Today's Topics:
GRN CAMPAIGNS: The Great Paper Caper (2 msgs)
GRN CAMPAIGNS: The real market solution
RECYCLING: from GREENWIRE 2/18/97
Zero Emissions Article
Zero Waste, Georgia Style (2 msgs)
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: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 12:34:23 -0800
From: dassmann@sirius.com (David Assmann)
Subject: GRN CAMPAIGNS: The Great Paper Caper
William McGowan said, in part:
>In short, I think if the GRN is really wanting to work towards more
>recycling, you are going to have to figure out a very pro-market
>approach. You may not like what the capitalist system created, but look
>at how clean our, the USA's, environment is relative to any other
>country. Indeed, the countries that tried the opposite of capitalism
>are now perhaps the most polluted regions in the globe. Capitalism, in
>short, must become part of the envrionemntal movement if the movement is
>to survive long term.
A pro-market approach is certainly one potential solution, but it is by no
means the only one. Look at Germany, for example. They've reduced
ALL packaging used in the country by more than 10% in less than a five year
period (a reduction of more than 1 million tonnes) through their laws
making producers responsible for waste. They say that their system would
not be possible if it relied on voluntary efforts.
David Assmann
Public Outreach Coordinator
San Francisco Recycling Program
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 17:34:48 -0800 (PST)
From: "William P. McGowan" <6500kai@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu>
Subject: GRN CAMPAIGNS: The Great Paper Caper
David,
Your point about Germany, while true, also overlooks the acceptance of
socialism in that country--the people of Germany already foot the bill
for things like medical, retirement, et cetera, and their tax burden is
significantly higher than it is here in the United States. Many
economists and political scientists studying the evolution of post-Cold
War socialist economies are seeing a rolling back of program,s (witness
France) simply because they can not continue to be funded at their
present levels.
One lesson of the last four years in local, state, and fedearl politics
is that the American tax payer has a much lower tolerance for taxation
than their European counterparts, and at our present marginal rate of
50%, this rejection of more government programs (in the form of mandates,
or whatever) is very understable. Next time you get paid, look at the
difference between what is listed as gross pay and net pay and you will
see what I mean.
Bill McGowan
UCSB
Rincon Recycling
On Tue, 18 Feb 1997, David Assmann wrote:
> William McGowan said, in part:
>
>
> >In short, I think if the GRN is really wanting to work towards more
> >recycling, you are going to have to figure out a very pro-market
> >approach. You may not like what the capitalist system created, but look
> >at how clean our, the USA's, environment is relative to any other
> >country. Indeed, the countries that tried the opposite of capitalism
> >are now perhaps the most polluted regions in the globe. Capitalism, in
> >short, must become part of the envrionemntal movement if the movement is
> >to survive long term.
>
> A pro-market approach is certainly one potential solution, but it is by no
> means the only one. Look at Germany, for example. They've reduced
> ALL packaging used in the country by more than 10% in less than a five year
> period (a reduction of more than 1 million tonnes) through their laws
> making producers responsible for waste. They say that their system would
> not be possible if it relied on voluntary efforts.
>
> David Assmann
> Public Outreach Coordinator
> San Francisco Recycling Program
>
>
>
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 17:46:43 -0800
From: helens@axionet.com (Helen Spiegelman)
Subject: GRN CAMPAIGNS: The real market solution
>William McGowan said, in part:
>
>
>>In short, I think if the GRN is really wanting to work towards more
>>recycling, you are going to have to figure out a very pro-market
>>approach. You may not like what the capitalist system created, but look
>>at how clean our, the USA's, environment is relative to any other
>>country. Indeed, the countries that tried the opposite of capitalism
>>are now perhaps the most polluted regions in the globe. Capitalism, in
>>short, must become part of the envrionemntal movement if the movement is
>>to survive long term.
>
David Assman responded:
>A pro-market approach is certainly one potential solution, but it is by no
>means the only one. Look at Germany, for example. They've reduced
>ALL packaging used in the country by more than 10% in less than a five year
>period (a reduction of more than 1 million tonnes) through their laws
>making producers responsible for waste. They say that their system would
>not be possible if it relied on voluntary efforts.
>
In fact, the German solution, which is being applied enthusiastically in
Canada, is the *true* market solution. WHen producers are responsible for
collecting and disposing (through destruction or recycling) their products
and packaging, then and only then do they have an economic incentive to seek
"zero waste".
