GreenYes Digest V97 #26

GreenYes Mailing List and Newsgroup (
Fri, 22 Jan 1999 17:01:18 -0500

GreenYes Digest Thu, 13 Feb 97 Volume 97 : Issue 26

Today's Topics:
BioCycle Zero Waste Article
Extended Producer Responsibility
Fwd: INFOTERRA: Scholarships for US citizens
Fwd: Query: Study of transportation cost
GreenYes Digest V97 #25
GRN Campaign -Possible Issues
GRN Campaign Ideas
GRN Campaigns (2 msgs)
GRN CAMPAIGNS: The Great Paper Caper
GRN Mission
Job Posting for SEEK web page
Letter to Congress

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: Wed, 12 Feb 97 23:55:12 PST
Subject: BioCycle Zero Waste Article

Steve Suess,

Your biocycle letter in response to Pete Grogan is excellent. You were perhaps
more gentle than I would have been on Grogan since his latest article is a
retreat from an earlier piece that advocated zero waste (and which I
enthusiatically posted on the net a year ago). Zero Waste is like campaign
finance reform. Most politicians embrace campaign finance reform when it looks
like it is going nowhere, but backpaddle and bail out if it looks like it could
pass -- because their livelihoods depend on its NOT passing. Whatever his
Grogan now works for a company whose primary business is harvesting virgin
Total recycling/zero waste would hurt that heavily subsidized primary business.

There is a lesson for Zero Waste advocates here...

--Bill Sheehan


Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:02:23 +0100
From: "Joe Strahl" <>
Subject: Extended Producer Responsibility

With regard to GY v97#25! The posting from Carolyn Chase
requires additional information. In the article which was posted
to this list server there is a passage saying that:
The packaging legislation follows a European trend promoting the
concept of "producer responsibility," or making producers take back
products at the end of their life cycles. In the next few weeks, the

Well I am sorry to say that defining extended producer responsibility
as a new term for producer takeback does not do justice to the beauty
of the EPR idea. Yes EPR can involve producer takeback but that may
only be a part of it. The German packaging legislation requires that
retailers take back unwanted consumer packaging unless industry could
develop some system that meets the goals of the legislation. Enter
Dual System Deutschland which is an industry creation paid for by
part of the price of the packaging.

In EPR producers are given a responsibility. This responsibilty can
be financial, legal, physical, or information or a combination of
these. Since this responsibility entails changed routines such as
building up of an infratructure to manage this responsibilty, a given
company, if acting rationally, will want to diminish its long term
costs. One of the best ways to do this is to redesign the product to
diminish the environmentally offending quality which has burdened the
producer with this responsibilty to begin with. Thus the goal of EPR
when it comes to packaging is not to just immediately place takeback
and recycling percentages which will probably lead to much lower
rates of packaging going to landfills but hopefully permanent design
changes in the packaging which also reduce environmental impacts.
Examples could include, packaging which is easier to dissassemble
into different materials, monomaterial packaging (all paper or all
plastic), redesign of the packaging concept so that consumer
information is on a display and the consumer goods with bare bones
packaging in a barrel below. Takeback does not necessarily lead to
design changes, EPR does.

In the US Gary Davis at the Univ. of Tennessee has been actively
promoting EPR which has undergone a name change to extended product
responsibility. The booklet about EPR which is often cited as laying
out the concept and its ramifications for the first time is:

Extended Producer Responsibility as a Strategy to Promote Cleaner
Products, UNEP Invitational Expert Seminar, May 4-5, 1992

A more recent publication resulted from the conference Green Goods 3
hosted by The Norwegian Ministry for the Environment
during February 1996 which dealt solely with EPR and was an attempt
to clear the air about some of the confusion about EPR.


Joe Strahl

The International Institute for
Industrial Environmental Economics
at Lund University, Sweden

P.O. Box 196, S-221 00 Lund

direct tel. +46 - 46 - 222 02 28
telefax +46 - 46 - 222 02 30



Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 06:20:48 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Fwd: INFOTERRA: Scholarships for US citizens

Dear All,
The attached sounds very interesting. Please pardon any cross-postings.
Gretchen Brewer
Earth Circle
Forwarded message:
From: (Kath Dalmeny)
Reply-to: (Kath Dalmeny)
Date: 97-02-11 19:47:55 EST


The Educational Foundation of America is funding scholarships for U.S.
citizens to attend courses on ecological issues at Schumacher College in
southwest England. Courses are between one and five weeks in length. The
scholarships are for people who can best use the knowledge they gain at
Schumacher College to contribute towards a sustainable America, and who, for
financial reasons, might not otherwise be able to attend a course at
Schumacher College.

