GreenYes Digest V97 #97

GreenYes Mailing List and Newsgroup (
Fri, 22 Jan 1999 16:52:52 -0500

GreenYes Digest Sat, 3 May 97 Volume 97 : Issue 97

Today's Topics:
(Fwd) Re: HHW
A summary of the World (2 msgs)
Business Environmental Awards for SF Bay Area
EPR for Plastics: Does it work? (2 msgs)
GreenYes Digest V97 #93 (2 msgs)
Local article on PETE
Re[2]: A Summary of the World
Wayne Fenton

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: Fri, 2 May 1997 09:40:58 -0600
From: "John Reindl 608-267-8815" <>
Subject: (Fwd) Re: HHW

Hi List Members -

If any of you have any relevant information on HHW, could you please
forward it directly to Kit Strange, the editor of the Warmer Bulletin?

Thanks much for your help.

John Reindl, Recycling Manager
Dane County, WI

------- Forwarded Message Follows -------
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 1997 21:23:57 +0100
From: Kit Strange <>
Subject: Re: HHW


Hazardous household wastes

The European Commission has proposed changes in current legislation on
hazardous wastes, to require the separate collection of household hazardous

I am very keen to learn more about current practice in different countries,
with a view to writing a feature for the next issue of our magazine 'Warmer
Bulletin'. I would be very glad of your help, if at all possible.

Do you have any national or regional or local policy (or laws) relating to
the household hazardous wastes? If so, at what level (national or regional
or local) do they apply and what is their nature (do they specify
collection and labelling systems?).
Do you have any notable systems in place? If so, are they based on delivery
('bring') or kerbside collection systems?

I would be very grateful for any data you might have to hand, during the
next few days if at all possible.

Many thanks,

Kit Strange


other useful email contacts at the World Resource Foundation

World Resource Foundation Tel +44 1732 368 333
Bridge House Fax +44 1732
368 337
High Street, Tonbridge
Kent TN9 1DP England
(608)267-1533 - fax
(608)267-8815 - phone


Date: Fri, 2 May 1997 10:54:36 -0600 (MDT)
From: Eco-Cycle <>
Subject: A Summary of the World



On Mon, 28 Apr 1997 wrote:

> [Forwarded from Jim McNelly]
> Greetings friends,
> Here is an enlightening view of the world "as it is" I found recently on
> one of the discussion groups I participate in.
> The original sender was "Bishop Raymond F. Kelly" <>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~A Summary of the World~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> >
> > If we could shrink the Earth's population to a village of precisely
> > 100 people. With all existing human ratios remaining the same, it
> > would look like this:
> >
> > There would be 57 Asians, 21 Europeans, 14 from the Western
> > Hemisphere (North and South) and 8 Africans.
> >
> > 51 would be female; 49 would be male
> >
> > 70 would be non-white; 30 white.
> >
> > 70 would be non-Christian; 30 Christian.
> >
> > 50% of the entire world's wealth would be in the hands of only 6
> > people and all 6 would be citizens of the United States.
> >
> > 80 would live in substandard housing.
> >
> > 70 would be unable to read.
> >
> > 50 would suffer from malnutrition.
> >
> > 1 would be near death, 1 would be near birth
> >
> > Only 1 would have a college education.
> >
> > No one would own a computer
> >
> > When one considers our world from such an incredibly compressed
> > perspective, the need for both tolerance and understanding becomes
> > glaringly apparent........
> >


Date: 02 May 97 17:32:19 EST
From: Robert Graff <>
Subject: A summary of the World

It would be fairly easy to recalculate all of those numbers with a quick
visit to a library to look at some reference sources: you might try the
World Bank's annual development report, along with the usual almanacs. I
suspect some of them might merit updating, and you might find some
additional statistics that you could add.

Robert Graff - Associate Scientist - Tellus Institute Solid Waste Group
11 Arlington Street - Boston, MA 02116
phone: (617) 266-5400 - fax: (617) 266-8303
email: - web:


Date: Fri, 2 May 1997 15:14:19 -0400
From: Myra Nissen <>
Subject: Business Environmental Awards for SF Bay Area

Announcing the Peninsula Conservation Center Foundation's Eight Annual
Business Environmental Awards. Open to all businesses, governmental,
academic, and non-profit organizations in Santa Clara, San Mateo, San
Francisco, and Alameda Counties (in California).

