Today's Topics:
(Fwd) Enviro-Newsbrief 12/06/96
GreenYes Digest V96 #30
In defense of user fees
More Greenhouse Stuff
National consumer boycott of PETE soft drink bottles
States with landfill moratoria
The power to tax, vs. user fees (2 msgs)
The power to tax, vs. user fees -Reply
VBFs have problems too
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: Mon, 9 Dec 1996 07:56:48 +1100
From: "PJ Prete" <n1nw328@wastenot.ehnr.state.nc.us>
Subject: (Fwd) Enviro-Newsbrief 12/06/96
Enviro-Newsbrief (excerpt) December 6, 1996
** ECOLABELING **
Report Says Most Programs Provide Little Information of Real
Value. Daily Environment Report, December 6, 1996, ppA-2-3.
Ecolabeling programs exist in more than 25 countries
worldwide but the labels tend to provide only the "barest minimum
of information" on the environmental impact of a product and the
information that is provided is often of "dubious validity"
according to a new report entitled _Buying Green: Consumers,
Product Labels, and the Environment_.
The report, by Julian Morris and Lynn Scarlett of the Reason
Foundation, said there are two problems that can arise from
ecolabels.
"First, the eco-seal decision process becomes a means with
which individual firms or nations advance their own products as
'best'" said the report. "Eco-seals become a de facto means of
erecting barriers to competition and trade."
"Second, criteria for awarding eco-seals must generally
focus on currently available technology. As a result, new
technologies which may be environmentally superior in some
respects but do not conform to the current product-selection
criteria will be locked out of the system until new criteria are
developed. This technology 'lock in' may actually stifle
innovations that would reduce environmental impacts."
Scarlett said consumers need easy-to-use information on
environmental impacts of a product. Eco-labels are one way to try
to get information to the consumer, but current programs have
failed to provide consumers with factual verifiable,
scientifically relevant data.
Scarlett suggested that data on toxics in products would be
useful for consumers. "Consumers are interested in this kind of
information; they're concerned about what's in their products,"
Other important information, according to Scarlett, would be
information on the energy efficiency of appliances or autos or
the recycling content of packaging.
"You don't want to give them everything, but you want to
give them things that can be verified, that are accurate," she
said.
One proposed alternative to eco-labeling would be purchasing
guidelines developed by independent organizations, such as the
guidelines for paper purchasing developed by the Environmental
Defense Fund.
Another alternative, suggested by the report, would be to
require manufacturers' claims about their products to conform to
generally understood guidelines that are strictly enforced. An
example of this approach is "green advertising" which is
regulated by the deceptive advertising clause of the Federal
Trade Commission Act.
Other alternatives include third party verification,
voluntary information sharing among manufacturers, and
requirements for industry to provide certain kinds of
information.
** CONGRESS **
Three Republican Senators to Leave Environment Panel; All
Democrats to Return. Daily Environment Report, December 6, 1996,
ppA-5-6.
Three Republicans will be leaving the Senate Environment and
Public Works Committee. They will be replaced by three incoming
freshman.
Senators Lauch Faircloth (R-NC), Mitch McConnell (R-KY), and
Robert Bennett (R-UT) are anticipated to leave in January.
Replacing them will be Senators Tim Hutchinson (R-AR), Jeff
Sessions (R-AL), and Wayne Allard (R-CO).
================================
Philip J. Prete
North Carolina Div. of Waste Management
Raleigh
PretePJ@wastenot.ehnr.state.nc.us
(919) 733-0692 ext 252
================================
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 9 Dec 1996 23:08:52 -0500
From: STEVESUESS@aol.com
Subject: GreenYes Digest V96 #30
I have heard from more than several people these past few weeks who are
looking to tap into a "discussion on Zero Waste" It was my understnding that
this Listserve was to do just that, yet I am finding out (because I privy)
that there is a lot of Zero Waste conversation going on between subscribers
of this listserve in private. Part of the reasoning behind this is that
members of the GRN do not want to spek up till they get their "act together".
It is my belief, as one of the founders of this group and the initiator of
this listserve, that this is a bad policy! This listserve was to be a forum
for varied and open dialog on all kinds of ideas on how to improve recycling,
and as we move forward on how to get to ZERO WASTE. This is not the stage to
present complete and finilazed legislation or even ideas....it is a place to
get a dialog going and to seek feed back.
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!!!!)
