Today's Topics:
(Fwd) Lack of waste in Germany... (2 msgs)
Assignment of solid waste responsibilities to local government
Model legislation
More Re: Plastic Actions
PETE Reaction
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: Tue, 17 Dec 1996 08:19:10 EST
From: "RUDY MOEHRBACH" <Rudy_Moehrbach@owr.ehnr.state.nc.us>
Subject: (Fwd) Lack of waste in Germany...
------- Forwarded Message Follows -------
Date: Tue, 17 Dec 1996 04:26:35 +0100 (MET)
To: buda96@fi.ruu.nl, p2tech@great-lakes.net, wastenet@msu.edu
From: Pawel Gluszynski <uugluszy@cyf-kr.edu.pl>
Subject: Lack of waste in Germany...
Reply-to: p2tech@great-lakes.net
Scaned from: Newsweek, October 28, 1996; pg. 17
GERMANY
Garbage Gap Alert
There's not enough trash to go round
By Scott Sullivan
Germany is suffering a garbage shortage. After decades of shrill
predictions that their lavish consumer society would be buried under
a pile of refuse, the Germans are now importing trash from as far
away as Brazil. Expensive incinerators lie idle for lack of waste
to burn. Ambitious landfill projects have been put on hold. German
cities have passed laws requiring industries to have their scrap
processed locally. National statistics demonstrate staggering
declines in all categories of garbage. In the first three years
of the 1990s, waste from all sources decreased by 16 percent -
to 252 million tons. Household trash, which amounted to 43.3
million tons in 1990, is down to half that figure.
An ecologist's dream has turned into a minor economic nightmare.
Since the early 1980s, incessant campaigns have urged Germans
to reduce, divide and recycle their trash. At the same time,
industries have developed elaborate schemes to convert Dreck
into fertilizer and plastic, and to retrieve paper, glass and
metal from the trash heap. Environment-friendly furnaces have
sprung up to burn otherwise unusable rubbish and use the heat
to generate electricity. The result: a boom in demand for both
industrial and household waste, combined with a radical shrinkage
of supply and a spiraling increase in the cost of garbage.
Other environmentally correct European nations face similar problems.
But Germany's garbage gap appears to be the continent's worst.
The "refuse crisis" became a national issue recently when the
city of Dusseldorf ordered a local paper factory to stop shipping
its waste to a Belgian cement company (which paid $162 a ton for it);
instead, the firm was told to send it to the city waste-disposal
plant (at a cost of $324 a ton). The paper plant obtained a temporary
injunction stalling the city's high-handed action. And the Belgian
cement company has petitioned the European Union to ban this and
similar acts of "garbage protectionism" as obvious violations of
the EU's single-market rules. (Ah... those European lawyers.)
However that case is settled, serious problems will remain.
Germany's garbage phobia of the 1980s induced local governments
to build lavish waste-disposal plants that are now costing taxpayers
a fortune to keep open. A medium-size city like Augsburg, for example,
spent $520 million on a state-of the-art furnace that is now a ruinous
white elephant. Nationwide, taxes to finance and pay the fixed costs
generated by such facilities have increased by 84 percent. Landfill
companies, faced with the prospect of ever-dwindling trash supplies.
Predict it will take up to 150 years to complete their current projects.
There is "complete chaos on the garbage market," says Barbel Hohn,
the environment minister for the state of North Rhine-Westphalia.
The minister's warning may turn out to be a slight exaggeration -
but trust the rule abiding German public has proved that it is
indeed possible to have too little of a bad thing.
-end-
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 17 Dec 1996 16:04:44, -0500
From: david_reynolds@prodigy.com ( DAVID B REYNOLDS)
Subject: (Fwd) Lack of waste in Germany...
Case in point. This is why it is critically important to tie future
disposal facility needs/development with waste reduction programs and
an understanding of future waste streams. I have always felt that
Germany took a knee-jerk reaction to its solid waste problems and the
lack of integrated waste management planning has resulted in the
problems stated in the Newsweek article. Germany has an additional
problem because of its size vis-a-vis the centralized incineration
and disposal system and the attendant high fixed costs that result.
