Since the 1980s, there has been a proliferation of eco-certification schemes, driven in part by increased environ-mental awareness and demand for “greener” products by the general public but also in part by “global trends favor-ing free markets and private enterprise over government action”. Thus, using market in-centives rather than regulatory action, eco-certification programs are in-tended to encourage producers to adopt greener production methods voluntarily in accord-ance with a set of standards and then use the certification

Here are a few tips to make your post-holiday season a little greener:

Recycle your tree. Some com-munities make discarded holi-day trees into mulch.

Save packing material, wrapping and tissue paper for reuse. Save ribbon, tags, festive bags and boxes for next year.

Save your favorite Christmas cards and turn them into gift tags for next year.

Have a Green Post-Holiday Season!

I N S I D E

T H I S

I S S U E :

A Practical

Guide to Eco-

Certifications

and Eco-Labeling

1

Have a Green

Post-Holiday

Season!

1

Seasonal Treat 3

For Materials

Recovery Facili-

ties, Single

Stream Recy-

cling is a Mixed

Blessing

4

From the Chair:

Water Reuse —

California’s Sal-

vation?

5

Eco-Office Bulletin D E C E M B E R 2 0 1 5 V O L U M E 3 , I S S U E 4 S P E C I A L

P O I N T S O F

I N T E R E S T :

This month’s Eco-

Office highlights

some green tips for

winter.

December 22: First

Day of Winter!

January 18: Martin

Luther King Day!

February 15:

President’s Day

Newsletter of NEIWPCC’s Sustainability Committee

to differentiate their product within the market. With this differentiation, consumers who are concerned about pro-tecting the environment can express their preferences through their purchasing deci-sions, which often involves

“Sustainably-harvested” tim-ber, “bird-friendly” coffee, “organic” bananas, “dolphin-safe” tuna, and “green” res-taurants . . . . . consumers to-day are faced with a myriad of eco-certified goods and ser-vice that are produced, in principle, to minimize their impacts on the environment. Although the eco-labels that these products bear are in-tended to convey important information to the consumer, many of us end up wondering: what do these eco-labels real-ly mean and do these “green” or “sustainable” products real-ly have less environmental impacts than the non-certified product? The short answer is . . . . . maybe.

A Practical Guide to Eco-Certifications and

Eco-Labeling By Linda Allen

Continued on Page 2

Make room for all of your new gifts by donating old items to charity.

Make a New Year’s resolution that benefits your pocketbook and the environment. For in-stance, get started on those en-ergy-efficient home improve-ments you’ve been meaning to start. Check out www.ase.org/taxcredits for the latest infor-mation on valuable new federal income tax credits for energy-efficiency upgrades. Photo credit: burbankca.gov

P A G E 2 E C O - O F F I C E B U L L E T I N

Photo credit: www.cartoonstock.com

A Practical Guide to Eco-Certifications and Eco-Labeling (continued)

vides some indication of the scope of several long-standing eco-certification programs for which information is more likely to be available. However, even if there is detailed information available on a particu-lar eco-certification program, the

if the eco-standards and process for verifying conformance with the standards are credible, which can be a challenge because each certifica-tion program is different, with unique standards as well as certifica-tion processes. Moreover, the avail-ability of information on an eco-certification program will likely vary depending on how well-established the program is. The table above pro-

paying a market premium for the product. There are two general approaches to eco-certifying products accord-ing to the International Organiza-tion for Standardization. Type I certification programs are run by independent third parties that award labels or licenses to indicate conformance with eco-standards while Type II certification pro-grams cover self-declared environ-mental claims, in which the person making a claim must have the in-formation necessary to verify the claim before it is made. In general, Type I programs are more complex and reach deeper into the produc-tion processes, while Type II often deal with physical characteristics of a product, such as a product being recyclable or biodegradable. In addition to the two general cer-tification approaches, each eco-certification program consists of several common components, including: a focus on a particular natural resource or amenity (e.g. water, forests, specific species), a set of voluntary criteria or stand-ards that are intended to improve the management or stewardship of the natural resource, a process for verifying conformance with the criteria or standards, and a license or eco-label that certifies conform-ance with standards to be used for marketing the goods and services. In order to know if a “green” prod-uct really is environmentally pref-erable, a consumer needs to know

