Today's Topics:
50% waste reduction impossible? (2 msgs)
Critique of "Why Do We Recycle," by Frank Ackerman
FREE International Briefing
Recycling news from Greenwire
Seeking expert to comment on CA SR125
Stop Chemgold - need more help - write letters
Virgin Materials Subsidies (2 msgs)
ZERO WASTE ACTION CAMPAIGN conference
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: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 16:10:46, -0500
From: david_reynolds@prodigy.com ( DAVID B REYNOLDS)
Subject: 50% waste reduction impossible?
David,
I suggest that you send Mr. Irvine a copy of the Grassroots Recycling
Network's policy document (Version 2). This was posted on the
GreenYes listserve. Did you save it? If not, let me know.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 10:04:59 -0500 (EST)
From: DavidOrr@aol.com
Subject: 50% waste reduction impossible?
Mr. C. Irvine claims that reaching 50% waste reduction is "impossible."
I believe there are communities here in California that may have already
met that goal. If anyone on the list can verify that fact, I would
appreciate it.
Why would it be impossible to achieve? Such a statement strikes me as
absurd. Impossible by whose estimation? What documentation exists to
support such a claim?
I think the California Integrated Waste Management Board would be very
interested to know about this, since they're charged with enforcing a
statewide 50% reduction by 2000. If, as Mr. Irvine says, that goal is
unreachable, then they may want him to come testify to that fact at their
next board meeting!
David Orr
-------------------
Date: 26 Feb 97 16:38:56 EST
From: Chuck Irvine <75010.567@CompuServe.COM>
To: "INTERNET:recycle@envirolink.org" <recycle@envirolink.org>
Subject: Re: RECYCLE digest 414
Reply to David Orr, [to whom I have replied several times in the past].
I have not , nor do I intend to impune anyone's integrity. I simply, from
time
to time like to point out some of the falicies of regarding
environmentalism
[recycling] with emotional, even religious furver. You sir, and some of
your
cohorts, evidentially have not noticed that the general public has not
chosen to
follow your expansive and expensive route back to the 19th century.
My background includes founding the first third party collection system
for
recyclable beverage containers [Container Recovery, Inc CRINC] in Iowa
and four
different companies involved in processing recyclables and manufacture
of
recycling equipment,
involving aluminum, glass, steel, and paper. One of those presently
handles the
processing of the curbside program for a population base of over 500,000
population. All of these ventures have been profitable. The first was
established in 1978. I am alsoam the founder of a plastic resin
distribution
company that has had a policy of offering pick-up and recycling of all
scrap
plastics used by our processor customers. This business was founded in
1959 and
two years ago was awarded ISO9002 status world wide.
May I add, that in our community, the City is beginning to have second
thoughts
about the State's mandate to have a 50% diversion from land filling
municipal
solid waste by the year 2000 because they now know it is impossible! Now,
some
of you are demanding ZERO waste.....Please get real. By going so
overboard you
are losing the gains you have made. Consider now what has happened to your
claims of a shortage of landfil space, paper vs plastic, biodegradable
plastic,
disposable diapers, etc. etc. Keep it up and you will lose all your
followers
except the few newborns that haven't lived to see all these things go
down in
flames.
Any more questions?
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 19:45:46 -0500 (EST)
From: Frank Ackerman <fackerma@emerald.tufts.edu>
Subject: Critique of "Why Do We Recycle," by Frank Ackerman
This is long, so I've summarized the general points on the first page
(down to the row of *****), then moved on to specifics for those who want
to see details.
In a recent message to the GreenYes list, Bill Sheehan and Peter Anderson
criticize my book, "Why Do We Recycle?" for understating the economic case
for recycling in two areas 1) landfill externalities or maintenance costs,
and 2) collection cost savings.
In fact, in both areas, I acknowledged the points they make (discussing
Anderson's argument on collection costs on p.66, for example). Neither
one of their points struck me as persuasive in its entirety, as I'll
explain below.
Moreover, the manner in which they are raised perpetuates a problematical
approach in the recycling community. Faced with the onslaught of the
free-market critique, many of us end up claiming that if only the numbers
were juggled one more time, recycling would be making money for
communities across the country.
