Today's Topics:
Conspicuous vs. Sustainable Consumption
Goals
landfill surcharges (2 msgs)
Landfill tipping fees
St. Paul Bike Classic Recycling opportunity
Toxicity
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, 24 Jul 1997 16:15:19 -0400
From: "Blair Pollock" <bpollock@town.ci.chapel-hill.nc.us>
Subject: Conspicuous vs. Sustainable Consumption
Just passing along some good rhetoric, no new ideas, just good ways of
saying the obvious. Anyone heard of this Center for a New American Dream.
(Where's our version of the Christian Coalition anyway -- why are we so
fragmented? Too many good ideas from too many hard heads, not enough sheep
and too many shepherds?)
>Sender: owner-trisust@listserv.oit.unc.edu
>From: Betsy Dorn <betsydorn@mindspring.com>
>To: trisust@listserv.oit.unc.edu
>Subject: Conspicuous vs. Sustainable Consumption
>X-Sender: betsydorn@pop.mindspring.com
>X-Listprocessor-Version: 8.0 -- ListProcessor(tm) by CREN
>
>I am participating in a listserve dialogue on the topic of Conspicuous
>Consumption, sponsored by the Center for a New American Dream. Provided
>below are a few excerpts from the dialogue, for those of you who are
>interested in pondering this social/environmental issue and aspect of
>sustainability.
>
>
> Economic Laws Clash With the Planet's
>>Donella Meadows for The Valley News, December 14, 1996
>>
>>The first commandment of economics is: Grow. Grow forever. Companies get
>>bigger. National economies need to swell by a certain percent each year.
>> People should want more, make more, earn more, spend more - ever more.
>>
>>The first commandment of the Earth is: enough. Just so much and no more.
>> Just so much soil. Just so much water. Just so much sunshine. Everything
>>born of the Earth grows to its appropriate size and then stops. The planet
>>does not get bigger, it gets better. Its creatures learn, mature, diversify,
>>evolve, create amazing beauty and novelty and complexity, but live within
>>absolute limits.
>>
>>Now, when there's an inconsistency between human economics and the laws of
>>planet Earth, which do you think is going to win?
>>
>>Economics say: Compete. Only by pitting yourself against a worthy opponent
>>will you perform efficiently. The reward for successful competition will be
>>growth. You will eat up your opponents, one by one, and as you do, you will
>>gain the resources to do it some more.
>>
>>The Earth says: Compete, yes, but keep your competition in bounds. Don't
>>annihilate. Take only what you need. Leave your competitor enough to live.
>> Wherever possible, don't compete, cooperate. Pollinate each other, create
>>shelter for each other, build firm structures that lift smaller species up to
>>the light. Pass around the nutrients, share the territory. Some kinds of
>>excellence rise out of the competition; other kinds rise out of cooperation.
>> You're not in a war, you're in a community.
>>
>>Which of those mandates makes a world worth living in?
>>
>>Economics says: Use it up fast. Don't bother to repair; the sooner something
>>wears out, the sooner you'll buy another. That makes the gross national
>>product go round. Throw things out when you get tired of them. Throw them
>>to a place where they become useless. Grab materials and energy to make
>>more. Shave the forests every 30 years. Get the oil out of the ground and
>>burn it now. Make jobs so people can earn money, so they can buy more stuff
>>and throw it out.
>>
>>The Earth says: What's the hurry? Take your time building soils, forests,
>>coral reefs, mountains. Take centuries or millennia. When any part wears
>>out, don't discard it, turn it into food for something else. If it takes
>>hundreds of years to grow a forest, millions of years to compress oil, maybe
>>that's the rate at which they ought to be used.
>>
>>Economics discounts the future. Ten years from now, $2 will be worth only
>>$1. You could invest that dollar at 7 percent and double it in 10 years. So
>>a resource 10 years from now is worth only half of what it's worth now. Take
>>it now. Turn it into dollars.
>>
>>The Earth says: nonsense. Those invested dollars grow in value only if
>>something worth buying grows, too. The Earth and its treasures will not
>>double in 10 years. What will you spend your doubled dollars on if there is
>>less soil, less oil, dirtier water, fewer creatures, less beauty? The
>>Earth's rule is: Give to the future. Lay up a fraction of an inch of topsoil
>>each year. Give your all to nurture the young. Never take more in your
>>generation than you give back to the next.
>>
>>The economic rule is: Do whatever makes sense in monetary terms.
>>
>>The Earth says money measures nothing more than the relative power of some
>>humans over other humans, and that power is puny, compared with the powers of
>>the climate, the oceans, the uncounted multitudes of one-celled organisms
>>that created the atmosphere, that recycle the waste, that heave lasted for 3
>>billion years. The fact that the economy, which has lasted for maybe 200
>>years, puts zero value on these things means only that the economy knows
>>nothing about value ~ or about lasting.
