GreenYes Digest V97 #123

GreenYes Mailing List and Newsgroup (
Fri, 22 Jan 1999 17:12:11 -0500

GreenYes Digest Thu, 29 May 97 Volume 97 : Issue 123

Today's Topics:
Case studies - recovery of construction debris for land-based ap
Future 500 Update
FW: response to stealth attack on recycling
GreenYes Digest V97 #120
Help with recycling Statistics (2 msgs)
PET Recycling Down Almost 20 Percent
Recycling Attack
Recycling Labels/etc. "pedestrian request"
Request for C&D data
Request for C &D Data!
Sustainable St. Louis Monthly Newsletter, June 1997
zero cut meets zero waste!

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, 28 May 1997 08:53:52 -0600
From: "John Reindl 608-267-8815" <>
Subject: Case studies - recovery of construction debris for land-based ap

Dear List Members -

I recently got a request for information on case studies of recovering
construction debris for land-based applications (such as composting,
use as a soil amendment, etc) from a researcher at the US Department of
Agriculture who is writing a chapter in a book on this topic.

The researcher is Ron Korcak, who works for USDA at the Plant Sciences
Institute in Beltsville, MD and who has recently published some
research he has done on the use of gypsum drywall as a soil amendment.
The book is to be published by the Soil Science Society of America, and
is entitled "Examples and Case Studies of Beneficial Reuse of Aggregate
Fines and Other Construction-Related By-Products".

If you can provide Mr. Korcak with any information, could you please
contact him directly, either by email at, or
by phone at (301)504-6591, fax at (301)504-5521.

Thank you very much; I apologize for cross-posting.

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


Date: Wed, 28 May 1997 23:14:16 -0700
Subject: Future 500 Update

(If you would like to be removed from this list,
please reply to this email with "Remove" in the subject
line. Sorry for the inevitable cross-postings )

Dear friends:

I want to brief you on the recent Future 500 Business &
Ecology workshops and roundtables, and give you a heads-
up on opportunities coming up, including several that grew
out of the workshops:

Industrial Ecology II and Ecotech

Free to sign up

New reports on Industrial Ecology

Future 500 members -- including yourselves.
On-line directory in June.

And read

5. Custom Workshops Available
6. Tachi Kiuchi to Keynote Gemi and World Future
7. A Post Script -- Surprises
8. The Bottom Line -- David Sutton's Words ...


Industrial Ecology III
Ecotech III
Women, Diversity, and the Future of Business

News: On April 25-27, we held an all-day workshop,
dinner, and retreat, to delve deeply into Industrial Ecology,
The Natural Step, ISO 14000, and practical applications
for our businesses and organizations. Another wonderfully
diverse of more than 40 people joined us.

All of you who couldn't attend, heed the words of
David Sutton at the close of the weekend: "Before we
came, probably every one of us wondered, 'Do I have time
for this?' Now there's not one of us who doesn't know it
was worth the time. The next time, there shouldn't be a
second thought: 'Yes, I'm coming.'"

The combined impact was really quite extraordinary, a
success on many levels -- intellectual, practical, inspiring,
motivating, and relationship-building. Lots of spontaneous
follow-through. Extremely gratifying to me -- makes all the
advance work, risk, and cost worthwhile. My thanks to ...
well, every single participant. It really was a group success.

The event lives on ... Here are some of the follow-up
actions. Please join in where you can:

Workshop, Dinner and Retreat
April 24-26, 1998 San Francisco (Marin Headlands)

Put this in your calendar now, or email/call to reserve
a spot: A one-day Industrial Ecology workshop on April 24,
dinner that evening, and a weekend retreat with a series of
roundtable discussions. The ideas are incubating now, so
please send your comments and suggestions. At minimum,
we will bring together:

Corporate Executives -- to tell stories of how they
do or plan to implement systems of IE

Hands-on Experts

Political and regulatory strategists

Investors -- venture capitalists and foundations
to give a reality check

Sponsored by Global Futures
the Future 500

There's still time to register for ECOTECH III. Among
the many featured discussions: David Hurst's breakthrough
presentation on Industrial Ecology, which got wonderful
reviews at the weekend retreat. Join us in Monterey,
September 18-21. Conference is $695 ($595 before July
15). Includes free membership in Future 500. CEO Dinner
hosted by Tachi Kiuchi on September 18 is $75. Email us to

November 8-9, 1997, Los Angeles

A roundtable exploring how diversity can be a source of
business innovation and profit. We will hear how leading
businesses are moving beyond the adversarial approaches
of the past, and applying new ideas that make businesses
intrinsically attractive to the diverse range of people
and ideas they need for maximum creativity and profit.

