On my email accounts, I have filters that keep out most spam. But my regular mail boxes at home and the office? No such luck! Advertising arrives in the post daily, by the sheaf and by the ream.
It annoys me. Here I am, scrupulously recycling and contemplating the climate impacts of my consumption, while L.L. Bean and its ilk are dropping slabs of paper in my mail box: paper that took carbon-storing trees to create, climate-polluting factories to mill, and carbon-belching trucks to haul. All told, it’s 41 pounds of junk mail a year per American.
Admittedly, junk mail isn’t high on Cascadia’s lists of menaces. According to estimates developed for the US Postal Service, it accounts for just over one tenth of one percent of all energy use (at least, if Cascadia matches the US average), plus one-fiftieth of municipal solid waste.
Still, it’s worth a little attention, especially when you consider that virtually no direct mail actually works. Postal advertising is an industry where a mass mailing is considered successful if 2 percent of envelopes or catalogs generate a sale. That means 98 percent of the paper and ink was pointless waste. If we could wave a magic wand and make it disappear, both the mailer and the recipient would be better off.
Look at the situation from an entrepreneur’s perspective. Any industry where 98 percent of the marketing misses its audience is a gargantuan business opportunity for whoever can figure out how to boost the “hit rate.” Eliminating unwanted ads in our mailboxes should increase profits for mailers by slashing costs without diminishing revenue. After all, US merchants pay upwards of $30 billion a year to produce and distribute junk mailings, and less than half of it even gets opened. Better targeting of direct mail aligns the interests of the economy with those of forests, the climate, solid waste agencies, and postal customers. What a deal!
The environmental implications of junk mail—most of which are caused by paper production and disposal—are worth spelling out. This report by a group of national environmental organizations says that, among US manufacturing industries, papermaking is the first-ranked consumer of water (per ton of product), third-ranked consumer of energy, third-ranked emitter of toxic pollutants into the air, fourth-ranked emitter of greenhouse gases, and fourth-ranked emitter of toxic pollutants into water.
Paper’s climate impacts are particularly troubling: From our forests—which absorb and store carbon dioxide, slowing climate change—to the landfill, the paper trail disrupts the climate. Two of every five trees felled around the world by loggers (as opposed to land-clearing farmers) are destined for pulp and paper mills. (The United States, the world’s junk mail capital, uses more paper per person than any other nation ever.) Paper accounts for one fourth of municipal landfill waste, and municipal landfills account for one third of human-caused methane emissions. Methane is 23-times more potent a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. All told, according to this calculator by Environmental Defense, paper generates three times its weight in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions.
Those 41 pounds of junk mail have the same carbon footprint as burning six gallons of gasoline. (And remember, that’s 41 pounds per member of your household.)
But how to seize this waste-reduction opportunity?
Two solutions:
Federal or state “Do Not Mail” registries, like the “Do Not Call” registry for telemarketing. The Center for a New American Dream has been campaigning for such services. Fourteen states, including Cascadian states of Washington and Montana, have considered legislation to create state “Do Not Mail” registries—plus fines for those direct mailers who ignore them. (To support the bills, write your representatives here.) In Canada, by policy of Canada Post, citizens can simply inscribe on their letter boxes “No advertising mail, please” and be spared much of the deluge. Unfortunately, this policy just results in letter carriers throwing out junk mail rather than householders doing so. Canada, too, needs Do Not Mail lists. (British direct marketers themselves have agreed to boost the precision of their targeting in order to trim waste.)
In the meantime, we can all take ourselves off of various mailing lists. Here are three good guides for ways to stopadvertisingmail. Or you can pay a small fee to a junk-snail-mail filter service like 41pounds.org or greendimes.org to have them do the leg work.
My own favorite is the new, free service CatalogChoice. It’s signed up more than 300,000 members in its first three months of operation. For me, it’s fun to throw the unwanted catalogs on a pile and, whenever I feel like it, log in to my account at Catalog Choice and zap my name off the relevant lists.
Or, at least, ask for my name to be removed. As BusinessWeek reports, not all catalog mailers are honoring Catalog Choice yet. I predict they’ll come around soon enough. As Catalog Choice’s membership grows, it’ll have substantial power to cajole, embarrass, or pressure mail-order businesses into compliance. And with or without merchants’ cooperation, Catalog Choice builds the political case for official Do Not Mail registries.
