GreenYes Digest V97 #285

GreenYes Mailing List and Newsgroup (greenyes@mlist.ucsd.edu)
Fri, 22 Jan 1999 17:03:43 -0500

GreenYes Digest Tue, 25 Nov 97 Volume 97 : Issue 285

Today's Topics:
Beyond Recycling
Documenting timber subsidies
Pigmented Milk Bottles/Australia
Position available with NC Div. of P2 and Enviro. Asst.
Reward for your clever ideas...
telephone books and the phone company
What to call it; Buy Nothing Day
Wood pallet rebuilding

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: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 19:57:42 -0500
From: "Bill Sheehan" <bill_sheehan@mindspring.com>
Subject: Beyond Recycling

Reposted from the WASTE PREVENTION FORUM
(A project of the National Waste Prevention Coalition)
---------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 08:54:21 -0800 (PST)
From: "David A. Kirkpatrick" <david@kirkworks.com>
Subject: Documenting timber subsidies

FIRST TIME: The 11/21 Washington Post reported a US Forest Service
memorandum acknowledged the timber sale program cost taxpayers $15
million. It is the first time the Forest Service admits a loss of
revenue by the timber sale program. Other government agencies and
conservation groups have long claimed the Forest Service timber program
loses money. The General Accounting Office reported in 1995 that the
accumulative losses to the Treasury by the timber program totaled
nearly $1 billion between 1992 and 1994. The memo will be released as
an official report next month. Representative Jim Leach (R-IA)
commented, "The US government is the only property owner I know of
that, in effect, pays private companies to despoil or deplete its own
resources."
==========================================================
GrassRoots Environmental Effectiveness Network
check out our web page at: http://www.defenders.org/grnhome.html
==========================================

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 09:35:35 -0600
From: "RecycleWorlds" <anderson@msn.fullfeed.com>
Subject: Pigmented Milk Bottles/Australia

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_0020_01BCF8BC.514BE640
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On 11/24 Hop responded to our alert about white pigmented bottles in =
Australia by asking:

What are the names of these 'consumer groups' in Australia? In recent =
years
we've had several groups/individuals making such statements, but they've
all eventually been exposed as fronts for the plastic milk container
(dairy?) industry.

Hop.

>From: RecycleWorlds <anderson@msn.fullfeed.com>
>Subject: White Pigmented Milk Bottles
>
>TO GREENYES' AUSTRALIAN MEMBERS:
>
> In the course of researching the recycling problems creating by =
some =3D
>American dairies' conversion to white pigmented HDPE bottles (namely, =
=3D
>the loss of the 1/3-1/2 higher revenues commanded by natural HDPE =3D
>relative to pigmented HDPE), we have just learned that consumer groups =
=3D
>in Australia are lobbying to convince their dairies to switch to white =
=3D
>pigmented bottles for nutrition reasons.

That information came from a dairy food prof at the University of =
Pennsylvania. We checked with him again and he didn't know any more. =20

However, to the extent that this is a setup, our experience in the =
States would suggest that it's more likely to be pushed by the =
paperboard industry which would like to reclaim market share from =
plastic by showcasing the benefits of opaque paper cartons over HDPE.

Let me know if you find out anything more.

=
Peter

------------------------------

Peter Anderson
RecycleWorlds Consulting
4513 Vernon Blvd. Ste. 15
Madison, WI 53705-4964
Phone:(608) 231-1100/Fax: (608) 233-0011
E-mail:recycle@msn.fullfeed.com

------=_NextPart_000_0020_01BCF8BC.514BE640
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">

On 11/24 Hop responded to our alert = about white=20 pigmented bottles in Australia by asking:
 
What are the names of these 'consumer groups' in Australia? In = recent=20 years
we've had several groups/individuals making such statements, = but=20 they've
all eventually been exposed as fronts for the plastic milk=20 container
(dairy?) industry.

Hop.

