GreenYes Digest V97 #272

GreenYes Mailing List and Newsgroup (
Fri, 22 Jan 1999 17:04:12 -0500

GreenYes Digest Tue, 11 Nov 97 Volume 97 : Issue 272

Today's Topics:
Additives in Plastic
article in forbes mag
Computer Recycling/Demanufacturing
Let's let Forbes lie.
RE: Sean Al Gore Your Un-Recyclables

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


Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 08:04:16 -0800 (PST) From: Boston CWA 486 <> Subject: Additives in Plastic

i never heard of Witco, but we ought to try to reward/support them. -k

At 11:07 AM 11/6/97 -0600, RecycleWorlds wrote: >QUOTE WITHOUT COMMENT > >The 9/97 issue of Modern Plastic has an article on new additives used in plastic, which includes the following discussion of how the industry reacts to environmental concerns.=20

> "Some additive producers, seeing the handwriting on the wall, have dropped products that are under an envirnmental cloud. Witco has unilaterally eliminated cadmium based PVC heat stabilizers. The immediate impact of the decision, realls Lawrence Brekcer, Witco's vp. for additives and initiators, was lost business. Witco saw the move as a way to defuse environmental= attacks." >


Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 11:03:35 -0800 (PST) From: Pat Franklin <> Subject: article in forbes mag

This note was originally going to Pete Pasterz who sent an email to several folks including me, regarding the Forbes article. Then I discovered that the article had gone out to greenyessers suggesting that we "let it lie". I agree with Dave Reynolds -- let's don't take it lying down. Let's expose the lie.=20

Dear Pete,

Thanks for the email regarding the reprint of the article in Forbes Magazine entitled "Recycling is Garbage" by Dan Seligman. How I wish I had the time (and expertise) to respond to the points individually and at length. Running a small nonprofit virtually single-handedly is an exercise in frustration. There is never enough time. . . . . Yada, yada, yada. . . . But here are a few thoughts with respect to the points you emailed:=20

1) AMERICA RECYCLES DAY (ARD): It's not just Al Gore, EPA and pro-recyclers promoting ARD. Some of the very folks who provided the background info for Tierney's diatribe in the NY Times and for the article in the Wall Street Journal a few months earlier, are among the biggest promoters!!!! =20

2) NO SHORTAGE OF RAW MATERIALS OR LANDFILL SPACE: Let's get Allen Hershkowitz, Ph.D.(NRDC) to respond to some or all of these points, particularly ones like "there is no present or prospective shortage of raw materials" and "there is no shortage of landfill space". NRDC published an 80-page, in depth, articulate response to the infamous John Tierney article, entitled "Too Good to Throw Away" (February 1997). =20

3) REDEEMING OUT OF STATE DEPOSIT CONTAINERS: Regarding Seligman's question, "what crime did John Mocombe commit" when he took the deposit containers he purchased in New York State to Michigan so that he could get 10 cents per container instead of the 5 cents he paid to the retailer in NYS, the answer is simple. First, he broke the spirit, if not the letter of the law, and second, he committed fraud. =20

4) DISPOSAL OF RECYCLABLES COLLECTED FROM CURBSIDE RECYCLING PROGRAMS: Seligman hit on one point with which I must concur. That is that "recycling is a farce when municipalities spend heavily on it and then have to pay= people to take away the stuff". I doubt that it is "a standard scenario across the land" as he purports. On the other hand, there is no doubt in my mind that it does occur, and I would very much like to know to what extent it occurs.

I look forward to hearing from you and seeing you in Dec.

Pat Franklin

PS I am sending this note to A. Hershkowitz and to the email addresses that I recognized on your email to me. =20


Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 13:58 -0800 (PST) From: "Moore, Robin" <> Subject: Computer Recycling/Demanufacturing

Gary, EPA's Common Sense Initiative has been piloting a computer=20 recycling/deconstruction project in San Jose for the past month. Tom=20 Bartel, from Unisys Corporation, is the Project Leader, and might be=20 interested in speaking. He, or Leah Jung (from Vista Environmental), could= =20 give you information on the results of the pilot. They also may be able to= =20 provide you with a case study, if you're at all interested in cooperative,= =20 public/private approach, in addition to the individual company approach.

Tom can be reached at (602) 224-4221 or at ---------- From: CRRA To: RMoore; Jango; GreenYes Subject: Re: Computer Recycling/Demanufacturing Date: Wednesday, November 05, 1997 2:13PM

CRRA is organizing workshops for March 1998 on the issue of Reuse and Recycling of Electronics (both computers and brown goods).