A better approach, I believe, is to argue that on the one hand, recycling
doesn't cost much -- my estimates of annual deficits per household are
modest, well within the range that people are clearly willing to pay
according to surveys, a tiny fraction of the Tierney-type claims about
costs.
And on the other hand, there ARE reasons to keep doing it, even if
it doesn't make a profit in every year in every community -- transcendant
environmental values involving the fate of the earth and the legacy we
leave to future generations, issues that resonate with the real reasons
why people recycle, much more powerfully than a tendentious argument about
tiny hypothetical profits. By forgetting this, we lose our most powerful
argument, and leave ourselves vulnerable to an economic analysis that tips
slightly against us (as I believe it often does).
*************************
That's the general pitch. Read on if you are interested in the detailed
debate on the two issues.
1) Did I understate landfill maintenance costs? Should Fred Lee's
estimates of $35 - $100/ton for better management and/or long-term
maintenance be added to disposal costs as our estimate of externality
values?
Let's start with what I did say. On p.22, I argued that landfills built
in the past were much worse than new ones built to conform to current
regulations, and then said "But new technology has not eliminated
pollution from waste disposal: it is still reasonable to worry that, in
time, even the best-designed new landfill may develop leaks." I added
that methane emissions from landfills contribute to the greenhouse effect.
On p.88 I summarized the finding of the Tellus Packaging Study, to the
effect that manufacturing impacts are vastly greater than disposal impacts
for most common materials (actually, for those used in packaging). On
p.89 I said "as unattractive as it may be to live next to even the newest
landfill, it might be 100 times as bad for your health to live next to a
paper mill, oil refinery, or steel mill." This is an important point, one
that emerges from our extensive lifecycle analysis, and is crucial to bear
in mind, if one wants to relate waste and recycling issues to other
environmental concerns: manufacturing really is worse than disposal.
Perhaps the offensive statement is further on p.89: "Looking forward [in
time, i.e. into the future], there are only minimal health hazards
attributable to burying PACKAGING MATERIALS in new landfills that meet
current standards." [emphasis added] This is NOT followed by a statement
that landfills make nice green neighbors; rather, I go on to say that the
worst things in landfills, from the point of view of causing pollution,
are household hazardous wastes, which are associated with much more
damaging emissions.
Should Fred Lee's maintenance cost estimates, and his advocacy of "wet
cell" landfill management, be incorporated in the economic analysis?
First, I would point out that this is a form of valuing environmental
goals that are not currently reflected in the market, just as I have in
more general terms advocated.
Second, the argument over the merits of wet vs. dry landfill management
is, according to EPA's Office of Solid Waste, a longstanding and still
unsettled on. The folks there, who have been studying this for years,
still think there is a lack of proof that the wet cell method has worked
on a full-scale landfill application (my impression is that they would be
open to hearing about it, but believe that it has been debated on the
basis of very small pilot studies to date). Moreover, they are concerned
that some of the worst MSW leachate leakage problems, in California a few
years back, came when leaks occurred during the active fluid circulation
stage of management of a wet-cell landfill; this method may not be free of
risks and problems of its own. [personal communication from Allen Geswein
and Truett DeGeare, EPA OSW]
I don't know that Lee is wrong; this isn't my area of speciality, and I
didn't do much more in the book than the above quoted passages on the
subject. But I'm reluctant to conclude that I, or we, know that Lee is
right and EPA OSW is wrong on the basis of what I've heard to date.
Nobody at EPA is trying to force shoddy landfilling on anyone; they, too,
are trying to make landfilling safe (and hence more expensive), and
promote recycling and waste reduction as alternatives. So, no, I didn't
use Lee's specific numbers to reflect the cost of landfill externalities
-- though I would be interested in following the debate, if it advances in
the future.
2) Did I ignore savings in collection costs that can be achieved by
reorganizing collection truck fleets when recycling is introduced?
Anderson and I have exchanged correspondence on this, on the strength of
which I added the discussion of his views in the book (p.66). However, he
hasn't convinced me that these savings have occurred outside his case
study of Madison, Wisconsin. I believe that he is reporting on a
fortuitous combination of circumstances in Madison, which is why the
savings may not be repeatable, or all attributable to recycling per se.
