Executive Order 12873 requires all federal agencies to use copier paper
with at least 20% post-consumer fibers. This increases to 30% by 1999.
Clinton signed this order in October, 1993. As far as I know, this has
not changed. Recently the Dept. of Defense finally agreed to comply
with the order. Since the DoD uses more than half of all paper
purchased by the federal government, their compliance is expected to
have a big impact.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I wish to thank all who replied, even those whose responses I have not
reprinted here. Thanks again. ....Susan
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 30 May 1997 16:00:36 -0400 (EDT)
From: UrbanOr@aol.com
Subject: Response to critics and supporters
Response to my critics and supporters on the Greenyes Listserve.
by Daniel Knapp
Please forgive me for not being as networked as some of you. I run a reuse
and recycling business that has 26 employees, and it runs me, too. So I have
a lot of things to do in addition to carrying debating on the Internet - as
you all do.
This debate is already one of the more interesting things that has happened
this year. I think everyone is carrying on in a very civil manner, and
that's commendable.
I was especially touched by and sympathetic to Rick Anthony's eloquence. He
aptly expressed one of the things to which Dr. Ackerman has called attention
in his writiings: the unselfish devotion to the ideal of zero waste that led
people like Rick to abandon their previous lives and careers and work more
than fulltime for many years toward its fulfillment.
Thanks to William McGowan for the most serious attempt to deal critically
with the intellectual issues I raised. My other critics seemed to do battle
with an imagined conspiracy that I did not suggest. I called it a pattern,
not a conspiracy, because what I was talking about is bigger and deeper than
a conspiracy. It can contain conspiracies, but it is not itself a
conspiracy, because it is mostly out in the open. The word for this
phenonemon that I learned back in college is CULTURE.
I believe there is a culture of wasting. Heck, it's no secret. I didn't
invent it. Vance Packard called attention to it back in the 1950s. The
1970s movement to expand recycling as a discard management tool considered
materials recovery to be a cure for the culture of wasting.
We need a cure for the culture of wasting because all the evidence suggests
it is unsustainable. If you go back to the area now known as the Middle
East, there are places where you can stand on the midden heaps that were
cities ba ck then and have an unobstructed view of other midden heaps where
other cities once flourished. In between is nothing but burnt-out desert.
The motto of the culture of wasting is: use it up and move on. We are
direct lineal descendants of that culture.
The culture of wasting is not conservative. It's not progressive, either.
We humans have covered the globe already. We may be able to sustain a whole
lot more crowding, but I don't think we want to convert ourselves into the
next batch of oil for the next generation of who-knows-what life-forms to tap
into. We and our kids may need to move on and explore the stars and their
planetary systems, but the conservative course for us is first to ensure the
preservation of the place where we began. We don't need to keep it under
glass or anything; we have to develop a method of living so that we don't
waste the planet. So we have to reduce, reuse, and recycle as fully as
possible as soon as possible, whatever obstacles may lie in our path.
Recycling is both conservative and progressive at the same time.
---------------------------
Dr. Ackerman quoted himself at length in his second response to my critique
of him. Using the article about himself in the New Zealand Herald, he pulled
together all the positive things he had said in it about recycling.
My critique included a precis restricted to his negative statements about
recycling. That these comments convey a very negative image has not been
disputed by any of the respondents who have chosen to attack me rather than
deal with Dr. Ackerman's behavior. I used the precis form to save space. I
acknowledged Dr. Ackerman's positive statements without writing a precis of
them. It was the negative ones I was interested in.
But now that Dr. Ackerman himself has asked everyone to read his writings to
find out what he really says, and now that Dr. Ackerman has further declared
that the article in the New Zealand Herald is not available on the Internet,
I thought Greenyes Listserve readers would be interested in reading verbatim
his negative comments about recycling. These are the statements I used to
write my precis. As before, single quotation markes denote direct quotes:
We start with the headline and the reporter's by-line:
"Recycling: Is it worth all the hassle?"
"Thousands of New Zealanders sort their rubbish into items that can be
recycled. But, an expert tells PHILIP ENGLISH, they may not be saving as
much as they think."
"Recycling, [Dr. Ackerman] says, may make only a modest contribution towards
an environmentally sustainable future and it is not the most pressing of
environmental issues."