Continued on Page 3

P A G E 3

E C O - O F F I C E B U L L E T I N

most important information – what impact does the certification have on environmental conditions or stew-ardship of natural resources – is often hard to find because it is diffi-cult to ascertain the environmental impacts or benefits of a certification program from the impacts of other factors. Unfortunately, the lack of information on the environmental benefits of eco-certification pro-grams is just one of a number of limi-tations, indicating that eco-

certification programs have consider-able room for improvement. Over the past two decades, compa-nies, governments, foundations, and non-governmental organizations have invested hundreds of millions of dollars to support the creation and implementation of eco-certification programs. As a result, “. . . . 15 per-cent of the bananas, 10 percent of the timber, and 7 percent the coffee sold on world markets” have some form of eco-labeling. In fact, today it

is possible to feed, clothe, and house a family entirely with goods that are “sustainably” produced. Each of us, as a consumer, has tremendous power through our purchases to impact the environment. Given growing demand for greener goods and services, eco-certification programs are key to in-forming our purchases, but we still need to educate ourselves more about the environmental claims of the prod-ucts we buy.

Photo credit: smittenkitchen.com

Ingredients Crumble 1 cup all-purpose flour 1/4 cup granulated sugar 3 tablespoons packed dark or light brown sugar 1 cup gingersnap crumbs (4 ounces or about 16 store-bought cookies) 1/8 teaspoon ground ginger 1/8 teaspoon table salt 1/2 cup (4 ounces or 1 stick) unsalted butter, melted and cooled Filling 2 pounds (about 4 to 5) large ripe An-jou or Bartlett pears peeled, halved, cored and sliced 1/4 inch thick 1 1/2 cups (6 ounces) fresh cranberries 1 tablespoon lemon juice 1/2 teaspoon finely grated lemon zest 1/2 teaspoon vanilla extract 1/2 cup granulated sugar 2 tablespoons cornstarch

Seasonal Treat By Susy King ‘Tis the season for enjoying sweets and other tasty treats. And if you’re going to indulge, why not do it with locally grown ingredi-ents? This dessert recipe features two fruits that grow in New England; pears and cranberries. It makes a great addition to any holiday gathering or meal. Pear, Cranberry, and Gingersnap Crumble (slightly adapted from Smitten Kitchen)

Photo credit: thepioneerwoman.com

Instructions 1) Preheat the oven to 350°F. 2) In a medium bowl, stir together the flour, granulated sugar, brown sugar, gingersnap crumbs, ginger and salt. Stir in the melt-

ed butter until large crumbs form. 3) In a large bowl, mix the pears, cranberries, lemon juice, lemon zest and vanilla. In a small bowl, whisk the sugar and corn-

starch together, and then toss it with the fruit mixture. Transfer fruit mixture to a 1.5 to 2 quart baking dish. Sprinkle the gin-gersnap crumble over the fruit. Bake for about 45 minutes, until the crumble is a shade darker and you see juices bubbling through the crumbs. Serve topped with vanilla ice cream or whipped cream, or just plain.

P A G E 4 E C O - O F F I C E B U L L E T I N

Photo credit: www.cartoonstock.com

For Materials Recovery Facilities,

Single Stream Recycling is a Mixed Blessing

By Anna Meyer

include a decline in the demand for paper and a significant in-crease in the demand for card-board.

Some of the challenges facing recovery facilities and the munici-palities they serve may be ad-dressed with public outreach cam-paigns and advanced equipment for separating and processing.

But other challenges may be pre-sent for as long as we use single-stream recycling.

and by residents’ confusion about what can and cannot be recy-cled in their town.

Unfortunately, there aren’t uni-versal recycling rules to memo-rize; one jurisdic-tion may accept #3 plastic while a neighboring juris-diction may not, either because of a limited market for that material or because an MRF simply lacks the technology to process it.

In addition to separating and processing recy-clables, MRFs have to contend with demand for recovered mate-rials that is sensitive to a variety of factors and is evolving over time.

According to the fact sheet, fac-tors that influence the volatility of the market for recovered materi-als include the value of the U.S. dollar, the prices of oil and virgin resin, and the level of contamina-tion that major buyers (such as China) are willing to accept.

Long-term trends in the market

With the increasing popularity of single-stream recycling programs, communities in the Northeast and elsewhere are collecting more recyclables.

But for materials-recovery facili-ties (MRFs), the increased volume doesn’t necessarily translate into more recoverable material.

According to a new fact sheet prepared by the Northeast Waste Management Officials’ Association and the Northeast Recycling Council, single-stream recycling and the associated switch from bins to barrels can exacerbate some long-standing challenges.

For example, according to the fact sheet, small pieces of paper, plas-tic, and metal impinge glass recov-ery by mingling with recyclable glass. This contamination decreas-es the quality of the resulting glass to the point where glass re-cyclers cannot accept it.

Likewise, glass, plastic, and metal “fines” end up in the paper stream. This contamination, com-bined with liquids absorbed by the paper, reduces the quality of mixed paper that can be recov-ered.

