GreenYes Digest V97 #10

GreenYes Mailing List and Newsgroup (
Fri, 22 Jan 1999 17:02:03 -0500

GreenYes Digest Wed, 22 Jan 97 Volume 97 : Issue 10

Today's Topics:
America's Trees are Dying
E-mail check
FW: Modern bison slaughter (fwd)
Landfill underpricing (2 msgs)
PET Forum Summary

Send Replies or notes for publication to: <greenyes@UCSD.Edu>
Send subscription requests to: <greenyes-Digest-Request@UCSD.Edu>
Problems you can't solve otherwise to

Date: Tue, 21 Jan 1997 12:49:48 -0800
From: Robin Salsburg <>
Subject: America's Trees are Dying

An article in the Fall 1995 Earth Island Journal by Charles E.
Little claims that "America's Trees Are Dying". Here is the
introduction for that article.

"After 30 years as an environmental-policy analyst, journalist
and author Charles Little spent three years traveling across the
US, visiting forests and woodlands in 13 states. In the
process, he interviewed the country's top forest scientists, met
with government and university researchers, and reviewed
hundreds of scientific papers and reports. His discoveries are
profoundly disturbing. The following excerpts have been adapted
for the Journal from Little's new book, The Dying of the Trees:
The Pandemic in America's Forests.

From The Dying of the Trees: The Pandemic in America's Forests,
by Charles E. Little. Copyright (c) Charles E. Little, 1995.
Reprinted by arrangement with Viking, a division of Penguin
Books USA Inc. To order the book, please call 1-800-253-6476.

The trees are dying. Not only in the rainforests of Brazil and
Southeast Asia, where they are felled by the chainsaws of
international greed, local poverty and ecological ignorance, but
also in Europe and right here in the US.

From the cedars of Alaska to the palms of Florida, from the
maples of Canada and New England to the pines and incense cedars
of the Sierra Nevada, the incidents of death and decline are
increasing at an alarming rate.

Some argue that the progression of tree death and forest decline
in this century, and especially since World War II, is either
coincidence or simply a matter of selective reporting.
Everything is all right; it is just the natural ebb and flow of
nature. But that is not what I have learned from the scores of
scientific scholars I have interviewed, and the mountain of
papers I have studied. They say something else. What these
distinguished sources are describing is a pandemic -- an
epidemic that is everywhere.

In the US, the trees are dying on the ridges of the Appalachian
mountain chain and in the sugar bush of Vermont. They are dying
in the mid-South border states, in the thick forests of central
Michigan, on the mountainsides of Colorado and California, along
the Gulf of Mexico, in the deserts of the Southwest and they are
dying in the Northwest -- even before they are cut."

Charles E. Little goes on to point out that the death of trees
results in the increase of greenhouse gasses:

The more trees that die, the more trees that will die. In the
forlorn formulation of ecologist George Woodwell, climate
warming from an increasing greenhouse effect could, in temperate
forests especially, increase the respiration rate of trees to
the degree that it may surpass the rate of photosynthesis. The
tree would then no longer be a net producer of oxygen, but a net
producer of carbon dioxide.

"The amount of carbon dioxide that could be injected into the
atmosphere," wrote Woodwell and longtime associate Richard
Houghton in Scientific American, could theoretically approach
"approximately 750 billion metric tons, or about the same amount
of carbon as there is in the atmosphere currently." Implied by
this analysis is a devastating feedback loop in which trees in
the vast northern hemisphere forests, instead of absorbing
carbon, add to the global build-up of CO2 in a nightmarish
cycle, whose finale could be a worldwide policy decision to cut
down trees in order to protect the Earth's oxygen supply!

He concluded with the following, extraordinarily strong statement
under the subheading "Strategies for the Endgame":

Environmentalism practices the language of crisis: to insist
that something be done before it is too late. But what we need
now is a language (and the intellectual constructs that go with
it) to deal with a post-crisis environmental condition. And our
response to the dying of the trees is at the heart of the

In the course of my research, I have learned things I wish I had
not learned. I have learned that the trees are dying. And that
the more trees die, the more will die. I have learned that we
have crossed the threshold. And I simply do not know how we can
get back safely to the other side.

Such a conclusion can lead to despair. I think the only
antidote to despair is to stay firm in the belief that, as
William Wordsworth put it in Tintern Abbey, "nature never did
betray the heart that loved her."