>>
>>Economics says: Worry, struggle, be dissatisfied. The permanent condition
>>of humankind is scarcity. The only way out of scarcity is to accumulate and
>>hoard, though that means, regrettably, that others will have less. Too bad,
>>but there is not enough to go around.
>>
>>The Earth says: Rejoice! You have been born into a world of self-maintaining
>>abundance and incredible beauty. Feel it, taste it, be amazed by it. If you
>>stop your struggle and lift your eyes long enough to see Earth's wonders, to
>>play and dance with the glories around you, you will discover what you really
>>need. It isn't much. There is enough. As long as you control your numbers,
>>there will be enough for everyone and for long as you can imagine.
>>
>>We don't get to choose which laws, those of the economy or those of the
>>Earth, will ultimately prevail. We can choose which ones we will personally
>>live under ~ and whether to make our economics law consistent with planetary
>>ones, or to find out what happens if we don't.
>>
>>Donella Meadows lives in Plainfield and is an adjunct professor of
>>environmental studies at Dartmouth College.
>>
>
>>Subject: Consumption -- where to start?
>>
>
>>"You've got a problem -- Buy this product to solve it" is the message
>>we have each received almost constantly, every day since birth.
>> Radio, commercial television, now even on public television! On the side
>>of the bus. Inside the bus. On your coffee mug. On your shirt and shoes!
>> On billboards over our buildings in in our farmland.
>>
>>Is it a surprise we have a consumption problem?
>>
>>Problem solving thru consumption is a value which gets validated to us somany
>>times each day. It is a Corporate Value which we have accepted as a
>>Family Value. We each have internalized it as a personal solution to our
>>woes.
>>
>>If it really worked as promised, we'd be without problems today.
>>
>>But since we have SO MANY problems, we keep grabbing for this "solution" --
>>consciously and unconsciously -- futiley attempting to ease our pain. We'd
>>mortgage the house to buy a quack solution to stop all the pain. And that
>>is exactly what we have done!
>>
>>If we are EVER to find a new american dream to solve our consumption
>>problem, we must examine this link head-on and find a way to re-direct our
>>personal and collective problem-solving energies.
>>
>>Not an easy task. And where do we start?
>>
>>
>>Dave Warren
>>Rochester, Michigan
>
>>In-Reply
>>
>>Dave Warren asks a great question - where do we start?
>>
>>I have been reading theories of consumption fairly intensively for the
>>last ten years, and have found a lot that questions a simple "addiction"
>>model, or one that blames advertising. We need to recognize that some
>>kinds of human relationships with material culture are expressive,
>>fundamental to our personhood, and deeply fulfilling. Historians also
>>point out how often condemning other people's consumption as immoral is
>>simply a means that the wealthy and powerful use to distance themselves
>>from other social and ethnic groups.
>>
>>The starting place, I would suggest, then has to be the question of what
>>kinds of consumption are immoral, wrong, unfulfilling, destructive, evil,
>>etc? Choosing to condemn some kinds of consumption is a deeply moral task
>>(all the great religions do it in their foundation texts!). We need to be
>>clear what we condemn and why. Otherwise people will laugh and say
>>"what's wrong with my driving a Cadillac? I worked hard and I deserve it!
>>Remember that once people said the same moral things about the 60 hour
>>work week - it was too short! What would the working class do with all
>>that leisure? Just eat and drink too much and get fat and lazy.
>>
>>I have just been reading "Fruits of Empire," a history of how the
>>British from 1600 to 1800 acquired tastes for tea, coffee, sugar, and
>>cocoa, to the detriment of the environment and well-being of native
>>peoples all over the world. By 1890, all of these tropical luxuries had
>>become absolute necessitites. This process of transformation seems to me
>>to be at the heart of our modern dilemma, and deserves careful attention.
>>
>>Sincerely,
>>
>>Richard Wilk ************* Professor of Cultural Anthropology
>>Student Building 242 office: 812 855 3901
>>Anthropology Dept. fax: 812 855 4358
>>Indiana University http:\\www.indiana.edu\~wanthro
>>Bloomington IN 47405
>>
>
>Betsy Dorn
>The Center for Life in Balance
>1109 Holt Road
>Apex, NC 27502
>(919) 387-9059
>(919) 387-1102 (Fax)
>
>
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 97 23:29:27 PST
From: roger.diedrich@sfsierra.sierraclub.org
Subject: Goals
A challenger to a state Delegate whom my Sierra Club Chapter is supporting
has asked for input on increasing the state goal for recycling. It seemed to
me there has been a shift to useing a measure of the decrease in disposal as a
better metric of progress.
