GreenYes Digest V97 #114

GreenYes Mailing List and Newsgroup (
Fri, 22 Jan 1999 17:12:40 -0500

GreenYes Digest Tue, 20 May 97 Volume 97 : Issue 114

Today's Topics:
Chlorine-Free Pulp & Paper Mills - Tell Gore to Act Now (fwd)
Coke (2 msgs)
Fwd: Corporate Welfare Bill in Congress
Statisticians minimize waste - but is that enough to bring about 'fare=
shares in

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


Date: Mon, 19 May 1997 12:42:56 -0700 From: (Emily Miggins) Subject: Chlorine-Free Pulp & Paper Mills - Tell Gore to Act Now (fwd)

>Date: Fri, 16 May 1997 16:33:05 -0400 (EDT) >From: Ned Daly <> >X-Sender: >To: >Subject: Chlorine-Free Pulp & Paper Mills - Tell Gore to Act Now (fwd) >MIME-Version: 1.0 > > > Emily, > > Do you know of some paper lists this could go to? I had a good >chat with Heather and hopefully we can talk next week about moving on some >of the paper issues. >___________________________________________________________________________= ___ > > --------------------------------- > ASK THE CLINTON ADMINISTRATION TO > SUPPORT TOTALLY CHLORINE FREE TECHNOLOGY > ---------------------------------------- > > > The following letter, written by the Government Purchasing >Project, asks the Clinton Administration to strengthen their position on >the soon to be instituted cluster rules. > > EPA is currently looking at two options -- Option A calls for pulp >and paper mills to merely switch from elemental chlorine to chlorine >dioxide in the bleaching process and Option B calls for the use of oxygen >(delignification) in the pulping process but still allowing chlorine >dioxide as a bleaching agent. Not considered is Totally Chlorine Free >(TCF) technology which is already on line in some mills in the United >States, Canada and Europe. TCF technology removes chlorine from the pulp >and bleaching processes and ends the production of dangerous >organochlorine byproducts that would otherwise be released into the >environment. > > The Government Purchasing Project would like to get as many >grassroots groups as possible to sign on to this letter. The Green Group, >a coalition of the biggest environmental groups, will also be sending a >letter to Gore which is pro-TCF and seeks at the very least to make sure >Option A, the industry's preference and worst option, is not chosen. >While we have the opportunity to speak as a united voice we should make it >as loud as possible--please sign on. > > We would like to send the letter on Thursday of next week, May 22. >If you would like to sign on to the letter or have any questions please >contact: > > Ned Daly Todd Paglia > Wood Reduction Clearinghouse Gov't Purchasing Project > > (202) 387-8030 (202) 387-8030 > > > >The Honorable Albert Gore >Vice President of the United States >The White House >1600 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W. >Washington, D.C. 20500 > >Dear Mr. Vice President: > >You have been a vocal spokesperson for your Administration's >policies to protect children and minorities from the >disproportionate impacts of environmental contamination. You >have also gone on record frequently noting the Clinton >Administration's desire to assist U.S. industries to become >leaders in environmental technology. Unfortunately, the >Environmental Protection Agency is on the verge of issuing a new >rule on pulp and paper mills - known as the "Cluster Rule" - that >is unacceptably weak and a far cry from the Administration's >rhetoric. > >EPA's rule poses two options. Option A calls for pulp and paper >mills to switch from elemental chlorine to chlorine dioxide in >the bleaching process. Option B calls for the use of oxygen >(delignification) in the pulping process while still allowing >chlorine dioxide as a bleaching agent. Both options sanction >continued reliance on chlorine-based bleaching processes and >implicitly endorse the production and release into the >environment of dangerous organochlorine byproducts including >dioxin. > >EPA's proposed Cluster Rule, with its choice between two >chlorine-dependent options, does little to protect the public >from known health impacts. In the introduction to "Our Stolen >Future," you recognized the risks of grave reproductive harm in >wildlife and humans due to emission of manmade chemicals. Mill >effluent contains hundreds of organochlorines. In particular, >dioxins and furans which are discharged by pulp and paper mills >using chlorine gas or chlorine dioxide, persist in the >environment for decades, rise up through the food chain, and >eventually lodge in human tissue. Dioxin, the active ingredient >in Agent Orange, has been linked to cancer, immune suppression, >and neurological and reproductive damage. EPA's own 1994 draft >Dioxin Reassessment concluded that the general population reached >its limit for exposure, meaning no safe dose of dioxin exists. >These deadly pulp and paper mill pollutants will continue to be >discharged under both of EPA's options. > >EPA's options violate Executive Order 13045 that President >Clinton issued less than a month ago, "Protection of Children >from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks." During a news >conference at the Children's National Medical Center on Monday, >April 21, 1997, you stated: "This executive order says to every >federal agency and department: put our children first." The >Cluster