GreenYes Digest V97 #110

GreenYes Mailing List and Newsgroup (
Fri, 22 Jan 1999 17:12:51 -0500

GreenYes Digest Fri, 16 May 97 Volume 97 : Issue 110

Today's Topics:
free breakfast
INFO: GP calls for end to oil drilling in Alaska
Is any market a good market? (2 msgs)
Is any market a good market? -Reply
US Federal Deposit Regulation
Washington State Advanced Thinking

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: Thu, 15 May 1997 22:36:54 -0400 (EDT)
From: (Michele Raymond)
Subject: free breakfast

Dear List Serve members:

I have a press invitation to a German breakfast meeting at the Waste Expo
next week in Atlanta but I can't go -- would anyone be interested in
covering for my newsletter Recycling Laws International?

Reply to
Phone 301/345-4237



Date: Thu, 15 May 1997 15:10:41 -0400 (EDT)

How about adding an explanation such as:

We live in a world with an exponentially increasing population and are
using our resources at an even faster rate. Sooner or later this will come
to an end. Just as nature uses resources in cycles, we humans being must
eventually learn to do the same. American understand this, which is why more
people recycle than vote.
Unfortunately we are not doing enough.
Current 25-50% recycling goals are not really reducing the amount of
garbage being hermetically sealed in landfills in significant ways. The ways
of business and consumerism is not changing in any visible manner. And
current recycling goals are under attack by those who want to do less, not
It is time to agree upon the ultimate goal we need to eventually
achieve: Zero Waste. It is time to begin thinking about how we will survive
on this small planet of ours for the long run.
It is time to begin.
Please come join us and be a part of this process.

The annual CRRA conference in Monterey. June 1-4,1997. Our theme this
year is "Zero Waste: The Challenge for the Next Millenium" We've got a
activists program Sunday culminating with a "hearing" which will be presented
by prominent people from all over the world and attended by the state and
federally elected officials from our part of the state.
We mean to change the world. Come join us.


Date: Fri, 16 May 1997 03:34:11 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: INFO: GP calls for end to oil drilling in Alaska

Press Release


In a letter to the White House, Greenpeace today called on President Bill
Clinton to stop all new oil exploration in Alaska and to push for a
legally binding treaty to drastically reduce the global warming
greenhouse gases caused by the burning of oil, coal and gas. [1]

Using the science of the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC) Greenpeace has calculated a global "carbon budget
formula," [2] that demonstrates the amount of carbon dioxide (CO2)
greenhouse gas that can be emitted to remain within safe limits for human
health and the environment. These limits have been identified by the UN
Environment Programme (UNEP) as:

* a maximum rate of global temperature rise of 0.1 degrees C per decade;
* a maximum rate of average sea-level rise of 20 mm per decade; * a
maximum long term increase of global average temperature of 1 degree C
above pre-industrial levels; * a maximum sea-level rise of 20 cm above
1990 levels.

Noting that fossil fuels - oil, coal and gas - comprise the greatest
source of CO2 emissions, Greenpeace wrote in their letter that "the
inescapable conclusion is that only a fraction of the currently known
reserves of oil, gas and coal can ever be burned if we are to protect the
climate, in other words there needs to be a global phase out of fossil
fuels. And this must begin now with a halt to the search for further
oil, gas and coal reserves."

At current rates of fossil fuel energy use the carbon budget to stay
within safe limits will be exceeded in 40 years. However, if we continue
to increase our use of energy at the current rates (about 2 per cent
annually), the budget will be exceeded in 30 years.

Despite a clear imperative for the phase out of fossil fuels, the
Department of the Interior in the last year has opened up five new oil
lease sales in Alaska, repealed the ban on the export of Alaskan oil and
encouraged the opening of the Alaskan National Petroleum Reserve to oil

"The fact that human induced climate change is happening has now been
established. To simply ignore the obvious and encourage the oil companies
to search for more oil commits us all to a suicide pact," said Kalee
Kreider, Greenpeace Climate Campaigner.

Alaska is not only an area where oil companies are aggressively pursuing
new oil reserves, but scientific models also predict the region will
suffer some of the worst effects of global climate change. According to
these models, by the middle of the next century, the Arctic will heat up
between 4 degrees C (in summer) and 13 degrees C (in winter). Such a
temperature change could lead to a collapse of the entire Arctic

FOR MORE INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul Horsman 202-319-2523, Deborah Rephan
202-319-2492, or Kalee Kreider 202-319-2523.

Notes to Editors:

1. The Third Conference of Parties to the Framework Convention on
Climate Change meets in Kyoto, Japan in December 1997. Greenpeace is
calling for all industrialized countries to commit to a legally binding
CO2 emission reduction target of 20 percent below 1990 levels by 2005.

2. Using the science of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,
Greenpeace has calculated a global carbon budget to demonstrate how much
carbon dioxide can be emitted and to stay within safe limits for human
health and the environment. Reserves of oil, gas and coal and
unconventional sources such as oil shales are 1,053 billion metric tons
of carbon, or GtC. Reserves are rapidly expanding due to oil, coal and
gas exploration so that the resource base could grow to 4,000 GtC. At
current rates of fossil fuel energy use, 6 GtC are emitted into the
atmosphere each year.