Would any of you have insight on the relative desirability of these two
approaches for setting a goal for better materials management?
Roger Diedrich
Fairfax, VA
703-352-2410
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 15:28:46 -0500
From: Bill Carter <WCARTER@tnrcc.state.tx.us>
Subject: landfill surcharges
John Reindl asked about landfill surcharges.
The State of Texas has imposed a surcharge on disposal tipping fees
since 1990. It started at $0.50/ton disposed of in Texas. The 1991
legislature increased it to $1.50/ton and gave state agencies several
new programs for which these funds would be used, in part, including
recycling and waste reduction outreach and a buy-recycled campaign.
In 1993, the fee was reduced to $1.25/ton, where it has remained to the
present.
Transfer stations and other "facilities and processes not for disposal"
are exempt from this fee; however, the fee applies to incinerators,
composting facilities, and land application sites that process materials for
non-beneficial disposal.
Since a large part of the waste landfilled in Texas is measured in cubic
yards (is not weighed), a standard conversion of 3 compacted cu yds =
1 ton and 5 uncompacted cu yds = 1 ton is used.
About 3/4 of the fund is allocated to the Texas Natural Resource
Conservation Commission, which allocates some to a broad range of
solid waste-related programs (including inspection, enforcement, and
permitting as well as waste reduction programs) and retains some for
agency overhead. Under 1995 legislation, half of the funds allocated to
the TNRCC are transferred to the state's regional councils of government
as grant money to fund implementation of solid waste plans at the
regional and local level. The remaining ~1/4 of the fee money -- not
allocated to TNRCC -- is retained by the legislature in the general fund.
Materials that are load-separated for recycling or composting -- and that
are in fact put to beneficial use rather than being disposed -- do not incur
the surcharge, whether or not a tipping fee was charged on them when
they were received.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 16:29:28 -0500
From: Bill Carter <WCARTER@tnrcc.state.tx.us>
Subject: landfill surcharges
John Reindl asked about landfill surcharges.
The State of Texas has imposed a surcharge on disposal tipping fees
since 1990. It started at $0.50/ton disposed of in Texas. The 1991
legislature increased it to $1.50/ton and gave state agencies several
new programs for which these funds would be used, in part, including
recycling and waste reduction outreach and a buy-recycled campaign.
In 1993, the fee was reduced to $1.25/ton, where it has remained to the
present.
Transfer stations and other "facilities and processes not for disposal"
are exempt from this fee; however, the fee applies to incinerators,
composting facilities, and land application sites that process materials for
non-beneficial disposal.
Since a large part of the waste landfilled in Texas is measured in cubic
yards (is not weighed), a standard conversion of 3 compacted cu yds =
1 ton and 5 uncompacted cu yds = 1 ton is used.
About 3/4 of the fund is allocated to the Texas Natural Resource
Conservation Commission, which allocates some to a broad range of
solid waste-related programs (including inspection, enforcement, and
permitting as well as waste reduction programs) and retains some for
agency overhead. Under 1995 legislation, half of the funds allocated to
the TNRCC are transferred to the state's regional councils of government
as grant money to fund implementation of solid waste plans at the
regional and local level. The remaining ~1/4 of the fee money -- not
allocated to TNRCC -- is retained by the legislature in the general fund.
Materials that are load-separated for recycling or composting -- and that
are in fact put to beneficial use rather than being disposed -- do not incur
the surcharge, whether or not a tipping fee was charged on them when
they were received.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 08:41:14 -0600
From: "John Reindl 608-267-8815" <reindl@co.dane.wi.us>
Subject: Landfill tipping fees
Hi Michelle -
Thanks for your note.
I agree that landfill surcharges are probably the most effective way to
both reduce the use of landfills and encourage alternatives, for two
reasons.
First, according to some data I've seen from England as reported in
Waste Age, the elasticity of demand for landfill surcharges is
somewhere in the range of -0.34 to -0.59, with the elasticity of demand
becoming more favorable to alternatives as the amount of the surcharge
increases (this makes intuitive sense; as soon as the landfill system
(disposal plus collection) costs more than an alternative approach,
there should be a big switch over to the alternative.
In contrast, the elasticity of demand for household volume based
systems is said to be only -0.08 to -0.12 for communities without
recycling programs, improving to -0.22 to -0.26 for communities with
recycling programs.
But second, and perhaps more important, most landfilled waste is from
sources other than households, where economics really can turn things
around. Here in Wisconsin, household waste is only 20% of what is
landfilled:
Wisconsin Landfill Tonnages
Household 1.6 million tons a year
Commercial 1.9 million tons a year
C&D, other bulky 1.5 million tons a year
High volume
industrial process 3.0 million tons a year
Total 8.0 million tons a year
So, if we really want to make a difference, it's the non-household
waste we need to go after. We have also found with our mandatory
recycling program in Wisconsin that households participate at a very
high level (97% statewide is often quoted), but the haulers continually
note that the business sector is not complying to anywhere near that
extent.