"He asks why we recycle when the activity is profitable only for people
involved in scavenging in developing countries and a handful of specialized
businesses."
""Recycling, as it occurs in developed countries, is a different process
motivated by altruistic concerns for the community, the environment, and the
future rather than by the hope of personal economic gain,' he says."
"Recycling has broad public support but there is no consensus about its
benefits. There is a belief that recycling saves money by reducing the costs
of rubbish collection and disposal, but in the United States most recycling
projects save money in some years and cost money in others, depending on
fluctuating prices for recovered materials."
"He also says the objectives that motivate recycling can sometimes be best
advanced by minimising material use rather than maximising recycling.
"'Using less stuff in the first place is even better for the
environment than recycling.'"
"A three-year study directed by Dr. Ackerman which analysed the life cycle of
leading packaging materials found that, among other things, the beste choice
for the environment was the lightest weighing one.
"'Although glass has a clean image and is easily recycled, it is also
heavy. A glass bottle...weighs about 10 times as much as a plastic bottle or
carton containing the same amount of juice.'
"'If the glass bottle is used only once before it is discarded or
recycled, then it is worse for the environment than one of the lighter weight
alternatives.'"
I do not dispute that Dr. Ackerman has some good things to say about
recycling and the people who make up the industry. He loves our idealism and
high purpose and so do I. But clearly the reporter agrees with me that the
negative part of his message dominates, as shown by his headline and byline.
The sum total of the above comments adds up to an attack on recycling and a
strong endorsement of the plastic industry's line that plastic packaging is
just ducky for the environment even though the vast majority of it has to be
landfilled.
---------------------------
This is especially poignant for me because, while I was in New Zealand, I
listened to Barbara Hammonds of Waste Not Auckland as she told the sad story
of how New Zealand milk consumers were forced to switch from reusable glass
bottles to plastic and aseptic containers. The changeover occurred less than
ten years ago and took just a couple of years to pull off. It was quite
controversial at the time, but the beverage industry pushed it through
despite public protests. A well-publicized recycling campaign called RAP
accompanied the phaseout of reusables. RAP stood for Return All Plastics.
The bottling industry paid for the sorting at first and the campaign was
especially big and popular in the schools. But the costs were high, so the
bottling industry handed the RAP campaign over to a nonprofit group, the
Kahariki Trust, along with a short-term promise of funding to support it.
However, the funding was withdrawn within a year, causing the RAP campaign
to collapse. Many observers joked that it went from RAP to RSP: Return Some
Plastics. In the end, it was the Kahariki Trust that took the heat and
became the fall guy. Now New Zealand's landfills are getting steady flows of
unrecyclable plastic and aseptic containers, and the infrastructure for
reusable bottles has been destroyed.
I remember that Frank Ackerman did not give reuse much attention in his
speech. He seemed to think product substitutions like the above are
inevitable. His comments to the reporter would specifically support
substituting plastic for glass if the glass recycling infrastructure had
collapsed - or had been made to collapse.
---------------------------
I know this is getting long, but before signing off I wanted to make a few
more comments about some of the things my critics have said.
1. Bill McGowan appears to believe I am a university professor like Dr.
Ackerman, or at least in charge of some think tank. I used to be a professor
but am not now, although I do have a Ph.D. in sociology. Instead, I have
owned and operated a reuse and recycling business fulltime since 1980.
Urban Ore is open seven days a week for the convenience of our customers. We
are in the disposal business and compete directly with landfills for our
supply. The company is organized as a "C" corporation that employs 26 people
and is a perfect example of the kind of business David Kirkpatrick, the
Institute for Local Self-Reliance, and many others have pointed to as the
backbone of the growing recycling industry.
So I guess in terms of Bill's simple typology of True Believers versus
Recycling Realists, I would fall into the Recycling Realist category.
Certainly I have lots of first-hand knowledge of how hard the business is,
and it would be fun to trade stories with Mr. McGowan about the ups and downs
of the business cycle. On the other hand, I have also cowritten some of the
landmark legislation that has gotten passed, like Berkeley's Measure U, which
stopped a garbage burner, and Berkeley's Measure G, which set a 50% recycling
goal and may have helped inspire California's AB 939, and Alameda County's
Measure D, which set up a recycling fund by surcharging garbage. All these
measures passed with over 60% of the popular vote. This legislative history
marks me as a True Believer, I guess, but the size of the votes puts me
squarely in the mainstream. I don't mind being all of the above, but I think
that such conceptual imprecision is a strike against the broad applicability
and usefulness of Bill's typology.