Among others, the scholarships will apply to residential courses on
ecological economics and development issues, led by teachers such as
Wolfgang Sachs, Richard Douthwaite, Paul Hawken, Karl-Henrik Robert, James
Robertson, Vandana Shiva, Sulak Shivaraksa and Andrew Kimbrell.

Schumacher College is an international centre for ecological studies based
in southwest England. Courses are one to five weeks in length, and are led
by world-renowned writers and thinkers, including: Fritjof Capra, James
Hillman, David Abram, Paul Hawken, Karl-Henrik Robert, Henri Bortoft, Helena
Norberg-Hodge, Vandana Shiva, Richard Douthwaite, Martin Khor, James
Lovelock, Brian Goodwin, Wendy Harcourt, Stanislav Grof, Rick Tarnas,
Charlene Spretnak, Terry Tempest Williams, David Orr, Thomas Moore and
Robert Sardello. A full programme of courses is available on request.
Subject areas of courses centre around one of the following themes:
ecological economics and development issues; the links between philosophy,
psychology and ecology; the new understandings emerging from recent
scientific discoveries.

Schumacher College wishes to award the scholarships to individuals who are
now or are likely to become influential in their communities. They may be
working or studying in the fields of education, environmentalism, public
administration, journalism/media, community work, or green business. More
information on eligibility and application procedures is given at the end of
this message. We would be grateful if you could pass these details on to
any potential applicants you know.

Schumacher College strives to achieve diverse student groups on all courses.
The EFA fund will be used to support this policy, and applications are
welcomed from a wide range of social, ethnic and age groups.

Finally, we would very much like to hear your suggestions as to how we can
best inform people active in the fields mentioned above of these
scholarships. If you know of any national associations, media outlets,
conferences etc. that would be an appropriate medium for publicising the
scholarships, please do let us know. We want this grant to help us reach
out to groups in the U.S. that would not otherwise have come into contact
with our work. Our e-mail address is <>.

<N.B. Unfortunately, because the intention of this grant is to widen the
base of U.S. participation, past participants in our courses will not be
eligible for these scholarships. Sorry!>


Who may apply?
U.S. citizens who:
* are now, or are likely to become, influential in their communities.
* are working or studying in the fields of:
public administration
community work
green business.

How to apply:
* Ensure you have read the College prospectus and current programme
(available on request, contact details at the end of this message. Or send
your postal address to this e-mail address, and we will forward details.)
* Select the course you wish to attend from the College programme
* Submit a completed application form with two supporting letters from
employers, colleagues, professors or others familiar with your work

Recipients of the scholarship will be asked to:
* Be interviewed by a member of College staff at the end of the course
* Submit a short written report within 30 days of the end of the course
* Take part in a phone interview with a member of College staff three
months after the end of the course to assess the benefits of the scheme

Financial conditions:
* The scholarship includes the cost of tuition, accommodation, food and
outings but excludes travel expenses
* Those who can afford it, or can raise some funding, are asked to make a
contribution of at least 20% of the course fee to our scholarship fund.
Those unable to make such a contribution to the course fee should include a
letter with their initial application asking for a waiver of this condition.

10 scholarships are available each year in 1997, 1998 and 1999.

Schumacher College strives to achieve diverse student groups on all courses.
The EFA fund will be used to support this policy, and applications are
welcomed from a wide range of social, ethnic and age groups.
Schumacher College is an international centre for ecological studies and a
department of The Dartington Hall Trust, a registered charity.
For more information, contact:
The Administrator,
Schumacher College
The Old Postern
Totnes, Devon TQ9 6EA, UK
Tel: +44 (0)1803 865934
Fax: +44 (0)1803 866899

Schumacher College is an international centre for ecological studies and a
department of The Dartington Hall Trust, a registered charity.

