GreenYes Digest V97 #185

GreenYes Mailing List and Newsgroup (greenyes@ucsd.edu)
Fri, 22 Jan 1999 17:10:03 -0500


GreenYes Digest Sat, 2 Aug 97 Volume 97 : Issue 185

Today's Topics:
[Fwd: STOP ATTACK ON GPO's BUDGET]
GreenYes Digest V97 #184 - Reply to Roger
history
On Using Greenyes
San Diego County announces waste system sale
Time sensitive information on 15 passenger vans
Who are We? -Reply

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, 01 Aug 1997 23:13:46 -0500
From: "Susan K. Snow" <sksnow@1stnet.com>
Subject: [Fwd: STOP ATTACK ON GPO's BUDGET]

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

--------------4ADB11EE6521
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

When fighting a landfill in our community, I ordered and received at a
relatively low cost, information on liners for both hazardous waste and
municipal solid waste landfills from the National Technical Information
Service. Now the budget of the Government Printing Office is under
attack by an amendment to HR 2209. Losing this means citizens will not
have the right to fight back using information which we as taxpayers
paid. I urge your involement to stop the attack on the GPO's budget.
...Susan Snow

--------------4ADB11EE6521
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

Return-Path: <cong-reform@essential.org>
Received: from prince.essential.org (prince.essential.org [198.4.52.50])
by dancer.1stnet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP
id QAA22844 for <sksnow@1stnet.com>; Mon, 28 Jul 1997 16:14:47 -0500
Received: from prince (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by prince.essential.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id RAA23651;
Mon, 28 Jul 1997 17:11:38 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 1997 17:11:38 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <Pine.SUN.3.95.970728164542.27332A-100000@essential.essential.org>
Errors-To: cong-reform-owner@essential.org
Reply-To: gary@essential.org
Originator: cong-reform@essential.org
Sender: cong-reform@essential.org
Precedence: bulk
From: Gary Ruskin <gary@essential.org>
To: Multiple recipients of list <cong-reform@essential.org>
Subject: STOP ATTACK ON GPO's BUDGET
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
MIME-Version: 1.0

Congressional Reform Briefings July 28, 1997

The U.S. House of Representatives will vote later today on a Klug
Amendment to slash the Government Printing Office's (GPO) budget. This
amendment may jeopardize the immensely popular and successful GPO Access
program, which is the best online source for federal government documents.

Please call or fax your House Member to oppose the Klug Amendment to the
Legislative Branch Appropriations Bill (H.R. 2209). The Congressional
Switchboard phone number is (202) 224-3121.

Following is a letter to Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-GA) opposing the Klug
Amendment:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
July 28, 1997

Honorable Newt Gingrich
Speaker
U. S. House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515
via the Internet: GEORGIA6@HR.HOUSE.GOV

Dear Speaker Gingrich:

We are writing to oppose Representative Scott Klug's (R-WI)
amendment to H.R. 2209, the Legislative Branch Appropriations Bill, which
would cut 350 staff positions from the Government Printing Office (GPO). We
assume that any large organization could benefit from greater
efficiencies, including the GPO. But we oppose the cuts because we
believe the GPO's ability to meet its mission will be compromised by the
cuts. Indeed, we think the Congress should expand GPO's resources, so
that GPO could expand its popular and successful efforts to provide citizens
with Internet access to government information.

The U.S. government has two federal agencies which provide central
access to executive branch documents -- GPO and the Department of Commerce's
National Technical Information Service (NTIS). GPO is designed to
provide free or low cost access to government information. NTIS has a
deeply flawed mission, which includes charging extremely high prices for
government documents. Basically, NTIS tries to charge what the market
will bear for many government publications, like a commercial business,
while GPO is committed to the broadest public dissemination of the data.

In our view, the digital revolution has created an opportunity to
greatly enhance the public's access to government information. In order
to take advantage of this opportunity, Congress should allocate more
resources to agencies, like GPO, which are helping to open up the
government and empower citizens.

Sincerely,
James Love, Director, Consumer Project on Technology
Gary Ruskin, Director, Congressional Accountability Project
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Congressional Accountability Project is A Ralph Nader
congressional reform group. For more information about congressional
reform issues, send e-mail to gary@essential.org or call (202) 296-2787.