Here in British Columbia we have implemented a German-style regulation
requiring paint producers to provide take-back services for old paint -- at
no cost to the taxpayer. Millions of litres of paint are being emptied from
basements and garages, and it's costing the paint industry a bundle. The
paint industry has added a 50 cent / gallon "eco fee" to the price of a can
of paint to cover program costs.
The inexorable logic of the market will now drive paint producers to send
their chemical engineers back to the drawing table to formulate paints so
they are more easily re-blended to create "recycled" paint, avoiding costly
toxic waste disposal. Producers will also move away from the "volume
discount" which encourages consumers to buy more paint than they need. It
seems that it will also drive improvements to the design of paint packaging:
the paint industry is finding that metal recyclers don't welcome steel paint
cans that have been crushed in an augur to remove the contents.
Paint was the first product subject to Product Stewardship regulation
(actually, the second: used oil was regulated two years earlier, in 1992,
with little fanfare). The regulation has been written to extend the
principle to solvents, pesticides and fuels. A take-back program for
pharmaceuticals is already in effect.
If you are interested in more information about BC's "Product Stewardship"
policies and regulations, let me know. I love to share this good news.
Helen Spiegelman
Recycling Council of British Columbia (CANADA)
--------------------------------
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 13:13:20 -0700 From: cdchase@qualcomm.com (Carolyn Chase) Subject: RECYCLING: from GREENWIRE 2/18/97
>*7 RECYCLING: ADVOCATES CLAMOR FOR MORE MEDIA COVERAGE > The Steel Recycling Institute, contending that major >newspapers made reference to recycling in half as many stories >last year as they did in 1991, are "abandoning ... attempts to >play to journalists' social conscience." Instead, the group has >"mounted a public relations campaign with enough gimmicks, >celebrity endorsements and other bells and whistles to sell the >most crass consumer product." And it is portraying the media's >"flagging" coverage of recycling as being news itself. > "The push comes none too soon." Jerry Powell, editor of the >trade magazine Resource Recycling, said the percentage of >aluminum and plastic that is recycled has been dropping, while >steel recycling is flat. Powell: "The reminders aren't out >there anymore, because the media don't think this is a story." > Reporters and editors "offer numerous reasons for the >sporadic interest in a topic that once routinely hit page one." >Joby Warrick, environmental reporter for the WASH. POST: >"Environment is a massive beat, and on any day there are 10 or 15 >reports or news conferences that take priority" (Claudia Deutsch, >N.Y. TIMES, 2/17).
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 06:19:09 -0800 (PST) From: "David A. Kirkpatrick" <dkirkwks@igc.org> Subject: Zero Emissions Article
Targeting Zero Emissions for the 21st Century by Lawrence T. Molloy, The Crestwood Group
Environmental engineering firms thought that their future was pollution prevention (P2) and waste minimization. Some firms that entered the market left when the free advice they gave failed to bring in sales of P2 technology. What happened? industry applied the concept of P2 itself and made the process modifications internally. These changes brought significant reductions in waste and gains in efficiency, but no business for environmental engineering firms. As these firms faded away, "Give me waste or give me death" were their last words. They failed to see that the future for environmental engineering firms will be in Zero Emissions (ZE) technologies and the required engineering solutions.
Related to zero defects and zero inventories, ZE is the premise that bringing emissions to zero means 100% efficiency in turning materials to products. ZE is the brainchild of European industrialist Gunter Pauli, who saw that achieving ZE requires developing critical technologies and reinventing the regulatory climate that now impedes innovation in environmental risk reduction. Pauli's Zero Emissions Research Initiative (ZERI) was accepted by the United Nations University in 1994 and funding is coming from several UN organizations and Japan's Ministry of International Trade and Industry. Projects are under way on every continent except Antarctica.
Traditionally, pollution control technology processed a "waste" so that it was benign enough for discharge. This was achieved through dilution, destruction, separation, or concentration. Within the ZE paradigm, many of these processes will still be applied to wastes, but with the goal of resource extraction, refining, or commodity production, similar to the way the mining, petroleum, and chemical industries process raw materials. Engineering firms will need to adapt the practices of resource refining to develop conversion technologies that create "designer wastes" to meet the input specifications of other industries. In the 21st century, monies formerly spent on P2 or waste minimization will be reallocated to conversion.
DuPont is already practicing ZE. Company vice president for safety, health, and environment Paul V. Tebo notes, "Every time we eliminate a pound of waste, it most likely will end up in a product." For example, titanium dioxide wastes are now converted to high-purity table salt, fertilizer, and food-grade carbon dioxide.
