Re: More Thoughts on Our Messages
Fri, 22 Jan 1999 16:24:02 -0500

[forwarded from Gary Liss]


I like your direction. I believe these messages will not be embraced by
those corporate leaders who have stymied progressive action at the NRC.
Therefore, by adopting this aggressive position we can provide an
alternative to the NRC and work to build the grassroots support group that we
have been striving for, without distraction from those who would seek to slow
us down. At the same time, it will make the NRC look "middle of the road"
and enhance their credibility. If we play it right (don't call for the
dissolution of the NRC through our efforts but rather increase the pressure
on NRC to be more active in advocacy where they have documented membership
support), we may be able to get the NRC to be more aggressive itself,
especially on those issues which the Advocacy Message Subcommittee just
documented SROs support (e.g. elimination of corporate subsidies).

I like your message of Make Wasting Pay. However, the syntax is slightly
off. I get confused in reading it - it sounds like we want to encourage
people to waste!!???!? I think a slight change might help: "Make Wasters
Pay" or just adopt the words from Pollution Prevention talk: "Make Polluters
Pay." I like "Make Wasters Pay" the best.

bill sez: Make Wasters Pay sounds good to me. I think it is strong because
polls show that while middle America is repelled by dire environmental talk,
they are responding strongly to corporate greed/responsibility messages.

I still believe that of all the broad messages, the one priority which we
could actually impact uniquely this year is the elimination of corporate
subsidies. I don't know how long the current window of opportunity will
remain open on this issue. Now is the time to coalesce all those who
understand this issue to have a dramatic showdown this fall in Congress,
which will test the resolve of both Presidential candidates, and might
actually lead to significant changes and reforms. As Dave Kirkpatrick and
Ron Schweitzer have recently so well documented, there are a wide range of
subsidies that could be targeted. We should agree on a targeted list of
subsidies, draft legislation, and get progressive and conservative Democrats
and Republicans to support them. If we get rid of only one of the many
subsidies, we can make great political hay of that, and that will position us
extremely well for the next Administration and Congress.

I think our position paper on Make Wasters Pay should be clear and specific
on this issue of eliminating corporate subsidies to launch this campaign.


Regarding waste facility subsidies, in California regulations, there is a
perpetual care financial requirement already adopted into law. From your
recent writings, it sounds like all you are trying to do on that issue is
get the California State Water Resources Board requirement to be a federal

bill sez: the language is a good start, but the financial instruments
do not provide for perpetual care.

Charlene Herbst is the Branch Manager of the CA Integrated
Waste Management Board for Closure and Remediation. She may be able to
provide you with details on that. She can be reached at 916-255-2301.

Regarding interstate waste, I think we should support the right to say no to
out-of-state waste and to support the principle of local responsibility for
disposing waste. I'm not sure it's a good idea to oppose waste exporting

bill sez: i agree.

Gary Liss