Today's Topics:
(Fwd) best waste and P2 journals on the international market
(Fwd) Lack of waste in Germany... -Reply (2 msgs)
Local Gov't and SW Mgmnt (2 msgs)
spit it out
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 postmaster@ucsd.edu.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 18 Dec 1996 08:00:45 CDT
From: "John Reindl 608-267-8815" <reindl@co.dane.wi.us>
Subject: (Fwd) best waste and P2 journals on the international market
------- Forwarded Message Follows -------
Date: Wed, 18 Dec 1996 14:33:10 +0100
Reply-to: Waste Management List <WASTENET@MSU.EDU>
From: Marc Leemans <marc.leemans@INFOBOARD.BE>
Subject: best waste and P2 journals on the international market
To: Multiple recipients of list WASTENET <WASTENET@MSU.EDU>
Dear collegues,
In order to maintain the the good quality of our Technical Library at the
Public Waste Agency of Flanders we are looking for the best international
journals on waste and pollution prevention.
Does anybody have some good suggestion which journals we should buy ?
To evaluate the good quality of our library you can look and try for
yourself at the following internetsite :
==>http://www.ovam.be/cgi-bin/ovam-read-eng/English/choice (English interface)
Please feel free to send suggestions.
Feel free to crosspost this message to other lists or persons. This message
was originally posted to the WASTENET-list and the Pollution Prevention-list.
Best regards,
Marc Leemans
TWICA-OVAM
e-mail : marc.leemans@infoboard.be
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Check these Waste World Wide Web resources :
*Public Waste Agency of Flanders home :
==> http://www.ovam.be
*Waste Library (20.000 referentions to literature !)
==>http://www.ovam.be/cgi-bin/ovam-read/choice (Dutch interface)
==>http://www.ovam.be/cgi-bin/ovam-read-eng/English/choice (English interface)
*Environmental Index to the WWW (The Green Web-Resources List)
==> http://www.ovam.be/internetrefs/english.htm
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 18 Dec 1996 12:25:44 -0500
From: Chaz Miller <cmiller@envasns.org>
Subject: (Fwd) Lack of waste in Germany... -Reply
Dave Reynolds writes about the German article that "it is critically
important to tie future disposal facility needs/development with waste
reduction programs and an understanding of future waste streams.....
The problems that Germany has experienced is less of a threat in this
country for two reasons: (1) Size and system diversity, and (2)
Most states with integrated waste management legislation that
addresses waste reduction also addresses corresponding facility needs
(time will tell if these issues are addressed properly)."
Chaz responds:
How do we know and understand future waste streams? Who, in
1980, or 1985, or even 1990, predicted the waste stream trends we are
now experiencing:
- the rise in state recycling or diversion laws that either mandate or
require recycling and composting?
- the rise in volume-based fee systems which lead to increased
recycling and composting?
- the rise of plastic packaging and the slow but steady fall off of the
glass container industry?
- the failure of virtually all predictions of the future size of the waste
stream to be accurate (in almost all cases, they grossly overestimate
increases in the size of the waste stream)?
- the financial problems faced by cities with put or pay contracts at
disposal sites when the recession in the early 90's and the rise of
recycling decreased the amount of garbage going to disposal?
- the rise of regional disposal facilities?
- the tremendous expansion in the paper industry's ability to use
recovered paper as a raw material?
Who is willing to predict the impact of e-mail and other on-line
communications on the paper industry?
I agree that we have not had as serious a disposal shortfall problem in
this country as in Germany, yet, but it is happening.
Population increases guarantee that the gross amount of garbage will
increase. However, the continued rise in the amount of materials
recycled and the ability of business in market economiees to save money
by making products with less raw materials guarantee that the amount of
waste going to disposal will not increase as rapidly.
In fact, EPA data indicates that disposal tonnages have been flat for at
least the last two years and Solid Waste Digest data shows (nationally)
a 10% decline in the amount of solid waste sent to disposal in the last
twelve months.
Chaz
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 18 Dec 1996 20:25:46, -0500
From: david_reynolds@prodigy.com ( DAVID B REYNOLDS)
Subject: (Fwd) Lack of waste in Germany... -Reply
Chaz Miller, in questioning disposal facility needs based on
uncertain future waste amounts, writes:
"How do we know and understand future waste streams? Who, in
1980, or 1985, or even 1990, predicted the waste stream trends we
are
now experiencing:
- the rise in state recycling or diversion laws that either mandate
or
require recycling and composting?
- the rise in volume-based fee systems which lead to increased
recycling and composting?