Waste minimization and P2 can increase efficiency, but efficiency does not necessarily mean zero emissions. Manufacturing processes generate wastes, regardless of their efficiencies. For example, brewing beer extracts only 8 to 10% of the nutrients from grains, and 100% extraction is not possible. ZE seeks to link industries in clusters so that the wastes of one industry are the material inputs for others. The opportunity for engineering firms is the development, design, construction, and operation of technologies that can convert those wastes into a viable input for other industries. Producing designer wastes require systems that can separate, purify, and process efficiently.
One conversion technology, developed by Ebara Corporation in Japan, is the "EB-A" flue gas treatment being developed for coal-fired electric plants in Asia. Using ammonia and electron beam irradiation, NOx and SOx are converted into ammonium nitrate and ammonium sulfate for use in fertilizers. Unlike conventional emission treatments, this system has a financial payback of 10 to 15 years.
But before conversion systems can be built, material flow paths have to be identified, and appropriate industrial clusters formed to match wastes, such as the power plant's ammonium nitrate and ammonium sulfate, to the input needs of other industries, such as fertilizer manufacturers. Compatible information and databases on wastes and inputs need to be developed. While P2 is limited to individual industrial sectors, cross-sector transfer of converted wastes is where the technical and economical opportunities lie. And this is where competitive engineering firms need to focus.
Markets for designer wastes require regulatory enlightenment. While the U.S. regulatory climate, specifically RCRA, impedes the transfer of wastes between industries, ZE is already endorsed by the Japanese Environmental Protection Agency, and is well on its way to becoming a standard for both regulatory agencies and industries worldwide. Nascent regulatory bodies in the Third World realize that it is easier to adapt ZE than develop regulations that are difficult and costly to enforce. Indonesia's new environmental standards include an incentive to surpass mere compliance (a "green" rating) -- the Gold Standard, as yet unawarded, will go to industries that achieve ZE.
Yes, government needs to relinquish end-of-the-pipe regulatory requirements and encourage technology innovation by opening cross-sector markets for designer wastes. But the real progress will be led by industry who will be driven by profit from the sale of previously undesirable wastes. Industry will seek out the firms that can provide these critical engineered solutions. Environmental engineering firms that will successfully transition into the 21st century will be those that build on the concept of pollution control to design conversion technologies that link sectors and form industrial clusters. The firms that do not begin to design solutions that treat wastes as a commodity material will go the way of 20th century waste - to the landfill.
- Zero Emissions -
Lawrence T. Molloy is an environmental engineer with The Crestwood Group in Seattle, Washington. He can be reached at (206) 622-1120.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 97 01:36:18 PST From: jennie.alvernaz@sfsierra.sierraclub.org Subject: Zero Waste, Georgia Style
Here is the first Zero Waste bill in the nation: a Georgia bill that would establish a goal of zero waste by 2020. It was introduced by Senator Donzella James whose district is just south of Atlanta -- at a time when the pro-landfill establishment is pushing to get rid of our existing 25 percent waste redcution goal. You can track progress of this bill (and other good bills like Sen. James' bottle bill and chlorine- free paper procurement bill) at www.ganet.org.
Sen. James will be the keynote speaker at the Grassroots Recycling Network's Zero Waste Action Campaign conference in Geogria. An op-ed piece by Sen. James follows the text of the bill.
--Bill Sheehan
SENATE BILL 98 By: Senator James of the 35th A BILL TO BE ENTITLED AN ACT 1 To amend Code Section 12-8-21 of the Official Code of 2 Georgia Annotated, relating to the declaration of policy and 3 legislative intent relative to solid waste management, so as 4 to provide for legislative intent relative to long-term 5 solid waste reduction goals; to provide for an effective 6 date; to repeal conflicting laws; and for other purposes. 7 BE IT ENACTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF GEORGIA: 8 SECTION 1. 9 Code Section 12-8-21 of the Official Code of Georgia 10 Annotated, relating to the declaration of policy and 11 legislative intent relative to solid waste management, is 12 amended by adding at the end thereof a new subsection (h) to 13 read as follows: 14 "(h) It is the further intent of the General Assembly that 15 every effort be undertaken to reduce on a county-wide per 16 capita basis the amount of municipal solid waste being 17 received at disposal facilities during fiscal year 1997 by 18 25 percent by July 1, 2002, by 50 percent by July 1, 2007, 19 and by 100 percent by July 1, 2020." 20 SECTION 2. 21 Notwithstanding the provisions of Code Section 1-3-4.1, this 22 Act shall become effective on July 1, 1997. 23 SECTION 3. 24 All laws and parts of laws in conflict with this Act are 25 repealed.
