Today's Topics:
Clean Air Act Chain letter
Critics say industrial subsidies hurt environment
FW: Advancing Zero Waste & Zero Cut
FW: Recycled Lumber (fwd) (2 msgs)
Sierra Club goes zero waste? (2 msgs)
two trucks/same routes/two different companies=one company lifting the
other's 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 postmaster@ucsd.edu.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 1997 10:08:51 -0700 (PDT)
From: Dave Wade <dmwade@cats.ucsc.edu>
Subject: Clean Air Act Chain letter
Please don't forward chain letters like this to the university
listservers, no matter how worthy you think the cause is. Both the
greenyes and crra lists are hosted on University of California computers.
-----------------------------
Dave Wade
Recycling Coordinator
UC Santa Cruz
email: dmwade@cats.ucsc.edu
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 1997 13:24:34 -0400 (EDT)
From: DavidOrr@aol.com
Subject: Critics say industrial subsidies hurt environment
New York Times - Mon. 6/23
Critics Say Industrial Subsidies Hurt Environment
By BARBARA CROSSETTE
UNITED NATIONS -- As world leaders converge here starting on Monday to
take
stock of the global environment five years after the Earth Summit in Rio
de
Janeiro, a growing number of experts say that government subsidies to
industries not only squander money that could be spent cleaning up the
Earth,
but they that actually damage it.
Subsidies for energy suppliers, water services, road building,
agriculture
and fisheries and other activities often have side effects that cost from
$500 billion to $900 billion in environmental damage, according to a
surprisingly varied group of experts -- from the left and right,
industrial
countries and the Third World.
Such payments can make some commodities too cheap, leading to
profligacy,
experts say. Other goods and services become artificially more expensive,
in
effect taxing consumers while bolstering inefficient industries that
squander
natural resources.
Thus, farmers in Asia, enjoying inexpensive water, electricity and
fertilizer, are tempted to overirrigate and chemically pollute fields and
streams. In the United States, automobile manufacturers build bigger, more
gas-guzzling cars, and harmful emissions rise and public transportation
atrophies. In Germany, according to one estimate, it costs the government
more than $70,000 a year to keep each coal miner at work extracting an
uneconomical fuel that dirties the atmosphere.
"There's something unbelievable about the world spending hundreds of
billions of dollars annually to subsidize its own destruction," says a new
report from the independent Earth Council, based in Costa Rica, and the
Institute for Research on Public Expenditure in the Netherlands. The
report,
"Subsidizing Unsustainable Development: Undermining the Earth with Public
Funds," recommends re-examining all subsidies to sift out those that are
damaging from those that still serve a social or economic purpose.
Subsidies do not appear to be on any nation's priority list for the
summit
meeting, known as Rio Plus 5. President Clinton and Vice President Al Gore
are expected to attend, among leaders from more than 60 countries. The
president is scheduled to speak on Thursday.
American officials list as top issues the debates over global warming
and
how best to protect the world's forests. Many poor nations want to
confront
the richer nations with demands for more money and technology transfers,
which they say they need to bring environmental protection up to date.
The issue of subsidies is a difficult one for any leader to tackle, even
though it knows no ideological or national boundaries and is not related
to
levels of development. Governments of the left and right, in rich
industrial
nations and the poorer Third World, use subsidies to win votes or mute
dissent and they have become difficult to abolish.
"Many of these subsidies are kept in place through political pressure,
campaign donations or even bribery," said Worldwatch Institute in
Washington
in a report, "Paying the Piper: Subsidies, Politics and the Environment."
The author of that report, David Malin Roodman, concluded that "more
than
$500 billion a year of consumers' and taxpayers' money is spent by
governments to subsidize deforestation, overfishing and other
environmentally
destructive activities." Subsidies for fishing fleets have produced enough
fishery boats and equipment to catch twice the available fish in the
world's
seas, Roodman said.
In India, a recent study for Finance Minister Palaniappan Chidambaram
found
that the national and state governments together were spending about $40
billion, or 14.4 percent of the country's gross domestic product, on
subsidies. More than $5 billion of that goes to support prices for
petroleum
products, with agriculture subsidies close behind. Less than 4 percent of
India's economy goes toward education.
