GreenYes Digest V97 #67

Krista Henkels (
Fri, 22 Jan 1999 16:58:01 -0500

Did you get this one?

>Return-path: <>
>Date: Thu, 3 Apr 1997 04:30:00 -0800
>Subject: GreenYes Digest V97 #67
>GreenYes Digest Thu, 3 Apr 97 Volume 97 : Issue 67
>Today's Topics:
> "Best practices for wood waste recycling"
> [Fwd: Land & Water Conservation Fund]
> AB 362 - Environmental Advertising - Letters of Support
> Lawless logging---Action Alert
> NER's action on DPPEA
> Summary CRRA Agenda for Next Millenium
> Trial Grassroots Recycling Network Website
>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: Tue, 01 Apr 1997 10:32:35 -0500
>From: "Blair Pollock" <>
>Subject: "Best practices for wood waste recycling"
>ReTap from Clean Washington Center is presenting this seminar in Seattle
>4/14, Baltimore 4/16, Charlotte,NC 4/17 and Elmhurst IL 4/25. The brohcure
>"One day workshop will provide you access to todays proven and effective rcy
>tech's for handling wood waste. Optimize processing to meet feedstock
>requirements. Increase product value. Enhance product performance. Gain
>competitive advantage and improve econ. effic.
>Contact Mary Lynch at Clean#Wash Center: (206) 587-4217. $100 registration
>fee: amil to IRU c.o Workshop Coordinator PO Box 11017 Eugene OR 97440
>Also a couple of interesting articles on wood waste use and characteristics
>in C&D Recycling Jan/Feb 97 issue for those who care about wood waste.
>Date: Wed, 02 Apr 1997 19:45:27 -0800
>From: Bob Harsell <>
>Subject: [Fwd: Land & Water Conservation Fund]
>Received: from ( [])
> by (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id VAA16365
> for <>; Mon, 31 Mar 1997 21:25:25 -0500 (EST)
>Received: from ( [])
> by (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id SAA18087;
> Mon, 31 Mar 1997 18:12:49 -0800 (PST)
>Received: from ( [])
> by (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id SAA18612;
> Mon, 31 Mar 1997 18:05:46 -0800 (PST)
>Message-Id: <>
>X-Old-Sender: <>
>From: "Dennis W. Schvejda" <>
>Organization: Sierra Club
>To: 76645.1745@CompuServe.COM,,,
>,, 102122.3446@CompuServe.COM,
> 76145.1753@CompuServe.COM,,,
>Date: Mon, 31 Mar 1997 21:03:25 +0000
>Subject: Land & Water Conservation Fund
>Priority: normal
>X-mailer: Pegasus Mail/Windows (v1.22)
>X-UIDL: 6ce22770a6120328aaee7e0aeb6c6cb3
>Status: U
>X-Mozilla-Status: 0001
>Land & Water Conservation Fund
>We focused on the Land & Water Conservation Fund in the February issue of
>the Sierra Activist. Following is an update...
>Congressmen Mica (R-FL) and Farr (D-CA) are circulating a "Dear Colleague"
>letter to help get more money for land acquisition from the Land and Water
>Conservation Fund.
>I will be contacting the NJ Congressional delegation, asking them to sign
>on to this letter.
>I need your help. I need YOU to add your voice to mine by calling/faxing/
>e-mailing your Representative, and asking them to sign this letter.
>The deadline for this letter is April 8, 1997.
>Remember, NJ received $0 from the stateside program last year. Unless we
>that's what we'll get this year. Nothing.
>Here's the letter_
> *******************************
> Mica-Farr Dear Colleague Letter
> *******************************
>The Honorable Ralph Regula
>Subcommittee on Interior Appropriations
>B 308 Rayburn HOB
>Washington, DC 20515
>The Honorable Sidney R. Yates
>Subcommittee on Interior Appropriations
>1016 Longworth HOB
>Washington, DC 20515
>Dear Chairman Regula and Mr. Yates,
> We are writing today to urge your support for the earmarking of
>land acquisition funds in the FY 1998 Interior and Related Agencies
>Appropriations Bill. We thank you, too, for your support for the many
>projects you funded through the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF)
>in the FY 1997 Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Bill.