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).
Dave Reynolds
Enviro-nomics
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 17 Dec 1996 18:16:14 CDT
From: "John Reindl 608-267-8815" <reindl@co.dane.wi.us>
Subject: Assignment of solid waste responsibilities to local government
Dear List Members --
In revising Wisconsin's waste reduction and recycling law, one concept
that was floated today is to assign the responsibility for solid waste
management to a local unit of government.
I'm writing to find out about other states that have assigned solid
waste management responsibilities to a local unit of government and
what levels of services the states require the local governments to
provide, and how well this approach has worked, or conversely,
alternative approaches.
A little background on our situation in Wisconsin:
Under our present system, our state assigns the responsibility for
recycling and yard waste composting to towns (1,265 in our state),
villages, and cities (another 580), with a provision that: 1) this
responsibility can be taken over by counties if mutually agreeable, or
2) assigned to a cooperative group of communities.
In no case does the local unit of government actually physically have
to set up the recycling or composting system, only insure that the
service is provided.
As a result, we have some 1,100 local units of government responsible
for recycling and composting, but few that do extensive programs on
waste reduction, reuse, household hazardous waste management,
bulky item collection, or coordination of these services with
refuse collection and disposal. To some of us, this inhibits the
development of comprehensive systems and of efficient systems.
At the meeting today, there was little support for assigning
responsibility of general solid waste functions to local units
of government, with the solid waste industry especially opposed.
Any input on what your state is doing would be most welcome.
Thanks much!
John Reindl, Recycling Manager
Dane County, WI
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 18 Dec 96 01:01:44 PST
From: roger.diedrich@sfsierra.sierraclub.org
Subject: Model legislation
I am working with activists in my state (VA) trying to find levers to stave
off the onslaught of imports, and gradually bring the state into the 20th
century regarding their management of waste. Among the steps we would like to
explore for the upcoming session are:
1) Require a local referendum for new landfills or expansions
(We don't have initiative and referendum rights)
2) Gather a broad range of waste data from jurisdictions in a
standardized manner.
3) Impose a state tipping fee on all waste disposed, to be used for
a better system of on-site inspection of waste operations
We could really make use of examples of similar legislation or approaches
already in place that we could adopt.
We also would like letters from public officials, etc. who can testify to the
usefulness of a robust data collection system. Our legislators always ask
"Why do we need this?" and outside success stories can help. Being VA, we may
be suspicious of yankee success, but we'll take it anyway. Letterhead
essential. It could be a paragraph within an unrelated letter.
Thanks,
Roger Diedrich 703-352-2410
roger.diedrich@sierraclub.org
3322 Prince William Dr
Fairfax, VA 22031
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 17 Dec 96 20:04:23 PST
From: jennie.alvernaz@sfsierra.sierraclub.org
Subject: More Re: Plastic Actions
[Forwarded from Steve Suess]
CHRIS CLOUTIER SAID:
Are we as recyclers then going to adjust curbside programs based on market
fluctuations? I didn't hear anyone boycotting HDPE last year or paper any
year but last year. I realize plastics are unique, but collection systems
need a longer term vision than the current market situation if they are to
sustain themselves.
I think boycotts and stopping collection are outrage-driven reactions to an
untenable situation. Acting out based on outrage will only, IMHO, continue
to marginalize recyclers.
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!
Either you are a publicly funded program and any income is irrelevant
and you do not care about the market prices (in this case your problem can
be how much do you and your constituents have to pay someone to not
landfill or incinerate something you collect that no one wants). Or you need
the income from the sale of the recyclables to wholly or partially fund your
program in which case you are in business like the rest of us! In business
we typically do not have the luxury of being insulated from the market. We
do not have the luxury of making as much product as we can and knowing it
will be bought at a price we can make a profit at! If you expect this to be
true in your business, well then we have a big beef to discuss! If a product
does not make a profit, you drop it! If you don't drop it you are doing this
out of charity, and something somewhere else is paying for it! If too many
products do not make money you go out of business. Real simple!!!