Rule clearly fails to do so. Many children get a >significant amount of their lifetime dose of dioxin in the first >year of life, according to the EPA's 1994 Dioxin Reassessment >Report. Children are at great risk because they are exposed to >dioxin through breast-feeding. In addition, 90 percent of dioxin >exposure comes through food, particularly dairy products. >Because children eat large amounts of food compared to their body >weight, and eat relatively large amounts of dairy products, they >receive disproportionate accumulations of these poisons during >critical formative years. The Cluster Rule does not comport with >the executive order's goal of protecting the health of children >because it only considers chlorine-based options that will >continue dioxin discharges. > >The proposed Cluster Rule also flies in the face of the >Administration's Executive Order on Environmental Justice. >President Clinton issued an executive order requiring federal >agencies to take into consideration the disproportionate impact >of environmental policies on minorities and low income areas. >Native American, African American, Asian American, and low income >populations in the United States consume a much higher than >average amount of fish and other subsistence food sources, and >thus have greater exposure to these contaminants than the general >population. The Cluster Rule ignores this crucial issue. > >A third option for pulp and paper mills exists, however, but is >not even being considered by EPA: totally chlorine-free (TCF) >technology. TCF has clear and dramatic environmental benefits >over the use of chlorine-based bleaching agents. TCF processes >do not create dioxin, furans, or the wide range of >organochlorines commonly emitted from mills using elemental >chlorine or chlorine dioxide. Most important, TCF technology >enables pulp and paper mills to recycle their waste water so they >can "close the loop" and operate a totally effluent-free (TEF) >bleaching process. TEF is the goal and TCF will move the United >States in that direction. > >Switching to TCF technology will also make America's pulp and >paper industry more competitive internationally by lowering >operating costs. TCF processes use significantly less water and >energy. TCF technologies also decrease liability costs, chemical >costs, and effluent and sludge disposal costs, and avoid >dangerous chlorine accidents. In Europe, TCF pulp has succeeded >in capturing 25 percent of the market. TCF technology is clearly >both technically and economically viable. > >The choice is simple. We recommend that you do the following in >order to prepare American businesses for the future and protect >people and the environment: > > 1. Ensure that EPA considers and adopts the best > environmental, health, and safety option by requiring pulp > and paper mills to install totally chlorine-free technology. > This will put us on the road to a totally effluent-free, > closed loop process, rather than the chlorine-based > technologies presented by EPA's Option A and Option B. > > 2. Ensure that the Administration issues a clear > procurement directive to buy totally chlorine-free paper > products consistent with the recycled content requirements > of Executive Order 12873.[1] Procurement is necessary, > but alone it is not sufficient. > >Action speaks louder than words - and so does inaction. We urge >you to aggressively advocate a policy choice on the Cluster Rule >that is consistent with executive orders issued by the >Administration and consistent with your own well documented views >on the environment. Requiring pulp and paper mills to adopt >totally chlorine-free technology is the only sound option. The >undersigned groups want you to make the environmentally >responsible decision and all of us are looking forward to your >response. > >Sincerely, > > >Todd J. Paglia >Government Purchasing Project > > >[1] By providing a market for TCF products, the federal government would >be following in the footsteps of several states, such as Vermont, Oregon, >and Massachusetts, as well as several cities, such as Chicago, Ann Arbor, >and Seattle which have similar procurement practices in place. > > > >-------------------------------------------------------------- >TAP-RESOURCES is an Internet Distribution List provided by the >Taxpayer Assets Project (TAP). TAP was founded by Ralph Nader >to monitor the management of government property, including >information systems and data, government funded R&D, spectrum, >allocation, public lands and mineral resources, and other >government assets. TAP-RESOURCES reports on TAP activities >relating to natural resources policy. To obtain further >information about TAP send a note to > >Subscription requests to: with the >message: subscribe tap-resources yourfirstname yourlastname >--------------------------------------------------------------- >Taxpayer Assets Project; P.O. Box 19367, Washington, DC 20036 >v. 202/387-8030; f. 202/234-5176; internet: > > >This Post prepared by: >-------------------------------------------------------------------- >| Arthur Clark, Project Coordinator <> | >| Environmental Resources Information Network (ERIN) | >| | >| 206 Seneca St. voice (814) 678-0007 | >| Oil City, PA 16301-1317 fax (814) 678-2404 | >| | >| | >-------------------------------------------------------------------- >

