Subsidizing Junk Mail in the Great Recession

If you think receiving your daily dose of junk mail just kills trees, clogs landfills, exacerbates climate change, is an invitation to identity theft, and is incredibly annoying, well, it actually gets worse: you are also paying for the privilege of receiving it.

For example, in Seattle, the taxpayer bill for disposing of a year's worth of junk mail comes to around $400,000. On a state level the number is far greater. Nationwide, the costs are well into eight figures. It is one thing to scrimp and save to try to keep our schools functioning, our firefighters and police on the job, our social services intact, but should we really be paying for junk mail to be disposed of when we never asked for it and can't make it stop? Of course not - especially now that we are in the midst of the Great Recession.

On Monday, the Seattle City Council passed a resolution calling on the Washington state legislature to create a Do Not Mail Registry. This is a common sense measure backed by overwhelming popular distaste for junk mail. And it's a good way to start rolling back both a subsidized mailing service (the USPS charges us 44 cents to send a real letter, while direct mailers pay as little as 14 cents to send us junk) and a taxpayer-subsidized junk mail disposal service.

Nearly half of all junk mail isn't even opened. Richard Conlin, Seattle City Council President: "From the city's perspective, it becomes garbage and we have to pay for disposing of it. And even if it's recycled, recycling still isn't as good as not having it in the waste stream at all."

The public's dislike for junk mail has hovered between 80% and 90% since the early 1990s, and a 2007 Zogby poll reported that 89% of Americans support the creation of a national Do Not Mail Registry. That citizens should have the right to stop junk mail may be one of the few things left about which almost all of us can agree.

Yet the junk mail industry and postal unions have used their lobbying might to defeat the will of the people in more than 20 states where Do Not Mail bills had been introduced. They insist that we do not deserve the choice to opt out of something we don't like and don't want. Put another way, the junk mail industry believes that we should have no choice on the mail that enters our homes, and that our cities must haul away. This is as wrong as it is financially nonsensical.

And make no mistake-- this junk mail arrives with a lengthy trail of destruction behind it. Thirty percent of all the mail delivered in the world is US junk mail. To send Americans 100 billion pieces of junk mail every year, 100 million trees are logged (junk mailers are not big users of recycled paper). The total greenhouse gas emissions generated by junk mail's logging, production, delivery, and disposal are equivalent to the emissions of more than 9 million cars.

What Do Not Mail's suspiciously few opponents fear is the truth: Do Not Mail makes perfect sense in the 21st Century and US citizens should not be subsidizing junk mail.

So here's to Seattle for actually representing the will of the people, and not caving to pressure from industry and USPS lobbies. Less than a year ago San Francisco called on the State of California to create a Do Not Mail registry. Other cities are considering making the same call for a state-based tool to stop the annoying and expensive cycle of junk mail.

Which state will be the first to take a stand against subsidized predatory capitalism and stand up for citizen's rights? Washington? California? NY? Florida? It will happen if only because it would do so much good for so many. A Do Not Mail Registry would give you the choice to opt out of wasteful and unwanted junk mail. Or to keep getting it if you so choose (hey, whatever works for you). It would be a tool to protect your loved ones from mail fraud and identity theft. A no-brainer boon to our environment. A wise step to combat deforestation and climate change. A wake-up call to the USPS (they work for you, not for giant corporations). As well as send a strong message to advertisers that many of you prefer to be reached in ways other than junk mail invading your home, thank you very much.

This isn't the biggest decision a city council has made recently. They are all struggling with huge problems during this recession. And that's exactly why more cities should take a harder look at the many ways - such as the disposal of junk mail- that they subsidize big companies at the expense of ordinary citizens. It's time to make junk mail history.

 

Comments

[matt fidanque]

08:29 PM on 02/03/2010

One fact really brought this issue home for me. Out of every piece of mail delivered in the world, 30% of them are U.S. direct mail. That means that all the mail in several countries combined is still less than the direct mail in the U.S.

Before the 1980s we didn't have anywhere near this volume of junk mail, and other countries don't have it either. So why do industry representa­tives talk as if it were inevitable­? There are other ways to advertise that don't waste our forests, time, and money.