As a matter of general principle, I believe that there are economies of
scale in truck collection: picking up x% more stuff at each stop does not
add x% to the costs, since the fixed costs of getting to and from
each stop must be incurred regardless of how much stuff is picked up
there. This implies that one truck picking up everything (garbage
collection only, no recycling) is cheaper than two trucks picking up
separate loads from each household.
Anderson argues that in Madison, introduction of recycling reduced the
garbage volume enough so that trucks that formerly did one full and one
very partial load per day now do only one full load, saving the additional
dump time each day. This, PLUS the fact that yard waste diversion (at
zero municipal collection cost) was introduced at the same time as
recycling, PLUS the fact that the city could buy lighter-weight garbage
trucks, all together added up to a savings in per-capita collection costs.
One obvious objection is that much of the savings could be due to yard
waste diversion (involving no trucks) rather than the use of the recycling
trucks. Another is that the gains due to resizing the trucks suggest that
the garbage collection fleet may not have been optimized to begin with.
If the average was one full and one very partial load in every truck every
day, then either slightly bigger trucks (doing just one load) or smaller
ones (doing two closer-to-full loads, saving on truck purchase costs)
could have led to cheaper garbage collection. That is, the reported
savings may include a big bump from optimizing the garbage collection
system, which was potentially achievable independent of the introduction
of recycling.
I'd be delighted to be proven wrong. Where else has this kind of savings
been achieved? What communities have experienced a reduction in total
(garbage plus recycling) collection costs as a result of introducing
curbside recycling collection? My impression is that increases in total
collection costs are much, much more common.
Sheehan and Anderson object that I used Barbara Stevens' cost data from
1993 (which is barely 4 years old now, and was 3 years old when I wrote,
not "4, 5, or more years old") to represent national average costs, rather
than their calculations or similar ones. This raises a question of
methodology: in doing a with recycling/without recycling cost comparison,
as I did, should one use actual averages, anecdotal reports of best
practices, or computer simulations? There are arguments for all three
approaches. I chose the first option, and repeatedly mentioned that my
figures were averages, and that better-than-average programs could do
better than my estimates.
The attraction of Stevens' data, for me, was that she selected a true
random sample of U.S. communities, unlike anyone else I've seen. Sheehan
and Anderson suggest that her large standard deviations invalidate her
data; I would say that this just shows that there is a lot of variation in
reality. Average wages and incomes, for example, are meaningful numbers,
even though there's huge variation in wages and incomes from person to
person. The same is likely true of waste management costs, varying from
place to place; the averages are still interesting.
What you really can't do, in fairness, is compare actual average data
without recycling, to best anecdotal results or simulation modeling of
optimized costs with recycling; this is sure to create spurious gains. It
would be interesting to compare stories about best cost-minimizing
experience in garbage collection with and without recycling, or computer
simulations of the most efficient truck fleets with and without; I didn't
do either of these (but neither did Anderson, as far as I can see).
Trying to compare apples to apples, I compared national averages to
national averages. I'd be very interested in seeing an updated,
comparable comparison based on newer data, but I'm not aware of any that
have appeared.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 21:23:54 -0500 (EST)
From: michele@raymond.com (Michele Raymond)
Subject: FREE International Briefing
PLEASE FORWARD THIS MESSAGE TO YOUR WASHINGTON D.C. OFFICE!
Publisher Michele Raymond will provide a short briefing on "Takeback
Initiatives in the European Union" Tuesday, March 4, 1997 at 12 noon, at the
offices of the Environmental Law Institute, Washington D.C.
This brown bag lunch is free and open to the public, but you must make a
reservation, and bring your own lunch!
The briefing is co-sponsored by the International Law Section of the
Washington D.C. Bar Association, Environment and Natural Resources committee
and the Environmental Law Institute.
Raymond will discuss the status of producer responsibility for packaging,
electronics, batteries, and now "household hazardous waste" next on the EU
agenda; as well as green labeling problems.
Gary Stanley of Shawn, Mann & Steinfield L.l.P. will moderate.
The briefing will be oriented towards lawyers and EH&S managers who may be
new to the subject -- but subscribers are quite welcome! We note a few are
already registered.
To register, please call ELI at 202/939-3858. The address is 1616 P St. NW,
Washington D.C. 7th Floor.