> We appreciate the success that your subcommittee has achieved
>over the years in funding important land acquisition projects through
>the LWCF. Your efforts have helped ensure the conservation of millions
>of acres of environmentally sensitive lands throughout our nation. The
>preservation of these natural resources will provide our constituents
>and future generations enormous benefits which include the protection
>of wildlife habitat and the expansion of outdoor recreational
>activities. We know that your work demands difficult choices and that
>you have always given conservation needs the highest consideration.
> It is our view that the traditional process of earmarking
>projects in the Interior Appropriations bill is the best means of
>achieving land conservation goals we all share. It is critical that
>specific decisions on land acquisition be included in the conference
>report which is approved by Congress rather than through an ambiguous
>and bureaucratic decision-making process which may take place after
>Congress has adjourned.
> We strongly urge you to support the earmarking of land
>acquisition funds in the Interior Appropriations Bill. We are
>confident that, working together under your leadership, we can continue
>preserving natural resource lands for generations.
>Sam Farr
>Member of Congress
>John Mica
>Member of Congress
>*Your House Member as well!*
>Fact Sheet on LWCF
>A Simple Idea
>In 1965, Congress created the Land and Water Conservation Fund to
>preserve habitat and assure that all Americans have access to quality
>outdoor recreation to strengthen the health and vitality of the
>citizens of the United States. It was a simple idea: "pay as you go"
>program using revenues from resource use to support the creation of
>parks, forests, clean water, and open spaces and to guarantee outdoor
>opportunities and a clean environment for all Americans.
>How LWCF Actually Works
>The Land and Water Conservation Fund receives $900 million each year,
>primarily from fees paid by companies drilling off-shore for oil and
>gas. Congress intended for this money to be used in two ways.
> 1. Fund federal purchase of land and water areas for recreation and
> conservation and development of recreational resources open to
> all Americans.
> 2. Provide federal funds to states to assist in planning,
> acquisition, and development of needed land and water areas and
> recreation facilities.
>At least 40 percent of LWCF dollars must be used for the federal
>purchases in a given year.
>Federal Program
>Moneys appropriated from the fund for federal purposes are used for the
> * Public acquisition of land and water by the National Parks System,
> or are authorized by the Secretary of the Interior for outdoor
> recreation purposes;
> * Public purchase of private holdings within national forests and
> wilderness areas;
> * Public acquisition of areas for the preservation of species of
> fish or wildlife that are threatened with extinction;
> * Other acquisitions as authorized by law. (e.g. In 1996, Congress
> authorized and appropriated $9 million to the Palisades Interstate
> Park Commission for the public purchase of Sterling Forest.)
>State Program
>Roughly 40 percent of funds for the state program are divided equally
>among the states. The National Park Service then takes into account
>other factors in distributing the rest of the state-side money,
>including total population of the state and total population of the
>state living in urban areas.
>State-side LWCF funds can generally be used to acquire land, build or
>repair recreation or park facilities, provide riding and hiking trails,
>enhance recreational access, and provide wildlife and hunting areas.
>The LWCF state grant program matches up to 50 percent of the cost of
>the project, with the balance of project funds paid by states or
>localities. Fund recipients are limited to state agencies and
>An Investment With Results
>The Land and Water Conservation Fund has been an investment with
>results that touch all Americans. In the 30 years since its creation,
>LWCF has been responsible for the acquisition of nearly seven million
>acres of parkland and open space and the development of more than
>37,000 parks and recreation projects. From playgrounds and ball fields
>to national historical sites, scenic trails, and nature reserves, LWCF
>has been the key to providing places for all Americans to recreate,
>relax, and get outdoors.
