GreenYes Digest V96 #6

GreenYes Mailing List and Newsgroup (greenyes@UCSD.EDU)
Fri, 22 Jan 1999 16:13:11 -0500

GreenYes Digest Fri, 25 Oct 96 Volume 96 : Issue 6

Today's Topics:
Consumption Taxes
Fwd: recycled products
ISWM (Zero Waste?) for Wisconsin
methane production (fwd)
New Papers from Yale Working Papers on Solid Waste Policy
RECYCLE digest 333
Source Reduction Mandates
Wanted: Growing Recycling Cos. Seeking Financing

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

Date: Thu, 24 Oct 1996 12:47:58 -0400
Subject: Consumption Taxes

I came cross the following piece in a "tax reform" e-mail newsletter
regarding the fact that "consumption" taxes are regressive and thus
unpopular. Since a big part of what we are proposing is to do away with
virgin subsidies, tax things that are "bad" in a green way, etc.....then
these are somewhat regressive taxes.
Anyone have any comments on how this can better be handled?

>Citizens for Tax Justice and Archer Disagree on Consumption Taxes

Robert McIntyre of Citizens for Tax Justice, in Insight (9-23-96), states
that all consumption tax proposals "inevitably translate into huge tax cuts
for rich people and big tax hikes for the middle class and the poor." House
Ways and Means chair Archer, in the same publication, asserts that only
consumption taxes are true to the five basic principles for an ideal tax
code: fairness (based on how much one spends); attacking the underground
economy; encouraging savings and investment; improving the balance of
trade; and eliminating corporate income taxation. Tax Notes 10/7/96, p.


Date: Thu, 24 Oct 1996 15:07:03 -0400
Subject: Fwd: recycled products

Forwarded message:
Date: 96-10-24 02:30:47 EDT

Hi All!

Greetings from Africa, and our very special Rainbow Nation, South Africa!

We are seeking both producers and buyers of recycled products, from both the
"First" and "Third" worlds...

We hope to network with such persons, and see if we cannot help develop
markets for recycled products.

Your kind assiatance will be greatly appreciated.

Kind Regards
Mr. Muna Lakhani

Cellfax: 082-131-416-9160


Date: Thu, 24 Oct 1996 18:58:43 CDT
From: "John Reindl 608-267-8815" <>
Subject: ISWM (Zero Waste?) for Wisconsin

Dear List Members -

I would greatly appreciate the help of any of you with suggestions for
turning our goals and theories of mimizing waste generation and disposal
into reality here in Wisconsin.

Our Legislature has apppointed a special committee to revise our mandatory
recycling law -- which includes a long list of items, both from the residential
and commercial sector -- to go the next step or steps further. At our last
meeting, the committee has agreed by and large to the principals of
using financial incentives and technical assistance to move towards
consolidation of municipal recycling programs, and to encourage and
assist the development of integrated solid waste management plans
and systems at a county or multi-county level. But as one
of the committee members said ,`the devil is in the details', and we have
until about November 10th to put these details together to send out to the
other committee members for their review on the 19th of November.

We will be looking at the Iowa program, and trying to gather as much
detail as we can from California, Nebraska and the Swedish MIME model.

Other input is needed, however, starting with what are our goals. One
member of the committee thinks it should be to produce the lowest system
possible -- another privately suggested that this could imply just
throwing out the window -- another wants to set specific state minimum
standards, and leave it at that, another would like to divert all
that is possible from landfills with little regard for price; most
committee members have been rather quiet, and at least tenatively

Beyond goals, there are then the details on the use of NRC's Full Cost
Accounty, how much power to give to government versus
non-government entities to implement the system, how to
finance the systems, etc. One concern of one of the business
representatives is that he doesn't want government, especially local
government, banning the sale of products that are hard to recycle.

One thought that has popped up is to do some demonstration systems of ISWM
before pushing the entire state into such systems.

Your thoughts would be most appreciated.

For those of you would like to follow the work of this committee, the
background and option papers are being placed on the Internet at under
"Legislative council Staff materials" under the Special Committee on the
Future of Recycling.

Thanks much!

John Reindl, Recycling Manager
Dane County Department of Public Works


Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1996 06:12:37 -0500 (CDT)
From: "O.O.A.S.I.S., Inc." <>
Subject: methane production (fwd)

O.O.A.S.I.S., Inc. (
Cruelty-free Sustainable Agriculture and Food Relief
If possible, please add this link to your website.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1996 05:57:23 -0500 (CDT)
From: "O.O.A.S.I.S., Inc." <>
To: Alternative Energy Discussion List <AE@SJSUVM1.BITNET>
Subject: Re: methane production

To whom it may concern,

There is a national organization that hands out plans for methane
digesters small scale. There number and address are:


P.O. BOX 2525

BUTTE, MONTANA 59702-2525


in montana 1-800-428-1718

They were very helpful and sent me all kinds of information about
this sort of thing. Hopefully, they are still open.