- the rise of plastic packaging and the slow but steady fall off of
the
glass container industry?
- the failure of virtually all predictions of the future size of the
waste
stream to be accurate (in almost all cases, they grossly
overestimate
increases in the size of the waste stream)?
- the financial problems faced by cities with put or pay contracts
at
disposal sites when the recession in the early 90's and the rise of
recycling decreased the amount of garbage going to disposal?
- the rise of regional disposal facilities?
- the tremendous expansion in the paper industry's ability to use
recovered paper as a raw material?
Who is willing to predict the impact of e-mail and other on-line
communications on the paper industry?" <snip>
Dave Reynolds responds:
Hello Chaz. It is good to see you on the listserve. Your personal
expertise and experience, as well as concerns from the National Solid
Waste Management Association's perspective can add much to the
discussions.
When I talked about disposal facilities planning in my original
message, I was referring to future planning. Indeed, many of the
present facilities are facing a short term problem of unserved
capacity because of the factors you mention. Although many uncertain
variables remain, making future predictions difficult, we are in a
better position now. California is at the cutting edge of
measurement, and correction factors have been developed for
population and economic activity. Although we can not predict future
commodity prices and technology, legislative waste reduction goals
(in tandem with market drivers like materials utilization or minimum
content) along with information on population and economic factors
can be a good macro predictor of waste amounts. I believe that this
is more prudent than building facilities without bringing these
controlling factors into the discussion. Without integrated waste
management planning and a strategic approach to meeting waste
reduction goals (i.e., what is the best approach for a given
jurisdiction... something that is making waves in California),
facilities will be built with waste as a driver, and this is in
direct conflict with our goals.
Happy Holidays,
Dave
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 18 Dec 96 10:49:00 PST
From: <chris.cloutier@moea.state.mn.us>
Subject: Local Gov't and SW Mgmnt
John Reindl -
MN has had local (county) responsisibility for managing SW for some 16
years. We consider it a key foundation in our success both in ensuring an
integrated SW mgmnt system but also in leading the nation in recycling
collection. However, you will probably also find some dissenters.
For starters, call Sig Scheurle who is the supervisor for the Local Gov't
Assistance unit at the Office of Env. Assistance at (612) 215-0197. He
should be a wealth of knowledge and be able to provide you excellent
contacts in MN at the county level who should be also be very helpful.
You can also call me at (612) 215-0234.
Chris
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 18 Dec 1996 23:41:24 -0600
From: Jim McNelly <compost@cloudnet.com>
Subject: Local Gov't and SW Mgmnt
chris.cloutier@moea.state.mn.us wrote:
>
> John Reindl -
>
> MN has had local (county) responsisibility for managing SW for some 16
> years. We consider it a key foundation in our success both in ensuring an
> integrated SW mgmnt system but also in leading the nation in recycling
> collection. However, you will probably also find some dissenters.
Hi Chris and John,
I may be able to add a unique perspective on the dialog between
Wisconsin and Minnesota. I have worked in the resource recovery
industry in Minnesota since early 1988 after spending two years in
Madison before that, and experience in numerous other states going back
to 1975.
When I tried to address the issue of composting organics in Dane County
Wisconsin in 1986, I found it challenging to have to meet with
approximately forty representatives of every burg, village, and
township, not to mention County officials and the officials with the
City of Madison. The decision making process relating to trying to
achieve an "economic of scale" was, in my opinion, insurmountable.
While many officials were well versed in the issues of recycling and
conservation, most, I am sad to report, were not.
There was a strong tendency to "micro-manage" little programs that could
not economically justify the capital required to address the problem
properly. Only Madison and Dane County represented sufficient volumes,
at least as far as organics were concerned, to justify significant
capital expenditures. But even then, the political difficulties that
result when a large municipality and a county try to cooperate can be
difficult. Would you not agree, John, that the first efforts toward
organics management at the airport site were less than stellar? I
believe that there are old piles of leaves, grass, and brush with
plastic bags still sitting at the now abandoned site. The subsequent
facilities were significantly more successful, however. Did not the
County finally step in and take control of the situation? Other
Counties in Wisconsin, have not been as forthcoming, although there are
some notable exceptions.
But Wisconsin has a long standing tradition of local and "home rule",
with an inherent mistrust of big government and big business. This
socio-economic reality has to be taken into consideration when
discussing Wisconsin waste issues. Did you not tell me once that
Wisconsin once had nearly 4,000 town dumps at one time? The challenge
to get that number down to 400 and whatever it is today has not been
easy. Getting local units of government to cooperate, much less
consider privatization in some cases, is a formidable task.