In order to meet the UN Environment Programme safe limits, if no action
were taken to stop the current trends of deforestation (as forests store
CO2 and release it when they are destroyed) the budget would be only 145
GtC. If action were taken to halt deforestation and stabilize forests,
the budget would be 225 GtC.

At current rates of fossil fuel energy use, the 225 GtC budget will be
exceeded in 40 years globally. If we continue to increase our use of
energy at the current rate (2 per cent annually) then the budget will
be exceeded in 30 years.

Kalee Kreider
Acting Climate Campaign Director
Greenpeace USA
1436 U Street, NW
Washington, DC 20009
work +1 202 319 2523 fax +1 202 462 4507
home +1 202 546 7818


Date: Thu, 15 May 1997 14:16:56 -0700
From: Mehrdad Azemun <>
Subject: Is any market a good market?

I've got a market development question for you, and I'm curious to see
everyone's response. I imagine that most of you are familiar with
Chicago's Blue Bag recycling program--the nation's largest mixed waste
processing program, which employs "Dirty MRF's" to pull recyclables both
from Blue Bags and the raw trash stream itself. Our nonprofit, the
Chicago Recycling Coalition, has been the program's most ardent critic.

We had a discussion on Chicago public radio the other day about the blue
bag program, with myself, City Hall's recycling coordinator, a WMX
spokesperson, and Lynn Scarlett of the Reason Foundation. While I
blasted away at the low quality of the recyclables that mixed waste
processing pumps out, Scarlett disagreed mildly by stating that any
market is a good market--as long as this stuff is staying out of
landfills, then everything's OK. In other words, as long as WMX can
find buyers of tons of broken glass and contaminated mixed paper, why
should we worry? [And by the way, neither WMX or City Hall have
provided us with any specific markets information.]

What do you think? And in addition, how do we present this technical
and complicated issue to Chicago's general public? Thanks--Mehrdad
Azemun, Chicago Recycling Coalition

Chicago Recycling Coalition
2125 West North Avenue
Chicago, Illinois 60647
tel 773.862.2370
fax 773.278.3840


Date: Fri, 16 May 1997 07:54:35 +0200 From: Subject: Is any market a good market?

Mehrdad writes:

> Scarlett disagreed mildly by stating that any >market is a good market--as long as this stuff is staying out of >landfills, then everything's OK. In other words, as long as WMX can >find buyers of tons of broken glass and contaminated mixed paper, why >should we worry? [And by the way, neither WMX or City Hall have >provided us with any specific markets information.]

No, any market is not a good market - we must never lose sight of the fact that the best markets are the ones that impact least on the environment - mixed waste, if used incorrectly simply transfers the problem elsewhere, and does not solve it.

How about applying that approachand say, as long as we can use radium or plutonium to make bricks, then we must be able to build houses with them - NOT!

Mr. Muna Lakhani CATALYST

Cellphone:082-416-9160 Cellfax: 082-131-416-9160 e-mail: 28 Currie Road - Durban - 4001 - South Africa Phone: +27-31-20-28-291


Date: Thu, 15 May 1997 18:28:27 -0500 From: Pete Pasterz <Pete.Pasterz@USDWP.MSU.EDU> Subject: Is any market a good market? -Reply

NO. At least not in my book. The best markets are those that:

1)Are Local--to reduce transportation (fossil fuel burning); to create local jobs at many skill levels;

2)Make an end product that is the equivalent or HIGHER use. Taking good sorted white ledger and making toilet paper of it is a WASTE. These fibers have many lives as feedstock for making more white ledger, keeping them from the landfill for a longer period, and slowing the rate of tree usage (farms or forests). Selling glass as fill or some other low end use does not take advantage of the energy savings potential of this cullet as would using it as feed stock in a glass furnace.

3)Bring the highest ecomomic return--its surprising that Lynn Scarlett responded in this way, since she has been one of recycling's biggest critics for not being cost effective--and for being done just for recycling's sake. A major factor in cost-effectiveness is maximizing the return on the value of the materials collected. Sure, it may be less labor-intensive to run a dirty MRF than to operate a clean one and support its fleet of seperate collection (?) but you give up the ability to get the best market price. And, if many programs operated this way, manufacturers of finished products would not be able to rely on a clean supply of raw materials in volumes they need to make a quality product, and will withdraw their commitment to using recycled content.

You present this to the public in simple terms: It's a waste of the resources, and the energy that went into processing them the first time. If recycling is being done to benefit the environment, we need to be sure that the way we process these materials support this goal. Every material that's "downcycled", made into a less quality/value product, also WASTES the energy and chemicals that went into the manufacture of the original product, and doesn't allow you to reduce/prevent this pollution in making the same product. This then results in what Scarlett decries, recycling for recycling's sake.


