Today's Topics:
AB 375 (Firestone) - In an effort to reduce the tire stockpiles
a nifty reuse idea for hotels
Coke Boycott
Comment on SD Curbside via voicemail
construction waste statitics
CRRA Conference - Last Call
EMBARGO NOTICE: End Logging Fact Sheet
Executive Order to increase post-consumer recycled fiber in govenrnent
purchases?
FW: Vote: Is there a split in the ranks?
GreenYes Digest V97 #123
New CRRA Home Page
Request for C&D data
Subscribing to the digest
Undeliverable message
unsubscribe
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: Thu, 29 May 1997 17:26:13 -0700
From: Carolyn Chase <cdchase@qualcomm.com>
Subject: AB 375 (Firestone) - In an effort to reduce the tire stockpiles
This came from Sierra Club California
To: CALIF-ALERTS@LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG
Megan Mullin <megan.mullin@SFSIERRA.SIERRACLUB.ORG>
CALIFORNIA LEGISLATIVE ALERT #97-6
May 29, 1997
******************************************************
Tire Burning is NOT Recycling!
******************************************************
AB 375 (Firestone) - In an effort to reduce the tire stockpiles that
plague many communities and to fund the creation of new markets
for used tires, Assemblymember Firestone has introduced AB 375,
which enacts the California Tire Recovery Reimbursement
Program and makes other changes to the state's current tire
recovery program. The bill increases the tire fee from the current
$.25 per passenger tire to $.50, and creates a fund for reimbursing
certified tire recovery programs.
AB 375 includes a number of provisions which incentivize recycling
waste tires for residential, commercial, and industrial use; in
particular, the bill boosts the use of recycled rubber in asphalt
paving materials. However, the same reimbursement given to tire
recyclers would also be given to facilities burning tires for energy.
The Sierra Club has serious concerns about the health impacts
caused by emissions from tire burning facilities, especially cement
kilns which burn tires. Emissions of many hazardous chemicals,
including heavy metals, have been proven to increase with the use
of tire-derived fuel. A draft federal EPA report on dioxin, one of
many hazardous pollutants shown to increase when tire-derived fuel
is used in cement kilns, concludes that dioxins and related
compounds such as PCBs are much more dangerous than
previously understood.
Many cement kilns that are burning tires, or are seeking to burn
tires, are not designed to do so. Because they are designed to make
a product, not to burn hazardous waste, they produce more air
pollution when tires are added as fuel. Facilities which burn steel-
belted tires are burning three pounds of steel per tire.
Burning of tires for fuel should not be considered true recycling,
and should not be rewarded with incentive funding. Instead, that
funding should go to facilities using tires to make products such as
asphalt, retreading, sound barrier panels, and roofing products.
******************************************************
Address your letters to: Assembly Member/Senator ______
State Capitol
Sacramento, CA 95814
To find out who your state legislators are, call:
(916) 445-3614 (Assembly)
(916) 445-4251 (Senate)
To find out the email addresses for your state legislators, check the
following Web pages:
http://www.assembly.ca.gov/acs/acsframeset7.htm
http://www.sen.ca.gov/htbin/seninfo/sen.senator
******************************************************
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 29 May 1997 17:17:43 -0400
From: Myra Nissen <MyraCycle@compuserve.com>
Subject: a nifty reuse idea for hotels
I just returned from a trip to Idaho. The hotel where I stayed had a nif=
ty
reuse idea to save on disposal of good, but slightly stained wash clothes=
=2E =
They set aside the stained washcloths for make up removal. On the
washcloth a small paper lable read:
Make Up?
Need a cloth for removing make up? Here is a cloth that is fresh and
clean, but is already stained. Please consider using it. Thank You.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 30 May 1997 14:13:40 +0900
From: oldxeye@crisscross.com (Hop)
Subject: Coke Boycott
Eric Lombardi wrote yesterday about "Coke" and "Boycotts", but believed
they were hard to do.
Not necessarily .....
Following are two media releases issued at the beginning of a boycott
campaign against Coke in Australia at the start of summer 1993. I hope they
are helpful if you choose to go down this path in the US.