We have been monitoring all the discussions on sources of info on computer recycling and will try to summarize that info for our packets. Thanks to everyone who has commented so far - this info has been great!

We also hope to identify good speakers and case studies from California on this subject in the next couple of weeks. If you have any ideas for=20 speakers in California, please let me know ASAP!


Gary Liss CA Resource Recovery Association 916-652-4450


Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 03:09:33 -0500 From: "Bill Sheehan" <> Subject: END WELFARE FOR WASTING

Below is a statement and letter on ending subsidies for wasting=20 drafted by John Young and Ralph deGenaro. We will be asking the=20 National Recycling coalition to sign on at the December 5-7 board=20 meeting. --bill s.

************************ Bill Sheehan Zero Waste Associates 268 Janice Drive Athens GA 30606 Tel & Fax 706-208-1416 ************************



We, the undersigned, call on federal, state and local=20 governments to eliminate subsidies for extraction and=20 use of virgin materials (including wood, oil and=20 other minerals), and to eliminate subsidies for waste=20 facilities. In recent years, both businesses and=20 hard-working taxpayers have learned to do more with=20 less, and it's time for government to do the same. To=20 be competitive in the 21st Century, the American=20 economy must become far more efficient in its use of=20 natural resources. Americans spend $40 billion a year=20 on garbage collection and disposal. Other industrial=20 nations are already moving to cut waste and use=20 materials -- such as paper, plastics, glass and=20 metals -- more efficiently. America should be a world=20 leader in this effort.=20

Cutting these subsidies would help: * Save taxpayers money by getting a fair price for=20 publicly-owned resources now given away too cheaply,=20 and by avoiding the need for costly waste collection,=20 landfills, and incinerators. * Create jobs. * Level the economic playing field for recycling and=20 reuse, and stimulate innovative design that reduces=20 waste.

Therefore, we call for the following:

STOP GIVEAWAYS OF TAXPAYER-OWNED RESOURCES * End subsidized logging on federal lands. * Reform the 1872 mining law to eliminate patenting=20 and require beneficiaries to pay a fair royalty and=20 administrative fees. * End subsidized electricity rates for production of=20 aluminum and other virgin metals.

CUT U.S. TAX BREAKS FOR MINING, LOGGING, AND=20 PETROLEUM * Repeal the mineral depletion allowance for copper,=20 iron, and other hard rock minerals.=20 * Subject the timber industry to the same tax and=20 depreciation rules as other industries. * Repeal special tax provisions that benefit oil and=20 gas producers.

CUT FOREIGN AID FOR MINING AND LOGGING IN OTHER=20 COUNTRIES * End U.S. government loan guarantees and other=20 financial assistance for mining and logging in other=20 countries. * Tell the World Bank and other U.S.-supported=20 multilateral institutions to stop giving financial=20 assistance for mining, logging and other extractive=20 industries in other countries.

REQUIRE VIRGIN MATERIALS INDUSTRIES TO PAY TO CLEAN=20 UP THEIR OWN MESSES * Require hard-rock miners to post bonds sufficient=20 to pay for future cleanups, and to contribute for=20 cleanup of abandoned mines.

STOP SUBSIDIZING GARBAGE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL * End local, state and federal subsidies for garbage=20 collection, landfills and incinerators.


Taxpayers for Common Sense 651 Pennsylvania Ave., SE, 2nd Flr. Washington, DC 20003 Tel: (202) 546-8500 x102 Fax: (202) 546-8511 Email: Web:

GrassRoots Recycling Network c/o Materials Efficiency Project 2008 Klingle Rd., NW Washington, DC 20010 Tel: (202) 667-6535 Fax: (202) 986-7183 Email: Web:

November 6, 1997

Dear National Recycling Coalition board member:

As representatives of the taxpayer and recycling=20 movements, we have come together in agreement on=20 basic principles that support our different goals -=20 saving taxpayer money, creating jobs and economic=20 development, promoting recycling and reuse, and=20 reducing waste.

We invite the National Recycling Coalition to endorse=20 the attached statement (see reverse). This is a=20 revised version based on comments received on a draft=20 circulated at the National Recycling Coalition=20 Congress in Orlando. Since this is a first-ever joint=20 statement between our movements, it emphasizes those=20 subsidies which come most clearly and directly from=20 taxpayers and to which there is the broadest=20 political opposition.=20

If this statement succeeds in attracting broad=20 support, then perhaps next year additional concepts=20 can be added. Also, note that this is intended as a=20 lasting statement of principles, and not a laundry=20 list of the latest specific legislative proposals.=20 This statement will eventually be shared with the=20 media and policy makers in order to educate the=20 public about the benefits of eliminating subsidies=20 for extractive industries and waste collection and=20 disposal.

