GreenYes Digest V96 #55

GreenYes Mailing List and Newsgroup (greenyes@UCSD.EDU)
Fri, 22 Jan 1999 16:11:14 -0500

GreenYes Digest Sat, 21 Dec 96 Volume 96 : Issue 55

Today's Topics:
"Why Do We Recycle?" publication
PETE and Warehouses
Year End Assessment from Rachel's

Send Replies or notes for publication to: <greenyes@UCSD.Edu>
Send subscription requests to: <greenyes-Digest-Request@UCSD.Edu>
Problems you can't solve otherwise to

Date: Fri, 20 Dec 1996 11:45:19 -0500 (EST)
From: Frank Ackerman <>
Subject: "Why Do We Recycle?" publication

My book, "Why Do We Recycle? Markets, Values, and Public Policy", has
just arrived from Island Press -- I received my advance copies today. The
book reviews the economic and environmental arguments for recycling, and
draws on many of the big research studies we did at Tellus Institute from
1998-95 (as well as numerous other sources).

I don't want to violate norms against commercialism in discussion groups,
but I do want to inform the many people in the recycling community who
have expressed interest in the book. For more information or mail orders,

My apologies if you receive multiple copies of this notice -- I'm posting
this on several lists related to recycling.

Frank Ackerman
Global Development and Environment Institute
Tufts University


Date: Fri, 20 Dec 96 07:23:00 PST
From: <>
Subject: PETE and Warehouses

Start renting warehouse space for PETE bales? Between plastics and ONP,
warehouse space in the Twin Cities is in short supply.


Date: Fri, 20 Dec 1996 13:16:47 -0800 (PST)
From: "David A. Kirkpatrick" <>
Subject: Year End Assessment from Rachel's

For those who don't yet subscribe to RACHEL'S ENVIRONMENT & HEALTH WEEKLY,
I have clipped the conclusions from the last two issues. They have
dealt with the worsening environmental crises and the failure of national
enviro. groups to respond effectively to them. Sobering messages before
the holidays, but some directions for change are suggested in these
final paragraphs.

To subscribe to RACHEL'S, see the info. at the bottom.

>=======================Electronic Edition========================
>. .
>. ---December 12, 1996--- .

>But isn't it really individual lifestyles that are the problem,
>not corporate money and power? It is difficult to imagine people
>in an industrialized country like the U.S. successfully curbing
>their appetites while corporations are spending $23 billion each
>year promoting hedonism (usually called "consumerism") through
>advertising. Corporations have spent a century intentionally
>reversing our "old fashioned" attitudes of frugality, thrift,
>simplicity, and religious reverence for life. (And most recently
>they are in our schools, dismantling environmental education
>programs, intentionally exorcising the knowledge and attitudes
>our children will need for survival.) A few people have been
>able to withstand this ceaseless barrage of corporate propaganda,
>but not many. Before people can sort out what it's going to take
>to prevent the extinction of humans, we will need to clear our
>minds and focus on fundamentals, in preparation for a difficult
>national debate. Getting corporate money out of the institutions
>of our democracy is the first requirement.
> --Peter Montague
> (National Writers Union, UAW Local 1981/AFL-CIO)

=======================Electronic Edition========================
. .
. ---December 19, 1996--- .

>In sum, government regulation of the public health and
>environmental hazards from pesticides does not work and cannot
>work. How much more clearly could it be said? By design, the
>system has failed.
>The lesson to draw from all this is that regulation has not
>worked, does not work, AND CANNOT WORK. We can struggle
>endlessly to amend the laws and modify the regulations but such
>methods will NEVER bring toxic technologies under control, will
>never 'save the Earth.' It is now clear that the regulatory
>system serves the interests of the corporate polluters because it
>is a system they define. It is a dead end for activists.
>Devotion to its regime is counterproductive.
>This is a frightening prospect, I admit. To be told that your
>life's work has taken a wrong direction? Who wants to hear such
>a message? Many will not be able to, and will devote the
>remainder of their days to performing more of the same skillful
>but pointless acrobatics.
>For those who can hear the message though, it is a new day. Many
>are now devoting themselves to a most fundamental revaluation of
>the role of the corporation in our culture WHILE CONTINUING THEIR
>LOCAL STRUGGLES. During the last 100 years, the corporation has
>modified each of the institutions of our democracy for its own
>purposes--our courts, our law-making bodies, our schools, our
>elections--to meet needs defined by the corporation's internal
>logic. The colonization of our minds is nearly complete. But
>not quite.
>We have said before and we say again, corporations have overtaken
>our culture and are driving it to the brink of ecological
>disaster not because they are staffed by bad people. On the
>contrary, many imprisoned by the logic of the corporation are
>good people, yet they remain prisoners all the same. They are
>not free to act upon their individual consciences. Their
>responsible individuality and their spiritual centeredness has
>been forfeited, subordinated to the requirements of the corporate
>Where this examination of the corporate form will lead, no one
>can say, just as no one could say in America in 1795 where the
>incipient movement against slavery would lead. In 1795, white
>male property owners held all the levers of power granted under
>the new Constitution. The vast majority of the people had no say
>(just as today). Success against slavery was not guaranteed
>then, and success in our struggle to define the corporate form
>--to make it serve the "general Welfare" (to quote the
>Constitution) --is not guaranteed now. However, we know that,
>understanding of what changes must overtake the corporate form.
> --Peter Montague
> (National Writers Union, UAW Local 1981/AFL-CIO)
>. Environmental Research Foundation .
>. P.O. Box 5036, Annapolis, MD 21403 .
>. Fax (410) 263-8944; Internet: .
>. ========== .
>. Back issues available by E-mail; to get instructions, send .
>. E-mail to with the single word HELP .
>. in the message; back issues also available via ftp from .
>. and from .
>. Subscribe: send E-mail to .
>. with the single word SUBSCRIBE in the message. It's free. .


End of GreenYes Digest V96 #55