>From: = RecycleWorlds=20 <anderson@msn.fullfeed.com&g= t;
>Subject:=20 White Pigmented Milk Bottles
>
>TO GREENYES' AUSTRALIAN=20 MEMBERS:
>
>        In = the course=20 of researching the recycling problems creating by some = =3D
>American=20 dairies' conversion to white pigmented HDPE bottles (namely, = =3D
>the loss=20 of the 1/3-1/2 higher revenues commanded by natural HDPE = =3D
>relative to=20 pigmented HDPE), we have just learned that consumer groups =3D
>in = Australia=20 are lobbying to convince their dairies to switch to white = =3D
>pigmented=20 bottles for nutrition reasons.
 
That information came from a dairy = food prof at=20 the University of Pennsylvania. We checked with him again and he didn't = know any=20 more. 
 
However, to the extent that this is a setup, our = experience in=20 the States would suggest that it's more likely to be pushed by the = paperboard=20 industry which would like to reclaim market share from plastic by = showcasing the=20 benefits of opaque paper cartons over HDPE.
 
Let me know if you find out anything = more.
 
          &nbs= p;            = ;            =             &= nbsp;           &n= bsp;           =20 Peter

------------------------------
 
Peter Anderson
RecycleWorlds=20 Consulting
4513 Vernon Blvd. Ste. 15
Madison, WI = 53705-4964
Phone:(608)=20 231-1100/Fax: (608) 233-0011
E-mail:recycle@msn.fullfe= ed.com
------=_NextPart_000_0020_01BCF8BC.514BE640-- ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 14:54:06 -0500 From: "Scott Mouw" Subject: Position available with NC Div. of P2 and Enviro. Asst. Announcing an opening with the North Carolina Division of Pollution Prevention and Environmental Assistance, Raleigh, NC: Environmental Specialist III, Organic Waste Specialist. Salary: mid $30s. Position is responsible for conducting research and technical assistance activities to improve the organics management infrastructure in North Carolina. Responsibilities involve working with generators to implement source reduction, recycling, and composting strategies, and working with market development staff to build alternatives to disposal for organic wastes. The position will also assist in Division initiatives in the area of water conservation. Applicants must have strong computer and communication skills, professional experience with waste reduction issues, and an understanding of composting and other organic management techniques. To apply, send resume and state application form to Linda Vincent, NCDPPEA, PO Box 29569, Raleigh, NC 27626-9569. Inquiries about the position can be directed to Scott Mouw, NCDPPEA, at 919-715-6512 or by email at scott_mouw@p2pays.org Scott Mouw NC Div. of Pollution Prevention and Env. Asst. (919)715-6512 scott_mouw@owr.ehnr.state.nc.us ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 16:10:40 -0800 From: nec@orbis.net (Neighborhood Energy Consortium) Subject: Reward for your clever ideas... The Saint Paul Neighborhood Energy Consortium (NEC) is launching a residential materials exchange program for Saint Paul area residents. We are actively looking for a clever and unique name for the program. A reward may be offered to someone who can supply us with a name or ideas for a naming the program. The NEC is a coalition of community organizations serving Saint Paul area residents and businesses. Its purpose it to provide information, services, and programs that contribute to an environmentally responsible community. The materials exchange program will be a free service for residents who wish to acquire, donate, and/or trade FREE reusable materials or goods. The NEC will host a database of wanted and available items, it will be accessible on-line or by calling the NEC. Almost anything that people can reuse or restore for their home, garden or garage except hazardous wastes may be listed on the database. All materials on the database will be free. The NEC will not house or store any items, but staff will work to find recipients for the used merchandise. In looking for a name to promote the program, we would like to avoid using words such as "trash" in the title (for example, "trash and treasure" will not work). Please submit any ideas or questions to: nec@orbis.net, attention: materials exchange (or reply to this e-mail). You can also call Anne Frisch at the NEC at (612) 644-7678. Replies are due Dec. 3rd. Thanks for your input! ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 10:44:24 -0500 From: "Blair Pollock" Subject: telephone books and the phone company Bell South, the Baby Bell in the southern atlantic region used the old phone books to make their billing envelopes for several years. What a great closed loop idea! Just about six months ago, they stopped and went back to a conventional white envelope. My source told me that some marketing person wanted use colored inks on the envelope and the old gray paper could take only black ink, or the colored inks would show up blackish on the gray recycled paper. S0... Bell South whacked their recycled envelope. The immediate effect: We are now collecting old phone books and we understand that the company that usually handled them, will not be handling them. The end market is uncertain. They may have to go all the way to New England. My source told me that the people to write to about this are: Bell South Assistant Vice President John Carter 44th floor 675 W. Peachtree St, Atlanta GA 30375 and Vice President Rebecca Dunn same adress. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 15:54:39 -0500 From: "Blair Pollock" Subject: What to call it; Buy Nothing Day >> ** WASTE PREVENTION FORUM ** >>-- A project of the National Waste Prevention Coalition >--------------------------------------- >From Bruce Nordman, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, CA: > >WHAT TO CALL IT >>A few weeks ago a paragraph from Truett DeGeare, U.S. EPA, appeared on this >>list and made an argument I'd paraphrase as follows: >* Recycling has been successful -- practically and in the public's >>mind. >>* Source reduction has been successful at neither. >>* Subsuming source reduction under a larger recycling umbrella would likely >>lead to success in both areas. >> >>Ann Schneider, a reuse champion amongst other activities, argued that this >>would obscure the significant benefits that reuse usually has over recycling >>and so impair advocating for reuse. >> >>I think that Ann is correct, but her argument needs to be generalized. For a >>long time, source reduction HAS been treated as an extension of recycling, in >>policy, analysis, and in communications with the public. It is precisely >>this fact that has been a primary contributor to source reduction failing. >> >For example, much of the argumentation for recycling is >>landfill-centered, economically and environmentally. This is problematic for >>recycling, which usually has significant non-landfill benefits, but deadly >>for source reduction, for which the landfill benefits are usually not worth >>even counting compared to others. Whereas recycling can be best understood >>in cyclical terms, source reduction deals with inherently linear, >>non-cyclical, issues of consumption. >> >>To gain more understanding of and success for source reduction, we need to >>keep it far from recycling, to gain a clear separation, rather than move it >>closer. If support for recycling ebbs in the coming years (a real >>possibility) there will be effort to draw in source reduction to capture more >>economic and environmental benefits under the recycling rubric, but this must >>be resisted for source reduction's sake. >> >>And for those who argue that the public will never get excited about or >>understand the term "source reduction", I agree. I suggest that we move it >>out of the waste arena entirely and call it "Materials Use Efficiency", which >>I believe is more readily understood. >> >>Comments? Thanks! >> >>Bruce Nordman >>E-mail: BNordman@LBL.gov > >>------------------------------- >Excerpted from article by Robert Berner on front page of 11/19/97 Wall >Street Journal: > >A HOLIDAY GREETING NETWORKS WON'T AIR: SHOPPERS ARE "PIGS" >Picture the scene: Katie Couric and Willard Scott all bundled up and >cozy on Thanksgiving morning, watching the Cat in the Hat float above >Macy's department store. > >Cut to a commercial: An animated pig superimposed on a map of North >America smacks its lips and snorts. A voice-over says: "The average >North American consumes five times more than a Mexican, 10 times more >than a Chinese person, and 30 times more than a person from >India....Give it a rest. Nov. 28 is Buy Nothing Day." > >Can't see it happening? Neither can the networks. That's what's >driving Kalle Lasn crazy. For five years now, the former advertising >executive turned anticonsumerism activist has been waging a grass-roots >campaign against Christmastime commercialism. His strategy: Attack >Christmas shopping one day at a time, beginning with the season kickoff >on the day after Thanksgiving. Each year, Mr. Lasn calls for a 24-hour >shopping moratorium on that Friday, which he has dubbed Buy Nothing Day. > The commercial trashing commercialism is just his way of reaching the >masses. > >But the Big Three networks aren't having any of it. "We don't want to >take any advertising that's inimical to our legitimate business >interests," says Richard Gitter, vice president of advertising standards >at General Electric Co.'s NBC network, which refused to take the >30-second spot. Westinghouse Electric Corp.'s CBS, in a letter rejecting >the commercial, went as far as to say that Buy Nothing Day is "in >opposition to the