Today's Topics:
Block Leader Programs (3 msgs)
Fwd: FW: Study Shows Plastic's 'Bad Wrap' Packaging
Guilty?
Nuclear Waste Fund (was: S-104)
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: Sat, 12 Apr 1997 11:37:52 -0400 (EDT)
From: PMSinnott@aol.com
Subject: Block Leader Programs
In the late seventies and eighties residential block leader programs got a
lot of press. The idea was that volunteers kept their neighbors up to date
on the recycling system and oriented new comers. If I remember correctly it
started in Boulder Co.
Recycling/environmental nuts that keep office programs going are the
commercial equivalent.
In my opinion it is and was a great idea. I am curious, how are these
programs doing 20 years later?
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 12 Apr 1997 17:13:14 -0400 (EDT)
From: RicAnthony@aol.com
Subject: Block Leader Programs
In a message dated 97-04-12 11:40:08 EDT, PMSinnott@aol.com writes:
<< In the late seventies and eighties residential block leader programs got a
lot of press. The idea was that volunteers kept their neighbors up to
date
on the recycling system and oriented new comers. If I remember correctly it
started in Boulder Co. Recycling/environmental nuts that keep office
programs going are the commercial equivalent.
>>
Thank You Portia,
Why not, Eric, use the block and commercial coordinator program to have
recyclers, take the zero waste, jobs from discards, no subsidies for waste
pledge and have people write letters to Roberto at COKE asking for them to
keep their promise and buy PETE from the recylcers to incorporate in new
containers and introduce the recyled plastic refillable container in their
town. And do this on this Earth Day.
Solidarity,
Rick
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 12 Apr 1997 16:51:32 -0600 (MDT)
From: Eco-Cycle <ecocycle@bcn.boulder.co.us>
Subject: Block Leader Programs
Greetings from the Block Leader creators at EcoCycle in Boulder, CO.!
In response to the recent posting, I'm glad to tell you all that the
Neighborhood Block Leader Program, which we pioneered in 1979, is still
alive and well in Boulder, and now the whole County!
In Boulder, we have nearly 600 BL's, and in Longmont 300+, and in other
small towns (Louisville, Lafayette, Superior, Broomfield) another 100+.
In our 900+ Commercial Recycling accounts, we have our EcoCycle Contacts,
and in the multi-family housing we have our MFU Leaders. All together ,we
figure we have over 2,000 active volunteers, the largest such network in
the area.
Every year we have a big Volunteer Appreciation event and we give out the
EcoCycle "Oscars" (Oscar the Grouch as a mascot). All of this takes a lot
of coordination, and we have three different staff putting in about 40
hours per week on the BL and other volunteer stuff.
I will conclude by saying that the BL program has been essential for
promoting recycling here and would be well worth the time for other
mission-driven local organizations to create them.
I would also like to know how other BL programs are doing. Anybody out
there????
Thanks, Eric Lombardi, Exec. Dir, EcoCycle.
On Sat, 12 Apr 1997 PMSinnott@aol.com wrote:
> In the late seventies and eighties residential block leader programs got a
> lot of press. The idea was that volunteers kept their neighbors up to date
> on the recycling system and oriented new comers. If I remember correctly it
> started in Boulder Co.
>
> Recycling/environmental nuts that keep office programs going are the
> commercial equivalent.
>
> In my opinion it is and was a great idea. I am curious, how are these
> programs doing 20 years later?
>
>
>
>
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 12 Apr 1997 16:02:30 -0600
From: swally@earthlink.net (Wally)
Subject: Fwd: FW: Study Shows Plastic's 'Bad Wrap' Packaging
While it is true that plastic occupies much less volue than other forms of=
packaging, But the other packaging materials are biodegradable. The plastic=
also forms a permanent barrier in the landfill to prevent water or anything=
else passing thru which might help decay anything inside a disposed plastic=
container.
>---------------------
>Forwarded message:
>From: wetherby@msn.com (david holt)
>Sender: owner-recycle@envirolink.org
>Reply-to: recycle@envirolink.org
>Date: 97-03-26 11:13:28 EST
>
>--------- Begin forwarded message ----------
>From: E-Wire <ewire@igc.apc.org>
>To: Recipients of ewire-transmit <ewire-transmit@igc.apc.org>
>Subject: Study Shows Plastic's 'Bad Wrap'
>Date: Mon, 24 Mar 1997 11:13:27 -0800 (PST)
>Message-ID: <APC&1'0'6cc5c81d'35b@igc.apc.org>
>
>=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
> E-WIRE PRESS RELEASE E-WIRE PRESS RELEASE E-WIRE PRESS RELEASE
>=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>
>TO ENVIRONMENTAL EDITOR:
>
> University of Arizona Garbage Project Findings Suggest
> Plastics Shouldn't Get A 'Bad Wrap!'