*************************************************
WASTING OUR RESOURCES By Senator Donzella James Atlanta Constitution, January 16, 1997
In 1990 the Georgia General Assembly set a goal of reducing waste going to landfills by 25 percent between 1992 and 1996. We have not even come close to meeting that goal. In fact, we dumped a million tons more in landfills last year than in 1992. To put it in stark terms, last year we buried 7.4 pounds of material each day for every man, woman and child in the state.
What we are putting in our garbage cans is raw material that could be used for recycled product manufacturing. If our discards are kept relatively clean and separated, virtually all of them can be reused, composted or recycled.
Georgia has some recycled product manufacturing, which offers many good-paying jobs. Unfortunately, much recovered material has to be imported from other states. For instance, plastic soft drink bottles from across the nation are being turned into carpeting and other products, while too many bottles and other materials from Georgia end up in our landfills or as litter on our roads and beaches.
Recycling creates ten times as many jobs as landfilling a given amount of material, and reuse businesses employ 50 times as many people. And more profits stay in the state and in local communities.
At a time when welfare and health care programs are being deeply cut, and needy people are being told to get jobs that don't exist or don't pay a decent living wage, it is a crime to continue wasting our used resources in landfills.
We have to change our way of thinking. Managing waste -- like controlling pollution at the end of the pipe -- is inefficient. It is much better public policy to eliminate waste, that is, to encourage redesign for efficiency, to recover used resources and to make jobs instead.
Reducing waste is not widely seen as a high priority because we think we can manage it safely in landfills. But landfills merely push many environmental liabilities associated with garbage -- especially groundwater contamination -- into the future, for our children to deal with. Moreover, if we do not get serious about reducing waste, Georgia will face many more contentious landfill siting battles. At current rates of increase, our annual trash pile will double in fewer than 25 years
Many cities and states are far ahead of Georgia in adopting cost- effective strategies to prevent waste and promote recycling. Alameda County, Calif. is halfway towards meeting its 75 percent per capita waste reduction goal. Halifax, Nova Scotia, is aiming for 88 percent diversion. Consultants in Washington State have presented a commission of the future of recycling with the goal of zero waste by 2020. Canberra, Australia, has embarked on a plan to close its two landfills and achieve zero waste by 2010.
There is a move afoot in Georgia to abandon the waste reduction goal set by the General Assembly in 1990, and have every entity set local, voluntary goals. This would be a mistake. Without a compass we cannot know where we are going. If individuals or organizations lack the vision, will or knowledge to meet waste reduction goals, they should stand aside.
As chairwoman of a state Senate study committee on recycling and economic development, I have heard many good ideas over the past two years on ways to increase recycling and jobs and reduce waste. I look forward to receiving more input so that we can introduce legislation to make Georgia the leader in reducing waste and creating jobs from discards. [end]
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 19:22:12, -0500 From: david_reynolds@prodigy.com ( DAVID B REYNOLDS) Subject: Zero Waste, Georgia Style
Bill,
To respond to any backlash that may identify the good Senator James' bill as an ill conceived "rate and date" bill, it would be nice if the Senator was armed with Version 2.0 of the GRN policy draft. "Zero" waste within our present wasting infrastructure can not be achieved. The only way it can be achieved is through the development and implementation of the items delineated in the Ver 2 policy draft. Therefore, Senator James' bill will require a host of linking legislation to create a recovery and use infrastructure so that we can get from "here" to "there."
These are my personal thoughts based on observations of what is occurring within the present paradigm.
Regards, Dave Reynolds Enviro-nomics -------------------------------------- From: jennie.alvernaz@sfsierra.sierraclub.org To: GreenYes@ucsd.edu Subject: Zero Waste, Georgia Style
Here is the first Zero Waste bill in the nation: a Georgia bill that
would establish a goal of zero waste by 2020. It was introduced by Senator Donzella James whose district is just south of Atlanta -- at a time when the pro-landfill establishment is pushing to get rid of our
existing 25 percent waste redcution goal. You can track progress of
this bill (and other good bills like Sen. James' bottle bill and chlorine- free paper procurement bill) at www.ganet.org.