For further details of Schumacher College and its courses, please contact: The Administrator Schumacher College The Old Postern Dartington Totnes Devon TQ9 6EA UK Tel: +44 (0)1803 865934 Fax: +44 (0)1803 866899 Email: (

Please note: all addresses on our mailing list are treated as confidential. We undertake not to sell or rent our mailing list to any other organisation.

If you attend Schumacher College as a course participant, your contact details may, with your consent, be made available to past and future participants through our international alumni network. You will also receive regular newsletters updating you on the activities and projects of past participants.

If at any time you wish to be removed from our mailing list, please let us know.


- message sent by to signoff from the list, send an email to the message body should read signoff infoterra your@email.address -


Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 14:09:06 -0500 (EST) From: Subject: Fwd: Query: Study of transportation cost

--------------------- Forwarded message: From: (Mark Stoll) Sender: H-ASEH@H-NET.MSU.EDU (American Society for Environmental History (H-NET List)) Reply-to: H-ASEH@H-NET.MSU.EDU (American Society for Environmental History (H-NET List)) To: H-ASEH@H-NET.MSU.EDU (Multiple recipients of list H-ASEH) Date: 97-02-11 10:06:57 EST

Sender: "William P. McGowan" <> Subject: Study of transportation cost

I am a Ph. D. candidate preparing a dissertation on the political economy of America's garbage industry over the last one hundred and fifty years, and I am looking for data on the transportation costs. Since garbage is really a transportation industry, the costs I am looking for would relate to short-distance, urban transportation. Is there anything out there that I should be looking at?

Bill McGowan History, University of California at Santa Barbara


Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 15:47:29 -0500 (EST) From: Subject: GreenYes Digest V97 #25

Applause for Steve Seuss' reply to Pete Grogan. I was one of the team that guided Washington State's Future of Recycling study under the direction of a task force chaired by Bill Ruckelshaus. We've been advocating ZeroWaste for a number of years (our e-mail address is and our web site is with e-mail at, so I pushed ZeroWaste as the goal for future waste management in WA, say ZeroWaste by 2020 or some similar long term goal. Some members of the task force, in particular one person from our Dept. of Ecology, just couldn't cope with the cognitive dissonance of that goal versus what he was doing to control waste disposal practices and facilities now. Pete Grogan filled in at task froce meetings for the regular member from Weyerhaueser, so he got exposed to this skepticism from the regulatory community. In the end we adopted a no waste or no disposal of any reusable, recyclable or compostable waste type goal. I think the ZeroWaste idea was a bit too much for long time established solid waste professionals, but it's such a catchy phrase and concept that I urge the GRN to keep it as the number one goal. Why would we want to urge people to do any less? It's like surgeons having a goal of zero mistakes versus a "reasonable" goal of, say, 10% errors resulting in death on the operating table.

Jeffrey Morris, Ph.D.-Economics Sound Resource Management


Date: Wed, 12 Feb 97 22:35:36 PST From: Subject: GRN Campaign -Possible Issues

[Forwarded from LYNN LANDES of Zero Waste America, Inc., and developer of the wicked awesome web site,]

I believe that we should adopt a position demanding that the federal government mandate waste elimination and environmentally safe recycling. Why beat-around-the-bush? We have a fundamental right under common and constitutional law to a clean environment.

Landfills, incinerators, and production and processes that pollute "unnecessarily," must go. If a process is vital to the national interest, it deserves consideration. But, the environment can no longer tolerate the manufacture of non-recyclable materials or continue to allow polluting industrial and other processes for economic or convenience reasons.

We should set up a task force to begin preparing a federal lawsuit on this issue. Review the Solid Waste Management Act. We are not managing waste in a environmentally responsible way. On the Zero Waste America website, there is a section devoted to this issue...environmentalists suing the federal gov't for failure to enforce environmental law. And enviros are winning!

