GreenYes Digest V97 #58

GreenYes Mailing List and Newsgroup (
Fri, 22 Jan 1999 16:58:42 -0500

GreenYes Digest Tue, 18 Mar 97 Volume 97 : Issue 58

Today's Topics:
Alternatives to HHW -Reply
Internet Message

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: Mon, 17 Mar 1997 08:40:03 -0600
From: Ingrid Dierlam <>
Subject: Alternatives to HHW -Reply

I haven't heard about the Arizona initiative, but I have heard that
Washington state passed a law similar to this....(sorry no details
available) Not cool at all.....atfer all, they are just RECOMENDATIONS of
alternatives to hh products....shows you what kind of pull the chemical
manufacturers association has......

>>> <> 03/16/97 01:42pm >>>
Has anyone heard about this? Any comments?

Gary Liss

>From EIC: Final Word
<inspiring or alarming items in the news>
In a proposed new limit on free speech, manufacturers of household
chemicals and pesticides have crafted and proposed legislation that
would prevent the state of Arizona from telling consumers about
alternatives to dangerous household chemical products unless there is
scientific evidence to back up their claims. The bill has passed in the
Senate and is awaiting House approval.

Source: "eicinfo" <>


Date: Mon, 17 Mar 1997 14:14:04, -0500
Subject: Internet Message


In your reply, you state:

"A resource management model for residual materials, I assume, would
say that
these materials should flow to the end point that can utilize them as
resource at the lowest cost to the system that manages them (based on
public or private infrastructure that is available for that system to
Let's take ONP as an example. We would all prefer to see that ONP
productively utilized for its fiber content. However, because the
value of
paper fiber is determined by commodity market forces, it can happen
time to time (some may say even right now) that the total (current)
cost to
recycle paper as fiber exceeds the competive cost to dispose of it.
worse, what if future market forces causes the value of ONP's BTU
content on
a per ton basis to exceed its per ton value as fiber? On an open
basis the answer would be to base your decision on the pricing
signals that
these markets are sending. Residual materials should be allowed to
freely in response to the markets that are economically preferable.
market equilibria may be created as a result of these material flows
resulting in better pricing for fiber in the long run."

My concern is that the "pricing signals" are quite distorted within
our present economic paradigm, e.g., misplaced subsidies and no
accounting for environmental degradation at the extraction end, and
no full cost disclosure at the disposal end. The real bottom line is
found in Peter Anderson's colorful comments.

My concern about markets in my original message is not so much about
pricing, since I contend that this is somewhat artificial, but about
programs that place the carriage before the horse. Policies that
place the horse in the appropriate position will lead to more
sustainable recycling programs.

Thanks for your kind words in your reply.


Dave Reynolds


End of GreenYes Digest V97 #58