs into thier litter prevention and clean up programs?

    ReplyDelete
  4. KABJuly 15, 2009 at 10:48 AM

    For part one of your question: Please see the thread under “Contents of Proposal” – particularly questions 8 and 10 (link if possible).

    For part 2 of the question: KAB has long included recycling and waste reduction programs for our affiliates.
    • Approximately 1/3 of our affiliates are the recycling coordinators in their community
    • In 2009, KAB acquired the very successful “Curbside Value Partnership,” which has increased volume by an average of 23% and participation by an average 18% in partner communities
    • In 2008 alone, the Great American Cleanup collected over 10 million pounds of metals, 37 million pounds of paper and 5 million pounds of electronics. Full results are on our website, including clothing collected for reuse, tires, batteries, PET, etc.
    • KAB has been a co-sponsor since 2006 of “Cans For Cash City Recycling Challenge” with the U.S. Conference of Mayors and Novelis,
    • We partnered with EPA on the “Complete the Loop: Buy Recycled” national campaign in the 1990s.

    All these efforts will continue and grow as we also take on NRC’s traditional roster of programs and seek to build more. Our commitment to the NRC, we hope, reflects an even greater interest in the issue and deeper involvement in the future.

    ReplyDelete
  5. NYSARJuly 15, 2009 at 12:41 PM

    By company name and address, how much money has KAB received from its corporate sponsors for each of the past 6 years?

    ReplyDelete
  6. KABJuly 15, 2009 at 12:42 PM

    There are far too many sponsors and donors to itemize in this manner on this forum. This information is a matter of public record and filed with KAB’s IRS form 990, available through a variety of sources including Guidestar.com.

    KAB’s annual budget over the past 6 years has averaged $9 million, with most of that funding coming from corporate donors and foundations.

    ReplyDelete
  7. AnonymousJuly 16, 2009 at 11:01 AM

    Thanks for the opportunity to ask questions. Here’s one: Excessive use of single-serve plastic bottles for water is a top-tier issue that no organization with the goal of reducing waste can ignore. To have credibility, the “new” NRC will need to take this issue head-on, and develop a national media campaign to inform Americans of the need to dramatically reduce consumption of water in plastic bottles. Given the fact that KAB is funded in part by Nestle, will NRC/KAB be able to provide unbiased leadership to compel Americans to reduce the consumption of waster plastic bottles?

    ReplyDelete
  8. KABJuly 16, 2009 at 11:02 AM

    Neither KAB nor NRC has an established policy position on the issue you raise regarding plastic water bottles. If the organizations combine, going forward, policy setting for the NRC Unit will be vested in the Executive Board (formerly referred to as the NRC Advisory Council) chosen by the members, not by corporate sponsors. In keeping with NRC's history, it will continue to serve as a forum for differing points of view on how to resolve challenging recycling issues. Likewise, if the Executive Board can develop consensus around certain policies, taking in to account the diverse nature of a national coalition, NRC will advocate those positions.

    ReplyDelete
  9. AnonymousJuly 16, 2009 at 1:53 PM

    KAB has a history of downplaying the significance and potential of recycling. In both your 1994 report "Role of Recycling in Integrated Waste Management", and in "Waste In Place", your curriculum for school children, you state that 30% recycling would be a difficult mark to achieve, and that incineration and landfilling are appropriate solutions for the remainin majority of waste. What is the KAB position on recycling TODAY. What national recycling rate does KAB feel is achievable? Has KAB rethought its position on incineration or landfilling, especially in light of the GHG implications of each?

    ReplyDelete
  10. KABJuly 16, 2009 at 1:54 PM

    Great question. First, the full title of the 1994 study was “Role of Recycling in Integrated Waste Management to the Year 2000.” It was sponsored by KAB, researched by Franklin Associates, Ltd., and participants included industry leaders, U.S. Conference of Mayors, APWA, U.S. EPA, ASCE, NACo and the National League of Cities.

    The purpose of the study was to make projections about the potential of recycling for the remainder of the 1990s, based on data and observable trends from 1985 to 1992. Note that diversion (as a % of total MSW) was approximately 21% at the time of the study. Also note that the study only spoke to national averages, fully acknowledging that higher local rates were achievable. The study concluded that to reach national recycling rates of 25-30%, a doubling of curbside collection and significant improvements in infrastructure and access would be required. Please read the full executive summary here (http://kab.org/msw2k ).

    But without looking too closely at the past, your question rightly focuses on the present and future. Our position, very simply, is that recycling is critically important to the environment for all the reasons you mention – GHG reduction and its impact on climate change, energy conservation (and independence), land/resource conservation – and also critically important for business and industry to embrace. For consumers, it is the single most effective (and also the easiest) thing they can do on a daily basis to help the environment.

    A robust future for recycling will require buy-in (both philosophical and financial) from all sides of the equation. One of the first tasks of the NRC Advisory Council/Executive Board will be to set overall goals for the organization both in the short and long term, including benchmarking diversion rates and setting targets for the future.

    With regard to the “Waste in Place” curriculum, we are currently revising the entire contents of those materials to reflect the most up-to-date thinking, facts and statistics. We look forward to input from NRC. The original materials were created in 1979 and updated roughly every 5 years (most recently in 2005). The 2005 version makes no reference to the 1994 study, so we suspect you have an outdated copy.

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)