GreenYes Digest V97 #181

GreenYes Mailing List and Newsgroup (
Fri, 22 Jan 1999 17:10:13 -0500

GreenYes Digest Tue, 29 Jul 97 Volume 97 : Issue 181

Today's Topics:
FW: Rachel #556: WMI -- A Culture of Fraud and Dishonesty? (long)
INFO: Sierra Club policy on Bridge Canyon Dam (1949)
Producer Responsibility--an example
v. 97 no. 18
When does a recycled product count as a recycled product??

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, 28 Jul 1997 11:19:03 -0700 (PDT)
From: "William P. McGowan" <>
Subject: FW: Rachel #556: WMI -- A Culture of Fraud and Dishonesty? (long)

While I found Peter Montague's article on the current crises faced by
WMX, or WasteManagement, or whatever they are calling it this week, I
found, in his closing paragraph a statement that grossly wrong. In
closing, Peter stated that we have to stop treating corporations like
people, that we should not grant them the rights of individuals, "just
like our grandparents did." I do NOT want to get into the debate
whether corporations should be treated like people, with all the rights
we as individuals have come to expect, but I did want to point out that
corporations have been treated like people long before my grandfather was
born--in the 1880s if memory serves. It was during the Marshall court
that the Fourteenth Amendement--written and passed to protect former
slaves--was stretched to include corporations by the Supreme Court.
This had a great deal to do with the later overturning of the Granger
Cases, which gave corporations the legal footing they still enjoy
today--equal rotection, as if they were people, under the law.

This may not seem like much, but when people making impassioned arguments
like Mr. Montague screw up their history, they often call their entire
line of reasoning into question.

Bill McGowan
Rincon Recycling
UCSB History


Date: Tue, 29 Jul 1997 02:41:27 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: INFO: Sierra Club policy on Bridge Canyon Dam (1949)


TO: Sierra Club leaders
CC: David Brower
FR: David Orr
RE: Bridge Canyon Dam


Pardon me, those of you who have already seen this resolution which I
have reproduced for you below. It's a Sierra Club policy of support for
the damming of Grand Canyon, from the December 1949 issue of the Sierra
Club Bulletin, vol. 34, no. 11, pp. 3-4.

What a difference a few years can make. On November 12, 1949, the Sierra
Club board of directors voted to support the construction of Bridge
Canyon Dam in what is now Grand Canyon National Park. In this
resolution, reference is made to the proposed Marble Canyon and Glen
Canyon dams, as if they were foregone conclusions. Of course, Glen
Canyon Dam DID get built, but that's another story... Thank God that
events conspired (along with Club Director David Brower) to buy time to
stop the Bridge and Marble Canyon Dams. Think how close we came to
having this club policy become reality.

This is offered as a reminder to us all how CRITICAL it is to fight for
what we believe in, even if we think it's already a "done deal." We
never know what will happen in the future. History will judge us harshly
if we don't remain true to our ideals.

Thank you for your consideration,
David Orr


Minutes of a Special Meeting of the Board of Directors


6. Bridge Canyon Dam


After thorough discussion, upon motion by [then-Vice-President Harold]
Crowe, seconded by [then-Treasurer Robert L.] Lipman, the following
resolution was uanimously adopted as the policy of the Sierra Club:

Resolved, various proposals are now pending for the construction of a dam
in the Grand Canyon of the Colorado at Bridge Canyon. The reservoir
created by this dam will submerge portions of Grand Canyon National Park
and Grand Canyon National Monument. In the event that the appropriate
authorities determine that the construction of such dam is economically
sound, thorough consideration should be given to minimizing the impact of
such dam and reservoir on the scenic and inspirational features preserved
for public use in the creation of Grand Canyon National Park and
Monument. Legislative action is also necessary to insure that the heart
of Grand Canyon will not be invaded by future dams and diversions without
express permission of Congress. To accomplish these purposes the Sierra
Club recommends:

1. The construction of Bridge Canyon Dam should not be authorized unless
necessary prior action has been taken to insure the construction of Glen
Canyon and Coconino Dams or equivalent dams on the main stem of the
Colorado and on the Little Colorado to prevent siltation of the Bridge
Canyon Reservoir. Without such prior construction engineering estimates
indicate that the upper forty miles of Bridge Canyon Reservoir will be
filled with silt and rendered unusable for public recreation and
inspiration in a period of three and one-half years.

2. Prior to authorization of the Bridge Canyon project the Grand Canyon
National Park Act should be amended to eliminate the blanket authority
vested in the Secretary of the Interior to permit, without congressional
approval, the construction of government reclamation projects within
Grand Canyon National Park. This will prevent not only the construction
of additional dams in Grand Canyon National Park, but will also prevent
the diversion of the Colorado River through the so-called Kanab Tunnel,
bypassing the central portion of the Grand Canyon.