We must begin to love her as we have never been asked to love
before. Even then, it will take a century or more for
environmental repair: for letting nature heal herself.

Thus have we come to the crux of the matter: the trees could
save us if we would save the trees.

The full article cites half a dozen examples of forest ecosystems
breaking down.

An article by Mark E. Harmon, William K. Ferrell, Jerry F. Franklin
in SCIENCE, (VOL. 247, 9 FEBRUARY 1990, pp. 699-701) notes the "Effects
on Carbon Storage of Conversion of Old-Growth Forests to Young

The authors claim that:

"Conversion of old-growth forests in the Pacific Northwest has
been a significant source of C in the atmosphere....In reality,
the total flux from this region from changes in land use will
have been considerably higher because of the harvest of
second-growth forest, widespread fires, and the removal of
forest land from production by such processes as road
construction and urbanization. Given the small area we are
considering, a mere 0.017% of the earth's land surface,
old-growth forest conversion appears to account for a noteworthy
2% of the total C released because of land use changes in the
last 100 years.

Although reintroducing forests to deforested regions will
increase C storage in the biota, conversion of old-growth forests
to younger forests under current harvesting and use conditions
has added and will continue to add C to the atmosphere. This
conclusion is likely to hold in most forests in which the age of
harvest is less than the age required to reach the old-growth
stage of succession. The amount of C added by conversion will
vary among forests, depending on their maximum storage capacity
and the difference between the timber rotation age and the age of
the old-growth state within the given ecosystem.

What are the economic impacts of global warming? How will this
affect commerce? What have the recent "natural disasters" cost and
how are they related to global warming or ozone depletion?

Another recent publication by Greenpeace International called
"The Carbon Bomb: Climate Change and the Fate of the Northern
Boreal Forests" further emphasizes the global nature of the effects
of the loss of forest diversity. This report was researched and
written by Kevin Jardine and edited by Lyn Goldsworthy, Abbie Thomas
and Michael Szarbo for Greenpeace International. What follows is from
the Executive Summary of this publication.

THE NORTHERN BOREAL FORESTS make up almost a third of the
Earth's forests, covering about 15 million square kilometres,
and ranging across Russia, Canada, the United States,
Scandinavia, and parts of the Korean Peninsula, China, Mongolia
and Japan.

Drawing on the latest research on forest ecology, the impacts of
recent climate change, and studies on projected future climate
change, this report shows that between 50 and 90 percent of the
existing boreal forests are likely to disappear as a result of a
doubling of atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide and other
greenhouse gases. This doubling is expected to take place over
the next 30-50 years, and is likely to create abrupt changes in
the Earth's climate that would result in severe forest decline.
The rate of decline is still uncertain, but is likely to be
rapid in many regions, and driven by massive fires, insect
outbreaks and storms.

There is growing and alarming evidence that this decline is
already beginning and is driven by a level of greenhouse gases
in the Earth's atmosphere that is currently higher than has been
seen in over 150,000 years.

The projected decline could contribute to the rapid release of
hundreds of billions of tonnes of additional carbon dioxide into
the atmosphere, accelerating the rate of climate change.

The emerging and potential impacts of climate change threaten
the more than one million indigenous people who live in the
boreal forest, as well as a loss of wildlife and plant diversity
through the destruction of habitat. Key endangered species
living in the boreal forest, such as the Siberian tiger, are
already on the brink of extinction. Climate change and current
logging practices further threaten such species.

Current logging practices are aggravating forest decline by
decreasing the ability of the boreal forest to withstand
disturbances, increasing stress by changing moisture and
temperature regimes, and releasing greenhouse gases.

Serious disturbance of the boreal forest ecosystem can be traced
back to an abrupt shift in the global climate in 1976. Since
then higher temperatures have sparked larger and more frequent
fires throughout the boreal forest, and the number of storms and
damaging insect outbreaks has increased. These disturbances
have been accompanied by a decline in conifer populations in the
southern part of the boreal forest.

Unless atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases are
quickly stabilized climate-vegetation models predict that large
areas of boreal forest will be reduced to patchy open woodland
and grassland, resulting in lowered biological diversity and a
reduced ability to store carbon.

Studies of the global carbon cycle suggest that boreal forests
are not absorbing as much carbon as they did before 1976. As a
result, the atmosphere already appears to contain 10-15 billion
tonnes of carbon more than it would have if forests had
continued to absorb carbon at the pre-1976 rate.

