Today's Topics:
Airline recycling/waste reduction?
Beverage Industry Waste Avoidance Practices - best internat'l examples sought
Cellulose Insulation
EMBARGOED: End Logging on Public Lands fact sheet (draft)
pedestrian request
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: Fri, 23 May 1997 13:05:40 -0700
From: Carolyn Chase <cdchase@qualcomm.com>
Subject: Airline recycling/waste reduction?
It has struck me, after some recent airline travels, that to step on to a
place and into the airport system is to step into a world of waste.
Does anyone have a summary of what carriers and/or airports are doing in
the way of recycling. USAIR didn't seem to be even separating the
aluminum, which American and Southwest do.
Any ideas for surveys or policy summaries?
Carolyn Chase, Editor, San Diego Earth Times, http://www.sdearthtimes.com
Please visit ;-)
Tel: (619)272-7423 (SDET)
FAX: (619)272-2933
email: earthday@qualcomm.com
P.O. Box 9827 / San Diego CA 92169
'You've got to conserve what you can't replace'
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"Every citizen is involved in politics; it's just that some people do
politics, some have it done to them."
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 23 May 1997 14:18:05 +0200
From: muna@aztec.co.za
Subject: Beverage Industry Waste Avoidance Practices - best internat'l
examples sought
Hi There!
Out here in South Africa, we also could do with positive examples -will
watch the list with keen interest.
Hop writes:
>* I will post the results for the benefit of all GreenYes readers.
>
>Until then however, the best I can suggest is ..... drink water!
>
Not unless it's pure! :)
Mr. Muna Lakhani
CATALYST
Cellphone:082-416-9160
Cellfax: 082-131-416-9160
e-mail: muna@aztec.co.za
28 Currie Road - Durban - 4001 - South Africa
Phone: +27-31-20-28-291
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 23 May 1997 14:22:02 -0500
From: "Cloutier, Chris" <chris.cloutier@moea.state.mn.us>
Subject: Cellulose Insulation
With all the trouble that Minnesota recyclers are having moving #6 ONP
and mixed paper in general, my office is begining to bandy around
alternate market options. One that springs immediately to mind is
cellulose insulation. Given that it is dang cold here for large periods
of time, well-insulated houses are a must. However, most cellulose
insulators I know of use a #8 ONP. Does anyone know of any research or
tests done regarding insulation made of something other than a #8 grade?
Any other suggestions for viable, local markets for mixed paper would
also be appreciated.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 23 May 1997 20:13:02 -0400 (EDT)
From: DavidOrr@aol.com
Subject: EMBARGOED: End Logging on Public Lands fact sheet (draft)
EMBARGOED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE UNTIL JUNE 4, 1997
DRAFT REPORT from SIERRA CLUB and EARTH ISLAND INSTITUTE (JOHN MUIR
PROJECT)
FOREST SERVICE LOSES OVER $1 BILLION IN TAXPAYER MONEY IN 1997!
------------
Friends:
I apologize for any cross-postings.
The following fact sheet is being sent to you for your use in events on
and around June 4th, a date which marks 100 years of logging on public
lands. The Sierra Club, Earth Island Institute, Native Forest Network,
Heartwood and other forest conservation groups invite your participation
in our effort to educate the American people of the incredible waste of
taxpayer money that's occurring as a result of the timber program on our
National Forests and other federal lands.
A bill will soon be introduced in Congress that will call for shutting
down the timber program and redirecting the massive subsidies for logging
into a worker retraining and ecological restoration jobs program.
Information on this legislation will come your way soon.
Feel free to use this report to call attention to Forest Service
depredations in your community. This document may NOT be released or
otherwise distributed to the news media except with the words "EMBARGOED
FOR RELEASE UNTIL JUNE 4, 1997" prominently displayed across the top.
Please note that this is a DRAFT document, and it MAY change between now
and June 4th. However, it is substantially complete, and it is available
to ALL forest activist groups for use on the 4th and beyond. Although it
is EMBARGOED for release until the 4th, we do encourage you to provide
this information to news media in advance, with the understanding that
they can use it to do stories or editorials on the 4th and afterward, but
not before.
