In 2019, the FCC passed a rule allowing telecom companies to restrict robocalls. That got me thinking about unwanted paper mail and the possibility for corrective measures.
The public response to the FCC rule enacted last month, that allows phone carriers to block robocalls, has been unsurprisingly positive. But consumer protection efforts in the communications space should not stop there. There exist other kinds of spam communications that, too, burden Americans. Specifically, junk mail remains a huge problem. The EPA estimates that 44% of junk mail goes to landfills unopened and accounts for 4 million tons of waste paper per year. In the U.S. alone, mail advertisements create 51.5 million metric tons of greenhouse gases each year.
Not only does spam mail waste natural resources, it takes a toll on human productivity. A recipient must sort the unsolicited mail from the pertinent mail. Then, the recipient must dispose of the unwanted mail. Many mail ads, such as credit card applications, contain sensitive personal data. Therefore, the mail cannot simply be disposed of in a waste bin. It must be shredded or burned. Some consumers have even resorted to dissolving mail in vats of acid.
Recipients can stop unwanted mail by contacting senders and requesting that they be removed from lists. However, due to the number of communications received, this is not a practical solution. Also, companies offer services that let consumers to reduce the mail they receive based on preferences for a small fee, such as by opting-out of prescreened offers of credit or insurance. Yet, even these measures won’t stop all unwanted email. Unfortunately, unlike with emails, there exists no mechanism to easily filter wanted paper mail from unwanted paper mail. Furthermore, the onus to stop junk mail should not be put on consumers, who already suffer the inconvenience of sorting and disposing of the mail.
The USPS should pass a rule that prevents the sending of unwanted mail. Consumers can report or send unwanted mail to the USPS and the senders can be fined. In this way, the policy would be essentially self-policing. In the alternative, a rule may be passed that does not outright ban, but deters the sending of unwanted mail, such as by levying taxes on senders. But, the USPS is unlikely to enact such a rule, absent public pressure. In fact, the USPS benefits from the transit of junk mail, as postage for the mail is a source of revenue. It is therefore necessary for the public, especially environmental conservation groups, to bring attention to the waste and nuisance created by paper mail and urge the USPS to crack down on the commerce of junk mail.
Comments