>A Broken Promise
>Congress has broken its promise with the American people by misusing
>the Land and Water Conservation Fund. LWCF receives $900 million each
>year, and every year, as much as 85 percent of the Fund is diverted for
>purposes other than conservation and recreation. In fact, since
>Congress originally made its commitment to conserve the American
>outdoors in 1964, it has diverted $11 billion of LWCF to other uses.
>In recent years, Congress has not funded the state program at all.
>Every year, we lose countless opportunities to conserve precious
>resources and open space for all Americans to enjoy.
>**What You Can Do
> Contact your Representative. Ask them to sign the Mica/Farr
> "Dear Colleague" letter. Ask them to work toward full funding
> of the Land and Water Conservation Fund to renew their commitment
> to investing in America's natural heritage and providing recreation
> opportunities for all Americans.
>*Call Congress Toll Free! 800-972-3524
>Contact Info...
>Robert Franks (R)
>Rodney Frelinghuysen (R)
>Frank LoBiondo (R)
>Michael Pappas (R)
> Fax: 202-225-6025
>Marge Roukema (R)
> Fax 202-225-9048
>James Saxton (R)
> Fax: 202-225-0778
>Chris Smith (R)
> Fax: 202-225-7768
>Robert Andrews (D)
>Robert Menendez (D)
> Fax 202-226-0792
>Frank Pallone (D)
> Fax: 202-225-9665
>William Pascrell, Jr. (D)
> Fax: 202-225-5782
>Donald Payne (D)
> Fax: 202-225-4160
>Steve Rothman (D)
> Fax: 202-225-5061
>Date: Wed, 02 Apr 1997 12:32:45 -0800
>From: Rick Best <>
>Subject: AB 362 - Environmental Advertising - Letters of Support
>TO: Interested Parties
>FR: Rick Best
>DT: March 27, 1997
>RE: AB 362 (Bowen) - Truth in Environmental Advertising - SUPPORT
>Assembly Bill 362 has been introduced by Assembly Member Debra Bowen. The
>bill reintroduces the Truth in Environmental Advertising Law, AB 3994
>(Sher), that was signed into law in 1990, but was repealed by SB 426
>(Leslie) in 1995.
>AB 362 establishes clear standards for the use of certain environmental
>marketing terms, including "recycled," "biodegradable," photodegradable,"
>and "ozone friendly." The bill currently does not include "recyclable," a
>term that was contained in the original 1990 law, but was thrown out by the
>courts as being unconsitutionally vague. We hope that the author will
>include "recyclable" in the bill once a suitable definition can be written.
>Background. Soon after the introduction of the original law, industry
>groups sought to have the law nulified by the courts, challenging the law
>as violating the First Amendment protections for free speech. The State of
>California, along with Californians Against Waste and the Environmental
>Defense Fund who joined in the State's defense, successfully argued that
>the law was an appopriate regulation of commerical speech. The industry's
>appeal of the appeals court decision was denied by the U.S. Supreme Court
>on October 2, 1992, thus upholding the constitutionality of the law.
>Unfortunately, Governor Wilson signed SB 426 four days later, repealing the
>entire law.
>Existing statutes now refer to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC)
>guidelines which are unenforceable and provide only general guidance for
>the use of environmental marketing claims. Furthermore, the guidelines do
>not contain any specific standards such as those contained in the original
>California law. For example, a product or package may be labeled as
>"recycled" under the FTC guidelines even if it has no postconsumer content;
>the original California law required at least 10% postconsumer content to
>label a product as "recycled."
>The bill is scheduled to be heard in Assembly Consumer Protection Committee
>on Tuesday, April 8th. Letters in support of the bill are needed. Please
>address your letter to the author at:
> Assembly Member Debra Bowen (916) 445-8528
> California State Assembly (916) 327-2201fax
> State Capitol, Room 4112
> Sacramento, CA 95814
>In your letter, please highlight why you believe it is important to have a
>Truth in Environmental Advertising Law here in California. In particular,
>please highlight how the public can be mislead through the use of the terms
>"recycled" and "recyclable" and why clear standards are necessary to
>prevent public confusion. You might highlight how the members of the
>public react when they take items labeled as "recyclable" to a recycling
>center or put them in their curbside bin, but are then told that the items
>cannot be "recycled."