Email us ( or call Cathy (1-800-796-8052)
to reserve your spot at any of our events.


Free to sign up


Subscribe to our new on-line discussion group, to take
up where the retreat and roundtables left off. An interactive
discussion of tools and experiences Future 500 members in
applying systems principles like those of Industrial Ecology.
(While this is being setup you can subscribe to
by typing in the body Subscribe and your name.)


New reports on Industrial Ecology


We are finalizing arrangements with Christopher Plant
at New Society Press, who attended the retreat, to publish at
least one book on Industrial Ecology, and probably a second
on sustainable forest practices. The Industrial Ecology draft
is due October 31, so please submit your ideas and
contributions to me. It'll be How I Spend My Summer


Industrial Ecology & Natural Capitalism
Review edition $10

Model Statewide Beverage Container Laws
Report to California on options

Measurement Tools for Source Reduction
Still in draft form, preparing for Alameda County

And ... we're assembling our Industrial Ecology reports
into a library -- see the web site soon



Tachi Kiuchi will be inviting new members of Future
500 in a few weeks. We are focusing on six categories of
folks poised to be models for success in applying Industrial

Companies -- old and new, big and small, but all
interested in systems like Industrial Ecology

NGOs -- who share the Future 500 mission
(to unify economic, environmental, social needs)

Change Agents -- internal and external: CEOs,
strategic staff, consultants, etc.

Political Change Agents -- politicians, lobbyists,
advocates, actionists

Investors -- venture capitalists, foundations and
staff, individuals

Cosponsors -- NGOs, agencies, and companies
that want to cosponsor future events with us

Please send your nominations -- including yourselves.
(All paid attendees of our workshops and roundtables join
free for a limited time, so let us know now.)



Industrial Ecology
The Natural Step
Strategic Sustainability and Corporate Resilience
Crisis & Renewal



Our chairman will take an all-night flight --his pattern--
to keynote the Global Environmental Management
Initiative in Washington DC on June 2, and the World Future
Society conference in San Francisco on July 19.



It always surprises (and doesn't surprise) me to witness
the follow-through projects and ventures that flow from our
events. The above projects are just a few. Others: The
Bush Council -- a bay area network inspired by David Hurst's
Industrial Ecology presentation -- met for the first time on
April 20.

But here's my favorite coincidence at the retreat:
a bay area practitioner who wanted to start an alternative
health center in the Caribbean, hooked up with another
attendee, a medical doctor who owns a Caribbean island and
wants someone to start an alternative health center there.
Well, I suppose you'd find people like that in any random
group of 24 people.



All of you who couldn't attend, heed the words of
David Sutton at the close of the weekend, in #1 above.

See you next time,

Global Futures Foundation
801 Crocker Road
Sacramento, CA 95864
(916) 486-5999 voice (916) 486-5990 fax


Date: Wed, 28 May 1997 17:06:27 -0500
From: RecycleWorlds <>
Subject: FW: response to stealth attack on recycling

On 5/27/97 Bill McGowan supported the arguments made by Frank Ackerman =
in his book "Why Do We Recycle?" by labeling all of those who disagree =
with Mr. Ackerman's contentions as true believers ("Ackerman is equally =
correct in saying that those [true believers] who support municipal =
recycling programs are unable to identify just how these programs =
benefit society") without any facts to support their disagreement.

Quite frankly, I resent this. By saying this, Bill is ironically =
descending to the exact same ad hominem attacks that he purports to =
object to.