Given market based realities, something you governmental types so often
seem unaware of, it is perfectly logical to stop collecting recyclables you
can't afford to collect! (From this vantage point, your astonishment at my
suggestion is astonishing!) There have been recycling businesses around
since the dawn of time doing this! By the way, if your governmental program
needs to make a profit, that is, you need to run your program without public
funds, Stop! Let private industry do it.
Bottom line: If you do not stop collecting materials that cannot be
collected within the budget set up then you are deceiving the public you work
for. This keeps important information about the reality of recycling and how
it's working away from the public. It hurts recycling in the long run by
making things appear better than they are and thus reducing the public
pressure to recycle on business. In addition it is a fraudulent use of
public funds to continue - a give the likes of the Tierneys of the world tons
of ammunition to really go after you!
It is far smarter to take reality and really publicize it and make
absolutely sure the public knows exactly what is going on!
2.) Outrage driven reactions to untenable situations is exactly the
single real thing that the public can do to get legislation and business to
make changes they would not otherwise make! Unless you've got the money,
lobbyists, and political clout those big businesses who are fighting you
have, you cannot pass the legislation required - Unless you use the one other
thing that does work: Public Rage, Votes! You can fight these forces with
public outrage and votes at the ballot box!
Why you choose not to use the one tool you have absolutely astonishes
me!
I have never heard a clear reason why we recycle, nor a real and long
range goal that we share. I have proposed a long range goal of zero waste,
and I have proposed a number of very simple and logical reasons why ultimately
this must be so if we wish to continue inhabiting this planet. It is my
opinion that we need to engage the public in a dialog to develop a national
concensus on our resource goals, and then and only then can we avoid these
kind of turf battles, by developing a big picture and the legislation to make
it so!
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!
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 17 Dec 96 19:39:08 PST
From: jennie.alvernaz@sfsierra.sierraclub.org
Subject: PETE Reaction
[Forwarded from George Dreckmann, with permission]
I just got of the phone with an old friend from my legislative days who
now works for the "drak side" as a lobbyist for the Wisconsin Packaging
Council. He said that I was back on his Xmas card list as I had done
more for his membership recruiting in the last four days than he could
do in a year. Seems the word boycott gets them very nervous.
I went ahead and did some PR things in Madison. The result was coverage
by all TV stations most radio and an interview with Wisconsin Public
Radio for some statewide coverage. I'm now doing the talk show circuit
on radio and Tv and getting a lot of interst from producers.
We've also got NAPCOR wanting to form a state task force to deal with
PETE issues, including minimum content.
God, the plastic folks sure are nervous when you bring up the b-word.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 17 Dec 1996 17:19:43 -0500
From: Infinrecy@aol.com
Subject: spit it out
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
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 17 Dec 1996 16:25:35 -0800 (PST)
From: reindl@CO.DANE.WI.US
Dear List Members --
In revising Wisconsin's waste reduction and recycling law, one concept
that was floated today is to assign the responsibility for solid waste
management to a local unit of government.
I'm writing to find out about other states that have assigned solid
waste management responsibilities to a local unit of government and
what levels of services the states require the local governments to
provide, and how well this approach has worked, or conversely,
alternative approaches.
A little background on our situation in Wisconsin:
Under our present system, our state assigns the responsibility for
recycling and yard waste composting to towns (1,265 in our state),
villages, and cities (another 580), with a provision that: 1) this
responsibility can be taken over by counties if mutually agreeable, or
2) assigned to a cooperative group of communities.
In no case does the local unit of government actually physically have
to set up the recycling or composting system, only insure that the
service is provided.
As a result, we have some 1,100 local units of government responsible
for recycling and composting, but few that do extensive programs on
waste reduction, reuse, household hazardous waste management,
bulky item collection, or coordination of these services with
refuse collection and disposal. To some of us, this inhibits the
development of comprehensive systems and of efficient systems.
At the meeting today, there was little support for assigning
responsibility of general solid waste functions to local units
of government, with the solid waste industry especially opposed.
Any input on what your state is doing would be most welcome.
Thanks much!
John Reindl, Recycling Manager
Dane County, WI
------------------------------
End of GreenYes Digest V96 #52
******************************