Taxpayers for Common Sense (TCS) is a politically=20 independent taxpayer organization dedicated to=20 cutting wasteful spending, subsidies and tax breaks=20 and balancing the federal budget. TCS was founded in=20 1995 by Ralph DeGennaro and Jill Lancelot, who have=20 between them 35 years of experience fighting=20 government waste in Washington, DC. TCS is the lead=20 taxpayer organization in the Green Scissors Campaign=20 - a four year old coalition that unites=20 environmentalists and taxpayers in fighting wasteful=20 and environmentally harmful subsidies.=20

The GrassRoots Recycling Network (GRRN) is a=20 coalition of community-based reuse, recycling and=20 composting activists engaged in conserving our human=20 and natural resources and giving voice to the=20 conservation ethic that more than 100 million=20 Americans express daily by recycling. The GRRN=20 contact for this effort is John Young of the=20 Materials Efficiency Project (MEP), a new project=20 focused on research and action to reduce extraction=20 and waste of virgin materials.

As the premier association of professional recyclers,=20 we invite the National Recycling Coalition to join us=20 in building support for this effort.


Ralph DeGennaro Executive Director=09 Taxpayers for Common Sense =09 John Young Director Materials Efficiency Project (on behalf of the GrassRoots Recycling Network)


Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 11:55:53 -0800 (PST) From: Boston CWA 486 <> Subject: Let's let Forbes lie.

Neither the article nor Forbes mag deserve a serious response, in and of themselves.

However. It is worthwhile to try to put together a coherent, polite, thorough response on the Internet, and work to get it linked to search engines and news services so that curious, open minds interested in both sides might be informed.

-k =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D Keith c/o total recycling - zero waste W.Rox/Boston, MA USA =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D At 11:34 AM 11/7/97 -0500, NERC wrote: >This is a note regarding the latest mass media volley against recycling, >published in the November 17 edition of Forbes magazine. =20 > >This article would be laughable, if it weren't published in a national >magazine with broad exposure to the financial community.


Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 03:13:56 -0500 From: "Bill Sheehan" <> Subject: NRC ZERO WASTE RESOLUTION

The Zero Waste resolution below will be proposed at the=20 December 5-7 National Recycling Coalition board meeting. Thanks to Gary Liss for help in getting it and supporting=20 items together!

--Bill S.

************************ Bill Sheehan Zero Waste Associates 268 Janice Drive Athens GA 30606 Tel & Fax 706-208-1416 ************************



There is strong popular and bipartisan support for the elimination of corporate subsidies for wasting and developing policies and incentives for sustainable development in water supply and water quality, air quality, forestry practices, land uses and solid waste and resource management. Adoption of a Zero Waste goal will challenge industry and government at the local, state and national level to work together to establish policies, incentives and programs to eliminate waste, reward investments in resource efficiency, discourage wasting of our natural and human resources, and maximize source reduction, reuse, recycling, and composting. Working towards Zero Waste will contribute significantly to protecting our environment and achieving sustainable development. =20


The National Recycling Coalition encourages industry, government and consumers to adopt Zero Waste as a goal for the 21st century.

**************************************** For more information on Zero Waste, please visit the Grassroots=20 Recycling Network Web site: A binder with more details on this issue will also be available for review at the NRC Board meeting in Washington, DC.

Appended is a brief explanation of Zero Waste by Gary Liss, Executive Director of the California Resource Recovery Association and past president of NRC.


The National Recycling Coalition (NRC) mission statement notes that:=20

"NRC is a non-profit membership organization committed to the goals of maximizing recycling and conservation =85 The NRC is an advocate for environmental protection, energy and resource conservation, and social and economic development through recycling and waste reduction."

NRC has recognized the importance of aggressive national waste reduction goals as a key tool for advancing the industry.=20 Specifically, NRC policy states:

"Source reduction, recycling and recovered material utilization can be encouraged on the local and state levels through the establishment of national goals. The establishment of national goals will define the importance of waste prevention and recycling for both the public and private sector."