2. Jerry Powell uses the flap over Dr. Ackerman to question the credibility
of the entire Greenyes Listserve. This should surprise no one. Jerry has
been a "Recycling Realist" in the McGowan sense of believing in limited
recycling for as long as I've known him, although he is a magazine editor,
not a recycling operator. His close ties to the plastics industry are well
known.
3. Dr. Ackerman says if he is a flak, then he wants to be known as an EPA
flak based on his receiving the bulk of his funding from EPA's Office of
Solid Waste. But this agency has the same structural problem that besets
recycling all over the USA. In its governmental manifestation, recycling has
been buried administratively in the jurisdiction of solid waste, which is
fundamentally hostile to the existence of recycling, which it is nevertheless
somehow supposed to promote.
Materials recovery is in competition with materials wasting. They both want
the same supplies of discarded material. The structural weakness built into
EPA decades ago and faithfully copied by countless state and local
governments has caused so many distortions and troubles for recycling that it
would take years of research to document them all. But the negative results
are perhaps best appreciated by looking at some comments by another
well-known and well-travelled anti-recycler, J. Winston Porter, who put in a
few years as head of EPA's Office of Solid Waste. In January 1996 Dr. Porter
put out a paper from his aptly-named Waste Policy Center that was called
Recycling: The 25% Solution. In it he said:
"Notwithstanding the major recycling progress in America, we are not going to
see dramatically increased recycling rates in the foreseeable future. This
has major implications for the 16 states...which have mandated heroic
recycling rates of 50% or more. These states have two choices: 1) to
acknowledge that recycling will take care of about 20 to 30 percent of our
trash, or 2) to legislate all manner of costly and bureaucratic provisions to
tilt at recycling windmills."
He goes on to ask: "Why are recycling rates in the 50% range so futile?" In
a later bit of advice for his audience of solid waste professionals, he says
"Don't force recycling when waste-to-energy or other options make more
economic and environmental sense. Recovery of energy is useful also. For
example, plastics have about twice the heat energy as coal and burn cleaner.
Landfills will continue to be needed for many circumstances."
4) Bill McGowan repeats a charge that I've seen several times in print
lately: that environmentalists fomented a landfill crisis during the 1980s
that said landfill capacity was insufficient and soon there would be garbage
in the streets. My recollection is that the landfill crisis concept was put
forward aggressively by the combustion companies that flocked into the solid
waste market. This happened after the EPA concluded that small local
landfills run according to its guidelines published in the 1970s were turning
out to be environmental disasters. Hundreds of municipal incinerators were
proposed for virtually every community in the USA, and teams of slick
characters roamed the hallways of government looking for approval to tap into
communities' credit so they could build their patented burners. Communities
sold bonds and incurred debt to support incinerators. The EPA supported this
idea. But due to local opposition, fewer than a hundred burn plants ever got
built, and today the industry is dead in the water. The difficulties burners
ran into with the public forced the EPA to create new regulations for
landfills that call for wrapping the whole landfill in plastic to keep water
out and leachate in. Thousands of local landfills were closed, and a few big
new ones took their place. But these landfills are much more expensive to
operate, and debate rages on today over whether landfilling's "plastic fix"
is capable of containing the witch's brew of chemical pollution that
landfills create.
---------------------------
Dr. Ackerman used this controversy to get people to read and appreciate his
publications, so I'll do the same. The June issue of Biocycle will have an
article I wrote on recycling Down Under that discusses some large-scale site
planning Urban Ore is working on with governments in Canberra, Melbourne, and
Adelaide.
Right now one of our most popular publications is a technical report we did
for the State of West Virginia. It's called Generic Designs and Projected
Performance for Two Sizes of Integrated Resource Recovery Facilities, and it
includes site plans for 25- and 100-ton-per-day facilities that some are now
calling "discard malls" because they are suitable for operation by many small
niche recovery operators. It also has financial projections that show
clearly how the dual income stream of tipping fees and product sales can
undergird the stabilization and growth of materials recovery as an industry.
