Today's Topics:
Bedminster Bioconversion
To Al Gore: Fix Subtitle D Landfills
world population, birth rates, affluence,
world population, birth rates, affluence, IIASA (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, 01 Jul 1997 12:16:08 -0400
From: "A.Kushner" <adelek@stc.net>
Subject: Bedminster Bioconversion
A rural Georgia county is considering contracting with Bedminster to
"take care" of their growing garbage. I know there is a history of
their activities in Cobb County, GA, and in Sevierville, TN, and perhaps
other places. What we need is documentation of the problems
encountered, to convey to the officials in county government.
Any help will be appreciated.
Action for a Clean Environment, 706-778-3661
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 01 Jul 97 13:19:11 -0800
From: jennie.alvernaz@sfsierra.sierraclub.org
Subject: To Al Gore: Fix Subtitle D Landfills
Dear Bill,
Please find presented below a follow-up letter to Vice-President
Gore on the need to correct the deficiencies in US EPA Subtitle D
regulations governing the landfilling of muncipal solid wastes.
Please feel free to make this available to anyone interested,
indicating that if they have questions or comments, they should
contact me.
Fred
G. Fred Lee & Associates
________________________________________
27298 E. El Macero Dr.
El Macero, California 95618-1005
Tel. (916) 753-9630 MW Fax (916) 753-9956
e-mail gfredlee@aol.com
July 1, 1997
Al Gore
Vice President
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington, D.C. 20500
Dear Vice-President Gore:
Recently, I sent you a copy of a letter to R. Dellinger, US EPA
head of theOffice of Solid Wastes and Emergency Response,
concerning the importance ofchanging Subtitle D municipal
landfilling regulations so the significantdeficiencies that exist now
in how these regulations are being implementedwould be
eliminated.
My purpose in contacting you is to follow up on thatletter to
provide you with a copy of previous correspondence to R.
Dellingeron this matter in which I have provided an overview
review of thedeficiencies in Subtitle D and a list of questions that
should be addressedas part of permitting landfills under Subtitle
D. I have also enclosedseveral other papers and reports that we
have developed on this topic. Inaddition, we have developed
several other publications pertinent to thisarea. They are listed at
our web site(http://members.aol.com/gfredlee/gfl.htm) and are
available as downloadablefiles from this site. They provide
detailed discussion for each of thepoints raised in the attached
review of the deficiencies in Subtitle Dlandfilling approaches.
In addition to the loss of groundwater resources due to landfill
leachatepollution, Subtitle D landfilling is having a significantly
adverse impact ongetting the US population to practice the
3R's SGwaste reduction, recycling andreuse. It is hard to get city
and county officials to support the 3R's when3R manageable
materials can be dumped in a landfill at a considerably
reducedcost. This reduced cost, however, is a facade with respect
to the true costthat will ultimately have to be paid for managing
municipal solid wastes in aSubtitle D landfill, including the
eventual "Superfund"-like clean-up ofpolluted groundwaters at
Subtitle D landfills. I have recently completed areview of this
topic, "Development of a Potentially Protective Landfill:Issues
Governing the True Cost of Landfilling," a copy of which is
enclosed.
As discussed in my letter to Mr. Dellinger, the current
administration has aunique opportunity to address this problem.
There will certainly beopposition to having today's society pay
the true cost of solid wastemanagement by those who want to
continue to dispose of their solid wastes atless than real cost to
today's generations living or working near landfillsas well as
future generations whose groundwaters' use will be destroyed
bylandfill leachate pollution.
I am in the process of conducting a national survey of states'
current practices with respect to the use of minimum Subtitle D
landfills vs.providing for true protection of groundwater
resources for as long as thewastes represent a threat. I have
received over a dozen replies thus far to my inquiry about current
practices. With few exceptions, the state staff who responded
indicate that they understand the problems with minimum
Subtitle D landfills not protecting groundwater resources for as
long as the wastes in the landfill will be a threat but are restricted
by the state legislature from imposing stricter regulations than the
minimum set forth by the US EPA.
It is therefore inappropriate for the US EPA to assume that the
states can and will, if they wish, provide for greater protection
than Subtitle D since many of the states' landfill standards are
inevitably tied to the minimum Subtitle D. To correct the
situation, it will be necessary for the US EPA to change the
minimum Subtitle D regulations so they do, in fact, protect
groundwater resources from impaired use for as long as the
wastes represent a threat and also address the justifiable NIMBY
issues associated with providing inadequate buffer lands and
control of emissions from Subtitle D landfills during the landfill's
active life.
If you or others have questions or comments on any of these
materials or wish further information on any aspect of this matter,
please contact me. Also, please let me know if I can be of help in
correcting the significant deficiencies that occur in protecting the
nation's groundwater resources from pollution by Subtitle D
landfilled waste.
Sincerely yours,
G. Fred Lee
G. Fred Lee, PhD, PE, DEE
Copy to:
R. Dellinger
C. Browner
W. Sheehan, Sierra Club National Waste Committee
GFL:oh
Enclosure
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 1 Jul 1997 17:08:51 -0700 (PDT)
From: Tedd Ward <ncol0043@telis.org>
Subject: world population, birth rates, affluence,
Dear Mr. Ackerman:
I am enjoying your book. Thanks for writing it and moving the discussion
forward. I have some comments regarding your thoughts on population. I am
also not an expert on population issues, but I did live in Kenya for two
years, and they are among the most rapidly growing countries in the world.
I wish I could share your optimism for a day when all nations peacefully
approach ZPG. It seems to me that the premise that population growth falls
with increases in women's education and opportunities for independence has a
problem: this pattern has worked primarily in countries which have become
industrialized. The global industrial economy still depends on the rural
communities of the world from which resources are extracted or food grown.
