______________________________ Reply Separator
_________________________________
Subject: The real world in NYC
Author: "marjorie j. clarke" <mclarke@shiva.hunter.cuny.edu> at
internet
Date: 10/6/97 5:27 PM
I support the idea of zero waste or something close to it
but....
I work for no pay in the very muddy trenches of New York City
citizens'=20
solid waste advisory boards to the ever-recalcitrant Dept. of
Sanitation.=20
While zero waste is some pie in the sky good eventual goal, we
need to move=20
the next baby step and the one after that. Although the City
Council=20
passed a law in 1988 that required recycling of residential and=20
institutional trash of 25% by 1994 (we are currently around
15%), and=20
despite the fact that the City has been brought to court on this
repeatedly=20
over the years (by NRDC, the citywide recycling advisory board,
and some=20
City Council members) and has lost every time (they just keep
getting new=20
deadlines, which they ignore) we persevere to get more items
added to the=20
recycling program and more budget allocated for education.
Their waste=20
prevention program focuses almost exclusively on business waste
prevention,=20
even though businesses already have financial incentives to do
it=20
themselves (commercial quantity-based user fees) and there are
other local=20
organizations involved with business waste prevention. The real
challenges=20
are in the residential sector. We are beating our heads
against a brick=20
wall and we're getting pretty bloody (not to mention, burned
out). I guess=20
I'd feel better about the zero waste movement if I had the
feeling it was=20
more rooted in present day needs and focused on exactly how to
move the=20
proverbial elephant to the next step.
__ __
//\\ //\\ _ _ _ o _
// \\ // \\ ({_}} {{_}} {{_}} || //_\\
// \\// \\ ^ // // || \\__
\_// \_//
Marjorie J. Clarke
Environmental Scientist and Consultant=20
http://everest.hunter.cuny.edu/~mclarke/index.htm=20
http://everest.hunter.cuny.edu/~mclarke/moodyblu.htm=20
New York City Phone & Fax: 212-567-8272
--UNS_gsauns2_2715497205--
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 07 Oct 1997 21:21:27 -0400
From: "Marjorie J. Clarke" <mclarke@shiva.hunter.cuny.edu>
Subject: Wanted: A place to have HP Laserjet 4P cartridges
refilled
For years I've been looking for a place I can send a growing
number of HP
Laserjet 4P toner cartridges for refilling, without success.
Does anyone
here know of a place (before I have to go out again and buy new
ones?)
__ __
//\\ //\\ _ _ _ o _ =20
// \\ // \\ ({_}} {{_}} {{_}} || //_\\ =20
// \\// \\ ^ // // || \\__
\_// \_//
Marjorie J. Clarke =20
Environmental Scientist and Consultant
http://everest.hunter.cuny.edu/~mclarke/index.htm
http://everest.hunter.cuny.edu/~mclarke/moodyblu.htm=20
New York City Phone & Fax: 212-567-8272=20
------------------------------
End of GreenYes Digest V97 #243
******************************
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 09:23:31 -0500
From: RecycleWorlds <anderson@msn.fullfeed.com>
Subject: GreenYes Digest V97 #243-Reply to Blair Pollack Query on C&D
------ =3D_NextPart_000_01BCD4B6.D4EEFDE0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3D"us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Blair Pollock asked on 10/9/97 for feedback on whether he could:
"1. Make source separation part of planning requirement for a zoning
compliance permit to designate space for this activity e.g. Town of =3D
Chapel
Hill NC does this now but it's not enforceable
"2. Require separation as part of building permitting process e.g. =3D
Passaic
NJ, Portland, OR.
"<<<<3. Require licensed haulers to not collect materials not properly
separated e.g. no wood wastes or metal wastes in the container to be
landfilled.=3D20
THIS prohibition on collection of improperly separated materials would =3D
be as
a condition of their license to operate in our jurisdiction, even if =3D
they
hauled to a landfill other than ours. THIS IS THE AREA I NEED TO KNOW =3D
MORE
ABOUT -- DOES ANYONE KNOW IF THIS IS AN APPROACH THAT HAS BEEN TRIED AND
WORKS OR IF THERE ARE LEGAL PROBLEMS WITH MAKING A SEPARATION =3D
REQUIREMENT AS
PART OF A LICENSING AGREEMENT IF THE MATERIAL IS PRIVATELY HAULED AND IS =3D
NOT
DESTINED FOR "YOUR" PUBLICLY OWNED LANDFILL?? Court cases on this =3D
particular
aspect?>>>>>
"4. Create steeper differential fees/bans on recyclable materials =3D
coming
in mixed loads to the landfill-- for us right now, recyclables are just
clean wood waste and metals. We have a $12 fee for clean wood v. $35 for
mixed C&D and will probably do similar for metals except steeper
differential. We may also have a penalty for loads with the wood and =3D
metal
mixed in as we do now for loads with OCC or yard waste mixed in. We also
provide the oppty at landfill to remove OCC or yd waste before the =3D
penalty
is levied.'
"Any feedback, particularly on item #3 would be appreciated. Thanks"
I'm not an attorney, nor have I seen any cases directly on point, but =3D
the relevant general principles of law are:
1) An agency may not do indirectly (e.g.. through licensure requirements =3D
intended for other purposes such as safety) what it cannot do directly.
On the other hand:
2) An agency may act under powers directly granted or which arise by =3D
fair implication.
That is to say, I would look to the surrounding language creating these =3D
licensing and fee structures to see if there's anything that creates, if =3D
only by inference, authority over matters intended to e.g. reduce solid =3D
waste, groundwater contamination etc. You can look, in that regard, to =3D
the general overarching powers of the agency as well as to the specific =3D
powers controlling licensing and fee setting.