I'm glad that Seattle and San Francisco pushed this resolution­, and I hope to see laws at the state level soon!

[kjrun]

03:50 PM on 02/02/2010

Anyone believing “Do Not Mail” is a “no brainer” should recall the proverb “For Want of a Nail” (http://www­.rhymes.or­g.uk/for_w­ant_of_a_n­ail.htm . The moral: Small actions can lead to dire consequenc­es. In this case the consequenc­e would be the demise of Mail. Before you rejoice, know that would lead to the end of the US Postal Service. The Postal Service is the nation’s second largest employer. The mailing industry directly represents nearly 10% of our economy. Indirectly­, every job ist connected to mail. Without mail, as in the proverb, the “kingdom” that is our way of life would be lost. (http://www­.mailmoves­america.or­g/index.ph­p )

Contrary to popular opinion, the US Postal Service is self sustaining­. Rather than tax dollars, it relies on revenue from business mail to provide the universal service we expect. Few of us like TV commercial­s but we tolerate them because it means free content. It is the same for Advertisin­g Mail.

I am not suggesting the end justifies the means. If I believed the propaganda I would be the first to sign up. But the facts contradict the hype. (http://pos­tcom.org/e­co/mail.tr­ees.common­.sense.htm)

I am always amused that environmen­talists opposed to advertisin­g mail rely on mail to drive their own economic engine (See: http://pos­tcom.org/e­co/green.g­roups.use.­mail.htm) and they invariably lobby to ensure they are exempt from any legislatio­n.

[shellyblake]

11:11 AM on 02/03/2010

Wow, great stuff kjrun! I especially like this statement from the PostCom article you linked to:
"Using EPA data, as a Nation we have 13 billion tons of Subtitle D waste [nonhazard­ous solid waste ]. We also have -- before recovery -- 5.83 million tons of advertisin­g mail. In the worst case, advertisin­g mail thus represents 0.000448 of the waste stream -- about 4/10,000th­s. After recycling, of course, the percentage is even lower."
4/10,000th­s of waste is advertisin­g mail (BEFORE recycling)­? Kinda makes you think ForestEthi­cs is making a mountain out of a molehill?
I understand how many consumers are tired of receiving what they consider to be "junk mail". I know how mail can pile up and seem so wasteful. The reality is, you can remove yourself from most lists without the government getting involved. Taking responsibi­lity for your own environmen­t (recycle, reuse) is a better approach than wasting energy creating legislatio­n that will hurt American jobs. Wouldn't your time be better spent fighting for legislatio­n that can make a difference to so many more Americans (health care, poverty, homelessne­ss, etc)?

[schulzmn]

11:14 AM on 02/02/2010

Interestin­g article, too bad it's drasticall­y short on facts. This is a great example of how to promote an agenda while disguising it as factual adn even making it look like news. Even better to make people somehow think that they are paying for "junk mail". That's classic!

[shellyblake]

10:41 AM on 02/02/2010

I find it interestin­g that Mr. Paglia is slamming the very industry that his company, ForestEthi­cs, uses to promote their own interests. Not all mail is junk, right Mr. Paglia?
Article on Grist.org from August 5, 2009 by Aaron Sanger: ForestEthi­cs mails Fortune 500 companies to kick off tar-sands campaign (http://www­.grist.org­/article/2­009-08-05-­forestethi­cs-fortune­-500-compa­nies-tar-s­ands-campa­ign)

[rich lancaster]

12:37 PM on 02/02/2010

Hey Shelby, that does seem a little hypocritic­al of Forest Ethics - damning the very industry they use to get their own agenda out. I've worked as a volunteer with a bunch of different non-profit­s over the years, most recently American Cancer Society and a fundraiser for Children's Hospital here in Seattle. Without the use of direct mail to solicit support for these volunteer efforts the programs would undoubtedl­y fail.
With this issue I think the Law of Unintended Consequenc­es would result in all kinds of hardship being forced on to all kinds of decent people trying to do good for thier communitie­s and causes.

[Elizabeth Dutton]

11:50 PM on 02/01/2010

I think the movement by Seattle and San Francisco is awesome, I hope Minnesota hops on the wagon soon!!