I am skeptical that opportunities for women will grow at anything but a
lethargic pace in countries which are trapped in the
debt/restructuring/export version of development. In these areas, I fear
that political instability resulting from inequitable distribution of
wealth, localized famines and plagues, and ecological devastation will be
the primary methods of curbing population growth.
Tedd Ward
At 10:21 AM 7/1/97 -0400, you wrote:
>I agree with Joe Strahl's comments; I never meant to suggest that the
>needed changes were sure to happen, or even probable in every case. My
>original point in raising the issue of demography was to argue against a
>simple Malthusian fatalism -- i.e., the view that the world population is
>growing so fast and so boundlessly that eco-catastrophe is almost
>impossible to avoid.
>
>With the more measured view of population growth, and the apparent
>conclusion that it is technically possible to feed everyone sustainably,
>the problem becomes a more manageable socio-political one. Do I think
>that the right socio-political solutions will be found in time to avoid
>all future famines? No, certainly not. But the big picture look at the
>technical possibility of sustainability is, for me, both a source of
>optimism, and a reminder of how important it is to achieve the needed
>changes. Starvation, when it occurs, is not caused by "too many people
>for the earth to feed," but by the absence of the needed policies of
>sustainable production and equitable distribution.
>
>Frank Ackerman
>
>
>
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 1 Jul 1997 15:27:51 +0100
From: "Joe Strahl" <Joseph.Strahl@iiiee.lu.se>
Subject: world population, birth rates, affluence, IIASA
Ian Reeves writes:
* What I find the most worrying about optimistic prognoses based on the
* falling birth rates in the developing world is the neglect of the
* linkage between reduced birth rates and affluence. If the only way we
* can obtain First World birth rates in Third World nations is by First
* World affluence, then we are in serious trouble. The key issue seems
* to be whether or not the demographic transition experienced in
* industrialised countries can be repeated in the developing world, but
* without the huge increase in per capita materials and energy
* consumption that occurred in the industrialised world. And of course,
* flowing from that is the equity issue of whether we in the
* industrialised nations have the right to continue to squander global
* ecological assimilative capacity with our high rate of energy and
* materials consumption, while calling on the developing world to
* achieve demographic transition without increasing its low level of
* energy and materials consumption.
**
Later Ian goes on to describe his energy efficient lifestyle that
differs from many Australians.
**
I think that there is ample evidence to show that above a certain
level of GNP/capita and kwh/capita, that these figures no longer have
a direct relatioship to "affluence" or "well-being". US and Canadian
(and I think Australian too) average energy consumption per capita is
twice the Western European average. Yet the majority of Western
Europeans are reasonably affluent and happy.
While Ian's own example
of what can be achieved at an individual level is very heartening, it
is much more important what the average family does, regardless of
how clever or frugal some FEW people are. While getting the energy binge
countries to change lifestyle towards the still high but more modest
energy consupmtion levels of countries like Germany and France
probably will not get us to the "equitable" 1.6 kilowatts (is this
per year or day or what?), change should occur first where the extravgences
are greatest and the greatest potentials for efficiency improvement
exist.
With regard to Chinese abilities to continue with business as usual,
Worldwatch has had books/articles where they point to a growing food
crisis in China. The Chinese are paving and "developing" over the best crop
land in the drive to industrialize and importation of food has begun,
contrary to political goals of food self-sufficiency.
Frank, don't you think that there is bound to be starvation here and
there as we move toward 10 billion? While I haven't seen the book you
refer to I know that generally IIASA works with the big picture
and statistical averages (however sophisticated the algorithims are)
so a prolonged drought in a region with a loss of 50 million people
during a decade just doesn't show in that kind of global scenario.
What is 50 million compared to 10 billion? Only 0.5% from the global
perspective but 50 million is huge number of people and the death of
such large numbers of people doesn't make me feel exactly optimistic.
And while the IIASA numbers can leave one less pessimistic, how
PROBABLE are the carefully designed changes (your words)...
* carefully designed changes in policies and technologies COULD lead to feeding
* everyone sustainably, even at the 21st-century peak population level.
particularly in light of the recent "failure" of the so-called Rio +5
summit?
Joe Strahl
The International Institute for Industrial Environmental Economics
Lund University
Box 196
221 00 Lund
Sweden
**********************************
Joe Strahl
The International Institute for
Industrial Environmental Economics
at Lund University, Sweden
P.O. Box 196, S-221 00 Lund
Sweden
direct tel. +46 - 46 - 222 02 28
telefax +46 - 46 - 222 02 30
replies Joe.Strahl@iiiee.lu.se
**********************************
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 1 Jul 1997 10:21:00 -0400 (EDT)
From: Frank Ackerman <fackerma@emerald.tufts.edu>
Subject: world population, birth rates, affluence, IIASA
I agree with Joe Strahl's comments; I never meant to suggest that the
needed changes were sure to happen, or even probable in every case. My
original point in raising the issue of demography was to argue against a
simple Malthusian fatalism -- i.e., the view that the world population is
growing so fast and so boundlessly that eco-catastrophe is almost
impossible to avoid.
With the more measured view of population growth, and the apparent
conclusion that it is technically possible to feed everyone sustainably,
the problem becomes a more manageable socio-political one. Do I think
that the right socio-political solutions will be found in time to avoid
all future famines? No, certainly not. But the big picture look at the
technical possibility of sustainability is, for me, both a source of
optimism, and a reminder of how important it is to achieve the needed
changes. Starvation, when it occurs, is not caused by "too many people
for the earth to feed," but by the absence of the needed policies of
sustainable production and equitable distribution.
Frank Ackerman
------------------------------
End of GreenYes Digest V97 #155
******************************