Today's Topics:
CA Legislative agenda in '97, fee for service and Prop 218
GreenYes Digest V96 #17
recycle more/ redue, reuse
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: Fri, 8 Nov 1996 08:40:20 -0800 (PST)
From: "William P. McGowan" <6500kai@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu>
Subject: CA Legislative agenda in '97, fee for service and Prop 218
Gang,
Since Tuesday I have received a number of phone calls from
recyclers and C&D folks who are being threatened by their local haulers,
who are waving the San Marcos decision in their host city's faces and
claiming that haulers have a right to EVERYTHING that can not be
collectd, processed, and sold with no net cost to the generator. In
particular, a C&D hauler in Pleasanton is being threatened with a lawsuit
by a hauler who wants to take the C&D stuff to the landfill.
The passage of 218 may be our opportunity, however, as cities
that are trying to generate new revenues in light of the voters decision
Tuesday may be more open than ever to talk to recyclers williung to pay a
modest fee to operate in their cities. I would propose that any effort
we make to achieve the ZERO WASTE goal be tied into greater clarifiaction
of the Rancho Mirage decision's wording "haulers have no exclusive
right over material generated by a firm/individual where the generator
recievs payment or other consideration"--we should make "other
consideration" include transportation or processing costs that are lower
than the cost of landfilling.
The C&D guy in Pleasanton has the support of some major
developers and this may help significantly, since cities are going to
need developement fees more than ever.
A legislative workshop emphasizing these points might help......
Bill McGowan
Rincon Recycling
805-658-6525
------------------------------
Date: 09 Nov 96 06:05:49 EST
From: Peter J Doyle <100622.2324@CompuServe.COM>
Subject: GreenYes Digest V96 #17
The debate about Jim Poll's question is surely much wider than many think.
Recycling material goods requires that they are purchased in the first place by
consumers. Perhaps what is really needed is a drive towards 'sustainable
consumerism'. (That ought to appeal to citizens of the affluent west).
The ideals of sustainable consumerism could include:
1. Not buying inessential consumer goods ( and widgets);
2. Not buying goods from distant sources if these are available from more local
sources - avoiding transport and perhaps some packaging costs;
3. Ensuring that the consumer goods that we do buy are repairable and as long
lasting as possible;
4. Finding alternative uses for worn-out goods and only recycling them if such
alternatives are unavailable.
Peter Doyle
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 1996 15:41:28 -0500
From: Infinrecy@aol.com
Subject: recycle more/ redue, reuse
In the reduse points made, there have been some responses stating that reduce
may hurt the economy. I can't help but think that if it were a common
practice for businesses to offer discounts on beverages for people with their
own cups and on grocery bills to people who bring their own bags, these
savings would trickle somewhere else in the economy leaving us with no net
loss and maybe a gain in the GPI.
------------------------------
End of GreenYes Digest V96 #18
******************************