Re[2]: RESPOND: Proposed GRN Message

jennie.alvernaz@sfsierra.sierraclub.org
Fri, 22 Jan 1999 16:22:11 -0500


Dave, Thanks for the feedback. See responses below. -Bill S.

>While the attacks are deadly serious, they may also be a godsend.
>It is time we got stirred up and angry. Recycling has been
>increasingly dominated by large corporations that want, first and
>foremost, to continue high rates of consumption and wasting.

NOT QUITE - WMX, BFI, ETC. WANT TO SEE MORE HAULING,
DISPOSAL AND RECYCLING BUZ. TO INCREASE REVS AND
PROFITS. WEYERHAUSER, SMURFIT, REYNOLDS, ETC. WANT
TO SEE MORE CONSUMPTION, BUT NOT NECESSARILY MORE
WASTING - THEY ARE HEAVILY INVESTED IN USING
RECYCLING AS A FEEDSTOCK. SOME OF THESE CORPORATIONS
ARE PULLING IN THE SAME DIRECTION WE ARE - ESPECIALLY
IN TERMS OF INCREASING RECOVERY RATES.

>>> I believe WMX & BFI are reluctant players in recycling: they
do it because they have to to keep market share; given that they
want to control recycling and keep it DOWN because the big
money is in wasting. Your point about Smurfit et al. is well taken.
How about this?:

Recycling has been increasingly dominated by large corporations:
waste haulers that want, first and foremost, to continue high
rates of wasting, and recycling processors who benefit from high
rates of consumption.

>Recycling hype is used to hide the fact that we are consuming more
>than ever and that recycling has not significantly reduced wasting
>nationwide. There is a real opportunity here to free
>recycling from the shackles of *waste management* and lay out a
>vision for 3 R's as an ALTERNATIVE to wasting

>>> -- AND TO REDESIGN SOLID WASTE SYSTEMS FROM THE GROUND UP AS
RECOVERY AND REDUCTION SYSTEMS.

>If we can be honest enough with ourselves to admit that some of
>recycling IS inefficient and ineffective, perhaps we can turn the
>question around and ask, Why should recycling have to compete
>with massive subsidies for virgin materials, LANDFILLING AND
INCINERATION.

(HERSHKOWITZ AT NRDC HAS ARGUED THAT THE LOCAL
GOV'T SUNK COSTS AND SUBSIDIES IN SOLID WASTE COLL.,
AND DISPOSAL SYSTEMS ARE ACTUALLY A MUCH GREATER
SUBSIDY FOR WASTING THAN VIRGIN SUBSIDIES. WITH THESE
SUNK INVESTMENTS, A NEW RECYCLING AND REDUCTION PROGRAM
REPRESENTS AN ADDITIONAL MARGINAL COST. WE NEED INSTEAD
TO REDESIGN SOLID WASTE SYSTEMS AS RECOVERY AND REDUCTION
SYSTEMS FROM THE GROUND UP - PROBABLY AT TRANSITION
PERIODS WHEN A NEW TRUCK FLEET IS NEEDED OR A LOCAL LANDFILL
IS CLOSED.)

>>>Interesting to compare subsidies. Has Hershkowitz published this?

? Why is so little being
>done to prevent waste and harness the social and local economic
>benefits of reuse and recycling? How can resource extremists and
>free-market libertarians masquerading as conservatives promote
>wasting? We are the true conservatives!
>
>
>If you agree that the time is ripe for advocating more -- not less --
>resource conservation, you may want to subscribe to the GreenYes
>email listserve. This is an open (unmoderated) discussion forum
>focusing on policies and strategies needed to advance sustainable
>resource policies. It is hosted by the Grassroots Recycling
>Network, a new coalition of 3 Rs and wasting activists in the U.S.
>Come learn more at our next meeting, to be held during the National
>Recycling Congress in Pittsburgh, September 16 - 18. Beyond that,
>we are working on convening a winter conference for grassroots
>3 Rs activists to set a national resource agenda for the next 15 years.
>
>To subscribe to the GreenYes listserve, send the following email
>message to: listserve@ucsd.edu (leaving the subject header blank):
> add greenyes
>(Post messages by sending them to greenyes@uscd.edu)
>
>For information on the Grassroots Recycling Network, send an
>email to: ...
>or call:
>
>
----------------------
David Kirkpatrick
KirkWorks
Post Office Box 15062
Durham, NC 27704-0062

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

Dkirkwks@igc.apc.org