To subscribe to Congressional Reform Briefings, send the message:
subscribe cong-reform
to <listproc@essential.org>

PLEASE DISTRIBUTE WIDELY

Gary Ruskin
Congressional Accountability Project | Internet: gary@essential.org
1611 Connecticut Ave. NW, Suite 3A
Washington, DC 20009
Phone: (202) 296-2787 Fax: (202) 833-2406

--------------4ADB11EE6521--

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 1 Aug 1997 09:18:54 -0500
From: RecycleWorlds <anderson@msn.fullfeed.com>
Subject: GreenYes Digest V97 #184 - Reply to Roger

------ =_NextPart_000_01BC9E5B.FA903AA0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

The GreenYes Digest on 8/1/ had a note from Roger Guttentag that ended =
with the observation:

"There are many issues which would benefit from this kind of debate. =
Steve raised some of them in his previous messages. Central to many, if =
not all of them, is the question 'Is robust economic growth and =
declining resource utilization a compatible set of goals that are =
achievable?' I think all the list members will say "of course!" THEN =
WHAT ARE THE RIGHT ARUGMENTS TO USE FOR CONVINCING THE NON-BELIEVERS?"

I would like to join in that last point. We will make no progress =
preaching to the choir. We can only break out of our claque and affect =
broader events if we can figure out strategies to reach people who =
commute 60 miles from the suburbs in their sports utility vehicles, too.

Unfortunately, this probably means learning to think like the guys who =
spend their lives figuring out how to sell their client's brand of =
toothpaste instead of just focusing on the scientific or humanistic =
rationale.

I keep thinking, in that vein, of what happened in the 1960's (sorry =
about that!). The counter culture "thing" started out limited to =
obscure corners of a few campuses in the early part of the decade, and, =
by the early 1970's those ideas of self-fulfillment spread to "Joe =
Lunchbucket". How did that happen?

It happened, I suspect, when people felt secure in their material =
pursuits as real growth increased 3% a year and inflation and other =
economic disturbances were under control ... the Maslovian hierarchy =
schtick.

And what's happening today in our economy (at least until the next oil =
crisis hits) ....

Peter Anderson

------------------------------

------ =_NextPart_000_01BC9E5B.FA903AA0
Content-Type: application/ms-tnef
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
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------ =_NextPart_000_01BC9E5B.FA903AA0--

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 01 Aug 1997 18:44 -0800 (PST)
From: "Lacaze, Skip" <Skip.Lacaze@ci.sj.ca.us>
Subject: history

In Digest 181, William McGowan responded to an article by Peter
Montague, saying: "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."
He closed with: "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."

John Marshall served as Chief Justice from 1801 to 1835, when he died.
He did not have much to say about the Fourteenth Amendment.

Personally, ever since I learned that the courts had decided that
corporations
could not be deprived of rights guaranteed by the Constitution to persons or
citizens, I have wondered why they are not routinely subject to the same
penalties. If a corporation breaks the law, why isn't it imprisoned?
(Either by
having its directors jailed or by having its charter and right to do
business
suspended.) If a corporation kills, why is it not subject to the death
penalty?
(Literally for the responsible officials, or, perhaps more reasonably, by
tearing up the charter and taking all corporate assets for the people.)

If, for practical reasons, we need limited liability corporations in order
to
have a productive economy, we should still, for equally practical reasons,
restrain their activity in many ways that we would not restrain a human
being.

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 1 Aug 1997 14:41:29 -0700 (PDT)
From: Dave Wade <dmwade@cats.ucsc.edu>
Subject: On Using Greenyes

I tend to agree with Steve on this one that we want greenyes to be broad
and inclusive. In fact, I would argue that we need to more widely
publicize the existence of this list, in order to bring in a wider range
of people and opinions, talents and issues.

The subject of what to include has come up on another list to which I
subscribe. After a lively debate, a consensus agreement was reached to
not limit postings too much, as we all have delete keys, and we were
uncomfortable with censorship. Clearly identifying the subject of your
message in the subject line greatly helps subscribers decide if they are
interested in reading further.

At the same time, Roger Guttentag is right about us needing to keep this
list a forum of civil discussion and debate. The immediacy of e-mail can
be a curse as well as a blessing; it is all too easy to fire of a nasty
message to someone who has written something with which we disagree.
Perhaps we ought to remember the example of Harry Truman, who would write
angry letters, leave them on his desk, then tear them up the next day,
his anger having been vented.