>Please be sure to fax a copy of your letter to CAW at (916) 443-3912. For
>a copy of the bill or for more information, please give Rick Best a call at
>(916) 443-5422.
>** CAW Letter **
>April 1, 1997
>Assembly Member Susan Davis
>Chair, Assembly Consumer Protection Committee
>State Capitol
>Sacramento, CA 95814
>RE: AB 362 (Bowen) - Environmental Advertising - SUPPORT
>Dear Assembly Member Davis:
>Californians Against Waste urges your support of Assembly Bill 362 by
>Assembly Member Debra Bowen. AB 362 reintroduces the California Truth in
>Environmental Advertising Law which was passed into law in 1990 by AB 3994
>(Sher), but was repealed in 1995 by SB 426 (Leslie).
>AB 362 establishes clear standards for the use of environmental marketing
>claims, including the use of the terms "recycled," "photodegradable,"
>"biodegradable" and "ozone friendly." Establishing these clear standards
>ensures that consumers will be provided with meaningful claims on products
>and packages and provides manufacturers with certainty regarding what is a
>permissible environmental marketing claim. It also provides clear
>standards by which to take action when false or misleading advertising
>claims are made.
>The Truth in Environmental Advertising Law was first passed in 1990 by
>Assembly Member Byron Sher. The bill passed in response to a flood of
>environmental marketing claims made during the late 1980's. At the time
>manufacturers were trying to take advantage of the "green" movement and
>identify their product as environmentally friendly even when there were no
>environmental attributes or features which could distinguish the product.
>The law succeeded in curbing the misuse of several specific terms as well
>as the blatant use of false environmental claims by product makers and
>Unfortunately, the law was repealed in 1995 with the false understanding
>that the State would be moving towards a national standard for
>environmental marketing claims. The legislation which repealed the law, SB
>426, made reference to the Federal Trade Commission Guidelines for the Use
>of Environmental Marketing Claims ("FTC Guides"). Unfortunately, the FTC
>guides contain only general guidelines and examples for marketing claims
>and cannot be enforced. All of the actions taken by the FTC against
>companies making environmental claims have been made under the FTC's
>general authority to regulate marketing claims. Both AB 362 and the
>original law have a provision which invalidate the California's
>requirements if the products meet the defintions contained in any trade
>rules adopted by the Federal Trade Commission. Such uniform national
>standards have never been adopted.
>The repeal of the Truth in Environmental Advertising Law was orchestrated
>by manufacturers after their unsuccessful attempt to strike down the law in
>the courts. In 1992, a coalition of ten industry groups, including the
>Association of National Advertisers, the Society for the Plastics Industry,
>and the California Chamber of Commerce, filed suit against the law charging
>that it violated their First Amendment rights to free speech. Throughout a
>lengthy court battle including an appeal to the United States Supreme
>Court, the courts upheld the law finding that it was a proper regulation of
>commercial speech.
>One major environmental marketing claim which AB 362 will address is the
>use of the term "recycled." AB 362 requires any product labeled as
>"recycled" to contain at least 10% postconsumer material. Under the
>current FTC guidelines, a product can be labeled as "recycled" even if the
>product has no postconsumer material. Consequently, products which contain
>only scraps from the manufacturing floor and contain none of the material
>collected in local residential and business recycling programs can still be
>labeled as "recycled." But when the consumer goes to the store, they
>expect that the product is made from the paper, glass, metals and other
>materials that they recycle at home or work. AB 362 will ensure that those
>products contain at least 10% postconsumer material.
>Another major claim which has frequently been abused is the use of the term
>"recyclable." Manufacturers continue to label a variety of products as
>recyclable, even though few if any facilities in California will accept
>them for recycling. Consumers want to know when a product can be recycled
>in their community, not simply if it is technically recyclable but no
>facilities exist to recycle it.