NRC has also adopted a policy calling for a national hierarchy of waste management preferences:

"Source reduction and recycling can conserve energy and natural resources, create jobs and employment opportunities, and conserve landfill space. Other forms of waste disposal, such as waste-to-energy facilities and sanitary landfilling, are less preferable in terms of resource conservation and environmental protection. The NRC endorses and supports a hierarchy of waste management preferences that gives first priority to source reduction, reuse, recycling and composting to minimize the amount of waste to be otherwise managed."

"The hierarchy should place a primary emphasis on implementing all feasible source reduction, recycling and composting while not precluding communities from considering transformation facilities and landfills to address waste which cannot be reduced at the source, recycled or composted. Such a hierarchy should govern all solid waste policies, particularly the planning for and regulation of all waste facilities."

NRC recently developed a National Advocacy Message, after extensive input from all members and State Recycling Organizations through a multi-year development process. This Advocacy Message obtained support for NRC's adopted policies and highlighted the elimination of corporate subsidies for wasting to be one of the highest priorities of NRC's membership. =20


1. Adopt track(s) on Zero Waste at next NRC Congress in New Mexico (The Zero Waste Institute, organized by Steve Suess, has offered to play a lead role in organizing that)

2. Form a Zero Waste Technical Council which will seek funding for research and development work in this area, such as identifying Zero Waste companies and initiatives and presenting Zero Waste workshops around the country. (Rick Anthony, President of CRRA's Global Recycling Council, has offered to help lead a NRC Zero Waste Technical Council.)

3. Include information on Zero Waste in upcoming NRC workshops=20 (e.g., colleges and universities).


By Gary Liss

Zero Waste is the next step in the American success story called recycling. Everyday more then 100 million citizens do the right thing ..... they recycle. Now it is time to set our sights higher and start planning for the end to wasting resources and to our reliance on landfills, incinerators and other waste facilities. Zero Waste is a Policy, a Path, a Direction, a Target; it's a Process, a way of thinking, a Vision. =20

Zero Waste represents a new planning approach for the 21st Century. The American economic system stands for individual freedom, entrepreneurship, and free market capitalism. Zero Waste adds to that system the principles of conserving resources, minimizing pollution, maximizing employment opportunities, and providing the greatest degree of local economic self-reliance. Zero Waste defines the discipline required to create a more sustainable interaction with our natural world. =20

Zero Waste is the next logical step beyond the short-term goals established for recycling by the year 2000. Where should we aim after 2000? Do we stop at 35% or 50% recycling and build landfills and incinerators to handle the rest of our waste? Or do we continue to build on the tremendous success of the past decade in recycling and begin tackling some of the more fundamental aspects of waste generation and work to eliminate waste at the source?

Striving for Zero Waste means:=20

Moving up the waste stream to consumers, advertisers, manufacturers and product designers, to the "front end" of the system.=20

Pursuing waste prevention, reuse, repair, recycling and composting, and banning materials and products that don't allow for those activities.=20

Paying up front the full costs of environmental degradation and social fragmentation, including those costs in the price of products and services, and providing factual information to consumers so consumers can really make knowledgeable choices in a "free market," not putting the burden solely on local government and residents (garbage disposal is an unfunded mandate).=20

Focusing on renewable resources and doing more with less.=20 Defining economic success as delivering more services with fewer energy and material resources (e.g. for housing, food, transportation)=20

Developing information like the Toxics Release Inventory to report wastes generated and materials and energy used, to provide hard facts to the public to make good choices.=20

Reversing channels of distribution to repair, resale and reuse durable products made of fewer material types, designed also for recyclability when they outline their usefulness.=20

Manufacturers changing from delivering products to delivering services (e.g. leasing carpet squares.)=20

Solving a material resources problem, not a perceived landfill problem, recognizing that most environmental damage from products (e.g. pollutants created, energy consumed, virgin lands destroyed) comes from resource extraction and industries downstream, not from landfills (USEPA presented this morning that the average cost of the "front end" is $187-$265/ton while the average cost of disposal is $30/ton). Solving or avoiding material resources problems would enable us to minimize mining and extraction from third world nations and preserve our wildernesses.=20

Eliminating subsidies for virgin materials extraction and harvesting, and eliminating exemptions from hazardous waste rules for mining wastes.=20

Moving from a linear consumption-driven economy to a cyclical service-oriented economy=20

Developing a sustainable system that everyone can replicate, not continuing to have 20% of the earth's population use 80% of the resources.=20

Harnessing the forces of the marketplace (e.g. through variable rate pricing for residential garbage collection systems) to achieve this goal.