We will provide you with additional information on our campaign in the
coming days. If you have any questions, please contact us at
818-792-0109.
David Orr
Chad Hanson
Amy Hanson
Sierra Club & John Muir Project of Earth Island Institute
==========================================================
DRAFT...DRAFT....DRAFT
EMBARGOED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE UNTIL JUNE 4, 1997
ENDING TIMBER SALES ON NATIONAL FORESTS: THE FACTS
By Chad Hanson, Chair, Sierra Club national "No Commercial Logging" (on
Federal Lands) Task Force
"The only trouble with the movement for the preservation of our forests
is that it has not gone nearly far enough, and was not begun soon enough."
--Teddy Roosevelt, 1908
JOBS & ECONOMY: In fiscal year 1996, over $800 million was appropriated
from the General Fund of the U.S. Treasury (i.e. from taxpayers' pockets)
for expenses of the timber sale program on national forests (see Figure 1
below).
In addition, the Forest Service spent another $532 million from its
off-budget logging accounts for additional expenses of the logging
program (see Figure 2 below).
In the same year, the logging program generated only $535 million in
timber sales receipts--none of which were returned to taxpayers (see
Figure 4 below). Instead, most of these receipts were funneled back into
the Forest Service's various timber accounts for future logging
operations. The remainder was used for logging-related payments to
states.
Since more than $800 million was taken directly from taxpayers'
pockets in 1996 for expenses of the national forest logging program, and
not a dime was returned, the net loss to taxpayers in 1996 was,
therefore, over $800 million. However, this figure understates the true
cost to taxpayers, as it neglects to include some of the hidden costs of
the logging program. For instance, logging has now been identified as
one of the primary causes of forest fires, floods, and mudslides. In FY
1996, $485 million was appropriated for the Forest Service's wildfire
fighting program; and $830 million was enacted for FY 1997 [1]. The
preliminary damage estimate of the 1996 winter floods was $538 million
for Oregon alone [2].
Federal funds are currently used to pay the costs of logging road
construction, timber sale planning and administration, and replanting and
restoration expenses, as well as many other costs.
Contrary to the timber industry's frequent claims that the cause of
below-cost timber sales on public lands is environmental regulations, all
environmental analysis/documentation and appeals/litigation costs total
only $72.8 million [3]--less than 6% of the total expense of the logging
program, according to the combined total in Figure 3 below.
To put the federal timber subsidy in perspective, if we ended all
commercial logging on our nation's national forests, and redirected these
logging subsidies into timber community transition assistance, we would
have over $25,000 for each public lands timber worker for job retraining
and/or ecological restoration work [4]--and
still have over $200 million left over to reduce the federal deficit in
the first year alone! Soon, after new jobs were found and local
communities became less dependent upon the boom and bust cycle of timber,
several
hundred million taxpayer dollars would be saved annually [5].
Further, recreation, hunting and fishing in national forests
contribute vastly more income to the nation's economy, and generate far
more jobs, than logging on national forests. And the gap is widening.
In fact, the Forest Service itself predicts that, by the year 2000,
recreation, hunting, and fishing in national forests will contribute 31.4
times more income to the nation's economy, and will create 38.1 times
more jobs, than logging
on national forests [6].
TIMBER SUPPLY: The total annual U.S. wood consumption is 100.3 billion
board feet [7], while the annual timber volume cut from U.S. national
forests is currently 3.87 billion board feet [8]--only 3.9% of the
nation's total yearly timber consumption.
The total annual U.S. consumption of roundwood for lumber, plywood,
and veneer is approximately 50.4 billion board feet [9], while the total
annual production of all sawtimber from national forests is approximately
2.29
billion board feet [10]--about 4.5% of the total. In other words, of all
the wood materials used annually in the U.S. for housing and commercial
construction, roughly only 5% comes from our national forests.