If boreal forests continue to decline, estimates suggest that
burning and rotting of boreal forests could contribute to the
release of up to 225 billion tonnes of extra carbon into the
atmosphere, increasing current levels by a third. This would
accelerate the rate of climate change.

While it is possible that the boreal forest could expand into
the frozen tundra as temperatures increase, such an expansion
would likely be delayed by slow tree migration rates and the
adverse effects of increased ultraviolet radiation on trees from
ozone depletion.

Even in the long term, the boreal forest is not expected to
expand enough to compensate for the deterioration in the
southern part of the forest.

This report calls on policy and decision makers to radically
rethink and change energy policies and logging practices in
boreal forest countries in order to protect and preserve the
climate and biodiversity. Such changes are consistent with
their obligations under the Climate Convention and Biodiversity
Treaty established by the 1992 UN Earth Summit in Rio de
Janeiro, Brazil.

GREENPEACE BELIEVES that climate change and severe forest
decline can only be halted by:

* A planned and orderly global phase-out of fossil fuels and
their replacement by the efficient use of renewable and clean
energy sources, including the immediate reduction of greenhouse
gas levels by at least 20 percent by 2005.

* An end to global deforestation and the introduction of a
programme of ecologically-based reforestation.

* The immediate phase-out of CFCs, HCFCs and HFCs, and their
replacement by chemicals which do not damage the ozone layer or
contribute to the human-induced greenhouse effect.

All three of these documents are thoroughly researched and well
documented. On the ground I am seeing the loss of forest
productivity resulting from soil compaction and damage. Current
forest practices often will clearcut (or near clearcut) an area with
ground based equipment. The area will then be burned to release
nutrients. It will then be ripped (plowed) which disrupts the soil
horizons and kills micro-orgainsms. The Forest Service or BLM will
then allow cattle grazing in the opened area. When trees won't grow
they will claim they need to spray herbicide to reduce competition
from the very species of plants that return nutrients to the soil.

If I were to try to design a forest management system to destroy
productivity it would be difficult to think of a worse system than

I can help anyone interested to get copies of the documents referred
to above.

With Kindest Regards,

Barry Carter
Blue Mountain Native Forest Alliance
Voice 541-523-3357
Fax 541-523-9438

At this very moment, lawless logging
is destroying the ecosystems which provide
the air we breathe and the water we drink.

Insanity is doing the same thing
and expecting different results.


Date: Tue, 21 Jan 1997 09:47:20 -0800
From: Paul Tapley <>
Subject: E-mail check

Subject: E-mail check

I'm the Recycling Coordinator here at Sonoma State Univ. and am checking this
e-mail address that was on a flier from the CRRA conf. June 16-18. If this
"greenyes" list is active and working on recycling or related environmental
issues, please add me to the list.

Thank you, Paul Tapley (707) 664-2929


Date: Tue, 21 Jan 1997 12:49:59 -0800
From: Robin Salsburg <>
Subject: FW: Modern bison slaughter (fwd)

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 1997 23:02:17 +0100
From: Betsy Gaines <>
Subject: Modern bison slaughter

Bison are leaving Yellowstone NP and getting shot. Species in Yellowstone
don't have enough habitat because the park is too small to accomodate
them-- Another example of island biogeography. This winter has had a
snowfall increase of 220% and the bison don't have enough forage within the
park boundaries, so they are seeking forage elsewhere and getting killed by
the National Park Service.
The NPS estimated that maybe Yellowstone herds would lose 100
animals to winter culling--the slaughter has already taken 300 and the
numbers are increasing everyday--could get very high if this harsh weather
continues. The following summary outlines the issue.

------- FORWARD, Original message follows -------

From: J.D.K. Chipps Eden) \ Internet: (

Subject: The Yellowstone Buffalo Slaughter



Calls and Letters Needed Immediately to Stop the Slaughter!

Already this winter, the Montana Department of Livestock (MDOL) has
slaughtered over 190 bison who dared wander into Montana from Yellowstone
SINCE 1985. Not even bison on our public lands are safe, as Montana
officials have killed over 40 bison on the Gallatin National Forest.