Date: Thu, 15 May 1997 20:32:53 +0900 From: (Hop) Subject: US Federal Deposit Regulation

>Date: Mon, 12 May 97 22:43:25 PST >From: >Subject: A small success > >Greenyessers: > >Some time ago, I posted a message pertaining to EPA's intention to retire a= n >old regulation, never enforced, that required federal facilities to place a >deposit on beverage containers. The notice said the rule would retire if >there was no adverse comments. Well, I guess there WAS adverse comment, >because on May 2, they announced that they would NOT retire that part of th= e >rule pertaining to the BB. They go on to present the conditions of the >systems to be used. Now mind, there are a number of loopholes so it may n= ot >work in all cases, but we actually got them to respond to our wishes! Than= k >you to all who wrote. > Just think, every military base, federal building, and National Park t= o >name a few, is supposed to institute a Bottle Bill. Before they figure out >which loophole to go for, suppose we each wrote a nearby facility manager, = and >asked how and when they will be implementing the new (retreaded) rule? At >least if they are inclined to, they can justify the action. > You can find it in the EPA website - it was 5/2/97, 40 CFR Part 244 on >pages 24051-24054. I can send if you wish, I thought it was too long to >broadcast. Sorry, I left the address in the office. > >Roger Diedrich


I was interested in this as a model regulation worth copying in Australia. I followed your directions and downloaded the file and found it most interesting. Has there been much interest in your suggestion of pushing to have this regulation put to practical use?

=46or anyone who didn't or couldn't follow the lead to check out this 're-newed' regulation I've provided a few interesting sections from it below:

Section 211 of the Act and Executive Order 11752 make the ''Requirements'' section of the guidelines mandatory upon Federal agencies. They are recommended for adoption by State and local governments and private agencies. (c) Intent and Objectives. (1) These Guidelines for Beverage Containers are intended to achieve a reduction in beverage container solid waste and litter, resulting in savings in waste collection and disposal costs to the Federal Government. They are also intended to achieve the conservation and more efficient use of energy and material re-sources through the development of effective bev-erage distribution and container collection systems. (2) The guidelines are intended to achieve these goals by making all beverage containers returnable and encouraging reuse of recycling of the returned containers. To accomplish the return of beverage containers, a deposit of at least five cents on each returnable beverage container is to be paid upon purchase by the consumer and refunded to the consumer when the empty container is returned to the dealer. This refund value provides a positive incentive for consumers to return the empty con-tainers. Once containers are returned, nonrefillable containers can be recycled and refillable bottles can be reused.

(a) All beverages in beverage containers sold or offered for sale shall be sold in returnable bev-erage containers. On-premise sales are specifically excluded from this requirement provided that empty beverage containers are returned to the dis-tributor for refilling, or are recycled, either by the dealer or by the distributor when markets for recy-clable materials are available. (b) The deposit shall be at least five (5) cents unless the local area has an established return sys-tem in operation with a lower minimum deposit level. In these specific areas, Federal facilities may adopt a minimum deposit equal to the local de-posit level. (c) A dealer shall accept from a consumer any empty beverage containers of the kind, size and brand sold by the dealer, and pay the consumer the refund value of the beverage container, pro-vided the container is refillable or is labelled in accordance with =A7 244.202(a). (d) The refund shall be provided at the place of sale whenever possible or as close to that place as practicable, and in any event, on the premises of the particular federal facility involved. Refund lo-cations shall be conspicuously labelled as refund centers. If they are not in the immediate vicinity of the place of sale, notice of their location shall be prominently posted at that place of sale. (e) A dealer shall not procure beverages in bev-erage containers from distributors who refuse to: Accept from the dealer any returnable beverage containers of the kind, size and brand sold by the distributor; pay to the dealer the refund value of the beverage containers; and reuse the returned containers or recycle them where markets for recy-clable materials are available. (f) Returned refillable beverage containers shall be returned to the distributor for refilling. Nonrefillable beverage containers shall be returned to the appropriate distributor or recycled, where markets for recyclable materials are available.

Complete version (a few thousand words) can be found at: or obtained via e-mail from myself or Roger Diedrich at:


Date: Fri, 16 May 1997 05:22:59 -0400 (EDT) From: Subject: Washington State Advanced Thinking

I just got back from the Washington State Recycling Assn. conference, where I was impressed to learn that the state Department of Ecology is considering changing its permitting system for handling and managing solid waste to one that presumes recycling to be the predominant management technique, rather than disposal. They propose defining "waste" as only materials that present an environmental risk. This could make the system more rational and less burdensome for many recyclable materials and the businesses that depend on them.

The Legislature has charged Ecology,in conjunction with a Solid Waste Advisory Committee, to review the current system and propose specific legislative and regulatory changes by December 15, 1997.

At this point, they are talking to as many people and businesses in Washington as possible to find out what people think about that approach, and are planning a draft report for public review by the end of August.

The contact at DOE is Jim Pendowski, Program Manager,

Susan Kinsella


End of GreenYes Digest V97 #110 ******************************