We simply don't need to log public forests for our timber
supply--especially when so much is being wasted currently. For example,
approximately 48% of all U.S. hardwood lumber production in 1992 was for
the manufacture of shipping pallets [11]. Industry sources estimate that
54% of these pallets are used just once, then thrown away, ending up in
landfills [12].
PUBLIC OPINION: The Forest Service's own 1994 nationwide poll found that
58% of Americans expressing an opinion on this issue oppose any commodity
production on federal public forests [13].
PRIVATE LANDS: As two conservative economists pointed out in a recent
editorial in the Wall Street Journal, "government 'dumping' of cheap
timber makes the market unpredictable for private-sector commodity
suppliers, reducing their incentive to manage land responsibly...It's
time for the Forest Service to abandon its role as a producer of
commodities...Commodity production is best left to the private sector."
[14] In other words, many private landowners are overcutting their lands
to compensate for lost profits as they struggle to compete with the
subsidized public timber that is flooding the market.
LOGGING CAUSES FOREST FIRES: The 1996 scientific study of the Sierra
Nevada forests, which was commissioned and funded by Congress, found that
"more than any other human activity, logging has increased the risk and
severity of fires by removing the cooling shade of trees and leaving
flammable debris." [15]
HISTORY OF NATIONAL FORESTS: Commercial logging was illegal on national
forests when they were first established in 1891. [16] It was not until
June 4, 1897 that national forests were first opened up to
timber sales--by an appropriations rider. [17]
Fig. 1. Funds appropriated from General Fund of U.S. Treasury for
National
Forest Logging Program Expenses, FY 1996 (in millions):
Timber Sales Management [18]: 188.6
Forestland Vegetation Mgmt. [19]: 51.8
Land Management Planning, Inventory, and Monitoring [20]: 93.7
Timber Research [21]: 76.9
Landline location [22]: 14.0
Road maintenance [23]: 54.9
"Forest health" management [24]: 25.2
Support for timber sales [25]: 37.0
Law enforcement [26]: 11.9
"Spotted Owl payments" [27]: 135.0
Forest Roads Program [28]: 57.0
General Administration [29]: 56.7
Damage from floods, mudslides, and forest fires caused by
logging: (unknown)
Total: 802.7
Fig. 2. Federal monies spent from Forest Service timber accounts in
U.S.
Treasury, FY 1996 (in millions) [30]:
K-V "Reforestation" [31]: 66.2
K-V "Timber Stand Improvement" [32]: 24.7
K-V Other [33]: 74.3
Reforestation Trust Fund [34]: 30.4
Salvage Sale Fund [35]: 204.6
Purchaser Elect Logging Roads [36]: 6.2
Payments to States (not including
Spotted Owl payment) [37]: 125.4
Total: 531.8
Fig. 3. Total Combined Expenses of the Forest Service Logging Program,
FY 1996 (in millions):
Money Appropriated from General Fund of U.S. Treasury: 802.7
Funds spent from Forest Service logging accounts: 531.8
Total Expense: 1,334.5
Fig. 4. Distribution of FY 1996 timber sales receipts (in millions):
Gross USFS timber sales receipts, FY 1996 [38]: 535.0
Less timber sales receipts funneled directly into timber program
(K-V & Salvage Fund) [39]: -348.2
Remaining timber receipts deposited into the National Forest Fund (NFF)
[40]: 186.8
Less distribution from NFF into Purchaser-Elect Logging Roads
account [41]: -5.9
Less distribution from NFF back into Salvage Sale Fund and K-V Fund
[42]: -56.1
Less distribution from NFF into "Timber Sales Pipeline Restoration
Fund" [43]: -2.4
Less payments to states from NFF (25% commission on gross timber
receipts outside of northern spotted owl forests) [44]: -125.4
Total timber sales receipts returned to General Fund of U.S. Treasury or
distributed to accounts not related to logging [45]: -3.0
Endnotes:
[1] U.S. Forest Service, FY 1998 Budget Explanatory Notes for the
Committee on Appropriations, p. 128.