Raymond is president of Raymond Communications Inc. Publisher of Recycling
laws International and State Recycling laws Update. Phone 301/345-4237 Fax
301/3450-4768.
Web: http://www.raymond.com/recycle
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 12:50:32 -0700
From: cdchase@qualcomm.com (Carolyn Chase)
Subject: Recycling news from Greenwire
from GREENWIRE 2/25/97
*12 WEYERHAEUSER: COMPANY PLANS TO SHUT SOME RECYCLING PLANTS
"To sharpen its focus on its core paper and products
business," Tacoma, WA-based Weyerhaeuser Co. yesterday said it
plans to close or "dispose" of some of its recycling plants.
Weyerhaeuser said it would shut down or dispose of recycling
facilities and "related assets" in Longview, WA, and sell its
Connecticut-based Shemin Nurseries, a wholesale nursery business.
The timber firm said it would take an after-tax charge of $25
million, or 12 cents a share, in the first quarter for one-time
costs related to the actions (REUTERS/N.Y. TIMES, 2/25).
Mark Wilde, a paper analyst for BT Securities, described the
moves as a "cleaning-up operation." Wilde said Weyerhaeuser has
expanded more aggressively than anyone else into recycling and
the latest action "is a consolidation of those acquisitions"
(John Authers, FINANCIAL TIMES, 2/25).
*13 RECYCLING: PA FIRM UNVEILS POLYSTYRENE TECHNOLOGY
West Goshen, PA-based Resource Recovery Technologies Inc. on
2/21 unveiled a machine that recycles waste polystyrene foam for
reuse in other plastic products. The machine treats the foam
with a chemical solvent that breaks it down into flakes that make
up just 5% of its original volume.
Resource Recovery Technologies has entered into a joint
venture with Germany's Intrec Polymers GmbH and is hoping to
market the machine to customers in the US. Intrec Pres. Rainer
Janzen said his company foresees using the technology in
recycling centers. Janzen: "This machine [offers] a big chance
to solve the problem of recycling post-consumer waste" (Mary
Blakinger PHILADELPHIA INQUIRER, 2/24).
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 13:00:38 -0700
From: cdchase@qualcomm.com (Carolyn Chase)
Subject: Seeking expert to comment on CA SR125
PRESERVE SOUTH BAY (San Diego) IS SEEKING:
AN EXPERT ECONOMIST-TYPE
WITH EXPERIENCE IN TRANSPORATION AND GROWTH ISSUES
TO EXAMINE AND CRITIQUE
ANTICIPATED STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
FOR UPCOMING RELEASE OF THE 125 TOLLWAY FINAL EIR/S.
SOME FUNDING MAY BE AVAILABLE.
PLEASE REPLY BY TELE AT (619)294-8258 OR BY FAX AT(619) 294-8255
THANK YOU.
MARIANNE O. GREENE
mgreene@ix.netcom.com (Marianne Ostrow Greene)
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 10:02:44 -0700
From: cdchase@qualcomm.com (Carolyn Chase)
Subject: Stop Chemgold - need more help - write letters
Thanks to the many of you who have already written against the proposed
open pit, cyanide heap-leach gold mine in eastern Imperial County, Southern
California. Please stop and think if there are other people, places or
lists that you can forward this to and zap it along!
BLM-El Centro last week has extended the comment period - again- on the
Imperial Project until MARCH 24. We really need to get in a many more
comments
as possible.
Note from Daniel Patterson <dpatterson@envirolink.org>:
"I suspect that BLM may be considering denying Chemgold's
proposal and they are seeking as many comments against the project as they can
get to back up a rejection. Maybe, maybe not, but I used to work for BLM and
I think that's what may be happening here. We need nationwide comments to
stop this one. "
Write to: Bureau of Land Management, 1661 South Fourth St., El Centro CA
92243. ATTN: Keith Schone Fax (619) 337-4490
Background:
Chemgold's Imperial Project is a proposed open pit, cyanide heap-leach gold
mine on Indian Pass Road in eastern Imperial County, 1 mile from Picacho Peak
Wilderness, 3/4 mile from Indian Pass archeological site, 2 miles from Indian
Pass Wilderness, and 2 miles from critical habitat for the desert tortoise,
an endangered species.