MRFs are also plagued by resi-dents’ “wishful recycling” of items that such facilities cannot process

P A G E 5

E C O - O F F I C E B U L L E T I N

The West Coast’s water problems often seem a world away, and in some sens-es, that’s accurate: water quantity is-sues are generally more of a concern in the arid west than here in the North-east. However, with many groundwa-ter basins around the world showing significant stress and depletion, some of the solutions to water scarcity under discussion and implementation in Cali-fornia warrant a deep dive. Recycled water, widely carried via pur-ple pipes to differentiate it from pota-ble water, is a frequently mentioned tool in the toolbox to address shortag-es. Rethinking how we use and reuse water makes logical sense: we treat a significant amount of water to drinka-ble quality, only to sprinkle it on our lawns or flush it down the toilet. There are many uses of water that can be planned sequentially to maximize the value of each drop treated, and mini-mize the need to treat all water used to potable standards. The movement towards “fit for purpose” use (water that is treated or diverted after its first use to meet water needs with less stringent standards) is picking up steam, but many obstacles remain. Considerations involved in water reuse are extensive – EPA and USAID’s 2012 Guidelines for Water Reuse spends

From the Chair: Water Reuse —

California’s Salvation?

By Dan Peckham over 500 pages on the subject, but I’ll try to summarize the highlights in just a few paragraphs. Direct Potable Reuse (DPR) involves reclaimed water from a waste stream that is treated and then goes directly back into the drinking wa-ter treatment plant. Indirect Potable Reuse (IPR) describes when treated wastewater is sent first to a source wa-ter (e.g., a reservoir or aquifer), and eventually ends up back in the drinking water treatment plant. Although cities downstream from a wastewater treat-ment plant practice IPR every single day, potable water recycling solutions often must battle the stiff opposition from the public based on the “yuck factor” of drinking water that was recently sew-age. Non-potable reuse opportunities are

varied. See the graph on the next page,

which shows the full range of potential uses. Each of these uses comes with challenges: customers purchasing re-used water will each have treatment standards, temporal variability in us-age, and a specific location where they need the water delivered. Further-more, where the general public may come in contact with recycled water (e.g., golf courses), education and out-reach are critical and messaging is chal-lenging. Despite these challenges, water reuse has the potential to achieve a number of goals. Increasing populations in the U.S. and around the world will require more food and energy, both of which are water-intensive processes – water reuse can provide elegant solutions to address these growing demands. Recy-cled water has also been used to aug-

Photo credit: blog.savewater.com.au

Continued on Page 6

________________________________ Design: Monica Kacprzyk

650 Suffolk Street, Suite 410,

Lowell, MA 01854

Phone: 978-323-7929

Fax: 978-323-7919

E-mail: mail@neiwpcc.org

http://www.NEIWPCC.org

Established by an Act of Congress in 1947, the New England Interstate Water

Pollution Control Commission is a not-for-profit interstate agency that em-

ploys a variety of strategies to meet the water-related needs of our member

states—Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York,

Rhode Island, and Vermont. We serve and assist our states by:

Coordinating forums and events that encourage cooperation among the states

Developing resources that foster progress on water and wastewater is-sues

Representing the region in matters of federal policy

Training environmental professionals

Initiating and overseeing scientific research

Educating the public

Providing overall leadership in water management and protection

Submit an article for our March spring issue!

NEIWPCC staff at the Lowell office started putting together the Eco-Office Bulletin newsletter in September 2012 as a way for the sustainability committee to update the rest of the office on their activities, as well as to share news and tips on sustainable prac-tices at the office and home. Distribution was expanded to include all NEIWPCC employees in December 2012, and we are pleased that recent articles have come from staff in both Lowell and beyond. For future issues, we welcome article submissions from all employees. Please contact Dan Peckham if you are interested in contributing.

P A G E 6

ment flow in sensitive stream ecosys-tems. In California 670,000 acre-feet of the municipal wastewater produced each year is recycled, and that number is increasing. While that may seem like a big number, it accounts for less than

two percent of the state’s total yearly water usage of 40 million acre feet. The Pacific Institute estimates additional water reuse potential at 1.2 to 1.8 mil-lion acre-feet per year, but the total still would only amount to six percent of the state’s total water use. So, in the end we come back to where we started on water

reuse: it’s a tool with significant oppor-tunity in the toolbox for addressing wa-ter scarcity, but certainly not the pana-cea, and also not the cheapest of the options available. Interested in solving the entire California water challenge? Check out this interesting game.

Photo credit: pacinst.org