Applicants will be evaluated on the basis of: Environmental Leadership;
Significant Environmental Benefit; Providing a Model for Other Businesses=
Demonstrated Program Commitment

Awards will be given to large and small organizations for programs in the=

categories of: Pollution Prevention/Resource Conservation; Land Use
Planing; Commute & Transportation Programs; Environmental Enterprise;
Environmental Education; Community Environmental Enhancement; and, Employ=
Training and Protection.

To obtain more information and to request an application please contact: =

Business Environmental Awards, c/o Peninsula Conservation Center
Foundation, 3921 East Bayshore Rd., Palo Alto, CA 94303, (415) 962-8234; (Web site available soon.)

Application fee is $50. Application deadline is June 30, 1997. Awards
luncheon is Nov. 14, 1997. The Business ENvironmental Awards is also
looking for sponsors.



Date: Fri, 2 May 1997 23:28:10 -0700
From: (Carolyn Chase)

from Greenwire 4/24/97

California's bottle recycling law would include more types
of drinks under a bill passed by the Assembly Natural Resources
Cmte. on 4/21.
Since the program began in 1986, the consumption of drinks
not covered by the law has increased considerably. Many of these
beverages come in the same containers as products covered by the
law, and bill supporters say they should be added to it. But
opponents said problems with the existing program ought to be
fixed before it is expanded.
The bill now goes to the Assembly Appropriations Cmte.
(Sacramento Bee, 4/22).
A bill offered by Natural Resources Cmte. Chair Debra Bowen
(D) would set state standards for green marketing claims such as
"recycled" or "ozone friendly." Bowen said Federal Trade
Commission guidelines in this area are too vague. But state Sen.
Tim Leslie (R) said it "makes no sense" for CA to have standards
different from those set by the feds (Phil Garcia, Sacramento
Bee, 4/21).
Meanwhile, a consultants' report ordered by the CA Dept. of
Conservation recommends a major overhaul of the state's recycling
program. At the "heart" of the scheme is a "recycling dividend"
that would vary inversely to the state's overall success with
recycling. For example, if the amount of glass being recycled
dropped, the dividend paid to recyclers would rise, with the aim
of spurring greater efforts by the recyclers.
The report, prepared by the NewPoint Group in Sacramento and
obtained by the W.S. Journal, also suggests dropping some
mandates -- such as a requirement that recycling centers be
located near large supermarkets -- and cutting about $22 million
in grants and administrative expenses related to the current
program to pay for the dividends.
State officials were non-committal about the report. A
workshop on it is scheduled in Sacramento on 5/6 (Mitchel Benson,
W.S. Journal CA Edition, 4/23).

Whaddya think? Whaddya know?


Date: Fri, 2 May 1997 09:49:23 -0400 (EDT)
From: (Michele Raymond)
Subject: EPR for Plastics: Does it work?



EPR for Plastics: Does it Work?

"Producer Responsibility for Waste Disposal of Plastics: Pro's and
Cons" will be the topic of a presentation from Michele Raymond, publisher of
Recycling Laws International, at the 17th Annual Pennsylvania Recycling
Conference May 5, in Harrisburg PA.
Raymond will discuss why "EPR" laws, now on the books in 25 countries,
have not necessarily "worked" for plastics, and why expanded deposits in the
U.S. may not produce the type of recycling markets that government and
environmentalists are looking for.
She will provide a theory as to why Germany, with its stringent
manufacturers responsibility law, has not actually reduced its overall
packaging since 1992, and attempt to sort through the positive and negative
hype to determine what might be learned from a policy standpoint.
For information on the conference, contact the Pennsylvania Resources
Council, 610/353-1555.
Raymond's paper will be posted on the Raymond Communications web site
after May 5; Address:
> The STATE RECYCLING LAWS UPDATE Year-End Edition 1997, also published by
Raymond Communications, will ship May 5.
> Information: 301/345-4235; Fax 301/345-4768; or E-mail


Date: Fri, 02 May 97 13:51:28 EST
Subject: EPR for Plastics: Does it work?

Q: what's "EPR" ?