The assault on subsidies is particularly noteworthy in the Third World,
where grass-roots groups are resisting years of demands by the World Bank
and
the International Monetary Fund that such supports be eliminated or
reduced.
The local groups say that cutting subsidies hurts the poor, especially
women
and children.
The Indian government and others in the Third World now question those
assumptions. Chidambaram's study, based on research by the National
Institute
of Public Finance and Policy in New Delhi, found that the rich, not the
poor,
more often benefited from subsidies, because the rich were in a position
to
buy and use subsidized commodities and services. Inexpensive electricity
does
not help the poorest, unelectrified villages, or the farmer unable to
afford
a subsidized bag of high-yield fertilizer.
"The poor generally don't benefit from subsidies as much as the middle
class," said Anders Wijkman, director of the bureau for policy and program
support at the U.N. Development Program, which recently published a
report,
"Energy After Rio." That report says that subsidies to conventional energy
sources like coal, oil and nuclear power are "a significant impediment to
sustainable energy futures."
"They make it more difficult for new, sustainable energy technologies to
enter the market, while simultaneously reducing the economic efficiency
and
creating fiscal burdens for the government," the report said. "Energy
price
subsidies are often an ineffective and inefficient way of helping those
living in poverty."
In Tanzania, the report noted, kerosene subsidies were found to be
helping
mostly the wealthier households that buy the bulk of the fuel.
At the Cato Institute in Washington, Jerry Taylor, director of natural
resources studies, characterized many subsidies as "socialist" measures,
and
argued that the environment would be better left in the hands of an
"unfettered" private sector, not dependent on federal aid.
In an interview, Taylor said that subsidies to agriculture in rich and
poor
countries had contributed to excessive use of pesticides, fungicides and
herbicides. Import quotas and price supports protecting the American sugar
industry have raised sugar prices and led to destruction of parts of the
Everg
lades, an example cited by American environmentalists.
In a speech earlier this year to the Environmental Grantmakers
Association
in Washington, Taylor said: "It makes no sense for the federal government
to
subsidize environmental destruction on one hand, while establishing laws,
regulations and vast bureaucracies to mitigate it on the other."
Copyright 1997 The New York Times
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 1997 14:37:50 -0700
From: Robin Salsburg <robin@mrwmd.org>
Subject: FW: Advancing Zero Waste & Zero Cut
----------
From: Dave Wade[SMTP:dmwade@cats.ucsc.edu]
Sent: Monday, June 23, 1997 9:29 AM
To: Robin Salsburg
Cc: 'DavidOrr@aol.com'; WGETZ@fre.fsu.umd.edu; Tedd Ward; Jeffrey Smedberg
Subject: Advancing Zero Waste & Zero Cut
Hi:
I'm e-mailing you as a group because you've been contributing to the
dialog on the convergence of these issues, and while I like what I'm
reading, I'd like to share a couple of observations/concerns that I
think will be raised sooner or later.
1) I'd like to suggest further discusion about the zero cut
definition/program. I liked David Orr's discussion of allowing firewood
cutting to alleviate fire danger around Lake Tahoe. But do we want the
Forest Service to be using their limited budget to be the ones doing this
kind of work? My concern is that we don't come up with such a tight
definition that we preclude individuals or local firms from cutting
firewood commercially, without opening up such a big loophole that things
continue on "Business as Usual".
In fact, I wonder if there wouldn't be a continued need for skilled
timber workers to to fell dangerous limbs and trees, fell selected
large dead and diseased trees too large for amatuer wood-cutters, maintain
right-of-ways and fire roads, and so on. These sorts of tasks would be
needed in any forest area with significant human use or residence, and
would provide high wage alternatives to workers displaced by a ban on
commercial logging.
2) We've got an uphill battle with both these issues, and we really
need to get the word out what they mean. This weekend, I had 4
house-guest, all very "Green" folks. Two of them felt the zero-cutting
concept was an absurdity, and had quit the Sierra Club because of it. (I
voted against it as well, but have since changed my opinion to wait for
more information on the issue.)