Like you say, Europe's approach is much different than ours, promoting
waste reduction through stiff landfill taxes. The latest proposal is
that Norway is talking about a 300 to 500 kroner per ton national tax
(current exchange rate about $40 to $65 a ton). Their big goal (also
true for England) is to reduce the methane gas emissions from
landfill as a means to reduce greenhouse effects (landfills are the
biggest emission source of methane in England (and the US) and methane
has 25 times the greenhouse impact of CO2). The lower tax is for those
landfills with methane gas extraction systems, the higher tax for those
landfills without extraction systems.
But, to come back to the original issue, effectiveness/logic is not what
is necessarily important in getting good legislation passed, unfortunately.
While lots of legislators seem to support the concept, the solid waste
industry bitterly opposes it, and is beginning to attack me personally
for promoting it. Some cities also oppose it because of the increased
costs to them, even though they would receive financial assistance to
help pay for their waste reduction and recycling efforts.
So, what I think I really need is to provide examples of other
jurisdictions that have implemented this approach and try to find out
how the nasty politics were overcome.
Sorry for the long, long answer, and I do greatly appreciate your help,
and I will see if I can dig up the 99 bucks for your report.
John
>Date: Wed, 23 Jul 1997 11:26:44 -0400 (EDT)
>From: michele@raymond.com (Michele Raymond)
>Subject: GreenYes Digest V97 #175
>To John Rindl
>I strongly suggest you find the bugdet to get the 1997 State Recycling
>Laws Update Year-End Edition. Its just $99 cash.
> I look at all kinds of options in my state survey
>Surcharges are the most effective but nobody has the political will to
>increase them.
>The idea in Europe is to tax pollution INSTEAD OF LABOR.
>Think about that one. REDUCE your state income tax but Tax the
>landfills.
>It makes some sense to me, and England is trying to do this.
>Oh and on toxics in waste stream, you folks should call Minnesota they
>have done the most in that area policy wise.
>Michele Raymond
.State Recycling Laws Update
>http://www.raymond.com/recycle
>Thae Take it Back! Conference is now set for Nov. 17-18, Alexandria VA.
>FREE Producer Responsibility forum on the 18th.
reindl@co.dane.wi.us
(608)267-1533 - fax
(608)267-8815 - phone
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 11:54:52 -0700
From: nec@orbis.net (Neighborhood Energy Consortium)
Subject: St. Paul Bike Classic Recycling opportunity
Hello! This is an announcement for all Twin Cities area recyclers and other
environmentalists.
The Saint Paul Neighborhood Energy Consortium (NEC) is sponsoring the 3rd
annual Saint Paul Classic Bike Tour, the Twin Cities' largest biking event,
on Sunday, September 7. Over 6,000 riders of all ages and skill levels are
expected to participate. Riders tour the scenic and historic areas along
the Mississippi River through Saint Paul neighborhoods and parks.
Last year, we sponsored a nearly waste-free event by providing composting
and recycling at all rest stops and at the start/finish line of the tour.
We would like to do the same this year. We are looking for volunteers who
would be interested in staffing recycling/composting stations. Volunteers
would talk to riders and help them sort their recyclables and compostables
from trash. This job is fun, easy and important. Volunteers will have the
opportunity to talk to lots of people from many different communities,
encouraging recycling and waste reduction at a popular, no-pollution event.
If you are interested in volunteering (shifts from 2-4 hours, event begins
at 7:30 a.m., ends around 2:00 p.m.) you will receive a free t-shirt and
snacks at the event.
Please reply through email to Hatti Koth at the NEC <nec@orbis.net>, or call
Hatti at (612) 644-7678 if you are interested or would like more information.
Hope to hear from you soon!
Thanks,
Hatti Koth
NEC Recycling
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 16:41:26 +0200
From: muna@aztec.co.za
Subject: Toxicity
Jerry Powell writes:
>But, as a computer user, I'm also now much more aware
>of the environmental
>problems created by making and discarding computers.
and one of the reasons why they are discarded, is this frenetic drive to
upgrade and update..... even when everything works well!
Bill Gates, are you listening?
*grins*
Muna....
Mr. Muna Lakhani
CATALYST
Cellphone:082-416-9160
Cellfax: 082-131-416-9160
e-mail: muna@aztec.co.za
28 Currie Road - Durban - 4001 - South Africa
Phone: +27-31-20-28-291
------------------------------
End of GreenYes Digest V97 #177
******************************