>We believe AB 362 should be expanded to include a definition for the term
>"recyclable." A definition for "recyclable" was included in the original
>law, but it was understood the definition needed refinement. Unfortunately,
>manufacturing representatives pulled out of negotiations when cleanup
>legislation was proposed in 1992 (AB 144) and the original definition was
>subsequently struck down by the courts. Manufacturers should sit down with
>consumer and environmental groups and come up with a definition that will
>work for both consumers and manufacturers.
>We urge you to support AB 362 in committee next Tuesday. AB 362 will
>provide clear, enforceable standards for environmental marketing claims and
>ensure that consumers are provided accurate information about the products
>which truly benefit the environment.
>Rick Best
>Policy Director
>cc: Members, Assembly Consumer Protection Committee
> Assembly Member Debra Bowen
> Senator Byron Sher
>** Text of Bill **
>INTRODUCED BY Assembly Member Bowen
>(Coauthor: Senator Sher)
>FEBRUARY 19, 1997
>An act to amend Section 17580 of, to add Section 17508.5 to, and to repeal
>Section 17580.5 of,
>the Business and Professions Code, and to repeal Section 1 of Chapter 642
>of the Statutes of 1995,
>relating to environmental advertising.
>AB 362, as introduced, Bowen. Environmental advertising.
>(1) Existing law provides that it is a misdemeanor for a person to make any
>untruthful, deceptive, or
>misleading environmental marketing claim, whether explicit or implied, and
>defines "environmental
>marketing claim" to include any claim contained in the "Guides for the Use
>of Environmental
>Marketing Claims" published by the Federal Trade Commission. Existing law
>also provides that it is a
>defense to a suit or complaint brought under these provisions if a person's
>environmental marketing
>claims conform to the Federal Trade Commission standards, as specified.
>This bill would repeal these and related provisions and instead would make
>it unlawful for a person to
>represent that a consumer good, as defined, which it manufactures or
>distributes, is "ozone friendly,"
>"biodegradable," "photodegradable," or "recycled," unless that article
>meets specified definitions or
>meets definitions established in trade rules adopted by the Federal Trade
>Commission. Since
>violation of these provisions would be a misdemeanor, the bill would create
>a new crime, thereby
>imposing a state-mandated local program.
>(2) The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local
>agencies and school districts for
>certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish
>procedures for making that
>This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a
>specified reason.
>Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes. State-mandated
>local program: yes.
>SECTION 1. Section 17508.5 is added to the Business and Professions Code,
>to read:
>17508.5. It is unlawful for any person to represent that any consumer good
>that it manufactures or
>distributes is "ozone friendly," or any like term that connotes that
>stratospheric ozone is not being
>depleted, "biodegradable," "photodegradable," or "recycled" unless that
>consumer good meets the
>definitions contained in this section, or meets definitions established in
>trade rules adopted by the
>Federal Trade Commission. For the purposes of this section, the following
>words have the following
>(a) "Ozone friendly," or any like term that connotes that stratospheric
>ozone is not being depleted,
>means that any chemical or material released into the environment as a
>result of the use or production
>of a product will not migrate to the stratosphere and cause unnatural and
>accelerated deterioration of
>(b) "Biodegradable" means that a material has the proven capability to
>decompose in the most
>common environment where the material is disposed within one year through
>natural biological
>processes into nontoxic carbonaceous soil, water, or carbon dioxide.
>(c) "Photodegradable" means that a material has the proven capability to
>decompose in the most
>common environment where the material is disposed within one year through
>physical processes,
>such as exposure to heat and light, into nontoxic carbonaceous soil, water,
>or carbon dioxide.
>(d) "Recycled" means that an article's contents contain at least 10
>percent, by weight, postconsumer
>material, as defined in subdivision (b) of Section 12200 of the Public
>Contract Code.