The civil rights movement pursued their strategy both in the streets and in the court. We should do the same. Lynn Landes


Date: Wed, 12 Feb 97 22:12:25 PST From: Subject: GRN Campaign Ideas

Thanks for the opportunity to make suggestions. I put out a query to my colleagues about possible areas and/or actions that might be targeted for GRN Activism. Here's what they said:

Heidi Feldman, School Education Coordinator, Monterey Regional Waste Management District I think one big issue is the stability of markets for recycled commodities. It seems that info is presented (or should we say, manipulated) to make people think that recycling is not working. Is there a way to 1) work with suppliers and buyers to commit to more long-term contracts, 2) disseminate information to everybody, not just the industry, about rates and the reasons why they are dropping (or rising), 3) encourage greater use of recycled-content products (perhaps with more tax incentives, or?).

It seems that although I have been in the recycling business for a number of years, this area is still fuzzy. I feel I have to understand this issue better to present arguments to people who are saying "it just doesn't work." add to my previous message: just saw that Waste News mag. has a new website ( that includes a pricing chart page, incl. "current prices that recyclers are paying for recyclables in key markets." It'll also include historical data for prices t/out year.

I think this will be very helpful and will everyone a base for judging where the market is going.

David Dilworth, Environmental Activist and Software Programmer 1) We need a system like Germany where customers at a checkout stand can un-wrap a package and turn the packaging back in to the store.

2) We need a law that mandates that all packaging be 100% recyclable (then we can get a law that mandates all PRODUCTS be 100% recyclable).

3) We need a tax which makes recycled paper LESS expensive than new paper.

Jeffrey Smedberg, County of Santa Cruz Public Works, CA USA Chair of ZeroWaste Committee for 1997 CRRA Conference Internet: My ideas relate to waste reduction and involve campaigns to enlist the supportive actions of fed-up citizens as well as activists.

Enough Overpackaging: Encourage people to unwrap their purchases at the checkout counter and take the goods home in their canvas bags. This has been done before in some places. Do it with nationwide coordination and lots of publicity in participating localities. If it is big enough it will generate media attention an thus get more publicity. Focus on a specific time period - a week or month. Focus on a particular type of store or product, such as grocery store/supermarket or drug store.

Enough Junk Mail: Not so well thought out. Target a few big mass mailer companies. Get people to call or write to well publicized numbers and addresses to demand removal from mailing lists. I'm thinking of stuff like ADVO which sends out a card with a lost kid on it - the card accompanies a whole wad of unaddressed ad flyers. Or Mailbox Values which sends fat envelopes of coupons.

Robin Salsburg, Public Education Coordinator, Monterey Regional Waste Management District Conference Chair for 1997 CRRA ZeroWaste Conference

Product Manufacturer Responsibility: Target those new and exciting packaging materials (blue glass bottles, brown plastic PET liquor bottles, etc.) and let the manufacturers and packaging designers know that enough is enough. ALL packaging must be recyclable and made of the highest content of recycled materials. ALL packaging should be minimized to the extent possible as well.

Junk Mail Reduction Laws: How can we get it so that my name and address is MY property and that no one may buy it (from various lists) without my permission? Some possible legislation idea: State Business & Profession Code: Without written permission no one may sell or give away a name and address for purposes of profit. Federal Law: No more than one unsolicited mailing per year per organization (this way non-profits fundraising efforts could continue). No unnamed "resident" or "occupant" letters.


Date: Wed, 12 Feb 97 22:15:52 PST From: Subject: GRN Campaigns

[Forwarded from Peter Anderson of Recycleworlds, in response to Steve Suess's anarchist musings]

God, I don't want to sound like an old fart. I REALLY don't. ... but ...

Personally, I'm more attuned to Phillip Hart than Robert Prisig. (Sen. Hart, one of the grand old progressives, once said he'd reached the point that he'd prefer to get a bill through than to march off again into the sunset -- Pirsig wrote Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance.)

It's not that I can no longer, speaking of Zen like harmonics, groove on levitating the Pentagon, but, Jesus, we're watching a substantial part of the recycling infrastructure crumble under our feet and a little here-and-now reaction may be in order.

Source reduction is essential, but it has no political nexus to warrent our entire political effort consisting of letter writing to politicos on the issue. They won't have the faintest idea in the world what to do with it. Actually, source reduction is, in large measure, a Zen thing -- with little to do with wheeling and dealing.

Don't get me wrong, there is a need for attempts at long term harmonics to overcome America's dead end march looking for satisfaction in gluttonous overconsumption.