The idea of these facilities is to take advantage of the well-known
phenomenon of business clustering and also to convert recycling from
contracts to leases. People in the economic development field are showing
intense interest in these concepts. The West Virginia Report is $50 from
Urban Ore, 1333 Sixth Street, Berkeley, CA 94710.
Another important report is one we did with the Center For Neighborhood
Technology in Chicago that documents Berkeley's decentralized serial
materials recovery facility, a collection of six enterprises operating within
a mile or so of Berkeley's refuse transfer station. I summarized the
findings in an article in MSW Management called "Processing Discards
Sequentially Using Serial MRFs" that was published in the March/April 1994
issue.
---------------------------
And finally, thanks to Mr. Muna Lakhani and Mr. Peter Anderson for their
thoughtful supporting pieces. I look forward to reading more as this
controversy plays itself out.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 30 May 1997 21:42:04 -0400 (EDT)
From: Frank Ackerman <fackerma@emerald.tufts.edu>
Subject: Response to critics and supporters
Thanks to Daniel Knapp for a 100% improved tone in his latest message. It
conveys just what is needed, namely a level of respect for the integrity
of others involved in the discussion, regardless of whether or not we all
agree with each other on the latest issue. If we have now agreed that
there are no spies, flaks, moles or conspiracies among us, we may even be
able to enjoy lively disagreements about current events, research results,
and tactics.
For we certainly do still disagree. To touch on just a few issues: my
remark about if I'm a flak, I'm an EPA flak was intended humorously (could
anyone have missed that?); as I immediately went on to say, I don't speak
for EPA, nor they for me. Winston Porter, who had left EPA before I began
working with them, doesn't speak for me, or as far as I know for EPA, either.
Regarding the New Zealand newspaper article about my talk: it contained
both the paragraphs praising recycling and emphasizing the environmental
reasons for recycling, as I quoted, and the paragraphs on source reduction
and other issues that Knapp quoted. The very prominent placement of the
paragraphs praising recycling leave me with the impression that the author
is answering his own headline question, "Recycling: Is It Worth the
Hassle?" by saying, "Yes, according to Ackerman, because it has long-term
environmental benefits." If anybody wants a copy of the whole thing to
judge for yourself, send me your postal address.
Second, what's wrong with some of the paragraphs that Knapp describes as
anti-recycling? Most of them are not so much anti-recycling as pro-waste
reduction. Who among us disagrees with the idea of source reduction --
the same goals that are achieved by recycling can sometimes be achieved by
using less material in the first place? I always thought "reduce" came
before "recycle" in the hierarchy; why is spelling out the implications of
reduction an anti-recycling position?
I did do the Tellus study (with a lot of help) of packaging materials that
is referred to in the article; it's described in a lot more detail in
Chapter 5 of my book. We assumed, when we began it, that it would show
that plastics, aseptic packaging, etc., were dreadful for the environment;
our early reports assumed that we were about to find that pattern. We
were astonished at the extent to which our results contradicted our
expectations, and tried to make sense out of the findings in terms of a
new appreciation of source reduction. (We did find that PVC is truly
dreadful in terms of chlorinated organics emissions, as Greenpeace and
others always tell us.) This doesn't say that recycling is a bad idea; it
just says that source reduction matters, too.
The story about the defunding of the recycling infrastructure in New
Zealand sounds like a classic rip-off, I'd be outraged, too. The last,
and perhaps most controversial, report I did for EPA was an investigation
of the economics of the bottle bill, which got ferociously attacked by the
beverage and packaging industries because we were too positive about
bottle bills. (Prior to greenyes, that was the main type of criticism I
had experienced.) EPA never publicized the report; the only good account
of it, outside of dreary technical reports, is Chapter 7 of my book.
One of the things we hoped to find in that study was a basis for saying
that refillable bottles could be mass-marketed in bottle bill states.
Read the book for the sad reality we found instead (the last large-scale
marketing of refillables for home use, by Anheuser-Busch in New England,
disappeared as we were in the midst of the study, in 1994-95).