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 09 Dec 1996 18:16:01 -0500
From: "Marjorie J. Clarke" <mclarke@shiva.hunter.cuny.edu>
Subject: In defense of user fees
George sez,
>Please remember that threre is a fundamental difference between refuse
>fees and electric fees. Refuse can be disposed of in other means that
>theought he legal paid by fee system. While those of us who are part of
>this list are not inclined to illegal dumping, may are.
>
So the 2800 communities are wrong in choosing user fees? Increasing
reduction and recycling as much as 25-45% is not important? I understand
that other jurisdictions have surmounted the problem of illegal dumping
through various ingenious means, and Lisa Skumatz' recent study of illegal
dumps shows that most of the waste in them is commercial.
>You also have problems with burning in rural areas and in fire places in
>urban settings.
>
Do you have references quantifying that this is a problem?
>I believe that there are a study done in North Carolina that could not
>account for a significant portion of the trash that "left the waste stream"
>after a volume based fee was imposed.
There are?
I suspect that most of this was
>burned or dumped.
Or possibly prevented? Never bought in the first place? Or sold
second-hand, or given away? Did the study list the tonnages diverted to these?
>Do I support volume based fees, in practice yes. However, they are not
>a universal solution and I don't know how they can be advocated in large
>urban areas with significant poor populations.
Communities with user fees have developed means of addressing the poor and
elderly populations, just as the electric companies and phone companies
have. This is not a new issue.
>It is also likely that this language will be removed from our recycling law
>in the next session of the legislature because it cannot be fairly
>implimented.
I haven't seen why it can't.
__ __
//\\ //\\ _ ___ __ o __
// \\ // \\ // \\ // \\ // \\ ||| //__\\
// \\// \\ \\__|| \\___// \\__// ||| \\___
// //
\_// \_//
Marjorie J. Clarke Environmental Scientist and Consultant
Address: mclarke@shiva.hunter.cuny.edu
New York City Phone & Fax: 212-567-8272
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 9 Dec 1996 23:08:58 -0500
From: STEVESUESS@aol.com
Subject: More Greenhouse Stuff
The following is from the Sierra Club Bulletin, but first: As I've said
before, my father is the first scientist to publish a paper showing that we
are indeed having an impact on the CO2 level of our atmosphere (1956), and
thus I grew up being bathed in thic topic. One thing my father predicted
back in the 60's, was that while a few degrees increae in worldwide average
temperature may not be readily noticed in our day to day lives, what one
would notice is the increased energy in the weather system from that extra
heat. This excess energy would take the form of rapidly changing weather
patterns and more violent weather patterns.
My point is that there are hundreds of predictions made by scientists
since the 60's and earlier....any of which if they came to pss would lead to
cataclysmic impacts on our society, the costs of which will dwarf anything we
consider in our feeble attempts to "externalize" our costs of being here!
The likely hood of any of these predictions is not easy to calculate, so
which potential event to put into our externalizing of environmental costs of
our industry is even harder.....yet by not doing so, or by only putting in
what people are willing to pay, we essentially do not externalize these costs
at all!
You may not kow it, but ZERO WASTE is an integral part of creating a
sustainable society where such potential events is minimized. To get there
we MUST work together to change the way we do business, and the very way we
think about business!
ON THE HILL: ENVIRONMENTAL HERO HOSTS GLOBAL WARMING ROUNDTABLE
Yesterday, Senator Joe Lieberman hosted a roundtable discussion
on global warming. Scientists from around the nation discussed
evidence that global warming is already underway, and its
possible impact on our future.
Dr. Tom Karl of the National Climate Data Center was one of the
roundtable participants. He discussed evidence that global
climate change is already underway. Though the average yearly
temperature of the US has already risen 1 degree Fahrenheit in
the last 100 years, he cautioned that things may be worse than
they appear. Temperatures in many areas of the west, midwest,
and northeast are as much as 3 degrees warmer today than they
were 100 years ago. The speed with which these changes have
occurred is unprecedented.
Dr. Karl has also found that more of the rain and snow that falls
in the US is falling in extreme weather events. This trend leads
to huge blizzards or rainstorms in the winter that often lead to
flooding. Summers, however, have become more and more dry. Many
parts of the nation now experience a "double whammy" from flooding
in the winter and droughts in the summer. This new pattern of
weather events is beginning to severely impact agriculture,
wetlands, and wildlife and will only increase as global
temperatures rise.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 09 Dec 1996 10:56:39 -0600
From: George Dreckmann <GDRECKMANN@ci.madison.wi.us>
Subject: National consumer boycott of PETE soft drink bottles
Hi,
Attached are my musings on the current state of PETE recycling. I think
that the situation demands immiedate action in the form of a consumer
boycott of PETE soft drink bottles until such time as legislatures have
enacted minimum content requirements for PETE.
