Return to Waster

What do you do with your junk mails? You didn't ask for these information to be sent but they still do resulting 100 million trees wasted in process. We've always mailed them back so that we make it clear to the companies that we don't want/need these type of advertisement. Now we have extra added effect. "Return to Waster" stamp with "You are contributing to the 100 million trees wasted in creating junk mail!" stated on the bottom. What we want is for these companies to be more creative in communicating with their customers. Junk mails might have worked for a long time... but time is changing and we need new thinking that is more considerate to the environment. It's a small voice trying to bring awareness in the bigger system... but collection of small voice can sometimes make a big echo to bring some changes.

If you're interested in the stamp, contact Fridolin Beisert.

Comments

[Mike]

Trees are a renewable resource; the gas used to return the junk mail is not. You fail.

[wakako takagi]

Mike,

Thanks for the comment but I don't think you're getting our point. What we want is for the company to stop producing those junk mails so virgin resources are not used for something that are not needed/wanted by consumers. (Company "might" use recycled paper in some degree and if they can use those returned junk mail to recycle 100% to be another junk mail, it will be better...but I will challenge you that those shiny postcards are not 100% recycled paper).

To your another point, We will be wasting gas if we decided to drive to the company by ourselves to drop off those junk mails in front of the company's door step; however, since we piggy bag on already existing service infrastructure (postal service), we're not wasting any additional gas to return these mails.

[J2theA]

Do you seriously think that there are no costs to re-sending materials back to their place of origin? Or are you just trying to justify a knee-jerk humorous but totally irrelevant and inconsequential further consumption? Why not advocate planting more trees or taking public transportation instead, or even walking? I agree you fail.

[Steven Nicholson]

Trees are a renewable source. But companies that send out endless amounts of careless material are wasting supplies. And so, we will not be able to manage a state of equilibrium between using and renewing.

Paper management is an important issue. Companies should measure the impact they have on our environment. And by sending our junk mail back will help inform the company of the success of there promotion. If it isn’t working, there may be problem in design. So sending this back to the company could be mutually beneficial. The company could gage if their promotion is working or not (if not address the problem) and at the same time manage their use of paper. I receive endless amounts junk mail, and 9 times out of 10 recycled paper isn’t being used! Why? It’s cheaper and aesthetically better.

Why should I waste my time sifting through and making sure im cleaning up after polluter companies! I recycle the paper I consume, why should I help others that waste this material. If I send it back they can deal with it. And when these companies start getting taxed for this waste they will start thinking about paper.

To say paper is a renewable source then hush the matter as if it has no importance is unwise, and skirts the issue altogether.

People like Frindolin are tackling this issue head-on, and I for one think it’s the right way.

[wakako takagi]

J2theA,

We totally agree planting more trees and taking public transportation would also be great ways to improve the environmental issues. There are multiple ways of bringing awareness and/or doing the right things.

As a trend research consultant, we are always looking for different ways of how people are manifesting their beliefs and opinions. If you see interesting green movements happening, please let us know. We will be happy to feature it on our blog to spread the word.

As far as reducing the Junk Mail, you can also take a additional step by signing up at www.greendimes.org. or visit http://www.privacyrights.org/fs/fs4-junk.htm for further in depth reading.

[Matt]

Mike & J2theA have legitimate points however I am disappointed in how negative the tone is. I am all for constructive criticism that fosters communication, however, Mikes comment is simply pointless and narrow sighted.

Furthermore you both are missing the point. As Steven Nicholson touches on, I don't believe the value of this idea is in it's carbon footprint. Sending the stamped mail back is not about directly reducing waste, it is a protest aimed at changing the behavior and the system that produces massive amounts of waste. The junk mail system is profit driven and the only way it is going to change is if companies find that it is no longer worth the investment or they are compelled to stop through legislation or USPS regulations. I believe that if large amount of people stamped and sent back their junk mail, companies would take notice and consider when weighing the cost of the programs and the potential alienation of customers vs the benefit. Also, the USPS makes money when the ads are sent out, but they will lose money through tied up resources when the mail is sent back. This could cause them to re-evaluate their direct mail programs. For one, they may up the price to cover the cost of all the return mail which will make it less cost effective for marketing firms to do direct mailers, they may also end the direct mail program all together. on the contrary they may also stop taking the "Return to Waster" mail but at least for that to happen they will have noticed the protest. I like the idea and I advocate that people should first sign up for all the do-not-mail lists, then stamp and send back what ever else slips through. When all is said and done, even if it doesn't catch on ideas like this raise public awareness and encourage discussion.

Keep up the good work Wakako and Frindolin!