In Minnesota, I found it refreshing to meet County officials who were
empowered to make decisions regarding waste disposal and resource
recovery issues, and who typically could "designate" where the waste
would go through enactment of law as authorized by the state
legislature. For once, the decision makers were few, they were
typically well informed, and they made decisions based largely on
integrated waste management issues, rather than on the least expensive
landfill options.
But now that I look back at the past decade, I wonder which state is
better off in the final analysis.
The fact that large counties could make long term decisions regarding
the disposition of the discarded resources opened the door for high
capital intensive management options such as incineration, refuse to
energy systems, and mixed waste composting. Something like eighteen
incinerators and at least seven mixed waste composters were built.
Today, many of the mixed waste composting facilities are closed, garbage
is being hauled out of state (even to Wisconsin) to cheaper landfills,
and incinerators are looking for subsidies to meet waste volume
shortfalls and air quality regulations.
Perhaps by not having the waste decision making authority vested in
larger units of government protected Wisconsin from the same fate as
Minnesota, where many tens of millions of dollars in abandoned or
underutilized facilities were wasted. In the new world of dubious flow
control, it seems, at least in Minnesota, that the disposition of waste
is devolving back to the municipality. This is largely because the
local unit of government still controls the collection or the collection
contracts.
An interesting phenomenon of the past few years is that many cities are
designating the disposal site in the collection contract. Much of this
concern is based on the State's policy of holding the generator liable
for old landfill clean up costs, and even though the Federal Courts may
have dispelled flow control by the County, it seems that the
municipality can still control designation through the collection
contract tool.
In my finaly analysis, it seems to matter little whether there are large
or small units of government designating waste management issues. We
should take into consideration what may be actualy practical given the
demographics of a given area. Larger units may be able to move more
quickly and have more economical power, but they can also move quickly
into poor decisions or make long term contracts for short term
solutions. The industry and technology, as well as markets fluctuate so
rapidly in this still-evolving industry that I doubt that decisions
based on more than five years expected life of a contract can be
reasonably made.
I would like to think that both large and small units of government
would make decisions more based on "what is right" rather than fear or
economics. Issues of sustainability, employment, local resources
staying in the local area, topsoil values, and the quality of life
should lure communities rather than be forced through fear issues such
risk of landfill remediation.
The ideal situation, for example, would be that people should *want* to
compost in a way that "manufactures products" that benefit residents and
agriculture rather than just "disposes of waste" in a way that forces
users to accept products that are contaminated with debris or are
unstable for their intended use. I believe that people are ready to pay
for value, but the value has to be presented to the user in a manner
that they can appreciate and "buy into" the solution. This ultimately
has to be done on the local and the county level if an environmentally
beneficial program is going to be successful.
At least these thoughts are the deposit back at my redemption center on
your recycling question.
Jim~ McNelly
compost@cloudnet.com
http:\\www.composter.com
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 18 Dec 1996 23:17:02 -0400
From: WOODY GETZ <WGETZ@FRE.FSU.UMD.EDU>
Subject: spit it out
Infinrecy@aol.com wrote:
>
> In a message dated 96-12-09 23:24:04 EST, Steve wrote:
>
> << I encourgae all of you, and in particular the so called "leaders" of the
> the GRN to do so! (I know that you've got lots of stuff going on.....come
> on
> and spit some of it out!!!!)
> >>
> Here, here. I second that emotion. We "followers" need more threads to chew
> on.
>
> Ford
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
My Good Friend and other GreenYes Folk!
As we are e-mailing points of view, let me toss out the old adage -
"Think Globally, Act Locally!".
And in that spirit, as well as the spirit of this Season of Giving,
invite folks to post something they are currently doing -- Locally, of
course.
We might just find that in our own way in our small corner of the World
(Wide Web) we are Leading Locally and may be able to Give/Get support
from others who share our concerns via this BBS.
I certainly got support from several folks from around the country when
I recently posted an inquiry asking for frequency of curbside collection
of MSW.
Our organization, Frostburg Area Recyclers (FAR) is trying to use the
amazingly powerful combination of: local municipal financial
information + rising disposal costs (from the state of Maryland's first
and only privately owned and operated MSW landfill + common sense +
public education. Our goal: a VRP program built into the FY 1997-98
municipal budget.
In any case I too like to know what our "leaders" think and are doing.