This mine would disrupt alluvial plains and wide braided washes which support
large desert trees and shrubs, important sources of forage and shelter for a
variety of wildlife. "Mitigation" proposed would be planting seeds and
seedlings,.to substitute for huge, ancient, slow-growing trees, to compensate
for the destruction of 100 acres of mature micropyll woodlands, an endangered
habitat.
Pits, waste piles, and leach heaps would destroy 49 archeological sites, and
"disturb" 1356 acres of 1598 acres of BLM public lands. It would also
disturb 57 more acres for power and pipe lines for wells to the mine site.
Four water wells would be drilled, to provide 100 gallons/ minute. One well
has already been drilled illegally.
The biggest of the 3 pits would not be backfilled. Too expensive, says
Chemgold. The mine would leach up to 150 tons of ore and leave waste rock
piles of 450 tons, with 24 hour operation, 7 days per week, for 20 years.
Pits would be 400, 760, and 800 feet deep, one 270 feet below the water
table. Several drainages would be diverted around the mine.
This project is one of the many horror stories of the 1872 Mining Law.
Chemgold will pay no taxes, and will leave taxpayers the cost of cleanup
after mining ends, or when this subsidiary goes broke and/or abandons
operations. Chemgold is a wholly owned subsidiary of a wholly owned
subsidary of a Canadian Company called Glamis Gold, Ltd. Yet it can leave
deep pits and 400 foot waste piles fenced with chain link and barbed wire --
and this is public land!
We need all of you to write, to give BLM the courage to just say no. I know
most of you have not been there. This is not your back yard. But that is
part of the problem: There are very few environmentalists in Imperial County,
but there are very many exploiters. A lonely, overworked environmentalist,
Edie Harmon, asks that you write, to give strength to the good guys on the
ground in BLM. We can't wait for the repeal of the 1872 Mining Law, though
such effort is underway. Hooray!. (Please write the President, your Senators,
and your Representative, asking for its repeal.)
Right now, sit down and write BLM, saying you support the No Action
Alternative, that you object to their choosing a new open pit mine as the
"Preferred Alternative," even before getting public input for such a massive
project on public lands.
Write to: Bureau of Land Management, 1661 South Fourth St., El Centro CA
92243. ATTN: Keith Schone Fax (619) 337-4490 Thanks!
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 19:45:48 -0500 (EST)
From: ZeroWaste@aol.com
Subject: Virgin Materials Subsidies
A 9/12/95 study by Roland Hwang for the Union of Concerned Scientists cites
1991 federal income tax return data by industry that shows the oil industry
with an effective tax rate of 11% compared to the average 18% paid by non-oil
industries. This amounts to a savings of $2 billion dollars in oil industry
taxes. If the oil industry's effective tax rate were 18% instead of 11%
there would be a correspondingly significant pressure for higher oil product
prices.
Do readers know about other such studies on effective tax rates for the
virgin materials extraction industries? As opposed to trying to determine
what the impacts are from the welter of federal tax rules and regulations,
just looking at effective tax rates seems the way to get to the truth of the
matter. It's the empirical approach. I'm just not aware of any other
studies on industry tax payments that have been categorized to separate out
the virgin materials extraction industries.
This of course is just the US federal tax subsidies tip of the whole
subsidies and externalized costs iceberg. But it would be a nice start.
Especially if we had effective tax rates over time and could see what
empirical impact changes such as the 1986 Tax Reform Act actually had on
virgin materials extraction industries.
Jeffrey Morris, Ph.D.-Economics
Sound Resource Management
Seattle, WA
info@ZeroWaste.com
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 23:42:41 -0500 (EST)
From: DavidOrr@aol.com
Subject: Virgin Materials Subsidies
I agree with Frank Ackerman that we shouldn't pin all our arguments on
the free market. Even if recycling were not cost-effective, I think that
for MORAL reasons most people would continue to do it.
