Today's Topics:
(Fwd) FW: Industrial eco-parks
waste prevention
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: Sat, 16 Nov 1996 11:38:45 CDT
From: "John Reindl 608-267-8815" <reindl@co.dane.wi.us>
Subject: (Fwd) FW: Industrial eco-parks
From: Otto Andersen[SMTP:Otto.Andersen@vf.hisf.no]
Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 1996 4:00 AM
To: Multiple recipients of list ECDM
Subject: Industrial eco-parks
I am interested in the potential for establishing industrial ecosystems
(eco-parks) in regional areas of Norway, and what the transport-related
consequences would be. Can anyone guide me with some references that might
be useful in this work ?
Thank you in advance,
********************************************
Otto Andersen
Vestlandsforsking (Western Norway Research Institute)
Euro Info Centre No-623
P.O. Box 163
5801 Sogndal, Norway
Tel: + 47 57 67 61 71
Fax: + 47 57 67 61 90
e-mail: oan@vf.hisf.no
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 16 Nov 1996 12:17:16 CDT
From: "John Reindl 608-267-8815" <reindl@co.dane.wi.us>
Subject: waste prevention
Richard -
I know how particular you are with definitions, but I must strongly
disagree with calling composting and recycling waste prevention.
The waste (or material, if you will) was not prevented from being
created, therefore I do not believe that it should be called
prevention.
As an example, If I buy a newspaper and then either recycle it or
compost it, I still consumed a newspaper. To prevent the use of the
material, I would need to not buy/consume that newspaper. This, is my
mind, is true waste /material consumption prevention, while recycling
and composting are methods to divert the waste from landfills, etc.
John Reindl, Recycling Manager
Dane County, WI
>
> 1. Waste prevention should include composting and recycling, rather than
> exclude them.
>
> It seems that a number of source reduction advocates want to position
> composting and recycling as methods of "disposal" or methods to handle
> "waste." Referring to source reduction as "waste prevention" (or "waste
> reduction") implies that compost and recycling feedstocks are "waste." I
view
> these as the by-products of landscaping or consumption. Waste prevention and
> waste reduction should include composting and recycling. Otherwise, this
> becomes problematic to the compost and recycling industries for a number of
> reasons -- e.g., economic impacts (e.g., processing costs and product
> revenues), product market development, effectiveness of source separation,
and
> regulatory burdens. Furthermore, the draft policy statement refers to the
> "disposal marketplace," "Discards are ... subject to disposal," and "Disposal
> includes any method of reuse, recycling, composting, or wasting." By
referring
> to all of these management methods as "disposal," there is no distinction
> between conservation/recovery and burying. I hope I am not the only one
> troubled by this choice of words coming from supporters of source reduction,
> composting, and recycling.
>
------------------------------
End of GreenYes Digest V96 #24
******************************