But, there's also a desperate need for some old fashioned political infighting to save the recycling infrastructure that so many of us have labored for 10 years and more to create. It's slowly being flushed down the toilet, and we ALSO need an organization to take on those issues, too.


Date: Wed, 12 Feb 97 22:19:32 PST From: Subject: GRN Campaigns

[Forwarded from Amy Perry of MASSPIRG]

Hi everyone. I have several thoughts on this question but will be unable to join you in Atlanta. Sorry!

1. Multi-state/national coordinated legislative push on packaging reform -- minimum content standards, bans on certain materials, requirements for minimum diversion, etc. We had great success with this approach in early 90's, meaning we didn't pass any legislation, but we sure gave the packaging folks/petrochemical giants/paper industry a run for their money (literally in some places, like MA!) and were instrumental in changes occurring by the presence of legislative threats. States involved in past = MA, NY, CA, RI, VT, ME, OR and others I am probably forgetting.

2. Similar idea but for deposit legislation -- bottle bills, updated/expanded bottle bills, and other deposit schemes.

3. Similar idea but for non-legislative tactics -- packaging boycotts/buycotts for example.

Not recommended for concerted, coordinated action but I am interested in folks' feedback: do people support pay-by-bag programs? what methods have people seen work best at increasing participation rates in urban areas?

Thanks. Keep me posted.

Amy Perry Solid Waste Program Director MASSPIRG (and pointperson for the PIRGs nationwide on solid waste/recycling/reduction issues) 617 292 4800 F 617 292 8057



Date: Tue, 11 Feb 97 21:42:33 PST From: Subject: GRN CAMPAIGNS: The Great Paper Caper

[Forwarded from Peter Anderson of RecycleWorlds. For my money, paragraphs two, three and four sum up the problem in a nutshell and would make an excellent mission statement for GRN! --bill s.]

This is to recap our conversation concerning possible strategies for the Grassroots Recycling Network.

My feeling is that the biggest thing that needs to be done is to disabuse industry of its belief that began in 1994 that there no longer is any penalty for abandoning recycling. At that time the combination of their public opinion tracking polls (that showed people no longer ranked recycling as high on their agenda of critical issues) and the Gingrich Revolution led them to believe that they no longer had to pay obeisance to recycling to head off more draconian laws such as producer responsibility and product bans.

As to those polls, I believe what they really show is that people think that recycling is solved and they can move on to other crises like crime, etc., and not that they don't continue to fully support recycling. Indeed, I believe that, if the public were informed that recycling is in trouble, they would push the issue back to the top of their agenda again.

Thus -- because we badly need industry support to build and sustain the necessary processing and end use infrastructure for recycling -- our big ticket thing to do is to disabuse industry of their belief by alerting the public of the major problems confronting their recycling programs.

The current crisis in the plastic and the impending crisis in newsprint provide a vehicle to accomplish this broader objective, as well as to hopefully relieve these problems individually as well.

Specifically, you said you were familiar with the collapse in the PET markets this year following the collapse in the HDPE market last year. In addition, there is an impending debacle in newsprint, according to stories in the trade press about shortfalls in necessary capacity additions.

Since the modern expansion of curbside recycling in 1988, in response to this pressure de-inking capacity has more than doubled to absorb the growth in ONP that these new programs collect. Thirty of the 35 North American newsprint manufacturing mills now have the capability to utilize at least some recycled pulp. Following 1988, the recycled content in newsprint in the North American market has increased from an average of approximately 10% to about 25%.

By the year 2002, the various state laws, goals and policies presently in place call for increasing recycled content in newspapers to 38%. This increase cannot be achieved without a commensurate increase in de-inking capacity.

The major producers of newsprint control extensive virgin timber holdings, but they do not generally control the source of recycled pulp collected from recycling programs in cities (sometimes metaphorically referred to as "urban forests").

Consequently, in general they have an economic incentive to disfavor major increases in recycled content. My understanding is that there are some indications that several of the major industry leaders now feel that public attention to recycling has diminished to a sufficient degree that there will be no adverse ramifications if they choose to not construct the necessary de-inking capacity to meet the higher standards scheduled for the next few years in the existing minimum content laws.