P.S. One counterargument that I’ve heard for junk mail is that direct mail allows postal services such as Canada Post and USPS to achieve bigger economies of scale: they can maintain inexpensive nationwide service for all. Were it not for the plethora of catalogs and credit card offers, goes the argument, it might cost a dollar to mail a baby photo to your faraway uncle. It’s a plausible argument, but it appears to be false. US law governing the postal service stipulates, for example, that “each class of mail or type of mail service bear the direct and indirect costs attributable to that class or service.” In other words, your baby picture is already supposed to pay its own way.
Still, for the sake of argument, let’s assume it’s true that junk mail helps pay for real mail. That still wouldn’t justify the practice! Ponying up a little more to mail a letter would be a small price to pay to unspam our mail boxes.
(Alyse Nelson did most of the research for this post. Thanks, Alyse!)
morrison_jay says:
With so many people on the internet, why are we still producing newspapers and magazines in such vast numbers? Shouldn’t we be targeting the major consumers of wood pulp? The newspaper industry has to be one of the most environmentally harmful industries on the planet.
Now they are importing cheaper rolls of newsprint from China. My bet is that China is not getting their wood ina sustainable manner.
Alan Durning says:
Yes, yes, I see your point and agree.
I read the news via laptop and wifi, and via a handheld with wireless internet. Things like Amazon’s new electronic reader could speed the transition from paper to bytes. But we should remember that many, many people aren’t yet as digitized as you and I are. They’re in a different generation or they’re trapped on the other side of the “digital divide.” A newspaper is a lot cheaper than a laptop and wifi.
And, just to play devil’s advocate, people do actually choose to buy most newspapers and magazines. So presumably, they want them. Junk mail, on the other hand, is rarely asked for.
In addition, newspapers are printed on newsprint, which is less energy-intensive and pollution-intensive to make and typically contains more recycled content than the papers used for catalogs and other junk mailings. (Of course, magazines are typically printed on the same papers as catalogs.)
Oh, and newspapers and news and opinion magazines have a really important role in our democracy. They inform voters. That’s a redeeming value! Yes, online news plays the same role but doesn’t yet reach as many people as paper news.
Direct mail, on the other hand, has no redeeming value. So . . . Do Not Mail registries, please!
Eric de Place says:
I just can’t resist another plug for Catalog Choice. I love it. Love it. Love. It.
influent says:
To add a response to Jay’s comment and Alan’s response, I question whether all the energy and waste that goes into manufacturing computers, using them, and transferring them to a landfill in Africa (where they often end up) is really that much better than reading an actual newspaper.
crankedmag says:
What really gets me is receiving the Nature Conservancy’s membership mailers. I’ve written them once before and asked them to remove me from their lists and yet, I’ve just gotten another the other day from them. It’d be nice to think that an organization touting conserving our natural resources would ascribe to direct mailing like this.
Ironically, the letter’s first sentence is, “Do you know why I believe in ‘wast not, want not?’” I hardly mail anything anymore, so I probably won’t ever even use the “personalized address labels” they sent me, that I didn’t ask for. It all feels pretty wasteful to me.
Catalog Choice is pretty cool I must admit.
JK says:
In the UK we also have the Mailing Preference Service MPS online.(and a telephone version to stop annoying sales calls) I’ve been registered awhile and it does seem to work. Now though we have the problem that Royal Mail is delivering leaflets rather than mail in addressed envelopes, so the junk mail level is creeping up again. I think they justify this as it provides essential income to keep the cost of stamps down. But as you say, Id rather pay the actual cost for posting stuff and only get what I want through the letterbox. Maybe one day…
gnkunkel says:
I have full care of my husband who enjoys getting the mail each day. However, we only have two friends who write to him by regular mail so the box contains mostly catalogs, advertisements, requests for donations and the like. Oh, there is an occasional request to mail my husband’s book about his early life and WWII ambulance driving experience.
I sometimes wish our paper dumpster was sitting below our mailbox out front.
The corporations are getting lots of advertising that is carried around house to house but it is causing a glut of waste.