****************************************************************************= ** 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 surf

the cyber fiber broker


Date: Mon, 19 May 1997 16:23:38 -0400 From: Myra Nissen <> Subject: Coke

I know we are all slaming Coke these days, but here is something positive, and seemingly contradictory...

Coke has volunteered space on 50 million cans to promote the clean water program, "Only Rain Down The Drain" sponsored by the Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies Assoc.



Date: Mon, 19 May 1997 17:41:48 -0700 From: Subject: Coke

Hi My:

The coke thing was a big coup for somebody.

Hows the annotated outline? I'll likely be gone tomorrow night thru=20 Thursday night--up to NAU and Din=E9 Bik=E9yah. (Nav. Res.) on business.

Again, keep me posted.



Date: Mon, 19 May 1997 14:43:28 -0400 (EDT) From: Subject: Fwd: Corporate Welfare Bill in Congress

--------------------- Forwarded message: From: (david holt) Sender: Reply-to: To: Date: 97-05-18 16:47:56 EDT

I heard about this legislation a few months ago and excitedly looked it up,= I

think at Thomas' registry site of Federal Registry. I did not read the=20 article in Waste Age's Recycling Times.

The language I found seems non-specific, although a possible beginning of=20 "turning the tide". =20

I'm hoping someone can report some progress towards making corporate subsidies=20 less of a drain on our national budget.

David Holt



Corporate Subsidy Reform Commission Act of 1997 (Introduced in the Senate)= =20



(1) IN GENERAL- No later than April 1, 1998, or the date budget documents= are

submitted to Congress in 1998, whichever is earlier, in support of the= budget

of each Federal department or agency, the head of each department or agency= =20 shall include in such documents a list identifying all programs or tax laws= =20 within that department or agency that the head of the department or agency= =20 determines provide inequitable Federal subsidies.

(2) CONTENTS- Such a list shall include--

(A) a detailed description of each program or tax law in question;

(B) a statement detailing the extent to which a payment, benefit, service,= or

tax advantage meets the provisions of section 4;

(C) a statement summarizing the legislative history and purpose of such=20 payment, benefit, service, or tax advantage, and the laws or policies directly=20 or indirectly giving rise to the need for such programs or tax laws; and

(D) a recommendation to the Commission regarding actions to be taken under= =20 section 5(b)(3).

(3) INTERNATIONAL TRADE PROGRAMS- As part of its agency plan submitted=20 pursuant to this subsection, the United States Trade Representative shall=20 survey all federally supported international trade programs in all Federal= =20 agencies and shall certify to the Commission which of those programs meet= the

requirements of section 4(4)(D). The Trade Representative shall provide the= =20 Commission a detailed statement of the reasons each program was or was not= so

certified as part of its agency plan.