In a series of list serve messages beginning on February 26th, I and =
others enumerated the fatal factual errors in Frank's book that =
completely undermined his conclusions. If Bill wants to concur with the =
book, he will need to respond to those factual points, not simple =
brandish anyone and everyone who factually supports recycling's =
economics as uninformed, no-nothings. He can also read an upcoming =
article in BioCycle that we will have responding to Frank's May piece in =
that magazine in more detail.

As to his further belief that concerted public action through government =
regulations are ipso facto bad, based upon my experience, I do not =
believe that there are very many pragmatic people in the industry who =
believe for one moment that the success of recycling in the first half =
of the 1990's would have occurred had it not been for mandates, and, =
even more telling, the threat of mandates, that led the material markets =
to cooperate with recyclers in developing an infrastructure. Absent that =
extra-free market pressure, the only recycling would be in valuable =
metals and high volume high grade paper until such time as tipping fees =
double or triple. Does that mean that recycling needs subsidies? No it =
does not. It does mean that our so-called free market fails to measure =
many critical things that people value. For example, our free market =
permits landfills to be built in a manner that will degrade and =
contaminate drinking water supplies to an extent almost no one would =
accept, only in the future when the liners degrade instead of today. =
Remedying those design flaws that our failed market place permits would =
probably increase tipping fees towards $100 ton, at which point =
recycling would take off on its own. Politics, not science, though, =
keeps the disposal costs artificially low, and recycling expansion can =
somewhat offset that market failure.

This is not the first time that Bill has lashed out on recycling issues =
without any facts calling those with whom he objects as little short of =
communists -- I'm thinking, for example, of his comments in response to =
John Reindl's concerns about PVC. As Meg says, civility wouldn't hurt =
from both sides.

Though I don't know if I'm that concerned about civility as I am with =
absence of any imperative to support one's conclusions with facts that =
can be debated on their merits. When I refuted with facts Bill's =
blowing his stack on the PVC issue, he never even responded on the =
merits. I would hope that he would change his tactics. If he wants to =
convince committed recyclers that they are wrong, he ought to bring =
facts to the table that we can evaluate. For myself, I'd be glad to =
listen to some facts, but will not be impressed by any more of =
unsupported fulminations.

Peter Anderson


Date: Wed, 28 May 1997 10:05:51 -0600 (MDT)
From: Eco-Cycle <>
Subject: GreenYes Digest V97 #120

Hi Peter!
You say that recyclers should "be at the packaging table" when the
decisions (such as PEN) are made.

You know that there is no table to sit at! Our job as recycling
is to create the "table" and then force, yes, "force" the corporations
that make packaging decisions to come to the table.

I served on the NRC Board for four years, and believed that they were the
"table". But I was wrong. They are a coalition of interested parties,
not a coalition of recycling advocates. Big difference.

So, where's the table to sit at? I think a strong federal EPA should be
the place to bring corporations and social/enviro advocates together ...
but with the way Washington works (badly), I think we need to focus on
creating a different "table".

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.

Eric Lombardi, EcoCycle.

On Mon, 26 May 1997, RecycleWorlds wrote:

> With reference to Hop's 5/26 comment:
> "I attended my first professional baseball game yesterday, in Tokyo. Icy
cold beer was served 'straight from the tap' into large paper cups as
vendors (both male and female) threaded their way through the crowd with
small kegs (about 15 litres each) strapped to their backs. As well as these
draught beer sellers, others were serving beer from 'long-neck' (630
millilitre) refillable bottles. There
was remarkably little waste remaining after the game as the 50,000+ crowd
left the stadium."
> The lastest word out of Great Britain is that there are plans to make the
first breakthrough with PEN for beer at soccer games because plastic won't
inflict physical damage when thrown bottles hit players. PEN, while
individually valuable as a segregated resin, holds the potential to
significantly increase processing costs of plastic to insure its separation.
Like PVC, this will mean a substan
tial investment in detection equipment for a very small quantity of
material, making its net impact disproportionately expensive. With plastics
recycling already marginal at best, how much more can we afford to absorb?
> I think the recycling industry needs to demand a seat at the packaging
table where these decisions are made, and not continue to meekly accept the
cost responsibility for whatever decision packagers chose to make. By this I
do not mean that recycling considerations are the only ones, but they are
one of the ones that need to be balanced against each other -- or rather
ought to be -- but will not
be unless we speak up, and speak up loudly.
> What do others think?
> Peter Anderson