Our taxes have to pay for the delivery and we have to pay to have it carried away.
Add to that what we pay our health aides who come to assist in my husband’s care and who often have the job of carrying this waste out to the dumpster. Then there is the waste of trees and the waste of energy to produce the paper ads.
Who will finally have the nerve to curtail the power of the corporation and their ads which intrude into our lives on our internet,telephone and TV. Deregulation has made the public helpless in insisting that corporations serve the public instead of the other way around.
What candidate for president has spoken up about this issue? Until we have publicly financed campaigns it won’t happen.
EdM says:
I agree that Catalog Choice is totally cool, but what to do about folks who ignore the request? It turns out there’s a fool-proof way to stop any item. http://www.junkbusters.com/dmlaws.html describes how to use the anti-pandering laws. It requires filling out a simple form, but it brings the force of law. The supreme court ruled that if it offends you, then it’s obscene, and therefore ileagal. It that extra catalog offends you, then case closed. I’ve used it and it works.
Ed
Jeanne says:
Whenever junk mail contains a prestamped envelope, I take the stamp off and use it. Whenever the junk mail includes a “no postage necessary if mailed in the United States” envelope, I use the envelope to tell them to remove me from their mailing list.
I think it may be beginning to work.
Jeanne says:
Whenever junk mail contains a prestamped envelope, I take the stamp off and use it. Whenever the junk mail includes a “no postage necessary if mailed in the United States” envelope, I use the envelope to tell them to remove me from their mailing list.
I think it may be beginning to work.
Jack says:
Some folks don’t mind unsolicited mail while others would rather it not appear at their mailbox uninvited.
As you may be aware, the current “Do Not Mail Registry” initiative that about 15 States are advocating would bring greater relief to millions of Americans. But, that effort is being heavily lobbied against by powerful interests, including the U.S. Postal Service. Thus, it may not reach fruition for years – if at all. In the meantime, those who want to stop junk mail from reaching our mailbox can do so using the following method. I use this process and it has proven 100 percent successful for me.
In addition to the Direct Marketing Association (DMA) services, there is another – little-advertised – means of stopping unwanted postal advertisements from reaching your mailbox.
This is the only method of stopping unwanted mail at its source where you do not have to pay money other than postage.
Pursuant to federal law (Title 39 USC § 3008), a postal addressee who receives an unsolicited (or solicited) advertisement offering for sale matter that, in the addressee’s sole discretion, is “erotically arousing or sexually provocative,” may, by completing PS Form 1500, obtain a Prohibitory Order from the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) directing the mailer to refrain from making further mailings to that addressee.
The key phrase is “…in the addressee’s sole discretion…” For example, if a pizza advertisement strikes you as sexually provocative, you can use the Prohibitory Order process to stop the mailings.
Should the mailer (vendor) continue sending mail after receiving the USPS Prohibitory Order, the USPS turns the matter over to the United States Department of Justice for prosecution. The Justice Department is responsible for prosecuting violations of postal related laws.
While the law, the form and the USPS instructions for using the form were originally intended for sexually explicit and provocative mail, the U.S. Supreme Court, in a decision – Rowan vs. U.S. Post Office Department, 397 U.S. 728 (1970) – ruled that the law under Title 39 USC § 4009 (now 39 USC § 3008) includes all unwanted commercial mail. Thus, PS Form 1500 is no longer used just for sexually explicit or provocative mail – although it still reads as such.
Why the USPS or Congress has not changed the law, the form or the instructions to reflect the Supreme Court decision in the past 37 years is a another conundrum that begs to be answered.
Nevertheless, do not be intimidated or confused by the instructions, the form or the law.
If you have been receiving unwanted direct mail advertisements and you no longer want to receive them, simply go to the below website, print out the form and instructions, fill in the form, sign it, and mail it to the U. S. Postal Service at the address shown below.
Shortly (experience indicates about 15 days after USPS receipt of the application), you will receive a letter advising you of the USPS action taken. Do not be confused by the letter’s wording – it all relates to sexual mail that you decided you did not want. Just think of your unwanted advertisements as sexually explicit mail.