Montana continues to slaughter Yellowstone bison principally because of an
unproven fear by the livestock industry that bison can transmit Brucella
abortus -- the bacteria that causes brucellosis in cattle -- to transmit
the bacteria to cattle under natural conditions, and no such incident has
ever been documented. Sampling data from bison killed during the winter of
1991/92 reveals that the risk of transmission, if there is any risk, is
extremely remote. Moreover, since no cattle are present between November
and June in the area where nearly all of the bison have been gunned down,
even the most remote threat of bacteria transmission is eliminated.

MDOL cannot justify the destruction of Yellowstone bison from a disease
perspective or based on state law or policies. The state has the authority
to tolerate bison outside of Yellowstone National Park, and should exercise
such tolerance particularly on public land.


Here are a few points you may wish to make:

There is no evidence that the bacteria can be transmitted from bison to
cattle under natural conditions. There is no state law or policy which
mandates the slaughter of Yellowstone bison on public land. There is no
reason to kill Yellowstone bison on the Gallatin National Forest -- public
land. Even if bacteria transmission were possible, cattle are not present
on the forest in the winter. Bison, not cattle, should be given preference
on public land.

Thank you for your help!

----------- Summary of Scientific Evidence------------

The scientific evidence collected to date demonstrates that the risk of
Brucella abortus transmission from bison to cattle represents more of a
perceived threat than an actual threat. Despite this, the livestock
industry and state and federal agriculture agencies, have utilized a
campaign based on fear, speculation, and paranoia to force the unnecessary
destruction of Yellowstone bison who emigrate from YNP to protect livestock

To summarize, the available evidence indicates that:

There has never been a documented case of Brucella abortus transmission
from bison to cattle under natural conditions.

In cattle, Brucella abortus is primarily transmitted through susceptible
animal contact with an infected aborted fetus, contaminated birthing
materials, and/or contaminated forage.

In bison, if the same transmission mechanism exists, the likelihood of
transmission is extremely remote since, as indicated by the available
evidence, bison do not experience abortions. Only four abortions have been
documented in bison in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem in the past 75
years. It is unknown if any, or all, of these abortions were the result of
Brucella abortus infection.

If transmission can occur, bison and cattle must occur in the same place at
the same time, or the bacteria must persist long enough in the environment
to result in exposure to a susceptible animal. No domestic cattle are
maintained on public or private land near West Yellowstone from late
October through early June, making the likelihood of bacteria transmission
from bison to cattle in this area extremely remote. Furthermore, the
available evidence suggests that the bacteria are killed within hours if in
direct sunlight and non-freezing conditions -- conditions common in YNP in
mid to late spring before cattle are returned to public grazing allotments.

The blood test used on bison and cattle to determine whether an animal has
been exposed to the bacteria, was designed principally for use on cattle.
In cattle the blood test accurately predicts infection.

In bison, the blood test does not accurately predict infection. Though
approximately 50 percent of Yellowstone bison blood test positive for
exposure to the bacteria, the available evidence indicates that only
approximately 12 percent are infected. Moreover, according to the results
of sampling conducted during the winter of 1991-92, less than one-half of
one percent of Yellowstone bison were infectious.

During the winter of 1991-92, tissue and blood samples were taken from 218
bison killed outside of YNP by State and Federal officials. Of these 218
animals, the bacteria could only be cultured from the tissues of 27; 19
males and 8 females. Since the primary route of bacteria transmission is
through contact with an aborted, contaminated fetus and/or contaminated
birthing materials, and based on the best available scientific evidence,
the risk of male or bull bison transmitting the bacteria is virtually
nonexistent. Of the 8 females, the bacteria could be cultured from the
reproductive tract of only one, a non-reproductive yearling. Consequently,
of the 218 bison sampled, not one, at the time of their death, were capable
of transmitting the bacteria to cattle.

Based on the data collected during the winter of 1991-92, The Fund for
Animals estimated in the fall of 1994 that only a maximum of 38 pregnant
bison, out of a estimated herd of 4,200 bison, could potentially be
infectious. The actual number of infectious pregnant bison who may pose a
risk to cattle, if any, is significantly less because not all infectious
pregnant bison will leave YNP and few, if any, infectious pregnant bison
will abort.