We calculated that if just one person in ever 100 boycotts Coca-Cola
products in Australia their sales will fall by $20 million per year.
Obviously this figure would be much higher in the US.
Regards,
Hop.
Media Release - 1 December 1993
Boycott Coca-Cola
Coca-Cola's hostility to the environment will subject the company to a
consumer boycott beginning this summer unless the company moves quickly to
address environmental concerns relating to its packaging.
"Excessive use of plastic packaging, failure to introduce world-class
environmental packaging standards, and the gluttonous promotion of its
products make the multinational an obvious target for a boycott" says Mr
Peter Hopper, Project Officer for the Nature Conservation Council of NSW.
"If Coke wants to continue attracting teenage consumers it had better begin
trying to satisfy more than their taste-buds" warned Mr Hopper. "Todays
youth are gravely concerned about the future of the planet but Coke is
frustrating attempts to address the problem by opposing reasonable and
honest attempts to do something about it."
"Coke's packaging policy is wafer-thin" claims Mr Hopper. "The company's
annual report boasts the success of returnable refillable bottles in Europe
but the company refuses to introduce them here."
Only in South Australia where the law requires Coke to take back its
empties is there widespread use of returnable refillable containers. The
South Australian Beverage Container Act, introduced in 1978 mainly as a
litter control measure, requires a refundable-deposit be placed on all Coke
(and other brand) soft drink containers to encourage their return. The
one-litre refillable glass bottle, which has a 20c refundable-deposit, has
a 97% return rate and is re-used more than 30 times.
"Community support for South Australia's Container Deposit Legislation
(CDL) has been long-standing" says Mr Hopper. "A report released recently
by the SA Government reveals that '99% of people are aware of the refund
system, with 92% thinking it is effective and 95% supporting refundable
deposits on drink containers.' Yet Coke has called for the removal of
deposits from their plastic bottles and continues to oppose the expansion
of CDL beyond South Australia."
In much of Europe and in many states of North America Coke drinkers are
rewarded with a refund for protecting the environment when they return
their empties. The 1.5 litre returnable refillable plastic Coke bottle used
in Austria, for example, is very popular with manufacturers and consumers
alike.
"Why isn't Coke giving its customers in Australia the same privilege and
opportunity to protect the environment by using returnable refillable
containers as exist overseas" asks Mr Hopper.
"Unless Coca-Cola faces up to its environmental responsibilities we'll
drive its customers away" said Mr Hopper. "Given the company's enormous
sales volume and the extensive network of organisations through which the
boycott message can be conveyed, it won't take long to start having a
noticeable effect. On-going competition from Pepsi with summer just
beginning will see Coke at its most vulnerable - giving the boycott even
sharper teeth."
end
Media Release - 8 December 1993
Coke Claims Mislead Consumers
"Claims by multinational soft drink manufacturer Coca-Cola Amatil about the
success of kerbside recycling are misleading consumers" says Mr Peter
Hopper, Project Officer for the Nature Conservation Council of NSW.
Coke's Corporate Affairs Manager, Mr Ian Brown, made the misleading remarks
as he responded to last week's announcement of a boycott on the company's
soft drinks until returnable refillable containers are introduced. Mr Brown
claimed 'if you moved to a returnable refillable system ..... the whole
economics of kerbside recycling would collapse'.
"Such a claim is absurd" says Mr Hopper. "Coke must either be ill-informed
or deluding themselves."
"The boycott of Coke has been called for good reason" says Mr Hopper. "If
Coke continues selling its soft drinks in non-returnable non-refillable
containers then we'll keep informing its customers how much impact Coke's
packaging policy is having on the environment."
"Plastic packaging, including the plastic PET bottle used increasingly by
Coca-Cola, is perhaps the greatest threat to the future viability of
kerbside recycling. The Plastics Industry Association recently reported
that used PET costs $1203 per tonne to collect but is worth only $600. The
difference is an enormous cost which is currently met by local councils and
is being passed on to ratepayers regardless of whether they use the plastic
bottles or not."
"With around 25000 tonnes of PET plastic used in Australia, primarily for
soft drink bottles, the community could end up subsidising PET collection
by more than $15 million per year."