These two folks, plus a third one of my house-guests, also discussed the
Zero-waste concept in very dubious terms about what it meant in practical
terms. All of these folks are college- educated, working environmental
professionals.
My second point is that if we can't or don't persuade these folks of the
merits and practicality of these issues, our chances of persuading a
broader populace seem slim. So we really need to work on the message(s),
and come up with answers to the tough questions.
-----------------------------
Dave Wade
Recycling Coordinator
UC Santa Cruz
email: dmwade@cats.ucsc.edu
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 1997 11:27:48 -0700 (PDT)
From: Ann Schneider <aschneid@cats.ucsc.edu>
Subject: FW: Recycled Lumber (fwd)
Hi All:
Rene, (from the Atlanta region, I think), talked about an organization
called the Forest Stewardship Council and a possible link with
deconstruction activities. I would like to learn more about this
organization.
Some background: I am involved in deconstructing building at the former
Fort Ord Army Base in Monterey, Calif. Some of our lumber (50 year old
grade 1 and some grade 2) would will be sent to the USDA - Forest Service
Labs in Wisconsin to have structural tests performed. We are also having
a lumber grading organization out of Portland come down and grade our
vintage lumber (I prefer not to use the term 'recycled lumber', don't
want it confused with any of the recycled contect Manufactured boards''.
In addition I chair the Repair, Resale and Reuse Council, a technical
council of the California Resource Recovery Association and we've held
three deconstruction workshops over the last 7 months. In getting ready
for next year, I would like to reach out to the sustainable forest, smart
wood organizations and work together to increase the availability of
vintage lumber. (And also to raise the prices of vintage lumber to
offset the labors costs involved in deconstruction.
If any of you are interested, we are just starting to identify our
workplan for the next year and to create the session at our conference
next year in San Diego (first week in May). The conference theme is
"Building Bridges'. Please contact me so we can share issues.
Ann Schneider
Reuse & Recycling Prog. Mgr.
Univ. of Calif. Santa Cruz - Business Environmental Assist. Center
aschneid@cats.ucsc.edu
Note: I'm on vacation till July 7, 1997.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 1997 12:23:05 -0800
From: rtp@earthisland.org (emily miggins AKA Hempily Kenafins)
Subject: FW: Recycled Lumber (fwd)
Hi Ann,
I am fwding your inquiry to Cathy Fogel who is very knowlegable in the area
of FSC and located in SC neaar you! Also to Bill barclay of Greepeace
International- he is in SC too.
best of luck!
Emily
>Hi All:
>
>Rene, (from the Atlanta region, I think), talked about an organization
>called the Forest Stewardship Council and a possible link with
>deconstruction activities. I would like to learn more about this
>organization.
>
>Some background: I am involved in deconstructing building at the former
>Fort Ord Army Base in Monterey, Calif. Some of our lumber (50 year old
>grade 1 and some grade 2) would will be sent to the USDA - Forest Service
>Labs in Wisconsin to have structural tests performed. We are also having
>a lumber grading organization out of Portland come down and grade our
>vintage lumber (I prefer not to use the term 'recycled lumber', don't
>want it confused with any of the recycled contect Manufactured boards''.
>
>In addition I chair the Repair, Resale and Reuse Council, a technical
>council of the California Resource Recovery Association and we've held
>three deconstruction workshops over the last 7 months. In getting ready
>for next year, I would like to reach out to the sustainable forest, smart
>wood organizations and work together to increase the availability of
>vintage lumber. (And also to raise the prices of vintage lumber to
>offset the labors costs involved in deconstruction.
>
>If any of you are interested, we are just starting to identify our
>workplan for the next year and to create the session at our conference
>next year in San Diego (first week in May). The conference theme is
>"Building Bridges'. Please contact me so we can share issues.
>
>Ann Schneider
>Reuse & Recycling Prog. Mgr.
>Univ. of Calif. Santa Cruz - Business Environmental Assist. Center
>aschneid@cats.ucsc.edu
>
>Note: I'm on vacation till July 7, 1997.