An infected bison, one from whom the bacteria can be cultured from a tissue
or organ, poses no risk of transmission unless it is infectious. An
infectious bison -- primarily a female from whom the bacteria can be
cultured from the reproductive tract -- may be able to expel the bacteria
into the environment through an abortion or calving event. Considering
biological, spatial, temporal, and epidemiological factors, however, the
likelihood of an infectious bison expelling the bacteria resulting in
infection in domestic cattle is extremely remote.

The blood test, while inaccurate in predicting infection, is substantially
more accurate in determining whether an animal has been exposed to the
bacteria. A negative blood test nearly always indicative of an animal who
is not infected.

Considering the scientific evidence, the settlement agreement is deficient
for the following reasons:

Even assuming that an infected bison can transmit the bacteria (which is
not possible), since the blood test to be used to determine which bison
live and which bison die is inaccurate, three out of every four bison who
test blood positive, will be killed unnecessarily.

All pregnant female bison, regardless of blood test results, will be
killed. Since a negative test result is nearly always accurate, there is no
justification for killing blood-test negative pregnant females. Assuming
that a positive blood test is indicative of infection and/or infectiousness
(it is not), it is, in fact, these blood-test negative animals who should
not be killed if the objective is to eradicate the bacteria in bison.
Though a negative animal may convert into a positive animal as pregnancy
progresses, there is no evidence in YNP bison to substantiate this claim.
Moreover, on the western side of YNP, a negative pregnant bison who
converts into a positive animals as pregnancy progresses would pose no risk
to cattle during the winter since no cattle are in the area.

All blood-test positive bison will be killed. Since the principal route of
bacteria transmission is through contact with an infected aborted fetus,
male bison pose virtually no risk of transmission, if they pose any risk at
all. The only way a male bison could transmit the bacteria is if he
dribbled bacteria-laden sperm on land occupied by cattle and if enough of
the bacteria persisted in the environment to cause infection in a
susceptible animal. This prospect is so extremely remote that the killing
of bull bison cannot be justified.

Even if bacteria transmission between bison and cattle were possible, the
lack of Brucella abortus caused abortion in YNP bison, the minute rate of
infectiousness in YNP bison, the spatial and temporal relationship between
cattle and bison, and the inability of the bacteria to persist for any
extended amount of time in direct sunlight, do not justify the proposed
capture, test, and slaughter program for any YNP bison.


Date: Tue, 21 Jan 1997 07:49:37 +0600
From: "John Reindl 608-267-8815" <>
Subject: Landfill underpricing

Dear List Members -

Yesterday, I met with a landfill consultant, and, among other things,
we discussed why landfill prices in Wisconsin are falling, in some
cases to less than $20 a ton, and in some cases, to the point that the
landfill is not recovering its costs. He said that this was being done
to capture market share and to drive competitors out of business. He
also said that the companies were subsidizing their operations in
Wisconsin by shifting revenue from out-of-state landfills.

It is my understanding that this is illegal, a practice known as
predatory pricing. Do any of you have knowledge of similar practices in
your state?


John Reindl, Recycling Manager
Dane County Department of Public Works


Date: Tue, 21 Jan 97 18:35:55 PST
Subject: Landfill underpricing


Date: Tue, 21 Jan 97 11:03:00 PST
From: <>
Subject: PET Forum Summary

I apologize for the length of this posting, but I had received a number of
inquiries on this meeting and thought the minutes would be useful or at
least informative. If you have any questions, please call Chris at
612.215.0234 or e-mail me at


Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET) Recycling Forum
December 5, 1996

Industry Experts Shed Light on Current State of PET Recycling
Recent headlines in recycling trade journals have chronicled drastic drops
in PET prices that began in early 1996. While recyclers are familiar with
up and down commodity pricing cycles many have been caught off guard by
predicted low PET prices for the next two to three years. As a result, some
recycled PET (RPET) processors and end users are now struggling to survive.
This has created mounting concern and questions about how this will affect
the PET recycling infrastructure. To address these concerns, the Minnesota
Office of Environmental Assistance (OEA) hosted a forum on December 5, 1996
focused on RPET plastics. Four industry representatives were invited from
around the country to share their insight on the complexities of virgin and
recycled PET markets. The speakers included Tim Warren from the National
Association for Plastic Container Recovery (NAPCOR), Dennis Sabourin from
Wellman, Inc., Peter Lobin from RIB Corp., and Larry Koester from PETCO USA.