Date: Wed, 28 May 1997 16:24:54 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Help with recycling Statistics

Dear Friends of Recycling,

I'm hoping for some help in collecting some statistical information for
the pro-recycling argument. I think that we who support recycling accept as
fact that it takes less energy to make a new aluminum can by recycling one
rather than to make a new can by mining raw bauxite, processing it, refining
it etc and finally making aluminum and then a can.

Thus I think we agree that on a per can basis by recycling we use less
energy and thus release less potentially dangerous emissions into the

What I'm looking for is an actual statistical comparison of recycling a
can vs. making one from raw material. Does anyone know of a documented study
that actually gives facts and figures to exactly how much energy we save
step-by-step by recycling the can and thus which specific emissions are
lessened and by how much ? (And what the dangerous effects of these emissions
might be ?)

Any help finding a sientifically accepted documented source with
statistics would be greatly appreciated. You can E-Mail them to me at
EcoDave908. (Dave Street)
Thank you.

Yours Truly,

Dave Street
The Habits That Save Habitats


Date: Wed, 28 May 1997 17:47:56 -0400 (EDT)
From: Frank Ackerman <>
Subject: Help with recycling Statistics

There are at least two different sets of statistics on energy used in
making virgin vs. recycled cans, and other common municipal waste items --
and a recent EPA report that synthesizes the two sets of data.

One set of numbers, which I played a part in creating, are in the Tellus
Institute Packaging Study, comparing the environmental impacts of
producing all major packaging materials (e-mail or for information on obtaining the study). Another set
have been produced by Franklin Associates, in numerous industry-sponsored
studies of particular material lifecycles.

There are numerous differences between the two sets of data; a principal
one is that in the Tellus study, we insisted on using comparable
public-domain (often EPA) data for all materials; it reflects the best
available public-domain data as of 1990-91, with some updates that becane
available to us over the next few years. The Franklin Associates data
relies on proprietary databases provided to them by the industries
concerned, and are often quite different. (Conspiracy theorists among us
may be interested to note that the Franklin data present the plastics
industry in a much more favorable light than the Tellus data, and the
Franklin methodology assumes much more reliance on individual
communication with private sector data sources, rather than the Tellus
strategy of reliance on public-domain databases.)

The EPA report that incorporates and discusses both sets of numbers is
"Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Municipal Waste Management: Draft Working
Paper", document EPA530-R-97-010, assembled by consultants from ICF and
released by the EPA Office of Solid Waste in March of this year. It is
only a draft, and subject to revision before the final form is released.

The purpose of the report, as the title suggests, is to identify
greenhouse gas emissions associated with waste management; estimation of
process energy requirements in manufacturing is a necessary step toward
that goal, though not the principal purpose of the report. The portions
of the report dealing with manufacturing seemed to me like a reasonable
synthesis of available information.

The report's discussion of methane generation and carbon sequestration in
landfills, on the other hand, goes far out on a limb based on a single
researcher's laboratory data. I found the results in that section
puzzling and counterintuitive, although it's not my specialty; I would
urge those who know more about landfills to review that section carefully
and comment to EPA as appropriate.


Date: Wed, 28 May 97 23:13:30 PST
Subject: PET Recycling Down Almost 20 Percent

The PET industry just released its PET recycling data for 1996. The recovery
rate went down from 32% to 26%. The absolute number of pounds recycled fell as
well by 8%. Some comments overheard:

"There has never been a fall-off like this in the recent history of recycling.
While the PET industry had previously recognized its producer responsibility to
help recycling, these graphic figures show an abrupt about face."

"The PET plastic industry has dramatically cut back its commitment to recycling
by failing to buy back the PET that the American people are carefully separating
from their trash to reuse in new bottles."