>(e) "Consumer good" means any article that is used or bought for use
>primarily for personal, family,
>or household purposes.
>(f) For the purposes of this section, a wholesaler or retailer who does not
>initiate a representation by
>advertising or by placing the representation on a package shall not be
>deemed to have made the
>SEC. 2. Section 17580 of the Business and Professions Code is amended to
>17580. (a) Any person who represents in advertising or on the label or
>container of a consumer
>good that the consumer good that it manufactures or distributes is not
>harmful to, or is beneficial to,
>the natural environment, through the use of such terms as "environmental
>choice," "ecologically
>friendly," "earth friendly," "environmentally friendly," "ecologically
>sound," "environmentally sound,"
>"environmentally safe," "ecologically safe," "environmentally lite," "green
>product," or any other like
>term, shall maintain in written form in its records the following
>information and documentation
>supporting the validity of the representation:
>(1) The reasons why the person believes the representation to be true.
>(2) Any significant adverse environmental impacts directly associated with
>the production,
>distribution, use, and disposal of the consumer good.
>(3) Any measures that are taken by the person to reduce the environmental
>impacts directly
>associated with the production, distribution, and disposal of the consumer
>(4) Violations of any federal, state, or local permits directly associated
>with the production or
>distribution of the consumer good.
>(5) Whether or not, if applicable, the consumer good conforms with the
>uniform standards
>contained in the Federal Trade Commission Guidelines for Environmental
>Marketing Claims for the use of the terms meets the definitions of
>"recyclable," "biodegradable," "photodegradable," or "ozone friendly."
>friendly," as
>defined in Section 17508.5.
>(b) Information and documentation maintained pursuant to this section shall
>be furnished to any
>member of the public upon request.
>(c) For the purposes of this section, a wholesaler or retailer who does not
>initiate a representation by
>advertising or by placing the representation on a package shall not be
>deemed to have made the
>(d) It is the intent of the Legislature that the information and
>documentation supporting the validity of
>the representation maintained under this section shall be fully disclosed
>to the public, within the limits
>of all applicable laws.
>SEC. 3. Section 17580.5 of the Business and Professions Code is repealed.
>17580.5. (a) It is unlawful for any person to make any untruthful,
>deceptive, or misleading environmental marketing claim, whether explicit or
>implied. For the purpose of this section, "environmental marketing claim"
>shall include any claim contained in the "Guides for the Use of
>Environmental Marketing Claims" published by the Federal Trade Commission.
>(b) It shall be a defense to any suit or complaint brought under this
>section that the person's environmental marketing claims conform to the
>standards or are consistent with the examples contained in the "Guides for
>the Use of Environmental Marketing Claims" published by the Federal Trade
>SEC. 4. Section 1 of Chapter 642 of the Statutes of 1995 is repealed.
>SECTION 1. The Legislature finds and declares that it is the public policy
>of the state that environmental marketing claims, whether explicit or
>implied, must be substantiated by competent and reliable evidence to
>prevent deceiving or misleading consumers about the environmental impact of
>products and packages. Accurate and useful information about the
>environmental impact of products and packages will not be available to
>consumers unless uniform standards for environmental marketing claims, such
>as the Federal Trade Commission Guidelines for Environmental Marketing
>Claims, are adopted by the various states.
>SEC. 5. No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to Section 6 of
>Article XIIIB of the
>California Constitution because the only costs that may be incurred by a
>local agency or school
>district will be incurred because this act creates a new crime or
>infraction, eliminates a crime or
>infraction, or changes the penalty for a crime or infraction, within the
>meaning of Section 17556 of
>the Government Code, or changes the definition of a crime within the
>meaning of Section 6 of Article
>XIIIB of the California Constitution.