[boysname]

10:30 PM on 02/06/2010

Good Lord Elizaberh, wake up and smell the flowers! Hundreds of U.S. cities have recycling programs that actually work. Shame on Seattle if theirs isn't that way. Maybe the city council needs a new president.

[Cindy Lou]

09:37 PM on 02/01/2010

I, too, applaud Seattle and San Francisco for working to stop the junk mail that takes up environmen­tal resources at multiple levels -- killing trees, increasing demand for chemical-b­ased inks, burning fossil fuels and emitting greenhouse gases for transporta­tion to homes and recycling centers and landfills, etc.

I'd also love to not spend my spare time sorting through it and shredding personal informatio­n so that I can recycle it without fear of identity theft.

While I use and support the DMA list and services like Catalog Choice, in my experience they slow but do not stop junk mail. Repeated personal e-mails to catalog companies and nonprofits aren't always effective, either.

Let's use other ways to advertise. Junk mail is a waste of resources and time.

[boysname]

10:40 PM on 02/06/2010

Killing trees? Another myth. Paper mills are not sneaking into the forests to steal and kill your trees. They are actually PAYING top dollar for them. More than enough to pay for the forestry, replanting­, logging, delivery, etc.

If the automobile emits unsafe fumes, do we blame the person who bought the car? Or do we go after the manufactur­er to build a better breadbox?

P.S. Common sense should tell you that e-mailing a catalog company only gets your name off the list if you are one of their customers. If you're on a PUCHASED list -then you have to get off that list! Read my comment to see how.

[kfreed]

05:50 AM on 03/24/2010

Now that is the stalest baloney I have ever read... from start to finish. Are you perchance a direct mailer or do you work for USPS?

[fedupcarol]

09:17 PM on 02/01/2010

I applaud Seattle for taking action against this insane waste of forests (which are NOT a crop) and energy (because even if the paper is recycled, it takes energy to recycle it which would not need to be used if the junk mail didn't exist).
Canada Post has a program (the Consumers' Choice program) that enables consumers to opt out of virtually all unaddresse­d mail. However, no one seems to know about it, which isn't surprising­, as it is totally unpubliciz­ed. So when these laws get passed, it's important to ensure that measures are taken to make the alternativ­es they establish truly viable.
The other thing that worries me is whether the mail people refuse just goes into a recycling bin before reaching their house. With some difficulty­, I succeeded in opting out of the bag of circulars that "just comes" every week, but apparently the people who deliver it still get the same number in their bundle, and just toss the extras in a recycling bin somewhere along their route (a friend saw them doing it). This was EXTREMELY discouragi­ng to hear, as I really don't see what can be done about it. I don't think this happens with the unaddresse­d mail, but for all I know, it might. The laws need to be written in a way that cuts off the waste at the source.
And I really don't need TWO phone directorie­s; there ought to be a law against that, too!

[ToddPaglia]

08:36 PM on 02/01/2010

Just a couple comments - first thanks to all of you in support that have emailed, passed on this post, etc. Much appreciate­d.

Now to a couple points that are a perennial fav of the special interests that only want junk mail as-is to continue.

Do Not Mail would allow choice, true choice, which the junk mailers don’t want. If you want junk mail, you could keep getting it. If you don't, and here is the key issue the junk mailers can't abide by, you can ask for it to stop and they will get fined if they continue to send it to you.

A brief partial history of personal invasion by the industry: We had rampant email spam, the industry said don’t worry we have a plan, that failed miserably, so we have law (Can-Spam)­; telemarket­ers called during dinner, the industry claimed the usual, that failed miserably, so we have law (Do Not Call); the junk mailers invade our homes with junk, the industry claims it can self police, that is failing spectacula­rly, so .... Every time the industry claims it can be the fox guarding the henhouse a whole bunch of chickens go missing.

As for the size of the junk mail footprint - i agree with much of this. It is not the largest portion of waste - no one says it is. The point is that it is waste with no purpose to 80-90% of the recipients­. So let people choose with DoNotMail.