[2] "Counties Tallying Damage Estimates from Flood of '96", Eugene
Register-Guard, p. 38, 2/17/96; "Clear-cuts, roads increase rivers'
flows, study says", Eugene Register-Guard, 3/13/96.
[3] U.S. Forest Service, National Summary: Timber Sale Program Annual
Report, Fiscal Year 1995, pp. 52-53 (This figure is an estimate based on
fiscal year 1995 figures. Current figures are not yet available, but
will not change substantially from 1995 numbers).
[4] U.S. Forest Service, Timber Sale Program Annual Report, Fiscal Year
1995, p. 7 (The Forest Service estimates that 63,623 people are employed
as a result of the national forest timber program, including direct,
indirect, and "induced" jobs. A general rule sometimes used by Forest
Service staff to calculate a very rough estimate of the number of timber
workers (i.e. direct jobs) employed nationally as a result of the logging
program on national forests is to divide the total jobs figure by a
factor of two (i.e. 63, 623 divided by 2 = roughly 32,000).
[5] There are roughly 32,000 timber workers (loggers, mill workers, log
truck drivers, etc.) employed as a result of the national forest timber
program nationwide (see Note 2 above). To provide $25,000 for each of
these workers for retraining or ecological restoration work, it would
cost approximately $800 million.
The Forest Service's D.C. office reports that at least $459 million
will be available in the K-V Fund in fiscal year 1997. At the beginning
of fiscal year 1997, there was $186.5 million in the Salvage Sale Fund
and $22.4 million in the Purchaser-Elect logging road construction
account. Additionally, not including payments to states, $430.3 million
of taxpayer money was appropriated from the General Fund of the U.S.
Treasury in fiscal year 1996 for logging on national forests (see Figure
1 above). Together, these funds add up to just under $1.1
billion--nearly $300 million more than the amount necessary to provide
each current public lands timber worker with $25,000 for retraining or
restoration work.
[6] U.S. Forest Service, The Forest Service Program for Forest and
Rangeland Resources: A Long-Term Strategic Plan, Draft 1995 RPA Program,
Oct. 1995, pp. IV-2 & IV-3
[7] U.S. Forest Service Forest Products Lab, Madison, WI, 1994 (This
figure is measured in terms of raw wood, not lumber or other finished
products).
[8] U.S. Forest Service, Timber Sale Program Annual Report, Fiscal Year
1995, p. 6 (This figure is measured in terms of raw wood, not lumber or
other finished products).
[9] "U.S. Timber Production, Trade, Consumption, and Price Statistics:
1965 to 1994", U.S. Forest Service, Forest Products Lab, Madison, WI,
1997 (soon to be published) (This figure is measured in terms of raw
wood, not lumber or other finished products).
[10] U.S. Forest Service, "National Summary, Timber Sale Program Annual
Report, Fiscal Year 1995" (This figure was derived by adding the regional
totals for sawtimber).
[11] Robert Bush et al, "Recycling & the Use of Wood Materials," U.S.
Pallet Industry, The Proceedings of the 1994 Forest Products Society,
Southeast Section Workshop on Environmental Quality in Wood Processing.
[12] Dwight R. McCurdy & John E. Phelps, "The Pallet Industry in the
United States, 1980, 1985, and 1990", Dept. of Forestry, Southern
Illinois University at Carbondale, June 1991, p. 3, Table 2
[13] U.S. Forest Service, "Forest Service Values Poll Questions, Results
and Analysis", Bruce Hammond, Section 3
[14] John Baden and Pete Geddes, "Resource Politics Miss the Forest for
the Trees," Wall Street Journal, 5/22/96
[15] Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project Final Report to Congress, vol.