>Notwithstanding Section 17580 of the Government Code, unless otherwise
>specified, the provisions
>of this act shall become operative on the same date that the act takes
>effect pursuant to the California
>Date: Wed, 2 Apr 1997 13:48:45 -0500 (EST)
>Subject: Lawless logging---Action Alert
>Please take the opportunity to help end destructive forestry practices in
>California by calling these CA Assemblymembers. The more calls tallied in
>support of Assembly Bill 1313 (read below for more info.), the more likely
>the bill will succeed as it winds through the legislative process. Thank you
>for your time and effort.
>Marty Kirkwood
>The following ACTION ALERT comes to you from the Environmental Protection
>Information Center. It invloves Lawless Logging on private lands in
>California and could help protect Headwaters Forest from a ruthless
>"salvage logging" exemptions. Write a letter today to help protect the last
>remaining privately owned old growth redwood forest!
>> There are several important bills working their way through the
>>California state legislature right now. The most timely bill is AB
>>1313, introduced by Ted Lempert of Palo Alto. AB 1313 would end the
>>practice of allowing "exemptions" from environmental review for salvage
>>logging operations in old-growth redwood forests. Despite constant
>>pressure from EPIC and Sierra Club, among others, the California Board
>>of Forestry has repeatedly failed to close this massive and destructive
>>loophole. We're taking our campaign directly to the legislature, but
>>the politicians really need to hear from the grassroots--we're the only
>>source of political will in situations that pit the health of the forest
>>against the profits of huge corporations!
>>* * * A C T I O N A L E R T O F T H E W E E K * * *
>> AB 1313 will be heard in the Assembly Natural Resources Committee on
>>April 14. There are three critical swing votes on that committee that
>>will either make or break this bill. Contact the following Assembly
>>members, especially if they're in your district, and urge them to
>>support AB 1313!
>>Tony Cardenas
>>9140 Van Nuys Blvd., Suite 109
>>Panorama City, CA 91402
>>(818) 894-3671 * fax (818) 894-4672
>>Brooks Firestone
>>101 W. Anaparnu St, Suite A
>>Santa Barbara, CA 93101
>>(805) 965-1994 * fax (805) 965-2046
>>Kerry Mazzoni
>>Marin City Civic Center
>>3501 Civic Center Drive, Room 335
>>San Rafael, CA 94903
>>(415) 479-4920 * fax (415) 479-2123
># #
># California Wilderness Coalition #
># 2655 Portage Bay East, Suite 5 #
># Davis, California 95616 #
># (916) 758-0380 #
># (916) 758-0382 (fax) #
># #
># #
>Date: Tue, 11 Mar 1997 11:33:26 -0500
>From: "Blair Pollock" <>
>Subject: NER's action on DPPEA
>>The Joint Committee on Natural and Economic Resources (NER) has flagged
>>DPPEA for possible cutting or elimination. DPPEA was the only environmental
>>division flagged.
>>Senator Martin (D-Pitt), one of NER's co-chairs, appears to be
>>giving tacit approval if not direct encouragement to some of the Republican
>>members (eg, Betsy Cochrane, Senator, R-Davie) to lead this attack. It
is not
>>a new attack - DPPEA in its old form, OWR, has been likewise targeted in the
>>past, just as the funding of the RBAC was almost stopped by Martin last
>>Supporters may want to be alerted to this issue and take the
>>opportunity to express support of DPPEA to NER
>>members, as well as to the leadership (Rep. Brubaker, Senator
>>Basnight) and to key members such as Senator Odom. NER is expected
>>to make its final recommendations as early as Friday, March 14th.
>Date: Wed, 2 Apr 1997 12:37:22 -0800 (PST)
>From: Tedd Ward <>
>Subject: Summary CRRA Agenda for Next Millenium
>Hi Brenda!
>Here is the summary of CRRA's Policy Document which will also be the subject
>of several sessions at the Conference in Monterey in June. I will bring
>copies for all attendees of the Grassroots Recycling Network conference this
>weekend, and will also bring about 50 copies of the full text. How many
>people are coming?