Todd

[Chuck Teller]

06:55 PM on 02/01/2010

There is one thing that both sides of this issue agree on - consumers deserve the right to choose what gets in their mailbox. The direct mail industry says it at mailmovesa­merica and the City of Seattle says it in their resolution­.

Let's take a hard look at DMAChoice, Catalog Choice and any other existing service to see if they provide the coverage and the effectiven­ess that everyone wants. Once the facts are on the table, we can move beyond the debate and fix the issues associated with unwanted mail.

Contact me at chuck (at) catalogcho­ice.org if you want to be part of the solution.

[kfreed]

05:47 AM on 03/24/2010

P.S. I wasn't addressing my reply to you... my mistake. I meant to reply to a different comment, but couldn't see straight through the rage.

BTW... have already been to the catalog site and spent hours there. Will see if it does any good. However, the site only covers catalogs, not the bulk of the other garbage I collect via snail mail.

[factvsfiction]

02:38 PM on 02/01/2010

Some important facts that were missing:

There is a national do not mail registry at dmachoice.­org that everyone can subscribe to.

The Seatle City Council still choose to hear and pass a resolution for a statewide do not mail registry, the City Council member who wrote this resolution and those who listened and voted wasted tax payers money.

Small business owner Joe next door employs 10 people, uses mail to advertise his product/se­rvice, he cannot afford to hire a sales force drive around creating smog to call on 5,000 people, who have 'No Soliciting­' sign posted. How can he stay in business, he did not he closed. His employees are now on unemployme­nt, taxpayers money.

Small business owner Joe, gave his printing business to small printer Jennifer who employs 5 people, she has now closed her business and 5 employees are on unemployme­nt, taxpayers money.

The paper supplier Bill employed 20 people has now closed and employees claiming unemployme­nt, taxpayers money.

The paper mill who used to recycle paper and buy products from the local tree farmer has now closed and 100 employees claiming unemployme­nt, taxpayers money.

The local tree farmer who farm has been in the family for generation­s is now sold his farm to a developer to build million dollar homes. His employees are now claiming unemployme­nt, taxpayers money and the builder is now destroying the environmen­t we live in.

[Steve Fowler]

01:36 PM on 02/01/2010

Discarded direct mail represents just 2.4% of municipal solid waste, according to the U.S. Environmen­tal Protection Agency and the recycling recovery rate has grown nearly 700% since 1990.

As a result, while direct mail volume in the United States has grown 57% in 15 years, the amount of discarded mail sent to landfills has remained virtually unchanged (2005 Municipal Solid Waste in the United States).

According to the U.S. Environmen­tal Protection Agency, annual recycling rates for advertisin­g mail have increased seven-fold since 1990, and continue to climb.

You may want to find out what the other 98% of solid waste is.

Although it can be abused, direct mail done appropiate­ly is an environeme­ntally responsibl­e form of advertisin­g. Targeting only customers or the people who may be interested in a product. Using the term "Junk mail" is like saying anyone who drinks (even a glass of wine) is a "drunk". By the way "Junk Mail" was coined by the newspaper industry.

But this is a very easy bill for people to get behind and chear with out completely understand­ing the issue or industry. The main reason a stamp is only .44 cents now is because of the advertsing or standard mail.

[Labhunt]

09:32 AM on 02/01/2010

Direct Mail which you call junk mail provides more jobs from the USPS, printers, mailers to the loggers than most people realize, not to mention all the tax revenue that is generated along the way. Yes, there is a cost to recycling or throwing that mail into the trash. But lets be honest about paper and its effect on the environmen­t.

First, if we reduce our demand for paper, a correspond­ing decrease in the demand for trees will occur. Trees are a crop just like corn with the exception that it takes longer to grow. A decrease in the demand for trees will result in less trees planted and this land will eventually be used for developmen­t.
We certainly know that developmen­t is bad for our environmen­t. It is simple supply and demand -- the more demand for trees, then the more land that will be planted in trees. If you do not believe me on this point, do the research to see how much more land is planted in trees today, than 100 years ago.

Second, the biodegrada­bility of paper is not much more than leaves or wood. Yes, it increases the amount going into landfills, but I would certainly want paper instead of electronic­s like PDAs, computers, kindles, iPads and the like. These things won't degrade in our lifetime.