"The PET industry has double crossed the American people and abandoned its
promises to support markets. It may be time to revisit the issue of mandates to
insure the cooperation that they once promised but have now forgotten."


Date: Wed, 28 May 1997 21:56:05 +0200
Subject: Recycling Attack

>In a message dated 97-05-25 08:30:23 EDT, writes:
><< Unite against plastic pollution! >>
>In Afganistan, I'm sure I read it somewhere, the new rulers have banned paper
>bags for stores because the paper invloved may be a recycled Koran, all
>venders are required to use plastic bags, violation of this law is a serious
>What is this all about?

Last week's local newspaper (Saturday Paper, Durban, South Africa) quoted an
Afghani policeman, threatening severe punishment for anybody using recycled
paper, not just paper bags, on the grounds that it may contain material that
originated from the Koran - the belief is that it would be disrespectful, if
not anti-Islam, to use the Koran for any other purpose than as the holy book.

What I would like to suggest, is that Afghani's and others who are
concerned, should make provision for seperating the Koran from other paper,
and disposing of it in a respectful manner, and not simply call a halt to
the recycling of paper - after all, how often do people throw Koran's away?
Mr. Muna Lakhani

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


Date: Wed, 28 May 1997 11:49:56 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Recycling Labels/etc. "pedestrian request"

In a message dated 97-05-23 11:55:23 EDT, you write:

<< Does anyone out there have a
catalogue or 1-800 # for a supplier of recycling decals, stickers, signs
and emblems. I am helping a huge, new multi-use facility put together
their recycling program and they are looking for signage that will a) go in
each tenant's space, b) go by each recycling compactor and public storage
area, and c) go in public spaces to inform customers about management
efforts. >>

Weisenbach Specialty Printing Co.

Has lots of decals & labels plus ability to customize; they also have a full
line of recycled "premium" items which can be used as pubilc
awareness/reminders, ect. They have exhibited at the National Recycling


Date: Wed, 28 May 1997 12:37:54 -0500 (CDT)
From: eddy <>
Subject: Request for C&D data

> Dear Listmembers,
> I am doing the research at the University of Wisconsin-Madison's
> constructing management dept.
> This research is to predict the "Annual tonnage of Construction
> and Demoliton Waste". In order to develop the predicting model to forecast
> the tonnage, we need a great number of data sets to put into the model.
> The only problem of our research right now is we have not got enough
> number of "Annual Tonnage of C&D waste".
> If anyone knows or has the access to such data in your area, pls kindly
> provide us at the address below. In providing the data,pls also tell
> us what area the data are collected from, so we could match them with
> the right predicting demographic variables. Also these data do not need
> to be from the US only, they could be from anywhere the world
> Should there be any question, pls let me know any time either by phone or
> email appearing below.
> Thank you very much for your invaluable help.
> Eddy
> *********************************************************************
> Akapop Nimmannit (Eddy)
> M.S Construction Engineering and management
> TEL. : 608-278-1925
> *********************************************************************



TEL. : 608-278-1925



Date: Wed, 28 May 1997 12:30:26 -0500 (CDT)
From: eddy <>
Subject: Request for C &D Data!

Dear Listmembers,
I am doing the research at the University of Wisconsin-Madison's
constructing management dept.

This research is to predict the "Annual tonnage of Construction
and Demoliton Waste". In order to develop the predicting model to forecast
the tonnage, we need a great number of data sets to put into the model.

The only problem of our research right now is we have not got enough
number of "Annual Tonnage of C&D waste".

If anyone knows or has the access to such data in your area, pls kindly
provide us at the address below. In providing the data,pls also tell
us what area the data are collected from, so we could match them with
the right predicting demographic variables. Also these data do not need
to be from the US only, they could be from anywhere the world

Should there be any question, pls let me know any time either by phone or
email appearing below.

Thank you very much for your invaluable help.