>Tedd Ward
> The California Resource Recovery Association's
>Agenda for the Next Millennium
> Summary
>Although Americans comprise only 5% of the global population, we use 30% of
>the world's resources. Global population doubled for the first time during
>the last four decades and can be expected to double again over the next
>four. We simply cannot continue our current course of increasing material
>consumption per person. Unlimited growth is a more appropriate ideology
>for a cancer cell than it is for a human society or a material culture.
>Today we pay three times for most materials in our lives: once as consumers,
>again to discard, and again in taxes to clean up the litter or leaking
>landfills. There is no convenient, reliable way for our people to compare
>the environmental, social and political impacts of extraction, processing,
>packaging, delivery and ultimate disposal of different products. Even
>worse, during the past ten years we have witnessed a dramatic growth in the
>amount of deliberately misleading information produced by and for the
>profiteers of the throwaway culture. As the oldest state recycling
>organization in the United States, and as professionals in reuse, repair,
>recycling and composting, the California Resource Recovery Association
>offers our vision of how we can move towards a more sustainable resource
>efficient economy. The way nutrients and materials are recycled in nature
>is our model. Our goals are:
>1. Zero waste. The goal is startling, audacious, and real. In a world
>without waste, items which cannot be safely assimilated into the
>environment simply could not be sold, but only leased. Local governments
>could still collect and compost putrescibles, but the other materials would
>remain the property and responsibility of those who aim to profit by their
>sale. Garbage is an unfunded mandate. Until the lifecycle costs of goods
>are fully incorporated into the purchase price, we must lead with a label to
>inform citizens about the extraction and processing impacts of the goods we
>2. End welfare for wasting. We need to improve the resource efficiency of
>our economy, and reduce the waste associated with resource extraction,
>processing and manufacturing, packaging, distribution and sale. Although
>the adverse environmental impacts of litter and even legal disposal can be
>significant, reducing waste through reuse and recycling preserves the
>environment mainly by reducing our need to mine and process new goods to
>replace those we failed to reuse, repair or recycle. Federal and State
>stewardship of public lands is undermined by outdated policies which
>encourage wasting over conservation, and have often sped the unsustainable
>extraction of the resources in the name short term economic development. We
>must reform both the tax and campaign finance systems to improve the
>resource efficiency of our economy.
>3. Jumpstart jobs with design and discards. Recent research shows that
>reuse, repair, composting and recycling operations generally create many
>more jobs for the amount of discards processed than disposal alone, and
>reuse businesses like tire retreaders or bottle washers create more local
>jobs than their disposable competing products. Reuse, composting and
>recycling conserves resources, creates jobs and builds communities.
>To truly improve the material efficiency of our culture and economy, over
>the next forty years we must change everything: how we manage our public
>lands, how our elected officials finance campaigns and assess taxes, how we
>design and manage our communities, how we design products and services, how
>industries and government work together to improve resource and energy
>efficiency, and how we define waste. We invite you to join us in helping to
>achieve this vision.
>Date: Wed, 2 Apr 1997 13:57:34 -0800 (PST)
>From: "David A. Kirkpatrick" <>
>Subject: Trial Grassroots Recycling Network Website
>I have added a Grassroots Recycling Network section to KirkWorks website,
>including our three policy papers, my zero waste local articles, and a few
>other tidbits. Check it out at
>and email me any suggestions on improvement or additions.
> good works for the good earth
>Address: Post Office Box 15062
> Durham, NC 27704-0062
>Voice: 919/220-8065
>Fax: 919/220-9720
>Email: (NEW! Replaces
>Website: (UPDATED AND EXPANDED 4/1/97!)
>End of GreenYes Digest V97 #67
>>-- Saved internet headers (useful for debugging)
>>Received: from by; id EAA08738 sendmail
>>Received: from ( []) by
>>Received: by; id EAA08534 sendmail 8.8.5/UCSD8.3 Thu, 3 Apr
1997 0
>>Message-Id: <19
>>Date: Thu, 3 Apr 97 04:30:03 PST
>>From: GreenYes
>>Precedence: List
>>To: Gre