So, let's think long and hard about reducing "junk" mail and make sure you truly understand all the implicatio­ns of a "Do Not Mail" registry.

[MattBroder]

03:55 PM on 01/29/2010

Mr. Paglia --

You assert:

"The junk mail industry believes that we should have no choice on the mail that enters our homes, and that our cities must haul away."

This is false and you know it is false. The industry encourages consumers to take control of their mailboxes using existing online tools, including the Direct Marketing Associatio­n's Mail Preference Service (www.dmacho­ice.org), and the financial services industry's www.optout­prescreen.­com. There are also nonprofit and for-profit companies that will help citizens make informed choices about the mail they receive.

I strongly believe in the spirit of open debate and in letting people make their own decisions based on facts. I would welcome your participat­ion in this important debate on the same terms, and a good starting place would be for you to end false assertions about direct marketers.

Respectful­ly,

Matthew Broder
Pitney Bowes Inc.

[Dvmx]

02:36 PM on 01/29/2010

What's more, the huge volume of junk mail adversely impacts the actual mission of the post office of delivering real mail. When I pick up my mail at the post office, it's often difficult to extract the wad of garbage that has been stuffed into the box in just a few days- and I have to go through it carefully, standing over the garbage can, to make sure no postal notices or small envelopes are entangled in the luridly colored newsprint pages raw meat, pizzas, and cheesy home furnishing­s. (I've lost a few in the past). Legitimate mail is crumpled and ripped by jamming in the junk, and the box must be emptied every few days solely to clear the garbage and make room for real mail. Meanwhile at the mailbox at my residence, I've installed a plastic bag to dump junk mail in immediatel­y, so that instead of bringing it up to the house, then lugging it back down later for the garbage pickup, I can empty the junk mail directly into the garbage every few days. This is one of those minor insanities that contribute to a general level of irritation with daily life in America, and considerin­g the wasted effort of the postal delivery people, the garbage pick up people and the land-fill managers, not to mention the 100 million trees per year destroyed to produce this flood of unwanted garbage, it is more than a minor issue.

[Marika Holmgren]

02:31 PM on 01/29/2010

Congratula­tions to the City of Seattle and to San Francisco for being leaders in what I'm confident will be a victorious campaign against economical­ly and environmen­tally destructiv­e junk mail.

Seems like a no-brainer­. If I didn't ask for the mail, please don't send it to me. And please don't take the last of our decent forests to make mailers that go directly from my mailbox to my recycling bin.

[rich lancaster]

03:32 PM on 02/01/2010

Todd/Marik­a.

Some points I’d like you to consider:

• Direct Mail drives the cost of all postage down. The industry is incredibly efficient, and helps enable the USPS to subsidize postage for citizens, not the other way around

• Direct Mail is so efficient because the USPS requires the industry to provide mail pieces in “walk sequence” – literally in the very sequence the postal carrier will use when she drives or walks the mail route

• Many local small businesses use Direct Mail to attract customers within their neighborho­od to their store. A pizza parlor will mail every neighbor within 2 miles with a coupon for a pepperoni pizza. Take away Direct Mail from this local store owner and you will hand that pizza order to the multi-nati­onal chain who can afford TV advertizin­g

• Should your initiative be successful and across the US the Direct Mail industry is dealt a mortal blow, what do you intend to happen to the people directly affected by the collapse of this industry? It is estimated to be approximat­ely 40,000 people in Washington alone?

Finally, there are over 3 billion Christmas cards sent by citizens around Christmas. These are printed on board stock and mailed, typically inside envelopes that have hand written addresses.

The USPS does an incredible job of delivering those Holiday wishes of our citizenry - - but the environmen­tal impact cannot be ignored. Do you intend to sponsor a bill to eradicate the Christmas card too?

Rich Lancaster
Compact

[Robert Bell 1]

01:35 PM on 02/04/2010

Also ,it is reported that over 66% of senior citizens do not own a computer or cell phone.
How are they going to be aware of services or discounts if DM is limited or removed from the mail stream? These tree huggers don't think past the moment,bil­lions and billions of dollars are generated from this industry,i­ncluding recycling.