The administrative decision of the Secretary of the Interior disapproving
the Kanab project is subject to change without public notice. This
administrative decision should be confirmed by legislative action.

3. Prior to authorization of the Bridge Canyon project Grand Canyon
National Monument should be incorporated into Grand Canyon National Park.
Certain boundary adjustments of the present Monument area appear
desirable. Other adjustments will be necessary to avoid inclusion of the
Bridge Canyon Reservoir within the park. To that end it is suggested
that the President be authorized to increase the area of Grand Canyon
National Park to the extent of the area now included within Grand Canyon
National Monument. It is believed that a restudy of the boundaries will
result in an easterly extension of the park boundary to include Vasey's
Paradise and Redwall Cavern. Such an extension will not interfere with
the construction of the proposed Marble Canyon Dam.

4. Bridge Canyon Dam should not be constructed so as to impound water
above the highwater level of the Colorado River at the junction of
Tapeats Creek. This will prevent an interior penetration of the
reservoir into the existing Grand Canyon National Park as distinguished
from a narrow marginal flooding of boundary areas.

5. Recognition should be given to the scenic and recreational values of
Bridge Canyon Reservoir which can be secured by the maintenance of this
reservoir at a stable level. Such a stable level can be achieved by
water regulation at Glen Canyon and Coconino Dams. It is suggested that
the legislation authorizing the Bridge Canyon project require that so far
as practicable Bridge Canyon Reservoir be maintained at a stable level in
accorddance with an interbureau agreement to be worked out between
National Park Service and Bureau of Reclamation.

Subject to the qualifications stated above the Sierra Club approved the
construction of Bridge Canyon Dam.


Date: Mon, 28 Jul 1997 10:01:41 -0700
From: Robin Salsburg <>
Subject: Producer Responsibility--an example

Hi All--

This was described on the greenbuilding listserve and thought it might =
be of interest to those working on producer responsibility. Anyone have =
additional details on this product, the manufacturer, or the =
manufacturing process?

Robin Salsburg

Sent: Sunday, July 27, 1997 8:51 AM
Subject: GBlist: reclaiming anew

About taking back/recycling products....

An interesting parallel might exist with the new window product called
Renewal by Andersen. Not quite a "lease" program as you described the =
example, but a similar environmental "wholeness" approach. (And I don't =
the reclaimed materials go into autos....)

It goes something like this:
1. Renewal is extruded from a composite material made from recycled =
and wood fiber. Waste from the production process is recyclable into =
Renewal materials.
2. Andersen measures your replacement windows and makes Renewal window =
order for each opening. Each is serialized for warranty and future =
3. Old windows are removed and, instead of going to the land fill: (a)
glass is recycled, (b) wood is recycled into more Renewal raw materials =
same with plastics, and (d) metals are recovered and recycled.

There is MUCH more to this business than this short description. To my
knowledge they have rolled out this product in about 7 markets with =
plans to
go nationwide.

I guess one of the similarities to the carpet example is the fact that =
may be replacing old Andersen windows in addition to other wood, vinyl,
aluminum, steel, etc.

Like you, I like the notion of cradle-to-grave ownership of the =

Chris Mathis

This greenbuilding dialogue is sponsored by CREST <>
Environmental Building News <> and Oikos <>
For instructions send e-mail to


Date: Mon, 28 Jul 1997 09:24:22 -0500
From: RecycleWorlds <>
Subject: v. 97 no. 18

Friday's listings had another reprint from Peter Montague's Rachel =
newsletter that most of us have found to be an invaluable resource. =
Users of his information should know that he has a fund raising appeal =
out now to help make it possible for him to continue. Contributions =
should be sent to: Environmental Research Foundation, P.O. Box 5036, =
Annapolis, MD 21403-7036.=20
Peter Anderson


Date: Mon, 28 Jul 1997 07:54:35 -0600
From: "John Reindl 608-267-8815" <>
Subject: When does a recycled product count as a recycled product??

> 2) if content has "always" been part of the product? (how far back is always?)

Just a short observation. If you don't count a product as being
made of recycled material because it was always made from recycled,
what would you say it was made of? Certainly not virgin material.

And going down this road would mean that the next generation of
recycling folk and purchasing agents would need to at some time stop
counting what we counted.

The question leads to a broader issue -- what do we count in recycling
rates? Do we include things that were `always' recycled?

I think the answer to both questions is "yes", and I would vote to be
as inclusive -- and as explicit -- as possZ8B.

John Reindl, Recycling Manager
Dane County, WI
(608)267-1533 - fax
(608)267-8815 - phone


End of GreenYes Digest V97 #181