Date: Fri, 2 May 1997 13:00:38 -0600 (MDT)
From: Allison Denise Nixon <>
Subject: GreenYes Digest V97 #93

I have tried and tried to get myself off of your mailing list. I am not
going to be anywhere near a computer for the next four months and do not
relish the idea of having all this stuff piling up on my email. I have
done exactly as instructed and it still hasn't worked. could a human being
please take me off of theis mailing list. Thanks


Date: Fri, 2 May 1997 15:39:38, -0500
Subject: GreenYes Digest V97 #93

Allison writes:
"I have tried and tried to get myself off of your mailing list. I am
going to be anywhere near a computer for the next four months and do
relish the idea of having all this stuff piling up on my email. I
done exactly as instructed and it still hasn't worked. could a human
please take me off of theis mailing list. Thanks"
Dave Reynolds replies:

Allison, have you tried the following? If this does not work, e-mail
me back at <>. I am not the system
administrator, just a simple user trying to help out...........

To unsubscribe from GreenYes, do the following:

Address your message to: <> (or <greenyes->)
Leave the subject line blank;
In the message area, type: unsub <your email address> greenyes

IMPORTANT NOTE: Do not type the "<" and ">" shown above... these are
included in the instructions for clarity only.


Date: Fri, 02 May 1997 07:47:53 -0600
From: George Dreckmann <>
Subject: Local article on PETE


Yesterday the Capital Times ran the following article on our efforts at
enacting a minimum content bill. It was accompanied by a picture of
yours truly looking very grim while holding up several PETE soda bottles.
A two liter Coke bottle was prominately featured. (How id that happen?)


Containers would have to be 20 percent recycled material

by Mike Ivey

when you put a recyclable 16 ounce Mountain Dew bottle on the curb
for collection, you figure it's going to be made into another plastic soft
drink bottle.
That isn't the case, however.
In fact, virtually all soft drink bottles are still made from virgin
which manufacturers have found is less expensive than re-using
material from old bottles.
"When I tell people, they can't believe it," says George Dreckmann,
city of Madison recycling coordinator. "They assume if they are
recycling their soda bottles they are really getting recycled."
Ployethelene terephthalate (PET) the plastic used to make soft drink
and other bottles us being recycled, though not into more bottles. PET is
usually incorporated into polyester carpet of synthetic clothing fabric,
including outdoor garments made by Patagonia.
Boy a bill pending in the Wisconsin Legislature would require soft
drink and other containers sold in the state to be made form at least 20
percent recycled material. The measure, which is being drafted in the
Assembly Natural Resources Committee, would also allow the state to
prohibit the sale of any containers that are not easily recyclable if
recycled alternatives exist in the marketplace.
If approved, the new law would give Wisconsin the strongest plastic
recycling requirements in the nation.
"We're hoping that if we take the lead here other states will follow,"
says Dreckmann, who has been working on the bill with Rep. DuWayne
Current state law prohibits the sale of any product in a plastic
container that contains less than 10 percent recycled or
"remanufacturered" material. But bottlers and packagers have been able
to comply by using scraps of virgin material that fall off during
production, which technically count as remanufacturered material.
The new law ups the requirement to 20 percent from "post consumer"
waste , or material that has been used and recycled. The percentage
would increase to 40 percent in 2003. Remanufactured or scraps of
virgin material would no longer qualify.
"What the bill does is take away a big loophole that bottlers have been
using to avoid using recycled plastic," says Johnsrud aide Tom Liebe.
While the bill won't be introduced until early next month, it's already
running into opposition from business groups.
Doug Johnson of the Wisconsin Merchants Federation called the bill a
"feel good" measure that would put restraints on the market and cost
"All this would do is drive up prices and make some products
unavailable in Wisconsin," he said.
Kelly McDowell, lobbyist for the Wisconsin Soft Drink Association also
said her client opposes the bill. She says the measure would drive up
the price of both recycled and virgin material.
"We support recycling but not mandates that would try to affect the
market," she said.
But Dreckmann says that strong efforts are needed to curtail the use
of new plastic material. He says soft drink companies are making so
much money-up to $5.35 for a 24 bottle care when sold individually,
according to one survey-they can afford to spend a bit more to do the
right thing.
"Plastic is still a petroleum product and we have an obligation to try
and conserve," he says.
Dreckmann also says that once consumers learn that plastic bottles
are being made from new material when alternative exist, the bottle that
comes out with a recycled bottle will have an advantage.
"Just 1 percent of market share is enough to get the MBAs to change
their pants," he said.
It would cost bottlers about 2 cents more per container to use
recycled material, says Luke Schmidt of the National Association for
Plastic Container Recovery, the trade association for plastic
Schmidt says the argument over recycling plastic bottles is
meaningless since PET plastic is being diverted from landfills, the stated
goal of recycling programs.
But Dreckmann says that having more markets for recycled plastics
will help municipalities recover some of the costs they incur from
collecting the material which is prohibited form landfills in Wisconsin. He
says a company in Michigan is now coming up with a less expensive
process, however, that reduces the cost to 1/4 cent per bottle.
To date, aluminum and glass have proven the most recycled materials
for beverage containers. Aluminum soft drink cans contain 60 percent
post consumer product. Glass is 30 to 40 percent recycled material.
The percentage of Madison residents' trash that was recycled or
composted reached a record level last year. In all, 51.7 percent of the
87,514 tons collected by city crews was either composted or recycled.
The Legislature is considering other changes in the statewide
recycling law. A tax on businesses that has been used to fund local
recycling programs expires in 1999 and is facing a difficult future.
The surtax this year will generate $29.2 million to help pay for the
more than 1,000 recycling programs in cities, towns, and villages across
the state. The surtax pays about half of the of the $60-$70 million total
cost of those local programs.
Gov. Tommy Thopmson and business leaders say the surtax must go
because that was the deal, when the state's comprehensive recycling
law was passed in 1990.