current economic policy in the United States." > >"There is something fundamentally undemocratic about our public >airways," Mr. Lasn said. A native of Estonia who moved to Canada around >1970, Mr. Lasn founded the Media Foundation in Vancouver, British >Columbia, in 1989. The group -- which he says had revenues of $500,000 >last year and has five full-time employees -- produces alternative >advertising for student and environmental groups, including one >anti-automobile commercial for Greenpeace. > >The foundation also publishes a quarterly magazine called Adbusters that >sells for $5.75 a copy and, according to Mr. Lasn, has 40,000 >subscribers. The magazine lambastes advertising's effect on popular >culture and includes lampoons of famous ads. > >Mr. Lasn counts among his supporters the Foundation for Deep Ecology, a >San Francisco group that says it has given him four $25,000 grants; the >Center for a New American Dream in Burlington, VT, which espouses >eliminating debt and living simply; and the like-minded Northwest Earth >Institute in Portland, OR, which plans to hit the streets on Buy Nothing >Day to issue "Christmas Gift Exemption" vouchers. > >The biggest Buy-Nothing celebration is planned for Seattle. There, >organizers will cut up their credit cards outside of downtown's Westlake >Center mall. Entertainment will be provided by a group of elderly women >called the Raging Grannies, who will perform to the tune of "Down by the >Riverside" their song, "I Ain't Going to Run Up Debt No More." And >Vicki Robin, co-author of the book, "Your Money or Your Life," will be >dressed as a doctor, dispensing medical advice on the materialistic >malady known as "affluenza." > >As for the snorting-pig commercial, at least some consumers will get to >see it: For the third year in a row, Cable News Network Headline News >has agreed to air the ad, and Mr. Lasn is paying $10,000 for a slot. > >Note from Tom: The Media Foundation's Adbusters website is located at: >http://www.adbusters.org >> - end - > > ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 14:13:05 -0600 From: "John Reindl" Subject: Wood pallet rebuilding In a meeting today, we were told that it is becoming more difficult for companies in Wisconsin to have their wood pallets picked up for rebuilding. Even where I work, we have 150 that a local firm had first said that they would take, but they haven't shown up. Are other people having this experience? Does anyone know why this is happening? Thanks much, John Reindl, Recycling Manager Dane County, WI reindl@co.dane.wi.us (608)267-1533 - fax (608)267-8815 - phone ------------------------------ Date: (null) From: (null) WHAT TO CALL IT A few weeks ago a paragraph from Truett DeGeare, U.S. EPA, appeared on this list and made an argument I'd paraphrase as follows: * Recycling has been successful -- practically and in the public's mind. * Source reduction has been successful at neither. * Subsuming source reduction under a larger recycling umbrella would likely lead to success in both areas. Ann Schneider, a reuse champion amongst other activities, argued that this would obscure the significant benefits that reuse usually has over recycling and so impair advocating for reuse. I think that Ann is correct, but her argument needs to be generalized. For a long time, source reduction HAS been treated as an extension of recycling, in policy, analysis, and in communications with the public. It is precisely this fact that has been a primary contributor to source reduction failing. For example, much of the argumentation for recycling is landfill-centered, economically and environmentally. This is problematic for recycling, which usually has significant non-landfill benefits, but deadly for source reduction, for which the landfill benefits are usually not worth even counting compared to others. Whereas recycling can be best understood in cyclical terms, source reduction deals with inherently linear, non-cyclical, issues of consumption. To gain more understanding of and success for source reduction, we need to keep it far from recycling, to gain a clear separation, rather than move it closer. If support for recycling ebbs in the coming years (a real possibility) there will be effort to draw in source reduction to capture more economic and environmental benefits under the recycling rubric, but this must be resisted for source reduction's sake. And for those who argue that the public will never get excited about or understand the term "source reduction", I agree. I suggest that we move it out of the waste arena entirely and call it "Materials Use Efficiency", which I believe is more readily understood. Comments? Thanks! Bruce Nordman E-mail: BNordman@LBL.gov ------------------------------ End of GreenYes Digest V97 #285 ******************************