Nonetheless, we found real benefits from bottle bills, and much lower
costs than any of the previously available (usually industry-sponsored)
studies had suggested. Similar to my conclusion about recycling in
general, we found that there are costs to bottle bills, but not huge
costs, actually less than most people think -- perhaps $13 per capita for
a conventional bottle bill, and $3-$6 for a California-style redemption
system. As a father who watched his two toddlers work their way across
urban playgrounds a few years ago, I'd gladly pay that much for removal of
broken glass from public spaces, let alone the other benefits.
Anyway, I again congratulate Knapp on his new style, and look forward to
continuing healthy disagreement with him on a broad range of issues.
Frank Ackerman
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 31 May 1997 00:43:18 -0400 (EDT)
From: JeaDavies@aol.com
Subject: San Diego Curbside Pickup? A Reminder
If you now do not have curbside pickup of recyclables, do you want it?
If you now have curbside pickup, do you want it to continue?
In either case you should attend what will probably be the only public
meeting on the subject to express your views and ask questions.
Wed. June 4th at 6-8PM
9601 Ridgehaven Ct. (off Ruffin Rd. south of Balboa)
A committee appointed by the City Manager has been studying the issue (it's
been studied and restudied for years) to make a recommendation to the City
Council. As recycling cannot yet pay for itself, funds to extend curbside
would have to come from either the General Fund or from the residents (about
$2 per month). No decisions have yet been reached by the committee but in
their discussions they indicate they are probably opposed to either one.
If you cannot attend, write your comments to:
Director, Environmental Services Dep't.
9601 Ridgehaven Ct. Ste. 210
San Diego 92123
Make your voice heard!
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 30 May 1997 21:18:58 -0400 (EDT)
From: EcoMarty@aol.com
Subject: there is a split, no ranks, no hierarchy just a ZW goal
After reading so much via e-mail about this "real world" of politics and
presumptuous statements of ideological purity, I wonder if the zero-waste
goal supposedly established in Atlanta will ever come to be. I do now
believe that this so-called Zero-Waste goal is faux pas to at least some of
those present in Atlanta (GRN conference). Most of those who did attend had
a pretty clearcut idea that participants were to discuss Zero-Waste as a
societal goal. If we, members of the GRN, should embrace a strong producer
responsibility resolution, then why not have a consumer responsibility one as
well-- afterall it is the consumer who choses to purchase the 'wasteful'
items. Hmm, shared responsibility.... I do agree with Lynn on several
issues in regards to attacking businesses. How many manufactures do we have
in the group here? Not many, any? If there is one or more out there I'd
like some feedback. The idea of not working with producers is a sure way not
to achieve a zero-waste goal. Shouldn't we learn about their concerns, get
some of their imput, develop some solutions together? There are many
examples of industry working with NGOs et al. to reduce waste: Ever hear of
the Common Sense Initiative? Well, there are many more programs like it.
Look at the results! Even within that group there are those resisting a
responsibility shift;, such as the Electornics Industrial Assoc.. Again
whose agenda are we feeding here? We came together to support or at least
discuss Zero-Waste and the second action taken was to protest Coke. Sure,
there was some fun and excitement associated with it although the 11 other
groups (Sierra Snub et al.) failed to show (that is if there were really 11
other groups supporting this action). Bottom line here-- the 60's and 70's
are long gone--whew--welcome aboard to my generation!! If the producer
responsibility resolution goes forward and is accepted by the 'steering
committee,' then I will work with others and show some from the old school
within GRN that the ways of working politics in the late 90's is quite
different. Oh, by the way, the conference in Monterey is about Zero-Waste
(working with businesses), not producer responsibility--keep that in mind.
Marty Kirkwood
Check this out below....
Lynn-
When you asked wasn't there was a consensus at Eagle Rock to push towards
zero waste (with intervening strategies) in your first message, I agreed that
that was my recollection (albeit I preferred an intermediate focus on
something like producer responsibility), and I spoke up for your
recollection.
But, frankly, I do not think your taking it this far recognizes the
advantage to all of us if we look to find ways to incorporate somewhat
disparate views together into one force. For the reality is that we stand
pitiful chance even when combined. If you think that splintering into
teenier pieces stands any chance of getting anywhere, I think you're not
focusing clearly on the blunt realities of this world. And using catchy
phrases about multiplying and dividing is cute, but is has nothing to do with
confronting the real world.