1,Assessment Summaries and Management Strategies, 1996
[16] Act of March 3, 1891, c. 561, S. 24, 26 Stat. 1103; see also "Early
Administration of the Forest Reserve Act: Interior Department and General
Land Office Policies, 1891-1897", by James Muhn, BLM, in the Origins of
the National Forests, ed. by Harold K. Steen (Forest History Society
1992) (This historical text discusses the 1891 Act's regulations of 1894
which stated that no one could "cut, remove, or use any of the timber,
grass or other natural product" on national forest land; nor could anyone
"settle upon, occupy, or use any [national forest] lands for
agricultural, proprietary, mining or other business purposes." Livestock
grazing on national forests was "strictly prohibited").
[17] 30 Stat. 35
[18] U.S. Forest Service, FY 1998 Budget Explanatory Notes for the
Committee on Appropriations, p. 53
[19] Id.
[20] Id. This figure is an estimate. In fiscal year 1996, $188.6
million was spent on timber sales management, $51.8 million on forestland
vegetation management, $204.6 million on "salvage" timber sales, $63.2
million on new logging road construction, and $195.6 million on
replanting/timber sale site preparation (a total of $703.8 million).
During the same period, $35.0 million was spent on minerals and geology
management (mining), $27.0 million was spent on rangeland management
(grazing), and $211.2 million was spent on recreation use. Thus, timber
management accounted for approximately 72% of these expenditures.
Therefore, we can estimate that the timber-related portion of the
resource planning and inventory budget (which totals $130.1 million) was
approximately .72 x $130.1 million = $93.7 million.
[21] U.S. Forest Service, Forest and Rangeland Research, 4/11/96 (This
figure is conservative. It includes funds allocated for research
directly related to timber management, such as silvicultural
applications, quantitative analysis of forest vegetation, multiple-scale
forest management relationships, forest operations engineering, renewable
resources economics, forest products utilization and processing, forest
products safety, and forest inventory and analysis. It does not include
research allocations for wildlife habitat and watershed, for instance,
since only a portion of these allocations is related to timber
management, and exact figures are not maintained by the Forest Service).
[22] U.S. Forest Service, FY 1998 Budget Explanatory Notes for the
Committee on Appropriations, p. 108. These funds are used for boundary
surveys when conducting timber sales.
[23] Id., p. 114. This figure is an estimate. In FY 1996, $240.4
million was spent on timber sales management, $204.6 on salvage sales,
and $211.15 million on recreation use. These figures combined total
$656.15 million, of which timber sales account for 67.8%. Since the
overall road maintenance expense was $81.0 million, we can estimate that
67.8%, or $54.9 million, of this expenditure was logging-related.
[24] Id., p. 28. This program involves pesticide application and
cutting of trees to minimize loss of timber inventory and maximize growth
of commercial timber.
[25] Report of the Forest Service, FY 1995, p. 123. This figure is an
estimate. The Forest Service no longer reports this expenditure. In FY
1994, $36.2 million was spent from other programs (i.e. minerals, soil
and water, wildlife and fish, etc.) for timber sales. In that same year,
$184.6 million was spent for timber sales management. In FY 1996, $188.6
million was spent for timber sales management. Therefore, we can
estimate that $37.0 million was spent on support for timber sales in FY
1996 (i.e. 36.2/184.6 = x/188.6).
[26] U.S. Forest Service, FY 1998 Budget Explanatory Notes for the
Committee on Appropriations, p. 118. This figure is an estimate. One of
the primary components of the Forest Service law enforcement program is
investigating timber theft associated with timber sales. As the agency
itself states, "Many of these [timber theft] investigations are often
complex, take many years to complete, and involve a large number of law
enforcement personnel to investigate, apprehend, and prosecute." (Id., p.
120). The total expenditure for all Forest Service law enforcement in FY
1996 was $59.6 million. We can estimate that at least 20%, or $11.9
million, of this amount was spent on activities related to the timber
sale program, such as timber theft investigations.
[27] Id., p. 191. This is a subsidy which goes to counties in western
Oregon and Washington and northern California in order to compensate
these counties for reduced revenue due to lowered logging levels on
federal lands in the region to protect threatened forest species (under
federal law, counties receive a 25% "commission" on timber sales receipts
for sales conducted on national forests within county boundaries).