It's just that probably all of us on GreenYes who are doing something
are probably considered leaders -- Locally, that is. And by sharing our
"somethings" I have the idea that we'd all get things done a little
quicker, a little easier, and a little better!
Best Holiday Wishes,
Reduce/ReUse/Recycle/Compost - It's all we've got!
Woody Getz
Sierra Club, Western Maryland Group/Maryland Chapter
CRoWD (Citizens for Responsible Waste Disposal)
FAR (Frostburg Area Recyclers)
Member, Allegany County (MD) Solid Waste Management Plan
Committees, 1991-92 & 1995-96.
P.S. Ford, the pond certainly may freeeeeeze tonight!
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 18 Dec 96 10:38:00 PST
From: <chris.cloutier@moea.state.mn.us>
STEVE SUESS SEZ:
1.) Those of you who run curbside recycling programs absolutely will,
you must, you have to, you will forced to, at least in the long run, adjust
to market fluctuations - unless, and only unless the taxpayers who fund you
are willing to pay whatever it takes to run that program!
Chris replies:
There is an enormous difference b/t adjusting what is collected on the
curbside based on long-term market changes and the fluctuations of commodity
prices. I argue against the latter and you egregiously assume that the two
are the same. Should a curbside program strive towards cost-efficiency? Of
course. Your rant about "gov't types" is a cheap ad hominen that reflects
very little working knowledge of most "gov't types" who operate efficient,
effective and market-sensitive curbside programs.
Steve continues:
If a productdoes not make a profit, you drop it!
Chris asks:
Applying this logic to a curbside program, which materials do you collect?
RIght now it would probably only be aluminum, HDPE and maybe steel. Or do
you, like most other recyclers, let the profits from some materials cover
the losses on others?
As a counter to your oh-so simple rational: Dreft. This P&G product is
made the same way it has been for 30 something years. It has little market
share and according to the P&G people I have spoken to, doesn't make a
profit. Yet it is still sold in major markets around the country? Why?
According your rational P&G is being foolish and risks putting itself out
of business. The reasoning is simple: there is a small, commited group of
purchasers of this product (people with children, particiularly newborns
whose skin can react to the colorants and perfumes in normal detergents) who
would react strongly to any cancellation or alteration of the product. This
has nothing to do with curbside programs, nor is it meant to. It is simply
an illustration of how wrong your Econ 101 rational is.
Steve again:
Why you choose not to use the one tool you have (outrage) absolutely
astonishes me!
Chris:
You seem to have a complete misunderstanding of how gov't works (or doesn't
work) and fail to see the internal contradiction with your entire thesis
regarding cost. Talk about astonishing.
Gov't has many more tools than public outrage. It has regulation,
assistance, cajoling, arm-twisting, grants, cooperation, education, and
organizing all at its disposal, to name a few. The idea that the only way
gov't can and will be effective is through inspiring public rage is myopic
and depressing.
Outrage can be a very effective technique in the short-term, but its limits
are that the public has a short attention span, the rage is usually easily
blunted and can rarely be sustained in a large group.
I have a great deal of personal experience working against high-paid
lobbyists who are brought into St. Paul to ensure we collect plastics at the
curb. The reason they have been unsuccesful is b/c we have not resorted to
rage-driven tactics - we have done exactly what you advocate in your
discourse on market forces: we have educate the citizenry of the actual and
opportunity costs of adding plastics to the curbside. So, instead of having
a mob-mentality surrounding plastics we have educated, informed, cogent and
articulate citizens who understand why the programd does not collect
plastics and continues to oppose such an action. As a result, in spite of
the industries best efforts including at least 5 different lobbyists, a
mayor who is in their pocket and all of their money - plastics are not
collected at the curb in St. Paul. This would not be true, IMHO, if our
campaign had been driven by outrage, invective and emotion. That well dries
up too quickly.
Your contentions that one: programs should be market-driven/sensitive; and,
that gov't should tap into and utilize public outrage to determine public
policy surrounding recycling seem to be at odds? How do you reconcile them?
Steve:
As long as we keep ourselves fragmented over these small and often times
local fights we will never move this world and we will always have the kinds
of crises we are now discussing and we will fail in giving our children's
children a planet that is habitable!
Chris:
If this is truly your goal, and I have no doubt that it is, why do
perpetuate this fragmentation with your ad hominen attacks on governement
programs? Why then do you also advocate divisive, pitched battles over
recycling over cooperation and communication?
I am not astonished by anything your offered, simply confused by how at odds
you appear to be with yourself.
------------------------------
End of GreenYes Digest V96 #53
******************************