Akapop Nimmannit (Eddy)
M.S Construction Engineering and management

TEL. : 608-278-1925



Date: Wed, 28 May 1997 12:13:44 -0500
From: (Heidi Hellemeyer)
Subject: Sustainable St. Louis Monthly Newsletter, June 1997

>Received: from UMSLVMA by UMSLVMA (Mailer R2.10 ptf000) with BSMTP id 7484;
> Tue, 27 May 97 15:21:11 CDT
>Received: from by UMSLVMA.UMSL.EDU (IBM VM SMTP V2R2)
> with TCP; Tue, 27 May 97 15:21:08 CDT
>Received: (from root@localhost)
> by (8.7.6/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0)
> id QAA25512;
> Tue, 27 May 1997 16:16:45 -0400 (EDT)
>Date: Tue, 27 May 1997 16:16:45 -0400 (EDT)
>Message-ID: <>
>Subject: Sustainable St. Louis Monthly Newsletter, June 1997
>Sustainable St. Louis Monthly Newsletter, E-Mail Version
>News, Meetings, etc.; 314/773-1940; June 1997
>Sustainable St. Louis is a member organization of the Missouri Environmental
>Summary of contents, in the order that they appear: June 10 Council Meeting;
>Calendar of Events; Census 2000 and Sustainability Indicators; 1997 St. Louis
>Earth Day Festival A Success; Another Web Site of Interest; Contact Info
>Sustainable St. Louis Council Meeting
>Tuesday, June 10, 1997, 7-9 p.m.
>Please Note Location!
>J.C. Penney Building, Room 229
>University of Missouri - St. Louis
>Our Council Meetings normally consist of a special presentation on some
>aspect of sustainability (7-8 p.m.) followed by a SSL business meeting.
> However, there will be no business meeting on June 10.
>Please help us spread the word by posting this message in your workplace and
>with other organizations you belong to! Call 773-1940 for directions.
>7:00-8:00 p.m.: A special program on
>Common Fields: An Environmental History of St. Louis
>Andrew Hurley, University of Missouri - St. Louis
>Common Fields: An Environmental History of St. Louis, a new book edited by
>Andrew Hurley, illustrates the continuing tension between urban growth and
>environmental sustainability from the Cahokia Mounds civilization through the
>present. In his talk, Andrew will tell us what he has learned about St.
>Louis' environmental history from his own research and that of the other
>essayists featured in the book.
>Upcoming SSL meetings and related events (call or e-mail to add an item).
>**June 9 -- Metropolitan Congregations United for St. Louis Meeting, Regional
>Summit #2. Mon., 6:30 - 9 p.m., Incarnate Word Academy, 2788 Normandy Drive,
>St. Louis. Talk topic: "The Plague of Urban Sprawl." National expert David
>Rusk will be present. Create a coalition with other organizations,
>institutions, and elected officials to fight urban sprawl. For more info,
>call Neville Rapp, 314/726-5535.**
>June 10 -- SSL Council Meeting. Tues., Univ. of Missouri - St. Louis, 7 - 9
>p.m. See above.
>June 16-29 -- "Looking Beyond Pollution: Examining Sustainable Models." Mon.
>through Sun., 9 a.m. - 3 p.m., Washington Univ. with field trips to the
>Ozarks. A summer course designed for 7th-12th grade teachers. Information:
>July 10-13 -- Mississippi River Conference. Thurs. through Sun., University
>of Missouri - St. Louis. Field trips, citizen skill-building sessions,
>plenary sessions and workshops featuring representatives from grassroots
>organizations, agencies, and state and national citizen organizations. For
>more info, call Mississippi River Basin Alliance at 314/822-4114.
>Oct. 10 -- Missouri Coalition for the Environment 28th Anniversary Dinner.
> Fri., Missouri Botanical Garden. Info: 314/727-0600.
>Oct. 14 -- SSL Council Meeting. Tues., 7 -9 p.m., location TBA. Special
>topic: initial list of sustainability indicators for St. Louis.
>Oct. 24-26 -- Conference on Environmental Education: "Hands on the
>Environment." Fri. through Sun., Tan-Tar-A Resort, Osage Beach.
> Registration fee $125 (due by Oct. 1); $150 for on-site reservation. Info:
>fax 573/526-4496, e-mail
>Census 2000 and Sustainability Indicators
>**Kate Besleme of Redefining Progress wrote the following story concerning
>the U.S. Census to occur in 2000. This information affects SSL's efforts to
>develop sustainability indicators for the St. Louis region. Kate may be
>reached at Redefining Progress, One Kearny St. 4th floor, San Francisco, CA,
>94108 (phone 415/781-1191) or by e-mail at**
>An effort is currently under way in Congress that could significantly affect
>the quality of Census 2000. Because data are the core of indicator projects,
>it is important to understand what is happening in Congress.
>Congressional leaders have proposed dropping the long form of the Census
>altogether and just counting the total number of people in the U.S. Such a
>proposal would have a significant effect not only on numerous federal
>agencies that use Census data as the basis for their own estimates, but also
>on local agencies and local users such as community indicator projects that
>depend on data that come directly from the Census.
>Two questions being debated by Congress are: (1) Can the Census Bureau more
>accurately conduct Census 2000 using sampling techniques, and (2) What
>information should be collected?