>
> ANN ARBOR, Mich., March 24 -/E-Wire/-- Findings of a study conducted
>by Dr. William L. Rathje of the University of Arizona's Garbage Project she=
d
>new light on the packaging debate. Reported in the March/April issue of Th=
e
>ULS (Use Less Stuff) Report, the Garbage Project study of 15 U.S. and
>Canadian
>landfills, and one city's curbside pickup program, found that plastic
>packaging is the workhorse of source reduction.
>
> Dr. Rathje's analysis reached the following conclusions:
>
> -- Plastic packaging has become 50% more efficient in the last 20 years
> (in terms of less packaging delivering more product), and is as much
>as
> three times as efficient as other forms of packaging.
>
> By weight, plastics account for only 22% of packaging overall, yet 65% =
of
>all products delivered to our homes are packaged in it. In other words, if
>all plastic packaging was replaced by glass, paper, steel, aluminum, or som=
e
>combination thereof, packaging discarded by households would more than
>double.
>And, as Dr. Rathje points out, "Every way of handling solid waste -- even
>recycling -- has an environmental impact in energy use and in pollution. T=
he
>only truly environmentally friendly solution to garbage is source reduction=
."
> While stressing that plastics producers must encourage recycling just a=
s
>other manufacturers must emphasize reduction, Dr. Rathje asserts that based
>on
>his findings, plastics are excellent source reducers and deserve a little
>respect.
>
> NOTE: The cover story of the March/April issue of The ULS (Use Less
>Stuff)
>Report spotlights high-profile, mainstream companies that have devoted time
>and effort to rethinking packaging, finding alternative energy sources and
>concentrating on reuse. Large companies such as Procter & Gamble, Quaker,
>Planters, Pepsi, General Motors, and Brother, have all produced products th=
at
>benefit the consumer (by saving them money), the environment (by reducing
>waste or allowing for reuse) and themselves (through lower manufacturing
>costs
>and higher public opinion)!
>
>SOURCE Use Less Stuff Report
> -0- 3/24/97
> /CONTACT: Lisa Morgan of The Use Less Stuff Report, 212-924-6182/
>=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>To find out how to transmit your information on E-Wire phone 1-800-832-5522
> E-Wire is broadcast to millions of readers.
>=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>
>--------- End forwarded message ----------
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 12 Apr 1997 14:54:13 -0500
From: "Susan K. Snow" <sksnow@1stnet.com>
Subject: Guilty?
>WASHINGTON, DC--According to an Environmental Protection Agency
>report released Monday, nationwide recycling efforts eliminated more >than
50 million tons of guilt in 1996. The figure represents the >greatest
reduction in consumption-related guilt among the American >populace in over
a decade.
>"Thanks to community-based recycling programs across America,
>landfill waste was reduced by some 70,000 pounds--or .00004 >percent--last
year," EPA administrator Carol Browner said. "But even >more important,
Americans themselves experienced a whopping 47 percent >drop in guilt."
>Added Browner: "Just ask anyone who's ever thrown a Snapple bottle
>into a special glass-only receptacle during their lunch break and felt
>good about it the rest of the day--recycling works."
>As recently as 1990, the U.S. consumed 88 percent of the world's
>resources and felt 87 percent of its guilt. But by 1995, even though
>the nation's share of the world's consumption actually rose to 90
>percent, through the institution of mandatory recycling programs,
>America's share of global guilt plummeted to 41 percent.
>"I used to feel terrible when I threw out perfectly good things, like
>a working toaster or TV," said Francine Dahl of Lawrence, KS. "But now
>that I recycle a little bit, I could throw out a whole couch and not >feel
guilty at all."
[snip]
Apparently, a participant in the City of Lafayette (Louisiana) recycling
program felt no "guilt" when they carefully placed a bible along with
the newspaper, junk mail and magazines into the green newspaper bin.
When the bible reached the baling area, it was plunked from the hard
mix, just in time. I don't know what will happen to the bible, but
chances are it will not be recycled as yet. It may go to the Salvation
Army for re-use. Material re-use is preferable to recycling.
Susan Snow
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 12 Apr 1997 08:55:24 -0600
From: Shaggy <gt5685d@prism.gatech.edu> (by way of Hugh Esco)
Subject: Nuclear Waste Fund (was: S-104)
Hugh,
Carol K. Coney wrote:
>How appropriate that this vote is scheduled to come up on April 15...Tax
>Day! Let's remember that even in this post Cold War era, taxpayers are
>still offering up 50% of each of their tax dollars to the
>military-industrial complex and the war-profiteering that continues
>unabated in this bellicose country. Transmission of weapons-grade nuclear
>materials is just one part of the larger ugly picture.
Also don't forget that 1/10 of a cent, for EVERY SINGLE kilowatt hour we
use that is produced by nuclear generation, goes into the Nuclear Waste
Fund black-hole... $12 billion+ have been accumulated in the NWF since its
formation by the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982. Last estimates I
received were that half that amount has already gone into research and
site characterization projects for sites such as Yucca Mountain, with NO
progress made in handling the wastes themselves. What I'm trying to say
is, we're being financially raped from all sides here!
Keep the activism strong and alive, brother!
Shaggy
------------------------------
End of GreenYes Digest V97 #77
******************************