Oversupply of virgin drives down recycled PET prices
The presenters agreed that the primary factor affecting recycled PET markets
is the expansion of virgin PET resin capacity by chemical companies. Mr.
Sabourin reported that approximately 1.5 billion pounds of virgin PET is
expected to come on line in 1997, and that the current supply and demand
imbalance is predicted to climb to 82% by the year 2001. As a result of
this excess production capacity and oversupply of virgin PET resins virgin
and off specification (off spec) prices have dropped and forced a price
drop for competing recycled PET resins.1

Mr. Lobin said that until recently his company was reclaiming both recycled
PET and HDPE, and using HDPE to manufacture drain tile products in its
Wisconsin plant. When he realized that off spec virgin PET resin was being
sold at very low prices, making it difficult for RPET to compete, his
company stopped reclaiming RPET. Mr. Lobin did offer some words of
encouragement, saying that in his opinion, the chemical companies cannot
afford to continue to expand at this rate and that plants will be forced to
close and discontinue plans to expand.

The session moderator asked what it costs to produce virgin PET. He also
presented some overheads with cost ranges for both virgin and recycled PET.
Mr. Koester suggested that it costs roughly 45 cents per pound to produce
virgin PET. Raw material costs are 30 - 35 cents per pound and overhead and
variable costs add another 5 - 10 cents per pound. Mr. Lobin indicated that
off-spec is currently being sold in the mid-teen to low twenties cents per
pound range, making it difficult for RPET to compete at this price range.
Mr. Sabourin said the prices presented were in the general range, though
some costs may be overstated, but declined to elaborate further.

Decline in recovery of PET is another contributing factor
One factor affecting PET recycling is the decline in curbside and deposit
collection programs. Mr. Warren reported that the 1995 recycling rate for
PET bottles was 32%, down 2% from 1994. Mr. Sabourin added that while there
was 85% growth in curbside programs between 91 and 92, very little growth is
expected between now and the end of the decade. In addition, the
single-serve PET bottles (typically sold at convenience stores and special
events) is experiencing rapid growth and is beginning to present new
collection challenges. In 1995, 5.3 billion single-serve containers were
produced, 8.5 billion were produced in 1996, with production anticipated to
grow 78% per year.

Why such a swing in prices between 1995 and 1996?
Mr. Warren commented on the key factors that influenced high prices for
recycled PET in 1995. Unusually high demand from Asia in mid-1995 drove
prices to record highs. Prices averaged 17 cents/lb for the year, while
peak prices were around 32 cents per pound in the midwest Mr. Warren added
that this was an anomaly and not indicative of a price structure sustainable
in the marketplace. Poor retail sales during the 1995 holiday season
coupled with a slow-down in export demand, led to more market parity between
supply and demand and a return to lower prices. Then entering 1996 and on
through to the present time, there has been a surge in virgin capacity,
further driving down the prices for recycled PET.

Regional markets for PET
Mr. Warren stated that 622 million pounds of post-consumer PET was recycled
into new products in 1995, an increase of 10% over 1994 figures. The
primary end markets for PET are fiber and export markets. Other end uses
include containers, strapping, sheet and film. Mr. Warren highlighted the
major PET markets in the upper midwest which include:

Post-Consumer Reclaimers(convert bales to flake or pellets for resale or
internal use) Plastics Recycling Facilities(purchase PET from collections
programs to produce bales or unwashed flake)
? CleanTech, Inc. Dundee, MI ? Catenation Green Bay, WI
? ITW Plastic Recycling Chicago, IL ? Eaglebrook Plastics Chicago, IL
? Johnson Controls, Inc. Novi, MI ? Maine Plastics Chicago, IL
? Phoenix Recycling Corp. Roseville, MN ? Premiere Plastics Mayville,
? Quality Checked Plastics, Inc. Paynesville, MN

Mr. Koester commented that PET reclaimers have dwindled down from roughly 60
to 20 and we may continue to see further thinning of the reclamation
infrastructure. Mr. Lobin postulated that if more reclaimers close their
doors, less PET will be collected, and as a result, the infrastructure may
be damaged beyond repair. However, Mr. Lobin does not think this will
happen, believing that over the next 18 months major PET users will again
begin using recycled resin due to pressure from the government and other

Green PET presents more challenges
One issue raised, from representatives of the Minnesota soft Drink
Association, is that a particular problem for Minnesota recyclers is that
the State s green PET stream is twice the national average and is an RPET
resin grade particularly difficult to market because most manufacturers
prefer clear feedstock so they can control the appearance of their end

Searching for Solutions
While the speakers concluded that this is not a short-term problem, they did
offer recommendations for improving the market conditions for PET. Key
actions included:

? Require post-consumer content in products, especially in applications that
can accept green PET, such as strapping.