"That's an unnecessary financial burden on an already over-stressed
collection scheme" says Mr Hopper. "The economics of collecting plastics
for recycling is atrocious from a local government viewpoint. Companies
like Coca-Cola Amatil are having their expensive and extravagant packaging
policies propped-up by local councils at the expense of local communities
who would be better served by having the money spent on the collection of
compostable material."
"A major corporation like Coke should be prepared to take full life-cycle
responsibility for its product - or in this case its packaging. Coke must
introduce returnable refillable containers throughout Australia similar to
those used overseas and in South Australia where container-deposit laws
apply."
The Nature Conservation Council has sought a meeting with the Managing
Director of Coca-Cola Amatil to discuss these concerns but as yet has
received no reply.
end
Eric Lombardi, EcoCycle, wrote:
>The recent GRRN actions concerning Coke are powerful, but haven't got Coke
>"to the table "yet. If we, the GRRN network of recycling advocates, keeps
>the heat up on Coke, then I think wer are "setting the table" and that
>they will eventually come to talk. I believe that consumer boycotts are
>more powerful thatn legislation, but that they (boycotts) are hard to do.
>
>My hope currently is that the GRRN Network, organized on the Net, can
>create a new and powerful way to "organize our purchasing power for social
>change". I'd like to hear from others with ideas on how to do this.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 29 May 1997 08:45:58 -0700
From: Carolyn Chase <cdchase@qualcomm.com>
Subject: Comment on SD Curbside via voicemail
IF you cannot attend the public heaing on the fate of San Diego's
curbside recycling on June 4 from 6-8 pm at 9601 Ridgehave Ct.
YOU can still give your comments -
1. Via voicemail - call (619)492-5023
2. Via email to me - and I will see they are delivered to the rest of the
Task Force and the Department.
Thanks!
NOTE: please include some indication of how you think the service should be
paid for -
ie. would you pay $4 per month for it? Or should the CIty pay for it out of
landfill fees? or
should it be left to the private solutions?
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 29 May 1997 13:45:49 -0400
From: "Blair Pollock" <bpollock@town.ci.chapel-hill.nc.us>
Subject: construction waste statitics
For the past three years we have landfilled mixed C&D wastes at a separate
site in our landfill from our mixed solid waste and tracked it separately.
the C&D area also takes in industrial waste and other dry waste like dead
furniture. but we have very little industry in our county. we also have
very few alternate dispoal options for mixed C&D within 25 miles. our tip
fee is $33. we have a ban on out-of=county wastes and the area is small
enough that we often know which projects are "out of county" based on the
name of the subdivision the driver of the dump truck gives. We reject those
from out of county. Given this background, what we take into the C&D
landfill has consistently been around 33% of the total of mixed waste plus
construction and demolition wastes.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 29 May 1997 16:22:23 -0400 (EDT)
From: CRRA@aol.com
Subject: CRRA Conference - Last Call
There are a few seats left at the CRRA Conference this year, but they're
going fast! 775 have pre-registered, the booths have sold out and we have
added overflow exhibit space and have more exhibits than any CRRA conference
ever. This is going to be BIIIGGGG!!!
If you have had problems getting through at our registration number, here's
another number to call there for Conference registration info, call
408-373-0508.
Hope to see you there!
Gary Liss
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 29 May 1997 19:21:23 -0400 (EDT)
From: DavidOrr@aol.com
Subject: EMBARGO NOTICE: End Logging Fact Sheet
EMBARGO NOTICE:
The "End Logging Fact Sheet" which I sent you last week is being
embargoed UNTIL FURTHER NOTICE.
We are waiting on responses from reviewers. We don't know at this time
whether we will be ready to release the report by June 4, therefore we
are requesting that you NOT release the report to any news media until
you hear from us.
We apologize for the confusion, and ask for your patience and
understanding. We want this report to be "bullet-proof" so we need to be
extra-careful about our facts.
Thanks!
David Orr
John Muir Project of Earth Island Institute
Sierra Club
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 30 May 1997 00:05:55 -0500
From: "Susan K. Snow" <sksnow@1stnet.com>
Subject: Executive Order to increase post-consumer recycled fiber in
govenrnent purchases?