David Orr
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 11:26:43 -0800 (PST)
From: ilsr@igc.apc.org (ilsr)
Subject: ZERO WASTE ACTION CAMPAIGN conference
Group discounted travel arrangements may be available for the upcoming GRN
conference (registration information posted recently by Bill Sheehan) on
Delta Airlines. Please contact Jennifer Leahy, GRN Conference Coordinator,
directly at ilsr@igc.apc.org, by phone (202) 232-4108 or by fax (202)
332-0463 as soon as possible, so we can coordinate arrangements and take
advantage of the discount.
Following is the registration form for the conference again, for your
convenience.
GRASSROOTS ACTIVITIES
Participation is limited to individual activists, organizers,
community-based non-profits and for-profits. Please describe you
involvement in these areas:
CONFERENCE PREREGISTRATION
Name ________________________________________________________________________
Title: ______________ Organization:_______________________________________
Address:_____________________________________________________________________
City: __________________________ State ________ Zip ______________________
phone: day______________ night ________________ fax: ____________________
email ________________________________
preferred mode of communication ___ email ____ snailmail ____ fax
___ Please check if you cannot attend the conference, but want to
participate in/keep up with GRN campaigns.
Preregistration is required for the conference. Preregistration mail-in
deadline is Thursday, March 20, 1997.
Preregistration fax deadline (202-332-0463) is Thursday, March 27, 1997.
___ Conference Cost: $90 ___ Local Conference Cost: $25
(Conference cost includes: 2 nights accommodation in cabins overlooking
lake, meals from Saturday lunch through Monday breakfast, and
transportation
to/from Atlanta airport.)
___ Friday Night Accommodation: $10
Please make checks for the conference payable to: "GRN/ILSR" and mail to
Zero Waste Action Campaign,
c/o ILSR, 2425 18th Street, Washington, DC 20009. Refund requests must be
received in writing by
March 20, 1997 and will be subject to a 25% service charge.
___ Please check if you would like to be removed from future mailings.
GRN CONFERENCE SPONSORSHIPS*
Type of Sponsorships Levels Sponsors Receive
Founding Sponsors $1,000.00 and up 4
registrations
Sustaining $500 to $999 3
registrations
Advocates $250 to $499 2
registrations
Activists $150 to $249 1
registration
Grassroots $125 to $149 1
registration
* These sponsors will be recognized in promotional materials as of March
10, 1997, in a banner at the conference, and in news releases. Unless
otherwise approved by the steering committee, contributions must be
received prior to March 10 or printing deadlines to get listed.
CONFERENCE SCHOLARSHIPS
We know many of you may not be able to afford the travel and conference
expenses, so, first, we are asking you to try to raise the money in your
local communities to attend the conference. And, thanks to a Turner
Foundation grant, we have money for limited scholarships. To apply for a
scholarship, we ask you to fill out the enclosed forms and send a letter
explaining your scholarship needs.
Scholarship levels are:
___ Scholarship for room & board: pay as low as $30 (full rate is $90)
___ Scholarship for travel from (city) _________________________
Requests for scholarships must be received by March 1st. You will be
notified by March 7th of the availability of funds to meet your request.
GRN CAMPAIGN ENDORSEMENT (We appreciate your endorsement even if you
are unable to participate
in the conference.)
Your endorsement can help us launching the GRN campaign.
Yes, I/We ___________________ support development of the Grassroots
Recycling Network as a means to foster cooperation among community-based
waste prevention, reuse, recycling and composting activists engaged in
conserving our human and natural resources and give voice to the
conservation ethic that more than 100 million Americans express daily by
recycling.
The Grassroots Recycling Network MAY/MAY NOT (circle one) use my/our
(circle one) name in a public list of supporters.
_____________________
Signature
GRN CAMPAIGN PRIORITIES
Please help us in deciding which campaigns GRN should focus on. Based on
your input and on feedback from past outreach, we will select three or four
campaigns to work on at the April conference. Please write on a separate
sheet about the issue(s) that concern you most. Some questions it would be
helpful to consider:
* how it relates to the goals and missions of GRN;
* what actions are needed to 'win' or achieve specific goals;
* what is going on locally related to the issue; and,
* what you and/or your organization can contribute in time or
resources to the campaign.
Please return your feedback by Monday, March 3, 1997 to Lance King,
Campaign Coordinator:
fax: 916-448-3207 or email: lmking96@aol.com; OR include with your
conference registration to ILSR. We will send you information in a
follow-up mailing in early March.