Will Zero Waste Cost More?=20

NO. This is not a centralized public works project like sewage treatment where there are exponential increases in costs when plants are designed for 95% removal of wastes compared to 80%.=20

In fact, some of the steps that are more difficult to achieve in the short term and more difficult to imagine now are product and process improvements and redesigns that will prevent the formation of waste, reduce the use of resources, design for recyclability and maximize durability and reuse. These should all save money rather than cost money. That's how many businesses are diverting 80-90% and saving money in the process.=20

That's why it's important not to lock into one quick fix or centralized solution to achieve Zero Waste.

Is Zero Waste Attainable?=20

Businesses do it:=20

97% diversion - Mad River Brewing in Northern California=20 95% diversion - Zanker Construction & Demolition Landfill in San Jose, CA=20 80% diversion - Hewlett-Packard in Roseville, CA=20 95% recycling rates at office buildings in the EPA Green Buildings program=20 80-90% diversion rates at many businesses=20 Some progressive businesses are now adopting Factor 10 goals to achieve a ten-fold increase in efficiency=20

State and local governments are on their way:=20

Many have achieved approximately 50% diversion, in large cities such as Seattle; San Jose; Twin Cities, MN; and smaller cities like Poway in northern San Diego County and Takoma Park, MD=20

The State of New Jersey has reported a 56% statewide diversion rate and the Australian Capital Territory of Canberra has adopted a Zero Waste goal by 2010 =20

Halifax, Nova Scotia has adopted a resource management strategy to achieve Zero Waste. =09 =09 Nature is the model:

No other species pollutes its nest and survives.=20 Everything has a place.=20 A waste to one species is food or a resource to another.=20 Everything is connected.=20 We may not get rid of all mines and landfills as we know them today, but we should not design our economy to be dependent on them.

Why not have a 50% (or some other number) waste diversion goal?=20

Then we will have to plan for more landfills and incinerators to meet the other 50% of our wastes, on an on-going basis.=20

That will require long-term commitments (20-30 years) with flow control (as much as courts will allow).=20

That will impede entrepreneurs, businesses and government alike from innovations in waste prevention, reuse, recycling and composting, because their contracts or ordinances won't allow it.=20

Instead, we need to open up our system to achieve Zero Waste. We need to:=20

Provide economic incentives - Tax Bads, not Goods. Eliminate Corporate Welfare for Wasting. Encourage use of recycled content products by manufacturers. Work with manufacturers, product designers, advertisers and consumers to share responsibility for the products produced and used prior to disposal.


Zero Waste is achievable and being actively pursued around the world:

* Ray Anderson, CEO of Interface Inc. ($1 billion carpet sales in 1996) in their annual report says "If we're successful, then we'll spend the rest of our days harvesting yesteryear's carpets and other petrochemically-derived products, and recycling them into new materials; and converting sunlight into energy; with zero scrap going to the landfill and zero emissions in the ecosystem. And we'll be doing well...very doing good." Interface has pioneered, among other things, the "Evergreen Lease", giving the company and its customers economic incentives to take back old carpets and recycle them, while assuring customers of clean, attractive carpets.

* Waste diversion rates of some businesses in Dane County, Michigan, are already at 95% according to John Reindl, Recycling Manager (; 608-267-8815).

* Zanker Road Landfill and Raisch Products in San Jose, CA are both reporting recovery of over 95% of the construction and demolition debris received at their facilities. Contact:San Jose State University, Center for the Development of Recycling, 408-924-5453.

* Hewlett-Packard in Roseville, CA is reporting successfully diverting 95% of its solid waste. Contact: Sue Beets, Somers Building Maintenance (HP contractor), 916-785-7595.

* Mad River Brewery in Blue Lake, CA currently diverts 97% of its garbage from landfills from its 15,000 square foot facility. The Mad River Brewery was one of California's top ten waste-busters last year, as part of the CA Integrated Waste Management Board's Waste Reduction Awards Program (WRAP). The more than 700 California businesses participating in this program reported to the state that they can cut waste disposal costs and bolster profit margins through successful recycling and waste reduction programs.

* Southern California Edison, in Los Angeles adopted a Zero Waste goal and has achieved over 90% diversion.

* Kimberly Clarke has adopted in its Vision 2000 a goal to reduce to zero the emissions their manufacturing facilities send to disposal, either through recycling or other means. Currently they have achieved 80% diversion in their domestic plants. Kimberly Clarke recently acquired Scott Paper, which now also falls under this goal and direction.