O.O.A.S.I.S., Inc. (
Cruelty-free Sustainable Agriculture and Food Relief
If possible, please add this link to your website.


Date: Thu, 24 Oct 1996 14:53:28 -0400 (EDT)
From: Reid Lifset <>
Subject: New Papers from Yale Working Papers on Solid Waste Policy

To the members of the GREENYES list,

I am writing to let you know that the Yale Program on Solid Waste
Policy has recently issued two new papers in its Working Paper Series.

PROCESSES examines the financial and environmental feasibility of recycling
plastic wastes using chemical technologies. Tertiary recycling, as this
approach is called, evokes strong =97 and differing =97 opinions in industry=
environmental circles. T. Randall Curlee and Sujit Das of the Oak Ridge
National Laboratory, two leading experts in the economics and technology of
plastics recycling, ask under what circumstances it makes sense to recycle
plastics by chemical means. And do those conditions exist today?

WASTE by Geoffrey Godbey of Pennsylvania State University, a leading scholar
of time use, addresses the changing attitudes of individuals toward
consumption and waste generation in light of changing demographics and work
and family life. It describes how the changing roles of men and women in
the household and in empoyment have shaped the products that we purchase and
consume and how that in turn alters the waste that we discard.

For information on ordering any of the papers, please visit the
Program's web page at or send e-mail to Abstracts of the papers are also available via e-mail.

The Yale Program on Solid Waste Policy, a research and teaching unit
of the School of Forestry and Environmental Studies at Yale University,
publishes the Working Paper Series on Solid Waste Policy to fill in critical
gaps in research and analysis and to advance the policy debate in solid
waste management.

Please excuse any multiple or cross-postings of this announcement.

Thank you for your interest,
Reid Lifset
Editor, and Associate Director
Working Papers on Solid Waste Policy

Program on Solid Waste Policy
School of Forestry and Environmental Studies
Yale University
205 Prospect Street
New Haven,CT 06511-2106
203-432-3253 (telephone)
203-432-5912 (fax)


Date: Thu, 24 Oct 1996 12:47:47 -0400
Subject: RECYCLE digest 333

Hello all:
re John Reindl and what is Waste Managment.
Although I've always enjoyed John and others ability to carefully
disect, define and catorgarize all the components of a given topic, I
sometimes feel this sets a trap.
In a way I'd like to see Waste management be one of those topics that
eventually fades away into nothing the way communism promised, and not take
over what will become the entire raw materials stream for future industry the
way communism actually took over everything it could. I know that John is an
avid supporter of recycling and other alternatives to landfilling and
incineraton and so if pushing in what I perciee as the right direction.
I am one of those proponents of ZERO WASTE. I am a manufacturer whose
raw materials come out of the waste stream, and I would ultimately like to
see a society where all raw materials comes out of a cyclical path such as
bio mass, recycling, reuse, etc. (How to get there and how long that will
take I do not pretend to know, but as the Program Chair of the 1998 CRRA
annual conference {Monterey June 1-3, 1998} on ZERO WASTE I am certainly
looking to make this a big topic for discussion.)
Ultimately as both a businessman who is very nervous about governments
tendency towards "command and control" and also an environmentalist who is
well aware that good business is all too often bad for the environment or a
sustainable society, I look towards a government that sets rules that provide
incentives and disincentives rather than controls, mandates, and huge
burocratic monsters that are all to often impossible for most of us to
I've often asked the question: Why do we need all of this?
Instead of huge Integrated Waste Management Boards consuming hundred of
jobs and millions of dollars, why can't we simply have a set of taxes such as
Landfill taxes (as in Arkansas), virgin material taxes, advance desposal
fees, and incentives such as reuse credits?
The mandate route leads to a backlash such as we are seeing in
California right now. I've aid this before and here goes again: Mandates
piss people off and make them mad at you - and right now all too many local
waste management juristictions in California are pissed off at our 50%
diversion mandate because of the fines they threaten! The danger here is
that the baby will be thrown out with the water. Gary Liss had a good
messege related to this topic in RecycleDigest 333.
I am a supporter of government owning ALL landfills because afterall the
obligation to monitor and safeguard a landfill will go on long after most
businesses cease to eventually it will fall to the government
anyway! Let the government run all landfills and let the government announce
that there will be no new ones! When the current ones are full, well that's
that! Prices to landfill will rise which will also help find alternatives to
In the arena of hauling, setting up and running MRF's, etc. I think
government - Local, State, and Federal - ought to get out of the way and let
business sort it out. Sure you can make sure the trucks are suitable and
properly run, as are facilities, etc.....but why all the complicated
burocrasy we currently have? I understand the history of how it came to be,
but except for certain areas - perhaps some rural areas - I really feel that
there is enough business and money to be made for a good healthy industry to
take over.
Anyone out there want to take me on and show me why we need government
here at all???? (Remember part of this challenge includes having government
owned landfills and a suitable tax structure and other rules to encourage


Date: Thu, 24 Oct 96 17:30:24 -0500
From: Peter Anderson <>


[1] "Instead of huge Integrated Waste Management Boards consuming hundred of
jobs and millions of dollars, why can't we simply have a set of taxes such
as Landfill taxes (as in Arkansas), virgin material taxes, advance desposal
fees, and incentives such as reuse credits?"