Sen. James will be the keynote speaker at the Grassroots Recycling Network's Zero Waste Action Campaign conference in Geogria. An op-ed
piece by Sen. James follows the text of the bill.
--Bill Sheehan
SENATE BILL 98 By: Senator James of the 35th A BILL TO BE ENTITLED AN ACT 1 To amend Code Section 12-8-21 of the Official Code of 2 Georgia Annotated, relating to the declaration of policy and 3 legislative intent relative to solid waste management, so as 4 to provide for legislative intent relative to long-term 5 solid waste reduction goals; to provide for an effective 6 date; to repeal conflicting laws; and for other purposes. 7 BE IT ENACTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF GEORGIA: 8 SECTION 1. 9 Code Section 12-8-21 of the Official Code of Georgia 10 Annotated, relating to the declaration of policy and 11 legislative intent relative to solid waste management, is 12 amended by adding at the end thereof a new subsection (h) to 13 read as follows: 14 "(h) It is the further intent of the General Assembly that 15 every effort be undertaken to reduce on a county-wide per 16 capita basis the amount of municipal solid waste being 17 received at disposal facilities during fiscal year 1997 by 18 25 percent by July 1, 2002, by 50 percent by July 1, 2007, 19 and by 100 percent by July 1, 2020." 20 SECTION 2. 21 Notwithstanding the provisions of Code Section 1-3-4.1, this 22 Act shall become effective on July 1, 1997. 23 SECTION 3. 24 All laws and parts of laws in conflict with this Act are 25 repealed.
*************************************************
WASTING OUR RESOURCES By Senator Donzella James Atlanta Constitution, January 16, 1997
In 1990 the Georgia General Assembly set a goal of reducing waste going to landfills by 25 percent between 1992 and 1996. We have not
even come close to meeting that goal. In fact, we dumped a million tons more in landfills last year than in 1992. To put it in stark terms, last year we buried 7.4 pounds of material each day for every man, woman and child in the state.
What we are putting in our garbage cans is raw material that could be used for recycled product manufacturing. If our discards are kept
relatively clean and separated, virtually all of them can be reused,
composted or recycled.
Georgia has some recycled product manufacturing, which offers many good-paying jobs. Unfortunately, much recovered material has to be imported from other states. For instance, plastic soft drink bottles from across the nation are being turned into carpeting and other products, while too many bottles and other materials from Georgia end up in our landfills or as litter on our roads and beaches.
Recycling creates ten times as many jobs as landfilling a given amount of material, and reuse businesses employ 50 times as many people. And more profits stay in the state and in local communities.
At a time when welfare and health care programs are being deeply cut, and needy people are being told to get jobs that don't exist or
don't pay a decent living wage, it is a crime to continue wasting our
used resources in landfills.
We have to change our way of thinking. Managing waste -- like controlling pollution at the end of the pipe -- is inefficient. It is much better public policy to eliminate waste, that is, to encourage redesign for efficiency, to recover used resources and to make jobs instead.
Reducing waste is not widely seen as a high priority because we think we can manage it safely in landfills. But landfills merely push many environmental liabilities associated with garbage -- especially
groundwater contamination -- into the future, for our children to deal with. Moreover, if we do not get serious about reducing waste, Georgia will face many more contentious landfill siting battles. At
current rates of increase, our annual trash pile will double in fewer
than 25 years
Many cities and states are far ahead of Georgia in adopting cost- effective strategies to prevent waste and promote recycling. Alameda
County, Calif. is halfway towards meeting its 75 percent per capita waste reduction goal. Halifax, Nova Scotia, is aiming for 88 percent
diversion. Consultants in Washington State have presented a commission of the future of recycling with the goal of zero waste by
2020. Canberra, Australia, has embarked on a plan to close its two landfills and achieve zero waste by 2010.
There is a move afoot in Georgia to abandon the waste reduction goal
set by the General Assembly in 1990, and have every entity set local,
voluntary goals. This would be a mistake. Without a compass we cannot know where we are going. If individuals or organizations lack the vision, will or knowledge to meet waste reduction goals, they should stand aside.
As chairwoman of a state Senate study committee on recycling and economic development, I have heard many good ideas over the past two years on ways to increase recycling and jobs and reduce waste. I look forward to receiving more input so that we can introduce legislation to make Georgia the leader in reducing waste and creating
jobs from discards. [end]
------------------------------
End of GreenYes Digest V97 #31 ******************************