GreenYes Digest V97 #183

GreenYes Mailing List and Newsgroup (
Fri, 22 Jan 1999 17:10:09 -0500

GreenYes Digest Thu, 31 Jul 97 Volume 97 : Issue 183

Today's Topics:
(no subject)
Cardboard shredder
Continuous Product Ownership
Energy in Aluminum Cans
job avail - Oakland Unified School District
Repair & More
Time sensitive information on 15 passenger vans

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: Wed, 30 Jul 1997 10:26:52 -0400
From: Mike/Cindy Shea <>
Subject: (no subject)

subscribe GreenYes


Date: Wed, 30 Jul 1997 17:24:20 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Cardboard shredder

My name is Ben Marolla, and I have a question concerning cardboard recycling.
I would like to know if there is such a thing as a cardboard shredder,
becausae of the large amount of cardboard that we generate for waste. Where
can one be bought?
Thank You.


Date: Wed, 30 Jul 1997 22:10:35 -0400
From: Mike/Cindy Shea <>
Subject: Continuous Product Ownership

Greetings. If you are aware of companies adopting continuous product
ownership practices, please let me know who they are. I'm already in
contact with Interface, Collins & Aikman, Herman Miller, and Anderson
Windows. Digital Computers, Xerox, Daimler Benz, and Mitsubishi
Electric are on the list to investigate, but I do not yet have contact

Are there other companies you know of that are out front -- adopting a
perpetual lease, rather than ownership, concept and then taking the
product back for reuse, refurbishment or recycling? Please pass on any
leads. Thanks.



Date: Wed, 30 Jul 97 12:10:57 PST
Subject: Energy in Aluminum Cans


I recently re-heard a statistic about aluminum cans: namely, that
the energy embodied in a single can (that is, the amount used in
production and transportation) is equivalent to the energy in gasoline
that would fill the can half full.

Does anybody know the source of this claim, what can weight it is
based on, etc.?


Date: Wed, 30 Jul 1997 17:13:28 -0700
From: John McCabe <>
Subject: job avail - Oakland Unified School District

Please excuse any cross-postings. This is the full text of a job
announcement with the Oakland (California) Unified School District. You're
best off contacting them for more information.

Job #676500

POSTING DATE: July 25, 1997

APPLICATION PERIOD: Open Until Position is Filled

APPLICATION DUE: August 22, 1997

DEFINITION: Under direction of the Director of Food/Custodial Services, the
Recycling Coordinator will plan, develop and implement a District-wide
Recycling Program.

DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES: Implement the tasks outlined in the Alameda
County Source Reduction and Recycling Board Grant which include surveying
all sites to review type of bin and frequency of trash pick-up, review
services currently received by the District and the cost, conduct a
comprehensive review and audit of the solid waste and recycling needs of
all District facilities, establish an advisory committee and hold meetings,
develop the District's recycling plan.

Prepare request for proposals for recycling services as needed, purchase
equipment and supplies, select sites for the first year and develop
phase-in schedule for the remaining sites, develop and conduct training for
all students and District personnel, prepare reports, determine savings in
waste disposal bills, plan future budget with projected savings, develop
public education materials, develop a monitoring system to determine the
progress and success of the program, work with City Staff and the Alameda
County Source Reduction and Recycling Board to integrate recycling into
classroom curriculum.


Qualification: Bachelor's degree and 5 years experience in waste management.

Knowledge, Skills and Experience:

=B7 Knowledge of recent legislation and law regarding recycling.
=B7 Experience in developing proposals.
=B7 Experience in assessing the equipment and supply needs of a large public
agency or school district.
=B7 Experience in developing a budget.
=B7 Maintain administrative records.
=B7 Plans and coordinates schedules.
=B7 Plans and coordinates work of staff members.
=B7 Participates as a member of Custodial Services Management Team.
SALARY: $52,310.00 - $66,764.00. Range 16
UAOS Administrative Salary Schedule
7.5 annuity new employee, after 3 years $2,575.00 Doctoral Stipend

WORK SCHEDULE: 12 months, 7.5 hours per day

WORKING CONDITIONS: Light to moderate physical effort, frequent standing,
walking, periodic handling of light weight parcels or supplies. Rapid
paced work, moderate to high levels of stress, evening meetings. Outdoor
environment and use of office equipment, including a computer.

APPLICATION: The following application materials are required:
1. Letter of Application
2. Management Application form
3. Resume
4. Three letters of recommendation; and
5. Verification of college degree.

The Application Deadline date is August 22, 1997 by 4:00 p.m. Applications
will be accepted after August 22, 1997, but will be considered only if a
successful applicant is not found in the initial pool.

Applications are available in the Human Resource Division, Room 201, 1025
Second Avenue, Oakland, CA 94606 and by calling (510) 879-8241 or faxing a
request to (510) 879-183l.


John McCabe, Recycling Specialist
City of Oakland Public Works Agency, Environmental Services Division
(510) 238-SAVE (general line),

This is my "official" City of Oakland account.