Please, Lynn, if everyone jumps up and demands ideological purity to their
particular viewpoint, this thing is going to sink!
Peter
What exactly is the definition of the "real world?" I know plenty of people
who would like to know. MK
Bill:
I'm sure you've read the numerous messages that have been flying back and
forth. There are enough members of GRRN that support the attack on Coke and a
Producer Responsibility Resolution (that is blatantly anti-business), that
I've decided to remove my name and organization as a member of GRRN. I joined
GRRN to promote Zero Waste, not to attack business. I would like to stay on
the GreenYes listserve. See you at the Conference.
Lynn
Lynn
For myself, I think it is unproductive to evaluate any strategy primarily as
to whether it lauds or attacks industry. To me that is a tactic that needs
to be measured by what will work to rebuild the crumbling foundation under
recycling to support waste reduction goals in the future. Isn't that your
goal too?
If lauditory activities helps that goal, fine. But, if it does not have any
chance or working, then that has to be factored into the decision making
process. Otherwise we would be moving in an articial ether with no relation
to the real world.
My question to you is whether you believe that laudatory actions can achieve
those goals, and, if so, what facts can you point to post 1995 that would
support such a view. In the 1990-95 period I would have agreed with you, but
I don't see how the facts can sustain such a view today.
Peter
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 30 May 1997 15:51:42 -0500
From: RecycleWorlds <anderson@msn.fullfeed.com>
Subject: Vote: Is there a split in the ranks?
For myself, I think it is unproductive to evaluate any strategy =
primarily as to whether it lauds or attacks industry. To me that is a =
tactic that needs to be measured by what will work to rebuild the =
crumbling foundation under recycling to support waste reduction goals in =
the future. Isn't that your goal too?
If lauditory activities helps that goal, fine. But, if it does not have =
any chance or working, then that has to be factored into the decision =
making process. Otherwise we would be moving in an articial ether with =
no relation to the real world.
My question to you is whether you believe that laudatory actions can =
achieve those goals, and, if so, what facts can you point to post 1995 =
that would support such a view. In the 1990-95 period I would have =
agreed with you, but I don't see how the facts can sustain such a view =
today.
Peter
----------
From: www.ZeroWasteAmerica.com[SMTP:lynnlandes@earthlink.net]
Sent: Friday, May 30, 1997 12:28 PM
To: 'www.ZeroWasteAmerica.com'; 'RecycleWorlds'
Subject: RE: Vote: Is there a split in the ranks?=20
Peter: I joined GRRN to promote zero waste, not to attack business. PR, =
as it currently stands, does not promote zero waste. I am now convinced =
that I'm in the wrong organization. Lynn
----------
From: RecycleWorlds[SMTP:anderson@msn.fullfeed.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 29, 1997 9:05 PM
To: 'www.ZeroWasteAmerica.com'
Subject: RE: Vote: Is there a split in the ranks?=20
Lynn-=20
When you asked wasn't there was a consensus at Eagle Rock to push =
towards zero waste (with intervening strategies) in your first message, =
I agreed that that was my recollection (albeit I preferred an =
intermediate focus on something like producer responsibility), and I =
spoke up for your recollection.
But, frankly, I do not think your taking it this far recognizes the =
advantage to all of us if we look to find ways to incorporate somewhat =
disparate views together into one force. For the reality is that we =
stand pitiful chance even when combined. If you think that splintering =
into teenier pieces stands any chance of getting anywhere, I think =
you're not focusing clearly on the blunt realities of this world. And =
using catchy phrases about multiplying and dividing is cute, but is has =
nothing to do with confronting the real world.
Please, Lynn, if everyone jumps up and demands ideological purity to =
their particular viewpoint, this thing is going to sink!