PETER ANDERSON REPLIES: Beware jumping from the frying pan into the fire.
What you say sounds nice in theory. In reality, those kinds of laws go
through congressional and state house tax writing committees. These are (i)
the entities most overwhelming corrupted by millions of dollars of campaign
contributions by special business interests and (ii) legislative language
crafting taxes are by def
inition convoluted and beyond public understanding. The probable result is
to leap into a system where you will have ZERO influence and ZERO ability to
rally the troops to fight back.


[2] " I am a supporter of government owning ALL landfills because afterall
the obligation to monitor and safeguard a landfill will go on long after
most businesses cease to eventually it will fall to the
government anyway!"

PETER ANDERSON REPLIES: Excellent point. What you describe is a prime
example of 'lemon socialism.' Private entities take the profit before the
piper must be paid and then hand the ball off to government to take it when
there are no more revenues and just mamouth expenditures.


[3] "I am a supporter of government owning ALL landfills because afterall
the obligation to monitor and safeguard a landfill will go on long after most
businesses cease to exist"

PETER ANDERSON REPLIES: Just as in the 1930's when TVA set a bench mark for
private power pricing, it may well be important to have a balance between
public and private hauling, especially in the waste industry. Remember that
NYC planned to reap enormous savings when it privatized commerical carting
in 1957. As we all know, it didn't exactly work out the way economic
theorists planned.

As an economist myself, I can say that the profession is a bane to
civilization when it is blithely blinded by sweet theory and ignores sloppy
and uncomfortable reality.


Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1996 03:42:33 -0400
Subject: Source Reduction Mandates

Hi, Everybody,

With apologies to those who are also on CRRA's list-serve, who have already
seen this:

Does any government other than Alameda County (CA) have a mandate for source
reduction? Alameda's law requires purchasers to source reduce their paper
purchases by 15% by 2000.

They would like to share ideas with other governments (local govs, in
particular) that either have requirements or are seriously pursuing source
reduction goals. If you send e-mail to me, I'll get it to the right people
there. Thanks!

Susan Kinsella


Date: 24 Oct 96 20:13:46 EDT
From: Nigel S Savage <103007.613@CompuServe.COM>
Subject: unsubscribe

unsubscribe greenyes.
please unsubscribe me.
thank you.


Date: Thu, 24 Oct 1996 20:04:53 -0700 (PDT)
From: "David A. Kirkpatrick" <>
Subject: Wanted: Growing Recycling Cos. Seeking Financing

The Second Annual SOUTHEAST RECYCLING INVESTMENT FORUM is scheduled for:


The Forum is being hosted by the SC Recycling Market Development Advisory
Council with support from US EPA Region IV. Forum partners include
KirkWorks, the NC Recycling Business Assistance Center and the Southern
States Waste Management Coalition.

Recycling companies from the Southeastern region (including AL, AR, FL, GA,
KY, LA, MO, NC, OK, SC, TN, TX, VA, WV, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands)
seeking additional capital for expansion are invited to apply. Business
COMMITTEE BY NOVEMBER 30. Attendees to the forum will include individual
investors, venture capital firms, corporate investors, economic developers,
recycling officials, and governmental financing program officials.

To request a business application form or registration brochure, contact:
Shelly Carson, SC Department of Commerce, (V) 803/737-0239 (Fax)
803/737-0418, (Email) "Shelly Carson c/o" <>

Other upcoming regional forums include:

Contact: Mary Ann Remolador, Northeast Recycling Council, (V) 802/254-3636,
(Fax) 802/254-5870, (Email)

Contact: Ms. Kimberly Newell, (V) 402/471-3766, (Fax) 402/471-3778, (Email)

Please forward this message to appropriate persons or lists. My apologies
for duplicate posting for those who subscribe to both
and Greenyes@UCSD.EDU.

David Kirkpatrick
Post Office Box 15062
Durham, NC 27704-0062

919/220-8065 (Voice)
919/220-9720 (Fax)


End of GreenYes Digest V96 #6

$*$*$*$*$ 1 LINE REFORMATTED BY POPPER AT $*$*$*$*$