******************************************************************************
Emily Miggins, Director ReThink Paper a project of Earth Island Institute
300 Broadway, STE 28 San Francisco, California 94133
Phone 415 788 3666 x 132 Facsimile 788 7324 email rtp@earthisland.org
surf http://www.earthisland.org <only if all else fails;> pager 888 554 2165
...the cyber fiber broker
******************************************************************************
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 1997 10:22:22 -0700
From: Robin Salsburg <robin@mrwmd.org>
Subject: Sierra Club goes zero waste?
When do we start?!!
Robin
----------
From: DavidOrr@aol.com[SMTP:DavidOrr@aol.com]
Sent: Monday, June 23, 1997 12:43 PM
To: robin@mrwmd.org; WGETZ@fre.fsu.umd.edu
Cc: david.dilworth@sfsierra.sierraclub.org; greenyes@ucsd.edu;
ncol0043@telis.org; rtp@igc.apc.org; SCRUZA.DPW179@hw1.cahwnet.gov
Subject: Sierra Club goes zero waste?
Robin,
I think you're onto something here: why not have the Sierra Club office in
San Francisco go zero waste? :-) A demonstration project, of sorts... I
hesitate to suggest it for the DC office, since it's on Capitol Hill which is
built on waste; it might be hard for the DC office to avoid the stuff!
But seriously, I think it's an intriguing idea to make that an objective. It
would be nice to get the club to go tree-free on paper, as a start. Last
time I was in the copy rooms, I only saw Eureka 20% recycled paper.
Obviously, there's work to do in that area.
We would definitely need help from a lot of Sierra Club members and other
environmentalists to accomplish this, but wouldn't it be fun?
David Orr
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 97 16:59:11 PST
From: david.dilworth@sfsierra.sierraclub.org
Subject: Sierra Club goes zero waste?
dd: Hi Dave,
Lets line up 4 or five Board members,
then have someone not normally associated with
us (like Lois Sneddon or Mary Ann) put it on the agenda as a
"goal." Then we bring in experts to talk to the board and - they
couldn't refuse. Or if they did - it would be fascinating to
play back the video tape of "Why it should be delayed."
I think they are already in a box.
-David
Robin,
I think you're onto something here: why not have the Sierra Club office in
San Francisco go zero waste? :-) A demonstration project, of sorts... I
hesitate to suggest it for the DC office, since it's on Capitol Hill which is
built on waste; it might be hard for the DC office to avoid the stuff!
But seriously, I think it's an intriguing idea to make that an objective. It
would be nice to get the club to go tree-free on paper, as a start. Last
time I was in the copy rooms, I only saw Eureka 20% recycled paper.
Obviously, there's work to do in that area.
We would definitely need help from a lot of Sierra Club members and other
environmentalists to accomplish this, but wouldn't it be fun?
David Orr
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 02:12:55 -0500
From: "Susan K. Snow" <sksnow@1stnet.com>
Subject: two trucks/same routes/two different companies=one company lifting
the other's recyclables
When Waste Management of Acadiana (Louisiana) devised their curbside
collection system for garbage and yard waste-to-compost collection, they
wanted the same days as the Recycling Foundation in each neighborhood.
Those at the Foundation wondered why. Today I learned why in my neck of
the woods.
It seems that after Waste Management collected the garbage this morning,
they also collected the aluminum cans from the yellow bins at nearly
every house along (at least) a mile stretch. By the time the
Recycling Foundation came and collected their recyclables, the aluminum
had been striped from the bins.
This is a new technique on Waste Management's part for our neck of the
woods. In the past (1990 and 1993), I have photographed the
multi-national mixing yard waste with garbage which is supposed to be
collected in separate trucks. The composting truck is supposed to empty
its load at the city's compost facility. While, the garbage truck goes
to first to the transfer station, and ultimately the garbage goes to
their landfill. By mixing, Waste Management reduces what would normally
be composted, hence recycled.
Now they are blantantly taking another companies resources to hasten the
demise of the city's recycling program.
Does anyone else have a similar problem with this questionably honest
company?
Susan Snow
------------------------------
End of GreenYes Digest V97 #150
******************************