I'd appreciate your opinions on this matter and appreciate even more
your joining in the effort.
Pax,
George Dreckmann
President, Associated Recyclers of Wisconsin
Recycling Coordinator, City of Madison
Attachment Converted: C:\INTERACT\data\download\MOREPETE.DOC
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 9 Dec 1996 15:04:47 CDT
From: "John Reindl 608-267-8815" <reindl@co.dane.wi.us>
Subject: States with landfill moratoria
Becky Herman said in part:
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it against the interstate commerce
> clause of the constitution to say no to landfills and incinerators? My
> understanding is, you can place regulations on them, but that's it,
> because trash is considered a commodity. Anyhow, what NH has done to has
Becky -
Not being a lawyer, I can't be sure about all the fine points, but I
don't see a constitutional problem at all in outright bans/moratoria.
For example, Wisconsin outright banned yard waste from landfills,
regardless of the source. There was no constitutional challenge. Waste
both from in-state and out-of-state must be free from yard waste.
Where we did get on the wrong side of the constitution was with our
`effective recycling program' requirements, where we said that in order
for any entity in a community to use a Wisconsin landfill, all entities
in that community must follow recycling requirements, whether the waste
comes to the Wisconsin landfill or not. In this case, the Federal court
said that we violated the Commerce Clause by trying to affect waste
that doesn't come to our fine state.
So far, my search has found that Massachusetts (and perhaps a few other
states) currently have moratoria in place. When I talked to a gentleman
with the state of Massachusetts, he said that the moratorium was put
into place because addtional landfill space was not needed as defined
by the state plan. He also said that they did not have any legal
challenges.
Thanks for writing; I hope this responses to your query.
John Reindl, Recycling Manager
Dane County, Wisconsin
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 09 Dec 1996 11:29:29 -0500
From: "Marjorie J. Clarke" <mclarke@shiva.hunter.cuny.edu>
Subject: The power to tax, vs. user fees
I view the following discourse a bit differently from those below:
> I agree that corporations are fundamentally different
>>> than public sector operators. The public sector always has the power to
>>> tax if they misjudged earlier computations.
>
>>Just a brief note on this last sentence. One of the problems that we
>>counties in Wisconsin face is that our taxing power for solid waste
>>management was seriously curtailed by some legislation passed a number
>>of years ago by a coalition of the waste companies and local
>>municipalities. Under the interpretation of many county legal staff,
>>most counties cannot use property taxes to fund solid waste systems.
>
>++ In California the passage of Prop 218 is in the process of the changing
>the way the "power to tax" is available.... increased refuse-related taxes,
>assessments or property-related fees now require a vote of the people of at
>least 51%...Some types of fees will require 63%....the court challenges are
>lining up....but it is already impacting the way the City Council here is
>doing business....and was recently used as a justification for privatizing
>curbside in a way where the public sector could not bid against the private
>sector.
Garbage taxes are the bane of those attempting to educate the public on
waste prevention. We don't question that our next door neighbor who may
consume twice as much electricity or water should be charged accordingly,
but in those places (like here in NYC) where we are all taxed equally for
garbage services, we don't see that this arrangement does nothing to
encourage materials conservation (otherwise known as source reduction,
reuse, and recycling). That Wisconsin and three other states have passed
legislation to do away with a flat tax for a service that each person or
household uses differently and replaces it with a fee for service (pay as
you throw) is a GOOD thing. If you have to pay double for setting out two
garbage cans, vs. one, and it costs you little or nothing to put out a
recycling can, you recycle more. If you get educated about waste
prevention, you then also start buying less packaging, you buy more
recyclable stuff, more durable stuff, fewer disposables; you start borrowing
stuff, renting stuff, etc... Get the picture? EPA's report of a couple of
years ago said that in the 2800 communities that already practice Pay as You
Throw, the increase in waste prevention and recycling is upwards of 25-45%
of the waste stream. Lisa Skumatz' recent report on increasing recycling
diversion rates points to institution of quantity-based user fees as the
single largest factor in increasing recycling diversion rates. So, this is
the single largest method of practicing the 3R's. The Waste Prevention
Committee (part of the Manhattan citizens' solid waste advisory board),
which I chair, has advocated this for years. I see no problem with changing
our taxation structures and replacing them with this sort of user fee.