* The Australian Capital Territory of Canberra (population 330,000) has adopted a Waste Management Strategy which sets a vision of how they can become a Waste Free society by 2010 and outlines the future direction for waste management whereby they will turn their wastes into resources. Contact: Tony DeDomenico, Minister for Urban Services, ACT Waste, PO Box 788, Civic Square ACT 2608, Telephone: 06-207-6356;, Austouch..

* The Namibian Breweries sorghum brewery in Tsumeb in Southern Africa opened in January, 1997 with the message "good beer, no chemicals, no pollution, more sales and more jobs." Contact: Mrs. Brigitte Sass or Mr. G. Roux, 264-61-262-915x2122. The opening of the brewery was a pilot program of the Zero Emissions Research Initiative (ZERI) of the UN and the United Nations University ( applying integrated biosystems approaches. =20

* The Zero Emissions Research Initiative (ZERI) of the UN undertakes scientific research...with the objective of achieving technological breakthroughs without any form of waste, i.e. no waste in the water, no waste in the air, no solid waste. All waste is to be converted into value added ingredients for other industries.=20 ZERI also assists governments at all levels in the design of social and economic policy options for sustainable growth. ZERI brings together key industrial policy makers and corporate leaders in an effort to eliminate all forms of waste from industrial processes. In line with the quest for zero defects (total quality) and zero inventory (just-in-time), ZERI says zero emissions will become the industry standard. For more information:

* The Second Annual World Congress on Zero Emissions was held in May 1996 in Chattanooga, Tennessee. Indonesia was recognized for their significant voluntary improvements in industry environmental performance, classifying corporations by their practices, including the highest Gold standard reserved for zero emissions companies.=20 The conference led to a number of new initiatives and pledges by industry and government, including a financial commitment by the President of Namibia for zero emissions projects in his country, and the establishment of a Japan Forum on Zero Emissions for industry and local government.

* Twelve local corporations and a leading banker in Gotland, Sweden have joined together to promote sustainable development and their island as a center for zero emissions activities. They have identified eight different pilot projects to be pursued to move towards zero emissions.

* Chemical Week, August 14, 1996 reports "To cut the high cost of hazardous waste disposal and improve their image, chemical manufacturers have made measurable improvements in waste management.=20 Their efforts, including waste reduction projects to recover useful manufacturing by-product from waste streams, have in many cases dramatically cut wastewater discharges. Now, however, a move toward virtual elimination of wastewater disposal is making zero discharge, or total wastewater recycling, attractive...'Zero discharge is a logical evolution of the industry's push toward pollution prevention and source reduction' says Ken Cable, VP/Chemicals and Pharmaceuticals with environmental services firm CH2MHill. Cable says requests from chemical producers for information about zero discharge manufacturing have quadrupled in the past six months.=20 While zero discharge has traditionally referred to eliminating the discharge of effluent into water, the term has been expanded in recent years to mean zero waste, or process, that have no resulting toxic waste. Instead of trying to limit the amount of pollutants discharged, zero discharge promotes the elimination of discharge streams through recycling and reuse."

* University of Maine, Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery and Compost Connections teams with Maine Organic Farmers and Gardeners Association Common Ground Country Fair which attracts about 60,000 visitors a year in three days. They have successfully recovered 86% of all discards and have a Zero Garbage Sort Educational Booth where they educate the average fair goer about composting recycling and reduction.=20


Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 14:15:35 -0500 (EST) From: Subject: RE: Sean Al Gore Your Un-Recyclables

In a message dated 11/6/97 2:52:47 PM, wrote:


I think you will have a more appropriate audience and producer impact if

you redirect the un-recyclables back to the manufacturer.

John Rogers>>

I think manufacturers are the first logical target. But when the last= "Take the Wrap Campaign" focused on the SPI what happened was that the target rapidly learned how to deflect the importance of this effort and ultimately was successful in co-opting the whole thing and turning it into a failure. Manufacturers are experts at spin, and if you pick on only one target they rapidly learn how to turn this into a non-event and the whole thing ends up sinking as interest is lost. If such a campaign were to be done again the thinking of many of us is that there should be a new target each month, and that these targets should range from legislators to lobbyists to manufacturers to designers to conferences, and so forth. By having a moving target you maximize your exposure, keep public interest gowing, and hopefully get the news media wondering who will be next.... the excitement of who will get tons of garbage this month could generate more interests across groups who normally do not see what each= other is up to..... I could go on, but will leave it at this.... Thanks for your interest and suggestion.


End of GreenYes Digest V97 #272 ******************************