FOR MORE INFORMATION ABOUT GRN: Please contact Lance King, GRN Campaign
Coordinator, phone: 916-492-2924, fax: 916-448-3207, email:
lmking96@aol.com
FOR CONFERENCE LOGISTICAL QUESTIONS: Please contact Jennifer Leahy,
phone: 202-232-4108, fax: 202-332-0463, email: ilsr@igc.apc.org
------------------------------
Date: (null)
From: (null)
I think that the GRN must build a better understanding of what it is
all about. This must be done within the recycling community and
trade associations prior to addressing our political institutions and
the general public. So what is it all about? It is about
transitioning from a wasting infrastructure to a waste prevention and
recovery infrastructure. This takes time (after recovering the costs
of the present wasting infrastructure), appropriate policies,
appropriate capital investments, vigilance, and information. The
Version 2 document is a guidance document and mission statement.
Within this paradigm, zero waste can be achieved, and it will result
in a positive return to both the environment and the economy (an
economy based on materials recovery).
If Georgia State Senator Donzella James does not effectively
communicate to her colleagues how we can get form "here" to "there,"
I predict that we will see an incredible backlash against her zero
waste legislation.
Once the GRN fosters an understanding and breaks through the "waste
paradigm" barrier, endorsements are sure to follow. But until that
time, our "colleagues" will think that the best place for the GRN to
hold its meetings is in a padded room.
-Dave Reynolds
Enviro-nomics
------------------------------
From: DavidOrr@aol.com
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 10:04:59 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <970227100458_-1004870373@emout11.mail.aol.com>
To: recycle@envirolink.org
cc: CRRA@aol.com, greenyes@ucsd.edu
Subject: 50% waste reduction impossible?
Mr. C. Irvine claims that reaching 50% waste reduction is "impossible.
"
I believe there are communities here in California that may have
already
met that goal. If anyone on the list can verify that fact, I would
appreciate it.
Why would it be impossible to achieve? Such a statement strikes me
as
absurd. Impossible by whose estimation? What documentation exists
to
support such a claim?
I think the California Integrated Waste Management Board would be
very
interested to know about this, since they're charged with enforcing a
statewide 50% reduction by 2000. If, as Mr. Irvine says, that goal
is
unreachable, then they may want him to come testify to that fact at
their
next board meeting!
David Orr
-------------------
Date: 26 Feb 97 16:38:56 EST
From: Chuck Irvine <75010.567@CompuServe.COM>
To: "INTERNET:recycle@envirolink.org" <recycle@envirolink.org>
Subject: Re: RECYCLE digest 414
Reply to David Orr, [to whom I have replied several times in the
past].
I have not , nor do I intend to impune anyone's integrity. I simply,
from
time
to time like to point out some of the falicies of regarding
environmentalism
[recycling] with emotional, even religious furver. You sir, and some
of
your
cohorts, evidentially have not noticed that the general public has
not
chosen to
follow your expansive and expensive route back to the 19th century.
My background includes founding the first third party collection
system
for
recyclable beverage containers [Container Recovery, Inc CRINC] in
Iowa
and four
different companies involved in processing recyclables and
manufacture
of
recycling equipment,
involving aluminum, glass, steel, and paper. One of those presently
handles the
processing of the curbside program for a population base of over 500,
000
population. All of these ventures have been profitable. The first
was
established in 1978. I am alsoam the founder of a plastic resin
distribution
company that has had a policy of offering pick-up and recycling of
all
scrap
plastics used by our processor customers. This business was founded
in
1959 and
two years ago was awarded ISO9002 status world wide.
May I add, that in our community, the City is beginning to have
second
thoughts
about the State's mandate to have a 50% diversion from land filling
municipal
solid waste by the year 2000 because they now know it is impossible!
Now,
some
of you are demanding ZERO waste.....Please get real. By going so
overboard you
are losing the gains you have made. Consider now what has happened to
your
claims of a shortage of landfil space, paper vs plastic,
biodegradable
plastic,
disposable diapers, etc. etc. Keep it up and you will lose all your
followers
except the few newborns that haven't lived to see all these things go
down in
flames.
Any more questions?
------------------------------
End of GreenYes Digest V97 #40
******************************