Date: Wed, 30 Jul 1997 15:21:46 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Repair & More

(Hello everyone! I had this experience yesterday....some incomplete thoughts me work them through if you can.... Thanks, Stephen Suess)

I have this long red fiberglass pole that extends out to twelve feet
with a little cutter and a saw blade on it. I use it to trim some of the
higher branches off the trees in my yard. Well the saw blade broke in some
silly accident and I needed a new one. Being ever the handy guy I try to be,
off I went to the local store where I bought the thing in the first place.
It seems that a new saw blade is $25....the whole contraption, brand new is
$50! My first reaction was that perhaps I should just buy the whole thing
new.... then I did a double take and got to thinking that the little saw
blade on the end of this huge thing could not possibly represent half the
cost of the whole unit.... why such a high price for the replacement blade?
And isn't this typical of costs for repair parts?
In this particular example I suspect that there is a careful calculation
being made. Charge enough to push many people into buying the whole saw new,
yet for those who do value the $25 have a replacement available at a price
not too high to completely piss them off so that they take a completely
different approach and use a different system altogether. Remember the game
is to maximize profit, not minimize resource depletion..... and by and large
this means selling as many of the of the whole units as possible to
maximizes profits. (This occurs because of the increased efficiency of
producing larger quantities and minimizing the hassels of selling large
numbers of different small pieces.) If convincing people to throw away
perfectly good units by making repairs difficult, then sales go and profits
go up.
(I realize that in higher priced items such as cars, ovens, etc. high
costs of replacement parts often has to do with the costs of keeping long
term inventory of a few old parts, as well as the ability to charge high
prices for cheap parts to keep high priced articles running - but I believe
that this case of the saw is somewhat different.)

Now my mind in its weird way started to tie this event to the Soda Pop
industry and how they keep saying that it is the consumer that really ought
to pay for disposal not the manufacturer - after all the consumer buys it,
thus it is theirs. What has happened to say a Coke or Pepsi is that they
have managed to trade in their hundreds of bottling plants and tens of
thousands of employees for a handful of mostly automated plants where the
products go one way only. It is a much simpler business for a CEO to manage
and think about. (I have this theory about economists: They assume business
seeks to do things in the most cost efficient manner possible, so that when a
Coke goes from refillable bottles to throw aways, they assume it is less
expensive and thus make sure the numbers come out that way. Of course it
helps to skew taxes and subsidies to make sure it happens..... - The point is
that it didn't have to happen, but did to make life for those who run huge
corporations simpler - What is the economics of that?)

It seems to me that both examples are understandable business decisions
that lead to someone foisting trash on me. (To put the above arguments in
another way: it costs something to make that trash, which means that someone
is making money off my trash - not to even begin to speak about who is making
money hauling the stuff away.) To continue on this vein, this kind of
thinking will also lead to products which are made and marketed in such a way
as to be heavy on packaging, rapidly obsolete, or unrepairable, or rapidly
replaced by new fashions. Business become focused on the need to come up
with ways to sell us more and more - often of the same old thing. They say
that this creates jobs, money and a healthy economy.

Now for the kicker: This all works because of what we've been referring
to as the ability to "externalize" some of the costs associated with
manufacturing. By this - business is able to make someone else pay for such
things as disposal, pollution costs, and to make the pot even sweeter, we
even subsidize many of the raw materials and transportation costs. In
addition, we've all - somehow - agreed to work harder and harder to make all
this stuff, so we can throw away more of this stuff. It seems that many of
us now have two wage earner families with too little time to spend with the
families of simply enjoying being alive. (How did we get into this rut
anyway? And how do we get out of it? Couldn't we make do with a fraction of
this stuff and live say 90% as well with half the work? {I don't know these
numbers, does anyone out there know them?})

So I found myself at the end doing the environmental argument - If it
lowers the cost of manufacture to externalize the cost of resource depletion
and pollution, and the public buys the cheaper (at least for that moment)
item, then the environmentally correct (internalized cost) item will always
be more expensive, and thus never sell as well as the other one. Because of
these subsidies and hidden costs our taxes will always go up and out quality
of living will always go down to cover these hidden costs. I remember Paul
Hawken telling me that when you marginalize your raw materials you eventually
also marginaize your people. Jerry Brown had the same theme in mind when he
said Zero Waste includes stopping the waste of human resources. It seems to
me that they may be correct - it is all a part of the same theme. Why
doesn't the public understand this? Why are things the way they are if we do
understand this?

I don't think there are bad guys or good guys here - just a system some
have bought into, others have not, most of us to some lesser or greater
degree - and that is where the arguments come. Is it an addiction to
consumerism that is biological to a degree? Is it a stubborn belief that
these bad things can't happen here? Any thoughts?


Date: Wed, 30 Jul 1997 07:21:11 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Time sensitive information on 15 passenger vans

Subject: Time sensitive information on 15 passenger vans

Fleet Solutions frequently has fleets of 15 passenger vans,
which are available for custom leases. These leases can
be structured from a couple of month need to an ongoing project.
We now have a time sensitive opportunity for those
who can use these fleets commencing late Summer 1997.

We have a fleet of approximately 300 of these vans, which
are available at unheard of discounts. Whether the
need is for 1 van to 100's, two months to ongoing needs,
no reasonable offer will be refused. We can successfully
address high mileage applications, multiple location
deliveries, and providing insurance if necessary.

Historically, we have been of a great service to clients
seeking temporary fleets for seasonal, cyclical, or special
projects. Experience the service that inspired the
Atlanta Olympic Committee to say, "The professionalism was
noteworthy and service remarkable. You were able to provide
a level of excellence thatthe Olympic games protray." We can
rotate new units in at designated intervals for high mileage
and ongoing applications.

To learn more about Fleet Solutions and our
"Fleet on Demand" service visit our website,
click or copy/paste here:
to see how our offerings apply specifically to you.
We thank you for your attention.

P.S. If you can't utilize this specific fleet, we do
offer referral fees to introductions to your contacts
that can. See our Discount Program page on our site
for full details.


End of GreenYes Digest V97 #183