[28] U.S. Forest Service, FY 1998 Budget Explanatory Notes for the
Committee on Appropriations, p. 163
[29] Id. p. 53 (This figure is an estimate. The General Administration
appropriation covers the National Forest System, Forest Research, State
and Private Forestry, Wildland Fire Management, Construction and
Reconstruction, and Land Acquisition. The total amount appropriated for
all these programs in FY 1996 was $2.347 billion. The logging-related
portion amounted to $505.6 million, or 21.5%. Therefore, we can estimate
the amount spent on logging by multiplying the total General
Administration appropriation ($263.7 million) by 21.5%).
[30] The Forest Service distributes most of the timber sales receipts it
receives into its timber accounts for future logging operations, rather
than return these funds to the General Fund of the U.S. Treasury.
[31] U.S. Forest Service, FY 1998 Budget Explanatory Notes for the
Committee on Appropriations, p. 196
[32] Id.
[33] Id. (These funds are used to mitigate damage done by logging in
timber sale unit areas).
[34] Id., p. 199
[35] Id., p. 180
[36] Id.
[37] U.S. Forest Service, FY 1998 Budget Explanatory Notes for the
Committee on Appropriations, p. 191 (The Forest Service pays a portion of
gross timber sales receipts to the states in which the logging
occurred--much like a sales commission).
[38] U.S. Forest Service, Fiscal Year 1996 Statement of Receipts,
ASR-04, 12/3/96 (Timber sales receipts are distributed into three
accounts: the K-V Fund; the Salvage Sale Fund; and the National Forest
Fund. The figure for gross timber sales receipts was derived by adding
together the monies distributed into these three accounts in fiscal year
1996. This is the standard methodology--used by the Forest Service and
General Accounting Office--for calculating gross timber sales receipts.)
[39] U.S. Forest Service, Fiscal Year 1996 Statement of Receipts,
ASR-04, 12/3/96 (The Forest Service funnels most of the gross timber
sales receipts directly back into its timber accounts, such as the
Salvage Sale Fund and K-V Fund, rather than sending it to the General
Fund of the U.S. Treasury).
[40] Id.
[41] U.S. Forest Service, FY 1998 Budget Explanatory Notes for the
Committee on Appropriations, p. 180
[42] U.S. Forest Service, Summary of Adjustments Made by Regions As a
Result of WO Letter dated August 27, 1996, Enclosure Number 1, 2/12/97;
U.S. Forest Service, memo from Arnold Sartori dated 1/29/97, 12:26 PM
[43] U.S. Forest Service, Analysis of Estimated Timber Sales Pipeline
Funds Becoming Available from Section 318 Sales (Second Draft as of
February 5, 1997)
[44] U.S. Forest Service, FY 1998 Budget Explanatory Notes for the
Committee on Appropriations, p. 191
[45] Note: though this figure is negative, the Forest Service will
return some money to the General Fund of the U.S. Treasury. However,
these funds will come from non-logging sources of revenue--primarily
receipts generated from recreation on national forests.
-----------end forwarded text-------------
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 23 May 1997 08:05:39 -0700
From: fullcirc@halcyon.com (David L. Stitzhal)
Subject: pedestrian request
Grettings fellow listers,
I have a simple request, rather pedestrian, given the wonderful discourse
normally flowing through these channels. Does anyone out there have a
catalogue or 1-800 # for a supplier of recycling decals, stickers, signs
and emblems. I am helping a huge, new multi-use facility put together
their recycling program and they are looking for signage that will a) go in
each tenant's space, b) go by each recycling compactor and public storage
area, and c) go in public spaces to inform customers about management
efforts. Thanks in advance for your help.
Cheers,
David
David Stitzhal, MRP
President
Full Circle Environmental, Inc.
8355 Wolcott Avenue South
Seattle, WA 98118
206-723-0528
206-723-2452 fax
Fullcirc@halcyon.com
------------------------------
End of GreenYes Digest V97 #118
******************************