? Encourage the Food and Drug and Administration (FDA) to remove
restrictions, and /or expedite their Letter of No Objection process to
expand the use of recycled resin in the manufacture of food containers.

? Identify local businesses that could utilize recycled PET in their
manufacturing process and encourage them to shift from using virgin PET, or
convert from other resins such as high impact polystyrene (HIPS), to
recycled PET resin.

? Continuing to promote Buy Recycled Campaigns.

? Strengthen existing markets by encouraging plastic processors to
vertically integrate which has a greater potential to provide increased
revenues and better operating margins.

Members of the audience also offered their suggestions. Mary T Kach, of the
St. Paul Neighborhood Energy Consortium (NEC), proposed implementing
advanced product fees to offset the recovery costs. Dave Locey from the
Minnesota Soft Drink Association advocated working with its association
members to increase markets for PET. George Dreckmann, with the City of
Madison, called for a more drastic measure, suggesting that consumers
boycott PET plastics.

Mr. Sabourin summed up the meeting, saying The recycled PET market is not
terminal or sick, it is changing. What is needed now is patience and

As follow-up to the forum, the OEA will begin participating in a PET working
group with Wisconsin in late January as well as working to facilitate
expansion of local markets.

1 Off spec or wide spec material are virgin plastics which are
generated by plastic manufacturing facilities during their start-up periods
but which do not meet the high quality specifications of virgin and so are
sold as a lower grade. Off spec and recycled plastics compete because they
are both lower priced resins and the meet moderate quality requirements.
Source: Texas Recycler Market News.


Date: Tue, 21 Jan 1997 08:29:30 -0800
From: Robin Salsburg <>

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 9 Jan 97 11:39:32 -0800
From: newkirk <>

>Dear All,
>Today it was reported on the front page of the Vancouver Sun that MacMillan

>However, as with many victories the battle is not over. In particular,
>MacMillan Bloedel has not agreed to a permanent shutdown and we still do not
>have permanent protection for the pristine areas.

I live on the Olympic Peninsula in WA. We can pick up Canadian tv only. I
was watching a Canadian news program last night, and they reported that
Mac-Blo will stop logging for 12-18 months only in Clayoquot sound. They
will return sometime next year to resume logging on a smaller scale (how
much smaller I'm not sure). AND, in the meantime this year, they will
continue roadbuilding, pre-commercial thinning, etc. It sounded good at
first, but to me it just seems like the same old story of three steps
forward, two steps back. Anyway, I guess it's better than nothing for now.

Kirk Johnson

"I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed
corporation, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of
strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country" -Thomas Jefferson

"Corporations, which should be carefully restrained creatures of the law
of the people, are fast becoming the people's masters." -Grover Cleveland

"I won't slave for beggar's pay, likewise gold and jewels. But I would
slave to learn the way to sink your ship of fools" -Jerry Garcia

"I'm tryin' to save the trees, I saw it on tv: they cut the forest down
to build a piece of crap. PIECE OF CRAP!" -Neil Young


Date: (null)
From: (null)

The Metro Waste Authority which operates the landfill in the Des Moines metro
area is reporting the same to the Sierra Club in Des Moines. They have had to
lay off people and are making noises about raising the rates for recycling. Let
me put forth a conspirarcy theory where states with high recycling goals are
target of this type of pricing.

Debbie Neustadt
1261 E. 23
Des Moines, IA 50317
Dear List Members -

Yesterday, I met with a landfill consultant, and, among other things,
we discussed why landfill prices in Wisconsin are falling, in some
cases to less than $20 a ton, and in some cases, to the point that the
landfill is not recovering its costs. He said that this was being done
to capture market share and to drive competitors out of business. He
also said that the companies were subsidizing their operations in
Wisconsin by shifting revenue from out-of-state landfills.

It is my understanding that this is illegal, a practice known as
predatory pricing. Do any of you have knowledge of similar practices in
your state?


John Reindl, Recycling Manager
Dane County Department of Public Works


End of GreenYes Digest V97 #10