Date: Fri, 02 May 97 15:17:45 EST
Subject: Re[2]: A Summary of the World

When I participated in the Global Forum at the Earth
Summit in Rio in '92 there was a free poster being
distributed with a photo of Planet Earth on one side and the
same "One World Village" text (world population as 100
people) on the other.
I believe the credit for the original text was given
to a United Nations source.

Gray Russell
Compost Project Manager
Bronx Green-Up
The New York Botanical Garden


Date: Fri, 2 May 1997 23:24:06 -0700
From: (Carolyn Chase)


Date: Sat, 3 May 1997 11:02:58 +0200
Subject: Wayne Fenton

Wayne wrote:

Re: measurements of cost-effectiveness, we are involved in the
development of a computer model that will attempt to take into account all
environmental costs and benefits (e.g., saved energy from secondary
materials, additional energy from collection of separate streams, etc.).
I'm not sure if that is the type of info. you are seeking -- if so, let me


I would appreciate such info, with recyclables in particular - everyone will
be astonished at the minimal info we have out here in Darkest Africa
sometimes! Websites will be cool - LCA's have yet to take hold locally, so
some positive motivation would not go amiss.

Happy May Day!
Mr. Muna Lakhani

Cellfax: 082-131-416-9160
28 Currie Road - Durban - 4001 - South Africa
Phone: +27-31-20-28-291


Date: (null)
From: (null)

REDUCE, REFUSE, to RECYCLE: Republican Revolution Trashes Recycling Program

We learned from the 104th Congress that the Republican leadership
sought to throw away some of America's environmental protection laws. What
we didn't know was that while they were trying to trash to Clean Water Act,
they also were scrapping the Congressional recycling program.
In 1992, the House initiated a recycling program for all Member
offices. But under the new Majority, the recycling program has not been
staffed for nearly two years. Apparently, without the staff and subsequent
shortfall of recycling equipment, recycling on the Hill has been left in
chaos. It is reported that even offices that try to recycle indicated that
their separated paper, cans and bottles often get tossed back into a common
trash bin and contaminated by other waste.
Under Republican leadership: aluminum can recycling has fallen 74%
(from 21,520 pounds in `94 to 5,650 pounds in `96); glass bottle recycling
has fallen 83% (from 219,520 pounds in `94 to 36,300 pounds in `96); and
paper separation efforts are in disarray (a paper vendor recently complained
that congressional paper bales sent in for recycling are contaminated with
"plastic bottles, tin cans and glass along with plastic bags, luncheon meats
and other garbage that is completely unacceptable").
Due to contamination of congressional waste paper, the House received
only *39 cents per ton* for its paper waste in 1996, according to the General
Services Administration. In contrast, the Energy Department receives *$42 per
ton* and Housing and Urban Development receives *$60 per ton*.


End of GreenYes Digest V97 #97