The twentieth anniversary of Earth Day is now history.
For some, it was a reaffirmation of changes they’ve made in individual life-styles to help protect the earth’s fragile environment. For many others it was an awakening, opening their eyes to the damage which has been done to the earth’s ecosystems as well as the lethal harm which will occur if people do not alter their environmental behavior. For still another group, it was the end of several weeks of annoying ads and speeches by self anointed environmental do-gooders and a cadre of wealthy entertainers.
While the latter clique will continue polluting, paying little heed to their wasteful ways, an increasing number of the former populations will consciously continue to change their own behavior . . . sorting their trash . . . using less water when brushing their teeth or taking a shower . . . turning off lights in unused rooms . . . eliminating the use of hazardous chemicals . . . refusing plastic bags when shopping . . . discarding useless packaging, including plastic rings used to hold six-packs of beer or soda together before leaving supermarkets or other retail stores . . . and generally trying to become better stewards of the earth’s environment and its precious resources.
Yet, for all their efforts, it seems that there are situations where the individual is powerless to reduce the accumulation of trash which he or is forced to deal. Among the prime culprits in this arena is “junk mail”.
While every person and business in a free and democratic society must have the inalienable right to broadcast their views and advertise their products and services, individual at whom these messages are targeted should have the right to regulate their exposure to such messages.
Annoying radio commercials can simply be turned down of off. More recently, and much the to chagrin of advertisers, remote controls for televisions can instantly eliminate inane and bothersome messages with the flick of a finger. But, where hard copy content is concerned, individuals finds themselves unable to avoid most of the deluge of “junk mail” they receive . . . and for which they must assume the total cost and responsibility its disposal.
Not only does this unwanted “junk” contribute to the growing problem of solid waste disposal, but untold resources are expended to produce and distribute this material which frequently passes directly from the mail box or fax machine into the waste basket without so much as a second glance.
The good news is some headway can be made halting the endless assault of “junk mail”. Thanks to the Direct Mail Marketing Institute, one can have their name removed from many mailing lists.
Unfortunately, it is more difficult in convincing untold numbers of charitable organizations that most people require only a single solicitation each year, not one or two every month as several such as many organizations send out.
Most annoying of all are the armful of advertising supplements and local tabloids which appear on a regular basis, and most of which are rarely read.
Two personal irritants on mine are the Broadcaster, a regional paper “mailed free to over 25,000 homes” in the greater Nashua, NH area. At just over 4.75 ounces per edition, that’s some 7,500 of paper being generated each week. One wonders just how many are actually read and what resources are required to produce and distribute it.
Then there is he Telegraph PLUS. This 8.7 ounce reprint of one or two articles from the prior week’s daily paper serves as a thinly veiled disguise for a bundle of ad supplements. Not only is my home mail box cursed with this utterly useless trash, but my post office box also receives its own personal copy.
I have written, phoned and pleaded with the paper’s management to discontinue mailing me this “junk”, assuring them I plan to continue my subscription to The Telegraph’s daily and Sunday papers. But, like a run away train, they contend nothing can be done to control, or limit, its distribution.
The results of a personally conducted, although admittedly unscientific survey taken over several weeks suggests that over 90% of the Amherst box holders who bother to give their mail even the most cursory scan upon removing it from their box simply discard the PLUS into one of the trash barrels inside the post office facility.
There should be a way to disincentivize (not regulate) those who would impose their “junk mail” on others who do not wish to receive it. Possibly the mailers of this material could be required to travel around and collect all unrequested and unwanted copies. The associated costs would quickly offset any economic benefit to its random or shotgun distribution. Perhaps too, third party advertisers might require their agents, the purveyors of this “junk”, to report back to as to just how many of their advertised copies are actually read and how many are discarded without even being glanced at.
If this material were both offensive and obscene, I could have its delivery stopped immediately by the postal authorities. However, since it’s only offensive because it (1) wastes resources, (2) is annoying to handle and (3) contributes to the solid waste disposal problem which my/your tax dollars must help pay for, I seem to be out of luck.
Please take me off your mailing list!