Use the below website to obtain PS Form 1500 and the instructions for completion:
http://www.usps.com/forms/_pdf/ps1500.pdf
Action Steps:
1. Open the advertising envelope or wrapper (if there is one), take out all the contents and attach everything, including the envelope or wrapper, to the form. The USPS WILL NOT accept unopened envelopes or wrappers. Put all this into another envelope.
2. Send your PS Form 1500 and material directly to:
Pricing and Classification Service Center
US Postal Service
PO Box 1500
New York NY 10008-1500
You may need a large envelope for this step.
It is not necessary to give the form to your postmaster, as proposed in the USPS instructions as that office will only send it to the above address. Also, there have been reports that some Post Offices do not even know about the form or the process.
3. Mark your calendar about 15 days out from the date you mail your form to USPS. If you do not receive a response by the date you expect to receive it, start squawking. You can start here:
Pricing and Classification Service Center (PCSC)
Tel. 212-330-5300
FAX: 212-330-5330
4. If you don’t get prompt service from PCSC folks, report this directly to the Postmaster General at:
Postmaster General
U.S. Postal Service
475 L’Enfant Plaza, SW
Washington, DC 20260-1000
Tel. 202-268-2020 FAX: 202-268-5211
5. After you receive your copy of the USPS Prohibitory Order, mark your calendar again in accordance with the 30-day period explained in the letter. If, after the 30-day period, you receive mail that appears to have been sent in violation of the prohibitory order, open it and write clearly on the envelope and all its contents a statement that you received it and the date of receipt. For example, “I received this mailpiece on April 5, 2007.” Apply your signature below your statement. Include a photocopy of your prohibitory order, if possible, or a notation of the order number and send the mailpiece to the address noted in paragraph 2., above.
Additional information:
a. The USPS disposes of (translation: throws in trash) all unwanted third class mail – now called “Standard Mail” – that you mark “refused” or “return to sender.” Nearly all advertisements are Standard Mail. So, if it is your desire to help reduce waste, this method is not an option.
b. Use of the DMA opt-out services is somewhat successful, though not all advertisers belong to the DMA. Many nonmembers are the ignoble companies that Americans want to eliminate the most. Moreover, the DMA preference list is a blanket utility, i.e., not selective. “You cannot pick and choose which advertising mail you want to eliminate.” So, if you still want to receive catalogs from companies you have done business with, this is not a good option. The DMA also charges $1.00 for this service whereas critics believe this service should be free.
c. Once you have stopped the company from mailing advertisements to your address you may still receive the advertising for awhile. The reason is that mass (bulk) advertising coming through the post office is usually sorted by the company before the post office gets it, using mailing lists the mailer has with your address on it. The mail carrier just picks up the pile that has been presorted by street/area and just starts delivering it house by house without looking at the address.
Sanjiv says:
Starting in April, first 5 million peeps who stop junk mail with Greendimes, we’ll PAY YOU or plant a TREE
Max says:
It is all good. I did some search online and this is the best resource so far available online ( correct me if I am wrong). I have done this 3 months ago and my mailbox is literally empty ( I have paperless billing and also opted out from various mail lists) I check my mail twice a month now. It is beautiful.
I even opted out from the yellow book. What do I need it for, since the internet is right here.
http://awakening.weebly.com/stop-junk-mail.html
charlie says:
i looked into form 1500, but it requires that you have the address for the company sending you the junk mail. the junk mail i’m trying to stop is mostly grocery store coupon mailers and there’s no return address, just a sticker that says:
*************ECRWSS**BO22
Box Holder
Box Route B022
Vashon, WA 98070
and then where the stamp would go it says:
PRSRT STD
US Postage Paid
Kent WA
Permit No. 254
Should I just send in form 1500 with the peice of junk mail attached and leave the sender information blank?
Thank you,
Charlie
lisa says:
Yes, it is NOT environmentaly responsible to allow this waste. 40% of flyers go to landfill. When will people stop being ‘annoyed,’ and throwing them in recycling?
When will the connection be made that they are hurting the environment AND OUR POCKET BOOKS? With 40% going to landfil, we are then paying (increasingly,) for our garbage / waste management services…
THE FLYERS NEED TO BE BANNED.
They are invasive to privacy, the ink is toxic and basically it is a make work project that costs the taxpayer (BIG) for unwanted, expensive waste.
ali says:
im ali from tunis