You may have read last week’s headlines about the recall of 143 million pounds of beef marked unfit for human consumption, the largest beef recall in U.S. history.

So what’s going to happen to all of that dodgy meat? According to the New York Times, New Jersey schools obtained 143,000 pounds of beef from the offending processor. Much of it will be sent directly to the state’s landfills and incinerators:

Under federal guidelines, any school that has more than 50 cases of the beef must take them to a landfill or incinerator for disposal, in the presence of a local health department representative or other qualified official. Schools that have less can dispose of the beef on their own property, so long as there are witnesses like a school food service director. Schools have until Tuesday to report to state agriculture officials how much they have in their inventory.

It seems to me that New Jersey officials are missing a once-in-a-lifetime Guinness opportunity. All they’d have to do before burying and incinerating the meat is wrap it in foil and they’d have the world’s largest Silver Turtle. It might also be prudent to skip any upcoming BBQs, potlucks, or PTA suppers hosted by your local elementary school.

A New York Times article published earlier this month discusses Waste Management’s targeted efforts to improve its public image by advertising the company’s “green” initiatives. These efforts include setting aside wildlife habitat (and noting it in ads), launching a new Web site, and even hosting an interactive exhibit at Disney’s Epcot Center.

The article highlights a significant shift in the company’s advertising strategy, broadening the appeal from a traditional focus on “influencers” in a position to contract with the company to plying the general public:

“The Internet still reaches our target audience of influencers, but now our message is accessible to everyone,” [said Brooke B. Farrell, a vice president of Waste Management’s advertising agency]. That is important, [Waste Management CEO David P.] Steiner said, because “our goal is no longer just to educate, but to also create a preference for our company over our rivals.”

Is this public appeal likely to benefit only large waste firms like WM, or could it be an effective strategy for all waste handlers? Or is it simply a shrewd attempt to capitalize on the nation’s green mood?

Here at The Heap, we love sharing our thoughts on stories affecting the waste industry. But we’re also eager to hear what our readers have to say. The comment feature is a great way to register your opinion and contribute thoughts to The Heap.

To leave comments, you must first create a commenter account. Simply click on the “Register” link at the top right of this page and follow the instructions.

We look forward to hearing from you!

Republic Services has announced that the firm will, as allowed under the Security and Exchange Commission’s new “Notice and Access Rule,” make proxy materials available to shareholders online. Instead of mailing the materials to shareholders, the company will send its stockholders a “Notice of Internet Availability of Proxy Materials.” Republic will be required to send a hard copy set of the materials to any shareholder who requests one.

“At Republic Services Inc., ‘eco’ stands for both ecology, as in the enviroment, and economy, as in the financial bottom line,” said Tod Holmes, senior vice president and chief financial officer of the company. “By using the electronic financial filings, Republic will reduce our hard-copy printing of proxy materials by 75 percent, from 36,000 copies to approximately 9,000 copies reducing paper and printing costs.” The firm estimates it will save about 3 million pieces of paper a year.

The non-profit organization American Forests estimates that eliminating the mailing of 300 million proxy material packages would save 800,000 trees each year from being cut down, reduce fossil fuel consumption by about 500,000 gallons annually by eliminating the need to transport the proxy materials, prevent 100,000 tons of paper from going to the nation’s landfills each year, and eliminate 380,000 tons of greenhouse gases produced in the paper manufacturing process.

In a recent Slate article, Brendan I. Koerner seeks to promote the use of compact fluorescent light bulbs by assuaging fears about their mercury content. According to Koerner, the infinitesimal amount of mercury in each bulb is harmless if they are handled properly. And, he goes on to say, any environmental risk is small when compared to the amount of mercury emitted by coal-fired power plants struggling to illuminate all of those incandescent bulbs. I agree with his point. Moreover, I think that we’re still early enough in the CFL lifespan to train consumers to recycle them properly (Koerner agrees that “thousands upon thousands of broken bulbs in a garbage dump could be seriously bad news”). Right now, that means taking them to an IKEA store, a specialty recycler, or mailing them, but Koerner insists more retail chains will soon accept the bulbs.

Meanwhile, Koerner spends 90 percent of his article talking about mercury and only briefly touches on what is, for most people I know, the main knock against CFLs: The horrid, unnatural light they cast. In defense, he cites a 2007 Popular Mechanics article that tested a range of CFLs. It’s all very scientific, employing chromameters and double-blind tests, ultimately declaring the light cast by CFLs “superior.” I would counter with this January 2008 New York Times article that simply involved people looking at lamps and was far less impressed with the light cast by all but a few CFLs.

In addition to conserving energy, CFLs could help remove millions of incandescent bulbs from the waste stream. I am a proponent of their adoption and use several in my home right now. But there are places where they work and places where they don’t, due to the light they cast or actual incompatibility (most don’t work with dimmer switches, for example). The suggestion that every bulb in the home should be swapped out immediately seems disingenuous. I suspect this will be a gradual transition rather than a wholesale one for most consumers.

What do you think?

I recently stumbled across another example of one of the stranger Internet fads of late: trash blogs. This was a phenomenon Deanna Hart covered in Waste Age back in July.The point seems to be to document one’s personal disposal habits over a set period of time. In a popular variation, the person is also required to carry everything they throw away around with them for one or two weeks. While I find this practice mildly interesting, I wonder what benefit we the readers are supposed to receive when it is clearly the author who has the most to learn. To cite “Gabby” in the example above:

“Turns out, out of an entire bag of about a day and a half worth of trash, over 90-percent of it (weight-wise) could be either recycled or composted. I never realized how much recyclables are worth either. Thinking back, my recycling habits are PRETTY BAD.”

And after reading her blog, I would agree. Her recycling habits are atrocious. But how does that help me, other than helping me feel mildly superior to this recycling laggard?

Oh what the heck. So far today I:

- Rinsed and recycled a glass bottle that held peach nectar.

- Recycled a cardboard pasta box from dinner last night.

- Threw away a coffee nip wrapper.

- Recycled three sheets of office paper, a Target receipt (torn up), three credit card offers (torn up), and two catalogs.

Are you fascinated yet?