what precious natural resources are you refering? Trees live and die. Trees are farmed like a crop. Trees are also cut down for lumber with the byproducts also being used to make paper or "engineered wood". Ad mail DOES NOT consume tremendous amounts of dwindling resources. In consumes one renewable resource - trees. In people don't want ad mail then they should be the ones to do the work to stop it. The senders of the mail are the ones bearing the costs to send them the ads. The recipients just spend their time going through the mail. Quit arguing nonsense and start using common sense. I like ad mail much better than e-mail ads or ads blurring the webpages. When I am on the internet, I don't want to be bothered with ads or popups. Those are far more annoying that ad mail.
I have to agree with Mr. Broder. Far too often we have individuals or organizations pushing their agendas without presenting all of the facts. First, Ms. Landman is wrong about "Most people don't like the mounting number of unsolicited ads..." except maybe most of her friends. In fact 74% of Americans prefer their advertisements through the mail than any other medium. Now let's talk about the numerous ads that are in newspapers. Add up the weight of newpapers and the ads in them and one will see that the average weight of newspapers exceeds the average weight of ads through the US Mail. How about those unwanted ads in the magazines as well? We should prohibit those because of the same arguments that Ms. Landman is using. What about those political fliers that are left on the door knob. I don't know about you but I hate that because they come off the door knob and then become trash blowing in the wind. Heck let's ban advertisement on TV. That is almost as annoying as those phone solicitors. Same for radio.
The bottom line is that there are alternatives out there like Mr. Broder stated (unlike the aforementioned). In addition, individuals have control of the ads. They can peruse them at their leisure or simply discard them in their recycle bin. Shopping by mail (or phone) is also better on the environment than shopping at the mall. It lessens traffic congestion and pollution.
Finally, Article 8 of the US Constitution grants the US Congress sole authority "To establish post offices and post roads. To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers...". Maybe these state legislators need to brush up on the US Constitution.
Ms. Landman --
It is regrettable that you dismiss as "spin" the mailing industry's efforts to bring to light what you could more generously describe as "underreported facts." In the marketplace of ideas, what do you find objectionable about a balanced, two-way debate that lets individuals make truly informed decisions on their own?
In this case, here are the relevant facts, which certainly did not get reported in your comments above:
* Consumers do not need legislation to end unwanted mail. They already have the option to get themselves off mailing lists they do not wish to be on. Among others, the Direct Marketing Association offers a Mail Preference Service that anyone can access at www.dmachoice.org.
* Trees are a renewable resource, not a dwindling resource. Every year, paper and forest products companies plant more than one billion trees so they have a sustainable business model.
* On the margin, mail has environmental benefits. These include reducing carbon emissions by replacing individual car trips with remote transactions. Examples include pharmaceuticals by mail (fewer trips to the drug store), DVD rental by mail (fewer trips to the video store), and catalog shopping (fewer trips to the mall).
Those are facts. Now, here comes the spin --
What <em>actually</em> happens if Do Not Mail bills become law? Remember, the US Postal Service <strong>must</strong> deliver to every address in America, six days a week. To the extent that direct mail volumes decline, the US Postal Service would have to raise the cost of all other forms of postage in order to maintain the infrastructure needed to fulfill its delivery mandate. Who gets hurt by that? Big business, for sure, but what about the nonprofit sector, which uses the mail to raise money? What about small businesses that are trying to grow? There is a profound social and economic cost to Do Not Mail that its supporters simply refuse to deal with.
As a supporter of the "front group" Mail Moves America (you could also just call us a plain old "coalition"), I don't expect to persuade you, but thank you for offering this opportunity to comment and contribute to the debate.
Matt Broder
Vice President, External Communications
Pitney Bowes Inc.
The Society of the Plastics Industry (SPI) is NOT, I repeat, NOT a subsidiary of the American Chemistry Council (ACC). A few years back, the American Plastics Council (APC) "merged" with ACC. The rump of APC is now the Plastics Division of ACC.
Isn't this exactly what the Bush Administration wants? It doesn't really want people paying attention. Recognizing the actual cost, both monetary and human, might cause support for the war to wane even more. It might cause the GOP to suffer an even bigger defeat in the next election, despite the Dems impotentance since gaining a majority in Congress.
Get your facts straight:
The Society of the Plastics Industry (SPI) is NOT, I repeat, NOT a subsidiary of the American Chemistry Council (ACC). A few years back, the American Plastics Council (APC) "merged" with ACC. The rump of APC is now the Plastics Division of ACC.
Pages