Today's Topics:
best zero waste practices for beer
GreenYes Digest V97 #120
GRRN FORUM, MONTEREY, CA, JUNE 1
Is this anti-recycling? You decide
Recycling Attack
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: Mon, 26 May 1997 15:47:01 -0400 (EDT)
From: RicAnthony@aol.com
Subject: best zero waste practices for beer
In a message dated 97-05-26 04:58:36 EDT, oldxeye@crisscross.com (Hop)
writes:
<< cold beer was served 'straight from the tap' into large paper cups >>
Except paper cup discards that were later (buried?, burned? most likely in
Japan, or composted?).
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 26 May 1997 11:31:42 -0500
From: RecycleWorlds <anderson@msn.fullfeed.com>
Subject: GreenYes Digest V97 #120
------ =_NextPart_000_01BC69C8.686A3DA0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
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 substantial 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? =20
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
------ =_NextPart_000_01BC69C8.686A3DA0
Content-Type: application/ms-tnef
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64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------ =_NextPart_000_01BC69C8.686A3DA0--
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 27 May 1997 02:59:06 -0400 (EDT)
From: RicAnthony@aol.com
Subject: GRRN FORUM, MONTEREY, CA, JUNE 1
SUNDAY JUNE 1,
GRASSROOTS RECYCLING NETWORKING DAY,
MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA
DOUBLETREE HOTEL
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 more.
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 is in Monterey, CA, 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.
Steve Suess, Conference Director
GRRN Sunday Program
1:00 DR. NEIL SELDMAN
THE HISTORY OF RECYCLING IN CALIFORNIA AND THE UNITED STATES
1:30 GRASSROOTS RECYCLING FORUM
DAVE KIRKPATRICK
THE GRASSROOTS RECYCLING NETWORK (GRRN)
WHO ARE WE, WHAT IS OUR MESSAGE
DR. BILL SHEEHAN
GRRN ORGANIZIONAL HISTORY
BRENDA PLATT
GRRN PROGRAMS FOR 97/98
RICK ANTHONY
ZERO WASTE CONFERENCE ORGANIZING OPPORTUNITES
3:30 CALIFORNIA STATE LEGISLATIVE HEARING
" ZERO WASTE"
JOIN US
FOR INFORMATION ON THE CALIFORNIA RESOURCE RECOVERY ASSOCIATION ZERO WASTE
CONFERENCE JUNE 1- 4 AT THE DOUBLETREE HOTEL, MONTEREY CALIFORNIA
CRRA@AOL.COM
STEVESUESS@AOL.COM
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 26 May 1997 23:49:28 -0400 (EDT)
From: Frank Ackerman <fackerma@emerald.tufts.edu>
Subject: Is this anti-recycling? You decide
I regret that my first response to the Knapp/Sheehan attack on my work was
so emotional. I still feel that the viciousness of their attack places it
outside the bounds of acceptable communication, and that both Knapp and
Sheehan owe me and the list an apology. (I haven't heard from either of
them.) Moreover, we all owe each other a clear civility/anti-flaming
policy.
However, they raise a simple issue, on which all of you can form your own
opinion. Does a careful reading of my work suggest that I am secretly
opposed to recycling, part of a nefarious plastic/oil industry plot to
subvert grassroots recycling? Of course I'm delighted that people are
advocating a more careful reading of my work, though this advocacy has
rarely been combined with such vitriolic distemper in the past.
Thus, a brief guide to my relevant writings:
My response to Tierney, published in Dollars & Sense, November 1996, can
be read on-line at http://www.igc.apc.org/dollars/nov96/recycle.html.
Knapp "discovered" on re-reading it that I actually had no important
disagreements with Tierney. This is sure to surprise the editors of
Dollars & Sense, a socialist magazine, who shared my belief that they were
publishing a refutation of Tierney. Readers should be warned that the
article uses humor, sarcasm, and irony in response to Tierney, rather than
sticking to relentless, repetitive hammer blows of rhetoric.
Much of my recent writing is based on ideas expounded more fully in my
book, "Why Do We Recycle? Markets, Values, and Public Policy", published
by Island Press. To see how it sounds to a thoughtful reader outside the
recycling community, consult the Publishers Weekly review (PW is a leading
book industry magazine), available on-line at
http:/www.islandpress.org/books/bookdata/reviews/WhyREPW.html
That site also contains links to ordering information and everything else
about Island Press. They, too, would be astonished to discover that they
had published a covertly anti-recycling book; they are the leading
publisher of academic and professional environmental books, quite a
self-consciously green outfit.
(Two other articles are essentially excerpts from the book; I rather liked
the one in Tikkun, November-December 1996, about recycling and ethics.
The one in BioCycle, May 1997, unfortunately got a little choppy in
editing, and may be hard to follow without the graphs and more detailed
explanation that can be found in Chapter 4 of the book.)
The most detailed review of my book from within the recycling community
was by Chaz Miller, in Recycling Times, January 20; apparently it's not
available on-line, but it's definitely worth looking for.
Finally, two more points for Mr. Knapp, or anyone still reading who
remembers his accusations. Am I funded by "a bunch of anti-recycling
outfits"? As I told him when he first asked, by far the largest funder of
the research described in my book is the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency's Office of Solid Waste, followed by several state environmental
agencies. If I'm going to be remembered as a flak for my funders, I'd
rather be called an EPA flak. But in fact, I speak for myself, not EPA
nor any other research sponsor; every one of the reports I did for EPA has
a disclaimer making it clear that I do not speak for them.
(Is EPA part of the plastics/oil/anti-recycling conspiracy? Did the EPA
kill JFK? Are they hiding Elvis in a toxic waste dump? More news next
week, as soon as we make it up.)
And (this is really the end) the March 27 New Zealand Herald article, from
which Mr. Knapp quoted so selectively, is apparently not available
on-line. Here are some quotes he omitted from the same article, shedding
further light on the nefarious attacks on recycling which I was spreading
to the other end of the earth: [their direct quotes from me in 'single
quotes']
"For environmental economist Professor Frank Ackerman there is more
to recycling than the realities of budgets, cost-effectiveness, profits
and losses...Rather, it [recycling] is important because many people care
about leaving a livable world for their descendants....
"Dr. Ackerman says recycling is important even in the absence of a
crisis caused by a lack of landfills or an immediate opportunity for
profit. The products consumers buy are made by industry and the process
of manufacturing most goods results in adverse impacts on the environment.
"A strong case for recycling rests on its benefits in resource use
and manufacturing. 'Recycling is good for the environment because making
almost anything out of recycled material causes lower industrial emissions
than making the same thing out of virgin material.'
..."Dr. Ackerman says the pessimistic free market conclusion that
recycling should be pursued only to the extent that it can save money
misses the real reasons for recycling.
"'The techniques of production that are profitable today evolved over
the last century in a context of cheap, often publicly subsidized virgin
raw materials. Policies that push industry in the opposite direction
will, over time, lead to a different set of production techniques and a
different calculation of profitability.'"
If you like those quotes, you'll love my book. To order your own copy,
call Island Press at 1-800-828-1302, or http://www.islandpress.org. Why
accept second-hand information on the stealth anti-recycling arguments I'm
said to be making, when you can obtain your own complete copy of this
subversive manuscript for a mere $16.95?
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 26 May 1997 15:46:54 -0400 (EDT)
From: RicAnthony@aol.com
Subject: Recycling Attack
In a message dated 97-05-25 08:30:23 EDT, muna@aztec.co.za 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
offense.
What is this all about?
Rick
------------------------------
End of GreenYes Digest V97 #121
******************************