(1) REVIEW AND HEARINGS- At any time after the submission of the budget=20 documents to Congress, the Commission shall conduct public hearings on the= =20 recommendations included in the lists required under subsection (a). All=20 testimony before the Commission at a public hearing conducted under this=20 paragraph shall be presented under oath.


(A) REPORT TO PRESIDENT- No later than November 30, 1998, the Commission shall=20 submit a report to the President containing the Commission's findings and=20 recommendations for termination, modification, or retention of each of the= =20 inequitable Federal subsidies reviewed by the Commission. Such findings and= =20 recommendations shall specify--

(i) all actions, circumstances, and considerations relating to or bearing upon=20 the recommendations; and

(ii) to the maximum extent practicable, the estimated effect of the=20 recommendations upon the policies, laws and programs directly or indirectly= =20 affected by the recommendations.

(B) CHANGES IN RECOMMENDATIONS- Subject to the deadline in subparagraph (A),= =20 in making its recommendations, the Commission may make changes in any of the= =20 recommendations made by a department or agency if the Commission determines= =20 that such department or agency deviated substantially from the provisions of= =20 section 4. (C) CHANGES- In the case of a change in the recommendations made by a=20 department or agency, the Commission may make the change only if the=20 Commission--

(i) makes the determination required under subparagraph (B); and

(ii) conducts a public hearing on the Commission's proposed changes.

(D) APPLICATION- Subparagraph (C) shall apply to a change by the Commission in=20 a department or agency recommendation that would--

(i) add or delete a payment, benefit, service, or tax advantage to the list= =20 recommended for termination;


---------- From: on behalf of Sent: Friday, May 16, 1997 10:43 AM To: Subject: Bill S. 207

This is new legislation to reform or eliminate "corporate welfare". I=20 recently read about this Bill in the March 3, 1997 issue of Waste Age's=20 Recycling Times. Check it out. Some say the Bill could level the playing= =20 field for the recycling industry.


Date: Tue, 20 May 1997 14:57:38 +0900 From: (Hop) Subject: Statisticians minimize waste - but is that enough to bring about 'fare shares in

Going beyond the work done and reported by Dave Stewardson and his statistician colleagues (which is unarguably positive) ....

>The number of times we have been sent in to decrease variable input and= output >in order to increase quality, only to find that a changing a few parameter >settings produces 10-25% extra output with 25-50% reduction in waste.....! >If I gave you the figures you wouldn't believe them. This is especially >true of older processes, run the same way year in and year out. > >Has anybody got any views on this? Can we put you in touch with your >local Industrial Statisticians? The big selling point with regard to >waste reduction, using this approach, is that the companies who get >involved actually get more profit out of it. This can help make a waste >reduction programme easier to swallow, and sell-on to the shareholders.

I'd recommend reading the document "Sustainable Consumption - A Global Pesrpective", by Friends of the Earth Netherlands, which advocates a new philosophy to bring about the dramatic reduction in environmental impact (including waste generation) needed for both developed and developing nations to sustainably co-exist into the next century. It introduces the concept of 'fare shares in "Environmental Space"' and urges attention be given to 'the end-use approach', saying:

"The end-use approach differs to a considerable extent from increased efficiency. The efficiency approach chiefly involves making existing, as well as growth in, production and consumption patterns more efficient, while the end-use approach entails changing production and consumption structures in such a way so that people's needs can be met using a minimum of resources. Furthermore, unlike efficiency, the end-use approach specifically involves demand-side management. The issue is then no longer how to make a product as efficiently as possible, but also, and more specifically, which product or service would best serve a certain need. This last issue comes much closer to achieving the objective of meeting people's needs as best as possible using a limited quantity of natural resources."

Can anyone post advice as to where and how to get a copy of this report in the US?

Further information about the concept of "Environmental Space" can be found via:

Regards, Hop.


End of GreenYes Digest V97 #114 ******************************