Peter=20
----------
From: www.ZeroWasteAmerica.com[SMTP:lynnlandes@earthlink.net]
Sent: Thursday, May 29, 1997 3:02 PM
To: 'Adele Kushner'; 'Alicia Culver'; 'Alicia Lyttle'; 'Ann Schneider'; =
'Bill Sheehan'; 'Bob Woodall'; 'Brenda Platt'; 'Carolyn Chase'; 'Cat =
Wilt'; 'Clark Shay'; 'Damu Smith'; 'David Kirkpatrick'; 'Dwight Adams'; =
'Eric Lombardi'; 'Ford Schumann'; 'Frank Bove'; 'Gail Vittori'; 'Gary =
Liss'; 'Helen Spiegelman'; 'Henry Kaku'; 'Jack Martin'; 'Jeanne Davies'; =
'Joann Wilkerson'; 'John Young'; 'Kate Krebs'; 'Lance King'; 'Larry =
Martin'; 'Linda Christopher'; 'Lynn Landes'; 'Marty Kirkwood'; 'Mary =
Appelhof'; 'Nancy Malaret'; 'Neil Seldman'; 'Pat Franklin'; 'Pete =
Pasterz'; 'Peter Anderson'; 'Resa Dimino'; 'Rick Anthony'; 'Rick Best'; =
'Robert Pregulman'; 'Robin Salsburg'; 'Roger Diedrich'; 'Ruth Abbe'; =
'Sarah Lynn Cunningham'; 'Steve Suess'; 'Tedd Ward'; 'Tony Martin'
Subject: RE: Vote: Is there a split in the ranks?=20
To Roger: When the steering committee decided to attack Coke, we were=20
all implicated by that action. To say it wasn't mandatory, is to miss =
the=20
point. Had we been asked, the consensus may have been against that=20
action.=20
Your request to "Please stop this divisive monologue" indicates a=20
failure to recognize and appreciate debate and dialogue. Steve Suess, =
Eric=20
Lombardi, and Marty Kirkwood, among others, have indicated support for=20
the concerns I have outlined in the previous e-mails. To divide is not=20
always a bad thing; for to divide is also to multiply. Lynn
----------
From: =
roger.diedrich@sfsierra.sierraclub.org[SMTP:roger.diedrich@sfsierra.sierr=
aclub.org]
Sent: Thursday, May 29, 1997 4:38 PM
To: www.ZeroWasteAmerica.com; ruth.abbe@sfsierra.sierraclub.org; =
jeanne.davies@sfsierra.sierraclub.org; =
jennie.alvernaz@sfsierra.sierraclub.org; adelek@stc.net; =
aculver@essential.org; alyttle@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu; =
aschneid@cats.ucsc.edu; bwoodall@mindspring.com; bplatt@igc.apc.org; =
earthday@qualcomm.com; catwilt@utk.edu; shay@communique.net; =
damu.smith@green2.greenpeace.org; david@kirkworks.com; =
adams@phy.ufl.edu; elombard@ix.netcom.com; infinrecy@aol.com; =
FJBO@atsdhs2.cdc.em.gov; max-pot@greenbuilder.com; CRRA@aol.com; =
helens@axionet.com; Recycle3@pacbell.net; martinj@aurora.neat.edu; =
boggsctr@aol.com; youngje@well.com; acrc@humboldt1.com; =
Imking96@aol.com; toesdc@igc.org; Irecycle@sonic.net; =
lynnlandes@earthlink.net; ecomarty@aol.com; mappelho@madison.tdsnet.com; =
wcfrc@aol.com; ilsr@igc.apc.org; cri@igc.org; pasterz@pilot.msu.edu; =
recycle@msn.fullfeed.com; Dimeanor@aol.com; RicAnthony@aol.com; =
rgbest@ix.netcom.com; robpreg@aol.com; robin@mrwmd.org; =
slcmsd01@iglou.com; stevesuess@aol.com; ncol0043@telis
.com; 102334.3340@compuserve.com
Subject: Vote: Is there a split in the ranks? Yes or No.
Folks:
Secondly, I'm going to open a big can of worms, but here goes. There may =
be 2
(or more) groups with very different philosophies and agendas emerging =
from
GRRN. One side appears to support the attack on Coke and a Producer
Responsibility (stick the producer) agenda.
Comments please. (Lynn Landes)
This is an artificial and inaccurate description of GRRN and continued =
debate
along this line is counterproductive to progerss. The Steering
Committee supported the Coke Action, but it was not mandatory. I think =
Eric
Lombardi has raised a worthwhile point. Please stop this devisive =
monologue.
Roger Diedrich
------------------------------
End of GreenYes Digest V97 #125
******************************