>The Census Bureau estimates that it missed 1.8% of the population in the 1990
>Census. Minorities, in particular, were undercounted. The most costly
>aspect of the census is repeated contact with nonrespondents. If the Bureau
>were allowed to use sampling techniques after 70-80% of the population had
>been counted directly, the cost would fall from around $4.5 billion to around
>$3.5 billion. The Bureau has proposed to count directly 90% of the
>population and then use sampling for the remainder. However, Republican
>leaders in Congress claim voters would be disenfranchised as a result of such
>"statistical guessing." Most Republicans oppose both sampling and full
>funding for the census.
>The decisions made about Census 2000 will impact the Census Bureau's new
>data-collection method called Continuous Measurement (CM). Census is
>attempting to use the technology and capacity of the federal government to
>provide data that is timely, accurate, and comparable. The main component of
>the CM system is the American Community Survey (ACS). ACS would collect and
>report the same content as the census long form but would do so more
>frequently. By collecting data every month from a rolling sample of several
>hundred thousand households, ACS would provide more accurate and detailed
>population counts for states, counties, metropolitan areas, and census tracts
>every year.
>Census defines communities as "geographic areas" (including counties, groups
>of counties, small cities and towns, census tracts, block groups, etc.) and
>"demographic communities" such as racial or ethnic groups, elderly, and
>children. The Center for the Study of Social Policy writes that "ACS could
>provide detailed annual poverty rates for states as small as Rhode Island and
>North Dakota; cities the size of Birmingham, Alabama; and groupings of small
>rural counties. Current data-collection efforts cannot provide sufficiently
>reliable poverty rates (particularly rates broken down by age, race, sex, and
>other characteristics) for subnational areas."
>Existing cuts could be only the beginning. Not only might Congress cut more
>of the kinds of questions used by local agencies in pinpointing the location
>of households with specific characteristics, it might also prevent the Census
>Bureau from using sampling techniques which would strive to account for
>traditionally undercounted populations in cities and rural areas. People who
>have a stake in good statistics at the local level need to let their
>representatives know it is important to preserve the information system that
>the federal government has built up over decades.
>You can learn more about Census 2000 from the Census website:
> Press releases regarding Census 2000 can be
>accessed at:
>1997 St. Louis Earth Day Festival A Success!!
>On May 17 and 18, SSL had the opportunity to reach a very large audience
>during the St. Louis Earth Day Community Festival. In the tree-filled
>setting of Tower Grove Park, thousands of people wandered through over 120
>exhibits dedicated to healing the human and natural environments. The SSL
>exhibit featured interactive displays on five potential sustainability
>indicators for the St. Louis region. These displays, designed and built by
>Washington University students, fascinated children and grown-ups alike. The
>SSL volunteers staffing the booths had many opportunities for conversations
>with the people who were drawn by the displays. Everyone we talked to
>demonstrated thoughtfulness and concern about the issues the displays raised.
> We passed out literature on SSL and took the names and addresses of over
>fifty people who will receive three month temporary memberships in SSL, and
>we received one full year membership. Many thanks to the students who
>designed the displays and to the SSL members who staffed the booth; because
>of your efforts, the concept of sustainability has been brought to the
>attention of many more people in the St. Louis area!
>The Spiders Have Been Busy... or, Yet More Web Sites Recently Spotted
>We have learned of another Web site of interest to sustainability advocates.
>This is the Sustainable Community Indicators Web site, and it is a must-visit
>site for anyone with an interest in community indicators of sustainability.
> It is based on the "Guide to Sustainable Community Indicators" and has
>information on what indicators are, why they are useful, what makes for a
>good indicator, and what indicators people are actually using. It includes a
>searchable database of over 500 indicators currently being used by
>communities in North America and Europe. Each indicator has been tagged with
>a consistent set of keywords, which allows searches for all indicators on a
>specific topic, such as children. Searches can also be performed on the text
>included with each indicator, using any terms the searcher desires.
>For more info on SSL programs:
>Organizational Taskforce: Dan Lehocky, 595-3500 x6041
>Website: Dana Barhard, 542-3767
>Measure of St. Louis: George Calys, 692-0017
>Household EcoTeams: Claire Schosser, 773-1940 or 382-5133
>Outreach: Mary Grace Lewandowski, 421-4220