Apparently, they must believe that they will not fall into violation of the minimum content laws because most contain variances when inadequate supplies of recycled content can be found. The fact that they are choosing to cause those inadequate supplies does not seem to concern them unduly.

I think that we should help keep the public informed about what's going on beneath the surface to undermine recycling.


Date: Wed, 12 Feb 97 22:32:07 PST From: Subject: GRN CAMPAIGNS?

[Forwarded from Mary Tkach of the St. Paul Energy Consortium]

Here are a few suggestions for our approach to a campaign. What about working with existing folks/organizations who are doing something already...campaign finance reform? the salvage rider gov't procurement of recycled products the list goes on and on...

Get people to tell congress we want campaign finance reform...first and foremost...or get rid of the salvage rider. NOW! Whatever.

I think if we focus our (limited) energy and dollars, but show that we are a coalition to be reckoned with, we will build our credibility for future actions. If we hook up with some group(s) and use our resources to take them over the edge (successfully) on their particular issue, people are going to start asking "who are these GRN people?" I don't think we can or should try to do all the "stop corporate welfare, create jobs not waste...stuff ourselves."

We risk too much if we are not successful and we will burn people out in the process. Let's build some easy wins and then move on from there. There has to be one or two issues we can agree on that have a base of support or an ongoing organization that is dealing with it, that we can work with.


Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 15:40:29 -0500 (EST) From: Subject: GRN Mission

I've been reading all the suggestion on what the GRN ought to be doing. In my opinion all the suggestions are good ones, and all deal with important and critical things that need to be done. My problem is that there are too many suggestions, and they are too detailed, and will not get the attention of those needing a good bop on the head. I've noticed how we here in California start all kinds of things such as newsletters, workshops, conferences, educational campaigns, and even a smattering of letter writing efforts to get things moving - After three years of closely watching this, I've come to the conclusion that we've not infuenced legislation one iota! I suggest the GRN do not repeat this kind of effort. I'd like to remind people that this is a "Grass Roots" organization, and as such it really ought not act like a big organized group......especially one that ends up lost in the hallways and byways of political life such as the NRC. The original intent of the GRN and the GreenYes listserve in particular was one of providing a forum for discussion and sharing in all of our frustrations with the glacial pace of waste reduction. It was hoped that we'd gradually develop a common language and knowlege base and thus would work in a "Zen" kind of harmony when it came to influencing the places where we work and where our expertise is requested. In this manner we would move the "beast" from within as much as possible. The Zero Waste theme, and the already significant resultant reactions, for the 1997 CRRA conference is a good example of this kind of movement in action. Do NOT underestimate the power of this kind of effort! Beyond that, on to something that might seem more satisfying - I suggest we strick to efforts that get our supporters political! We ought to generate letters, phone calls, action on behalf of waste reduction. By this we can do things as simple as generating letters promoting Zero Waste, to as specific as letters, phone calles, and personal efforts on behalf of stopping a specific proposed landfill. I appeal to this kind of broadbased, grass roots effort instead of any kind of burocrazy building empire creating because any empire we create WILL be diluted if not taken over by the "other side". If we stick to pure and almost anarchisitc activism then we will be much harder to infiltrate and negate. This is not to say that members within the effort should not research, document, and otherwise report on what is happening, nor should anyone stop making proposals for campaigns. Reports documenting the downsides of waste and encouraging waste reduction are essential tools of our war. Campaign ideas are just as essential..... The bottom line again is one to encourage an almost anarchisitc kind of activism coupled with lots and lots of talk! I know that this sounds kind of "weird" to all of you highly organized institutional types, but remember this is how virtually all revolutions succeeded, whereas institutions are almost always on the followers, the co-opted remanents of a discarded past. To those of you who saw how the demonstrations of the 60's really worked from within, you will know how to do this!


Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 10:11:11 -0600 From: "St. Paul Energy Consortium" <> Subject: Job Posting for SEEK web page

>Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 10:08:57 >To: >From: "St. Paul Energy Consortium" <> >Subject: Job Posting for SEEK web page > >Dear Robert: >Here's the latest NEC job posting. Please call me at 644-7678 if you have any questions or problems. Thanks! Hatti Koth, Recycling Program Assistant, NEC >Expiration date for this posting: March 3, 1997 >Area: Saint Paul, MN > >Job Title: Waste Reduction Coordinator >Hours: 40 hrs/week, a few evenings and most Saturdays May-October >Starting salary range: $26,000-$29,120 plus benefits, depending on qualifications. Benefits include health and dental insurance, personal days, holidays, tax-deferred retirement options, flexible compensation accounts. Eligible for retirement benefits after one year. > >Starting date: March 24, 1997 >Reports to: Recycling Information Manager > >Background: The Saint Paul Neighborhood Energy Consortium (NEC) is a coalition of community organizations serving St. Paul area residents and businesses. Its purpose is to provide information, services and programs that contribute to an environmentally responsible community. The NEC is seeking an individual with experience in recycling and waste reduction who has exceptional organizational skills, takes initiative and pays attention to detail to fill a new position in its recycling and waste reduction dept. > >Job Description: Responsible for meeting the technical assistance needs of individual community councils in regard to improving recycling and waste reduction at neighborhood cleanups and brush drop-offs. Assistance includes outreach, training volunteers, contracting with refuse haulers, troubleshooting, and planning or coordinating all aspects of a neighborhood's cleanup and brush drop-off activities. Also responsible for the development and implementation of a pilot materials exchange project. > >Please call the NEC at 644-7678 for complete job description and list of qualifications. Resume, name and phone number of 3 professional references, and responses to following 3 questions must be submitted no later than 4:30 pm on Monday, March 3, 1997. > >1) Why do you want this specific position? >2) Describe how your past experiences and skills working with different groups of people will contribute to your success in this position. >3) Over the next few years, what do you believe will be the greatest challenges in bringing waste reduction concepts to the public? > >Submit all materials to : Waste Reduction Hiring Team, Saint Paul NEC, 475 N. Cleveland Av, #100, Saint Paul, MN 55104. > "Saint Paul Neighborhood Energy Consortium" <>


Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 22:54:17, -0500 From: ( DAVID B REYNOLDS) Subject: Letter to Congress

FYI, I have forwarded the following letter to my U.S. Senators. It was slightly modified for my Representative.

Regards, Dave Reynolds Enviro-nomics ------------------------------------------------ February 12, 1997


Dear Senator XXXX,

I am writing to express my support for Senate bill S.207 (as well as for the balanced, bipartisan sponsorship coming from twelve of your colleagues) that would create a nine-person Corporate Subsidy Reform Commission to "comprehensively review, reform, and terminate inequitable federal subsidies to profit-making industries." It is heartening to see the attention that the 105th Congress is giving to the issue of inequities surrounding corporate subsidies, aka Corporate Welfare. As one of your constituents, I urge you to support the creation of the Commission, and to do everything in your power to establish appropriate reform measures in this area.

As an independent consultant who provides services in the area of waste prevention and recycling strategies, I view the special tax treatment, depletion allowances, and direct subsidies afforded to the mining, timber, and petroleum industries as direct impediments to increased opportunities within the recycling industry. However, these are not the only issues. It is also appropriate to seek measures that would require increased responsibility amongst extraction industries in the area of environmental management. Presently, there is an unfettered price mechanism involved with the extraction of natural resources, and this fails to allocate resources efficiently. All of this results in an uneven playing field, where virgin materials enjoy an artificial leverage to undercut recycled feedstocks.

Government must act to reflect changing times, embrace society and its values, and set forth efforts to guide a sustainable economy. The subsidies described above served America's interest at one point in time. They were designed to spur an economy in the post- industrial era. These subsidies are antiquated, and no longer serve America's interest in that they are detrimental to the design of a sustainable economy.

I and many others within the sustainable development movement will be closely monitoring the 105th Congress in regards to these issues. There will no doubt be tremendous pressure from special interest lobbies, but do not let this distract you from the vision of a healthier America for all.

Thank you for your service and the time that you have invested in this letter.


David B. Reynolds Principal Enviro-nomics 1160-C N Golden Springs Dr Diamond Bar, CA 91765

(909) 860-8284 E-mail:


End of GreenYes Digest V97 #26 ******************************