__ __
//\\ //\\ _ ___ __ o __
// \\ // \\ // \\ // \\ // \\ ||| //__\\
// \\// \\ \\__|| \\___// \\__// ||| \\___
// //
\_// \_//
Marjorie J. Clarke Environmental Scientist and Consultant
Address: mclarke@shiva.hunter.cuny.edu
New York City Phone & Fax: 212-567-8272
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 9 Dec 1996 10:45:33 CDT
From: "John Reindl 608-267-8815" <reindl@co.dane.wi.us>
Subject: The power to tax, vs. user fees
Marjorie J. Clarke wrote in part:
> reuse, and recycling). That Wisconsin and three other states have passed
> legislation to do away with a flat tax for a service that each person or
This is not really correct for Wisconsin. Wisconsin law for counties
has been interpreted as preventing those counties who do not both
operate effective recycling programs and solid waste collection and
disposal programs from using the property tax for any solid waste
services.
In most places in Wisconsin, the local government (town, villages,
cities -- of which there are some 1700) operate or contract for either
\recycling programs or collection or disposal. It is in these
situations that the counties appear unable to use property taxes to pay
for any solid waste services, such as composting, waste reduction and
reuse, household hazardous waste management, solid waste planning, etc.
On the other hand, the towns, villages and cities are completely
able to use property taxes for solid waste services. Few however, have
comprehensive systems, and instead only manage recycling and
collection/disposal.
Further, while Wisconsin has a mandate that communities that don't
recycle at least 25% of their waste must impose volume based fees to
cover essentially all of their costs, a current Legislative Council
committee is recommending removal of this mandate, while still
encouraging volume based fees where appropriate.
One of our big challenges now is to move into comprehensive or
integrated solid waste management (probably on a regional basis) and
finding funding or other mechanisms to implement such a system.
John Reindl, Recycling Manager
Dane County, WI
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 09 Dec 1996 11:05:21 -0600
From: George Dreckmann <GDRECKMANN@ci.madison.wi.us>
Subject: The power to tax, vs. user fees -Reply
Regarding users fees for refuse collection:
Please remember that threre is a fundamental difference between refuse
fees and electric fees. Refuse can be disposed of in other means that
theought he legal paid by fee system. While those of us who are part of
this list are not inclined to illegal dumping, may are.
You also have problems with burning in rural areas and in fire places in
urban settings.
I believe that there are a study done in North Carolina that could not
account for a significant portion of the trash that "left the waste stream"
after a volume based fee was imposed. I suspect that most of this was
burned or dumped.
Do I support volume based fees, in practice yes. However, they are not
a universal solution and I don't know how they can be advocated in large
urban areas with significant poor populations.
One more note, Wisconsin's law doesn't mandate volume based fees.
The language says they must be used if a community fails to get a
recycling rate of 25%, which almost all will as yard waste is included in
the 25%.
It is also likely that this language will be removed from our recycling law
in the next session of the legislature because it cannot be fairly
implimented.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 9 Dec 1996 11:51:08 CDT
From: "John Reindl 608-267-8815" <reindl@co.dane.wi.us>
Subject: VBFs have problems too
George Dreckmann said in part -
> Please remember that threre is a fundamental difference between refuse
> fees and electric fees. Refuse can be disposed of in other means that
> theought he legal paid by fee system. While those of us who are part of
> this list are not inclined to illegal dumping, may are.
>
> You also have problems with burning in rural areas and in fire places in
> urban settings.
>
> I believe that there are a study done in North Carolina that could not
> account for a significant portion of the trash that "left the waste stream"
> after a volume based fee was imposed. I suspect that most of this was
> burned or dumped.
George's memory is pretty much correct. As noted in Frank Ackerman's
soon-to-be-published book, "Why Do You Recycle?", he notes in the
chapter `Getting the Prices Wrong", there is both the above problem
(Frank quotes a study from Charlottsville, VA, however) and the lack
of effectiveness of volume based fees (low elasticity of demand).
Also, unfortunately, I have not seen any good studies that compare --
and with looking at the details -- mandatory recycling programs
with VBF programs. Since many programs in Wisconsin are already at the
40-50% recovery rate (and higher if diversion is looked at) -- a rate
often touted for VBFs --- a comprehensive comparison would be valuable.
In addition, my opinion is that there is far too much focus on
household waste, which is less than 20% of all landfilled waste in
Wisconsin. I believe we should start paying much more attention to the
other 80%, most of which is already subject to volume based fees, and
for which other approaches are needed to effect meaningful diversion.
John Reindl,
Dane County, WI
------------------------------
End of GreenYes Digest V96 #44
******************************