Date: Wed, 28 May 1997 14:21:47 GMT
From: (Pliny Fisk)
Subject: Water

The most immediate source I can think of is National Geographic NOV 93 BUT IT IS
MAINLY ON U.S. - HOPEFULY SOME DATA WORLD WIDE - but look at reference page - I
belive the last page

           modem:  512.462.0633


Date: Wed, 28 May 1997 11:10:18 -0600 (MDT) From: Eco-Cycle <> Subject: zero cut meets zero waste!

Hi David,

The process of defining "ZeroWaste" in such a way that millions of Americans will support it is "in process" and I just wanted to support your point about "demand reduction" as an important aspect of forest protection. Ultimately, to achieve 75% reduction in demand ofr wood, isn't it a design challenge?

And that is my point ... ZeroWaste is a design principle for spaceship Earth ... it is very inclusive of many ideas ... it is a "living" and changing dialogue, but with a steady vision.

I have heard people getting hung up "measuring the success" of ZeroWaste, as if it were a goal like the doubling of the 50% recycling rate in California. My position is: ZeroWaste is NOT a measurable landfill diversion goal, rather, it is a Design Principle, an approach, a philosophy, an organizing priniciple. And that strategies like demand reduction and producer responsibility are two good ways to feed the vision of ZeroWaste and move our world toward a less wasteful future.

On Wed, 28 May 1997 wrote:

> Hi Bill, > > You're right, we need to make zero cut and zero waste two parts of the > same movement. > > Our fact sheet necessarily focusses rather narrowly on supply-related > issues. We are trying to get the message out as quickly and succinctly > as possible in advance of bill introduction (in mid-June). We will be > developing our arguments over time, and would like to invite input from > the zero waste community, to help us build the airtight case we need to > win this fight. > > Demand reduction is central to forest preservation. I was a delegate to > the Tomales Bay Conference in 1994 where a goal of 75% reduction of wood > use was targetted as a necessary component of any global forest > conservation strategy. I am committed to this objective, and believe > that the zero waste movement has the best chance at this time for putting > a substantive demand reduction campaign on the table. Please let me know > how I can be of assistance. > > I consider our zero cut campaign to be the first decisive step we can > take to put the timber industry on the defensive. But we must move a > zero waste campaign forward simultaneously. The CRRA and GRRN are moving > on this, and I predict that within a year, we can have a very effective > two-prong attack on deforestation going full-swing in the US. Let's work > cooperatively to develop this concept and make it happen! > > David > > > > =*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=* > David Orr, Co-Director John Muir Project > 30 North Raymond Avenue, Suite 514 818-792-0109 (vox) > Pasadena, CA 91103 818-792-1565 (fax) > =*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=* > > "No problem can be solved from the same consciousness > that created it." > "Everything has changed but our thinking." > - Albert Einstein > > >


End of GreenYes Digest V97 #123 ******************************

$*$*$*$*$ 3 LINES REFORMATTED BY POPPER AT $*$*$*$*$