-----------------------------
Dave Wade
Recycling Coordinator
UC Santa Cruz
email: dmwade@cats.ucsc.edu

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 1 Aug 1997 08:10:56 -0700
From: Ann Fathy <afathy@crash.cts.com> (by way of Carolyn Chase)
Subject: San Diego County announces waste system sale

>From the San Diego Daily Transcript, 7/31/97:

County To Get Trash Off Hands

Sale Of System To Allied Waste Formally Announced

By THOR KAMBAN BIBERMAN
Daily Transcript Staff Writer

July 30, 1997

The planned sale of the county's beleaguered trash system for $184 million
in cash to Allied Waste
Industries Inc. was formally announced at the County Administration Building
Wednesday. The sale
is slated for completion in November.

"This is an historic day for the county of San Diego," said San Diego County
Chief Administrative
Officer Lawrence Prior.

Prior, who was standing in close proximity to a large Allied truck and a
Caterpillar tractor with a red
and white "sold" sign on it, said with this agreement the county can finally
cast off the "debacle of
past decisions."

This was a not-so-subtle reference to the currently idle trash recycling
plant in San Marcos that
brought the county to the brink of financial ruin. This same recycling plant
is part of what
Scottsdale-based Allied Waste is buying. Allied still does not know if it
will be able to operate the
facility. San Marcos City Attorney Ken Lounsbery said it would be improper
for him to speculate on
what the city might do in regards to allowing the recycling facility to
operate. That city had blocked
San Diego County's efforts to restart the facility until a Superior Court
ruling that the plant could be
run for demonstration purposes only.

With or without the recycling facility, Allied is getting a lot. The assets
include the Sycamore Landfill
with its projected expansion capacity, the Otay Landfill, Borrego Landfill
and the Ramona Landfill,
as well as rural container sites.

The proceeds from the sale are expected to be used for the establishment of
an environmental trust
fund to manage the county's ongoing solid waste activities, to build
management reserves and fund
certain infrastructure investments.

Allied Waste is a big player in the nation. It is the fourth largest solid
waste management firm in the
country with 1997 revenues projected at more than $800 million. The company
motto is "deal with
honor, act with courage and refuse to fail."

Allied did fail to make a profit in 1996 and posted a $79.42 million loss in
1996, year-ended Dec.
31, compared to $12.38 million in net income in 1995. It should be noted
however, that if
acquisitions are taken out of the picture, the firm's net income would have
come to about $17.2
million.

One of those acquisitions was Laidlaw Waste Systems. This acquisition raised
a few eyebrows in
the business community because "the acquiring company was approximately
one-third the size of the
operations it purchased," Allied's annual report noted.

When asked about the Laidlaw acquisition, Prior remarked "it was like the
minnow eating the
shark," but did not see it as a problem, however.

"Was that aggressive? You betcha, but the market saw this as a sound
financial move," Prior said.

Allied currently operates 55 landfills, 22 recycling facilities, works
through 82 collection companies
and 40 transfer stations in 21 states.

Prior also said the company's financials look good. For the second quarter
ended June 30, not
counting extraordinary items, Allied posted nearly $12.73 million in net
income on revenues of
$211.12 million, compared to $1.43 million in net income on revenues of
about $62.01 million for
the like period a year earlier. Taking those extraordinary items into
account, the loss for the quarter
was $39.68 million, compared to a positive net income of $1.43 million for
the like quarter in 1996.
The loss in the second quarter was largely attributable to the completion of
the Laidlaw purchase.

When asked if there are dangers in the process, Prior acknowledged that
there may be, because this
divestiture "is uncharted territory" for the county. On the other hand,
Prior said anybody at the
county should feel a lot better than about 1 1/2 years ago when the
prospects were looking grim.

Roger Ramsey, Allied chairman of the board, said the deal, which the Board
of Supervisors is
expected to ratify on Aug. 12, "is a win-win situation for the county and
for Allied."

"We couldn't be more excited to partner with San Diego County in providing
cost effective, efficient,
environmentally responsible waste collection and disposal services to San
Diego County, well into
the next century," Ramsey said.

The county is slated to receive $16 million upon ratification of the
agreement by the Board of
Supervisors.

Allied provides non-hazardous waste collection to more than 1.4 million
residential, municipal and
commercial customers in 22 states.

Allied is no stranger to San Diego. Its Laidlaw Waste Systems subsidiary
employs 220 people in the
county who provide services to more than 70,000 customers here. A total of
about 5,000
employees are on Allied's payroll.