Can anyone tell me if President Clinton signed a bill or Executive Order
in the last few months to increase the amount of post-consumer recycled
fiber to be used in products purchased by the U.S. government to 25
percent? If this is so, where can I find this Executive Order or Act
online?
Thanking you in advance.
Susan Snow
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 29 May 1997 20:06:12 -0500
From: RecycleWorlds <anderson@msn.fullfeed.com>
Subject: FW: Vote: Is there a split in the ranks?
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
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 29 May 1997 12:24:06 -0500 (CDT)
From: megan colleen nichols <mcnichol@students.uiuc.edu>
Subject: GreenYes Digest V97 #123
remove
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 29 May 1997 21:28:37 -0400 (EDT)
From: CRRA@aol.com
Subject: New CRRA Home Page
Thanks to Dave Hardy, Vicki Hardy and Bill Hoffman, CRRA's new home page is
up and running. For those dying to surf one last time before coming to
Monterey, here's the address:
http://207.105.184.197\CRRAHOME
Surf's up!
Gary Liss
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 29 May 1997 12:00:38 -0500 (CDT)
From: eddy <nimmanni@cae.wisc.edu>
Subject: Request for C&D data
Dear Folks,
Thanks a lot for your help to provide me your Annual tonnage
of Construction and Demolition waste data but there are still not enough
for me to precisely analyse the tonnage.
Therefore I would like to ask for more help from you.
I know that there are such effort of C&D study done in Seattle, New York
City, some cities in Oregon, Chicago. Could anyone who have these C&D data
on hand give us your data? Or some suggestions on how to get these data
would be very much apreciated.
Again, we would like to remind you that the data we are requesting are :
"The Annual tonnage of Construction and Demolition Waste in your area"
Thanks millions,
Eddy
*********************************************************************
Akapop Nimmannit (Eddy)
HOME ADDRESS : 5002 SHEBOYGAN AVE. #328,
MADISON ,WISCONSIN 53705,
USA
TEL. : 608-278-1925
EMAIL : nimmanni@cae.wisc.edu
*********************************************************************
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 29 May 1997 07:49:38 -0700 (PDT)
From: "David A. Kirkpatrick" <david@kirkworks.com>
Subject: Subscribing to the digest
This greenyes listserv, hosted by the Grassroots Recycling Network, is
getting quite popular. I imagine that some of those of you who are getting
each message individually may be getting a bit swamped by the deluge of
email, helpful though much of it is. To get a digest once a day, with a
table of contents with authors and subject lines printed at the top, do the
following:
Send a message to listserv@ucsd.edu with "add greenyes-digest" as the text
of the message.
Once you are getting the digest, to stop the individual messages, send a
message to listserv@ucsd.edu with "unsub youremailaddress greenyes" Sample
responses below:
Per your request
"add greenyes-digest"
'david@kirkworks.com' was ADDED to the 'greenyes-digest' mailing list.
Per your request
"unsub david@kirkworks.com greenyes"
'david@kirkworks.com' was DELETED from the 'greenyes' mailing list.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 29 May 1997 14:29:53 -0400
From: "Blair Pollock" <bpollock@town.ci.chapel-hill.nc.us>
Subject: Undeliverable message
Eddy from Univ of Wisconsin asked about C&D statistics:
For the past three years we have landfilled mixed C&D wastes at a separate
site in our landfill from our mixed solid waste and tracked it separately.
the C&D area also takes in industrial waste and other dry waste like dead
furniture. but we have very little industry in our county. we also have
very few alternate dispoal options for mixed C&D within 25 miles. our tip
fee is $33. we have a ban on out-of=county wastes and the area is small
enough that we often know which projects are "out of county" based on the
name of the subdivision the driver of the dump truck gives. We reject those
from out of county. Given this background, what we take into the C&D
landfill has consistently been around 33% of the total of mixed waste plus
construction and demolition wastes.
------------------------------
Date: 29 May 1997 13:57:58 U
From: "Shan W Evans" <Shan_W_Evans@ppmgway.pp.utexas.edu>
Subject: unsubscribe
RE>unsubscribe =
5/29/97
unsubscribe
------------------------------
End of GreenYes Digest V97 #124
******************************