|
|||||
 |
Seattle City Council Approve’s ‘Do Not Mail Registry’ Resolution
These unsolicited commercial mailings…or more commonly referred to as ‘junk mail’ choke individual residents mail boxes to the tune of 41 pounds a year. The majority of this junk mail, 41% ends up in the landfill unopened. The production, distribution and disposal of junk mail produces 51 million tons of greenhouse gasses annually…equivalent to 10 million automobiles. The amount of paper required to produce the 105 billion pieces of junk mail distributed in the United States alone requires the annual harvest of approximately 100 million trees. If these trees were left standing they would act as carbon storehouses helping to reduce the effects of global warming. A Do Not Mail Registry would allow the City of Seattle to reduce burdens on its waste management and recycling programs allowing them to operate more efficiently. This will help the city reach its goals of landfill diversion and zero waste. As expected the Seattle City Council unanimously approved a resolution to urge Washington State Legislature to establish a Do Not Mail Registry. Im not exactly sure what urging will entail? I just hope it gets done soon. In a 2007 poll, 89% of likely voters nationwide supported a Do Not Mail Registry. Its obvious people want the option to opt out, so give it to us. Hopefully we wont see outside influence and lobbying throw a wrench in this resolution like we saw with the bag fee in Seattle recently. Encourage your local and state officials to create similar resolutions and push for the creation of a Do Not Mail Registry. You can sign the Do Not Mail petition here. 10 comments to Seattle City Council Approve’s ‘Do Not Mail Registry’ Resolution |
||||
|
Copyright © 2010 TheGreenNW - All Rights Reserved |
|||||
Today I stopped in and listened to the 
I love it! I’ve been waiting for something like this. Except I have to admit there are some “junk mail” offers that I receive that I actually use, so I’m not sure I’d want to 100% cut that off? Seems like it’d be hard to manage anything but all mail or no mail though. Would be great if you could limit mailings by category or industry.
I knew there was tremendous waste but I had no idea it was this bsd. I am sending this to everyone i know, we need to get this done. Thanks
The great thing about this Do Not Mail Registry is that it is directed at “unsolicited” commercial mailings. This means if you want mailings from a particular company then you can always sign up. This is a more practical and responsible approach. Non-profits are also not affected by this proposal.
I love this resolution. Junk Mail Just Sucks. However, I’m also really big on people hearing both sides of the story before committing to a position.
I couldn’t find any recent articles about this particular resolution, but I know that the US Postal Service fought against a similar movement in Vermont a couple years ago. Why? Because a lot of the money that keeps the USPS afloat comes from junk mailings. I don’t know what ended up happening with the Vermont “Do Not Mail” movement (the article I read was from 2008: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2004293889_postal20.html) but if we are going to push for a similar idea in Seattle and Washington, we should consider the effects on the USPS. At the very least, we should be able to address these concerns when opponents bring them up.
There already is a National Do Not Mail Registry with the Direct Marketing Association (DMA) at http://www.the-dma.org. People can register for this and stop receiving unsolicited mail. I strongly support an industry solution to this challenge by educating consumers about their existing options.
I agree that there should be a channel for opting out of receiving direct mail BUT the mailing industry provides jobs for 158,500 people in Washington State and 32,526 within the 7th Congressional District alone. Why not promote the National registry instead of creating a new one?! (2008 Economic Jobs Study, EMA Foundation’s Institute for Postal Studies)
Direct Mail is one of the easiest and most affordable means for small business to advertise themselves. A state Do Not Mail Registry would create more obstacles to small/local businesses as well as the USPS.
Here are some interesting facts about the Direct Mail Industry in case you are interested:
- According to the most recent Lifecycle Cost Analysis, the carbon footprint of the total quantity of mail an individual household receives in one year is equal to operating a coffeemaker, one hour per day for a year.
- The USPS has a nationwide program to recycle all mail with special bins in Post Offices where consumers can drop off their read mail and we are working with recycling companies to also insure that residential trash that is mail can be separated and recycled.
- The USPS and our industry is developing new packaging to promote community based
recycling programs. We need mail volume to support these programs.
- By replacing just two trips to the mall each year by shopping by catalogs or direct mail, Americans could:
- Save 30 miles per household – or 3,332,718,510 miles per year.
- Save 158,700,881 gallons of gasoline or about $634,803,524.
- Avoid 28 tons of CO2 emissions per household – or 3,094,667,179 tons per year.
(USPS Greenhouse Gas Emissions Studies)
Michelle,
You agree that there should be a “channel” for opting out of direct mailings, but you attempt to justify it because of the jobs it creates. This rationalization of an obviously un-sustainable business practice is far to common. This is same approach that the oil industry uses to rationalize the need to continue drilling and refining oil rather than investing in new clean technologies and shifting their core business towards renewable energy. There are more jobs to created thru sustainable business practices than the unstainable jobs they will replace. This is the future. You can painfully delay the inevitable or you can be proactive and show leadership by encorporating sustainability into your industry or business.
The USPS is making steps to implement sustainable practices. This is excellent…largely due economic factors and consumer pressure to limit waste. The idea that consumers will be doing their mall shopping in the future by direct mailings is extremely misguided. As you likely already know, the internet is and will continue to be the demise of direct mailing. As broadband connectivity becomes more readily available consumers will limit their trips to the mall by shopping online.
This thread reminds me alot of the idea that dropping of Yellow Pages phonebooks is still a good idea….who uses phonebooks?
If there already are several options for people to opt out, why create another one?
- DMA’s Campaign for Consumer Choice Mail Preference Service
(www.the-dma.org)
- Consumers may stop credit card offers through http://www.optoutprescreen.com
- Consumers can reduce the number of catalog’s they recieve at Catalog Choice http://www.catalogchoice.com
-People can always contact company directly to opt out
Jobs are an important factor, especially in a moment when the industry is placing a high value in incorporating sustainable business practices.
Many local companies participate in the Seattle Green Up Program, sourcing their energy from renewable resources, are certified by the Forest Stewardship Council and have 5 star Envirostar ratings.
Additionally paper is recycable. Currently 56% of all paper produced is recycled. I realize that could be better and the goal for 2012 is 60%. Many industry groups such as EMA encourage recycling by placing “please recycle” graphics on their mailings.
With other options out there why do we need this? Did you know about these other options? Maybe we should just educate people about their options, promote the options already available and reinvigorate recycling education programs…
Michelle,
I agree with you that education is key. Providing consumers with options and transparency is also paramount. I feel that the effectiveness of the programs like DMA’s Campaign for Consumer Choice Mail Preference Service http://www.the-dma.org are limited. One reason for this is that the DMA - Direct Marketing Association has a vested interest in the continued use of direct mailings. This creates an obvious conflict of interest and lacks transparency.
If there was already a do not mail registry in place that did not have a vested interest in the success/failure of direct mail then I would be all for it. This article was about our local government taking action on behalf of our region, rather than wait for a national level program. Many local and state governments are tired of waiting for programs and policies on a national scale. Localism is the future of sustainable communities.
Has anyone actually used the-dma.org removal system? It looks like a pain and not entirely effective.
It the dma.org removal system is not user friendly or intuitive. This is the reason I see a need for a registry that is easy to use and not administered by the organization that sends junk the mail. It wouldnt make sense for them to make an easy to use do not mail registry…conflict of interest gets in the way.