The apparent losing bidders are USA Waste and Waste Management.
Interestingly enough, in its
second-quarter financial statement, Allied announced it had just completed
the acquisition of certain
collection, transfer, recycling and disposal assets from USA Waste and
Browning-Ferris Industries.
These assets, totaling about $91.6 million in annual revenue, include eight
landfills, eight collection
operations, eight transfer stations and two recycling facilities.

The same second-quarter financial statement also noted that Allied also sold
certain assets to USA
Waste and a Browning-Ferris entity including five collection operations, one
recycling facility and
one landfill in three separate markets representing about $46.5 million in
annual revenue.

"Net consideration of approximately $60.7 million, comprised of cash notes
and Allied common
stock was paid in these transactions," the second-quarter report said.

biberman@sddt.com

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 1 Aug 1997 09:58:46 -0400 (EDT)
From: Greg Smith <gsmith@essential.org>
Subject: Time sensitive information on 15 passenger vans

I did not subscribe to greenyes to receive commercial ads. Please screen
these out. Thanks.

Greg Smith

On Wed, 30 Jul 1997 fleet@ascella.net wrote:

> Date: Wed, 30 Jul 1997 07:21:11 -0400 (EDT)
> From: fleet@ascella.net
> To: greenyes@ucsd.edu
> 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: http://www.fleetsolutions.com
> 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.
>
>
>

Greg Smith
Coordinator
Campaign to Stop the ICC
301-721-9335 (until 9:30 pm)
|| Internet: gsmith@essential.org

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 01 Aug 1997 06:35:50 -0600
From: George Dreckmann <GDRECKMANN@ci.madison.wi.us>
Subject: Who are We? -Reply

I want to thank Steve for his thoughts on Greenyes. It strikes at an
important issue for me. You see, I feel thaty of us involved in GRRN
miss an important point which is tha fact that we are light yeaqrs ahead
of the general public when it somes to the idea of zero waste.

I think that before we can push for the concept we have to get the public
ready to accept it. We know it can be done, but the reality of solid waste
disposal in this country (cheap landfills and corporate resistance to
change and accepting responsibility) means that we have a long way to
go before the public will be open to the idea.

Look how long it took before recycling gained the wide public
acceptance it has today and look at the intensity of the backlash.
Recycling is still in its adolescence. We need to nurture it to adulthood
which means fighting off the backlash and supplying more resources to
help recycling grow because recycling is a critical component of a zero
waste reality.

We also need to work with people who are committed to making
concepts such as composting and landspreading of sludge work, not
bash the living hell out of them because they do have problems with their
end products. Those problems aren't due to the
composters/landspreaders, they come from the system inputs which we
must work to detoxify. But, that takes a lot of effort and right now we
are not successful because we do not have enough public support.

The bottom line for me is that I am working towards zero waste for my
kids and possible grandchildren. I do not expect to see zero waste on a
community, state, national scale in my lifetime. Sure it can be done, but
we can't get there until the public is ready and we're a long way from the
hearts and minds of the public and we need to go forward with
incremental education and actions that can be achieved while focusing
on the dream. But if we push the dream alone we won't make it.

Pax,

George Dreckmann

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 1 Aug 1997 08:41:44 -0400
From: Rhonda Sherman <sherman@eos.ncsu.edu>

While attending an environmental education meeting
a couple of days ago, I took a look at a book that
someone had with them. I'm a parent, so I found the
title intriguing: "Facts Not Fear: A Parent's Guide to
Teaching Children About the Environment." The first
author is the Director of the Center for Environmental
Education Research--sounds good, huh? Well, any
parents who don't know much about the environment,
yet feel a little guilty when they toss a can in the
trash, can relax and toss away after reading this book.
According to the book, most recyclables go to the landfill,
and unless you have a pay-as-you-throw system, there's
no incentive to recycle. Furthermore, the ozone layer
is not shrinking, and species extinction is not important
because we don't know exactly how many species are
being lost, much less how many species we had to begin
with. I think you get the gist of what this book is about.
Thought you might want to know it's out there....

Rhonda L. Sherman <sherman@eos.ncsu.edu>
Solid Waste Management Extension Specialist
Biological & Agricultural Engineering Department
North Carolina State University
Box 7625, Raleigh, NC 27695-7625 U.S.A.
Phone (919) 515-6770 Fax (919) 515-6772
http://www.bae.ncsu.edu/people/faculty/sherman
************************************************************************
"Treat the Earth well. It was not given to you by your parents--
it was loaned to you by your children." (Kenyan proverb)
************************************************************************

------------------------------

End of GreenYes Digest V97 #185
******************************