Peter Anderson
------ =3D_NextPart_000_01BCD4B6.D4EEFDE0
Content-Type: application/ms-tnef
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64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3D
------ =3D_NextPart_000_01BCD4B6.D4EEFDE0--
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 09:56:17 -0400
From: "Bill Sheehan" <bill_sheehan@mindspring.com>
Subject: Mandatory Recycling
Greenyesers,
Thought you might be interested in a discussion happening on
recycle@envirolink. A brave soul with great faith in the
freeness of the free market is weighing in with the usual Lynn
Scarlett-John Tierney-Cato arguments (in fact one commentator=20
pointed out that the selection has apparently been lifted
without=20
attribution from Reason Foundation materials. Like it or not,
these
views are in the political ascendancy in many places and=20
big-picture recyclers ignore them at risk.
Since greenyes is supposed to be more for policy issues (and
recycle@envirolink more for technical issues) I am taking the
liberty of reposting this here.
--Bill Sheehan
Mandatory Recycling
Recycling can be a useful exercise, reducing the need for
raw materials and the costs of waste disposal. Recycling can
also be a wasteful use of energy, time and money. Even from the
environmental standpoint, recycling is not always the best
option. The benefits of recycling, environmental and otherwise,
vary on a case-by-case and material-by-material basis.
Recycling can even impose environmental costs, such as the
sludge generated from recycling paper or the increased energy
use of collecting and sorting some recyclable products. Whether
or not to recycle a particular material or product should be
determined by the marketplace, not by government fiat.
The primary problem with recycling is that for most
materials it is far more expensive to sort, collect and process
recyclables than it is to use raw materials. Indeed, the costs
of collection alone are often more than the value of the
recyclable materials. Where using recycled materials is not
more expensive than other options, recycling typically occurs
absent government intervention. Thus mandatory recycling
programs act as a hidden tax on consumers who must pay for the
additional cost of recycling through higher prices, higher
local taxes, or higher waste hauling assessments. It is likely
that most people who support recycling are not aware that it
will cost them more.
A variant of mandatory recycling is to mandate a set
percentage of recycled content for particular products, such as
newspapers. As with other recycling mandates, recycled-content
laws increase costs for consumers while providing minimal
benefits. For example, it has been estimated that a 25 percent
recycled-content standard for plastics would increase the price
of soft drink containers by 10 percent. Additionally, some
materials that are more difficult to recycle are actually to be
preferred on environmental grounds, because they are lighter,
more compact, and require fewer resources to manufacture (the
widely popular "juice box" is a perfect example of this).
Finally, politically determined recycled-content mandates will
always be set at arbitrary levels. There is no environmental
basis upon which to prefer 10 percent recycled content over 12
percent or 7 percent.
It is important to remember that when recycling costs more
than other options, this reflects the higher value of resource
expenditures required to recycle. Dedicating these resources to
recycling means that they cannot be used for other things, no
matter how useful or important. If driven by the market,
recycling will only occur where it is the most efficient use of
resources. If driven by politics, recycling will be an
expensive and wasteful policy.
The United State generates approximately 200 million
tons-per-year of municipal solid waste. There is no doubt that
some portion of this will be recycled. How much should be
determined by market forces, rather than by government-imposed
mandatory recycling or recycled-content laws.=20
Q: Don't we need to recycle because we are running out of
landfill space?
A: No. 200 million tons sounds like a lot of solid waste to
dispose of in one year. However, disposing of that waste in
landfills poses little problem for a nation nearly three
million square miles big (not including Alaska). Indeed, all of
the solid waste produced in the United Sates over the next
one-thousand years could be landfilled on less than one-tenth
of one percent of America's land.
Q: Doesn't recycling save resources?
A: Sometimes recycling does save resources. Recycling
aluminum, for example, saves energy, and consequently money as
well. This is why aluminum has been recycled for decades even
without a government mandate. In other instances, however,
recycling may not save resources. Recycling may require a
greater use of energy or water, or even labor and money =97 all
of which are important resources. Finally, it needs to be
recognized that as resources become scarce, their prices rise.
This gives the market a signal to begin conserving, recycling
or developing alternatives. Recycling can be encouraged by the
market in this way, without political intervention.
Q: Doesn't recycling a ton of paper save 17 trees?
A: Not necessarily. Demand for paper is not a significant
factor in deforestation. Most paper is made from either sawmill
waste, scrap wood, or trees planted solely for that purpose.
The planting of trees has been a key factor in the growth of
America's forests during the past several decades; timberland
acreage has increased by approximately 10 percent since 1952
and there are now more trees in America's forests than at any
other time in this century. In fact, by reducing the demand for
paper, recycling could actually discourage timber companies
from planting more trees.=20
Phil Fredericks
http://www.uark.edu/~ecti/
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 12:19:00 -0400
From: "www.ZeroWasteAmerica.com" <lynnlandes@earthlink.net>
Subject: Mandatory Recycling
Mr. Fredericks:
You are questioning the fundamental obligation of humans to responsibly =3D
manage our waste. How do you justify your attitude that we have the =3D
right to ruin any part of the earth, solely for our own convenience? How =3D
do you justify your data? Your waste generation figures are unrealistic. =3D
In 1996, The United States may have generated more than 1.5 billion tons =3D
of waste. In 1995, 325 million tons of "municipal" waste were =3D
generated. However, using Pennsylvania as an example, "municipal" waste =3D
is only 1/5 of the total amount of waste generated. In addition, this =3D
figure doesn't include foreign waste imports. Below is an article I =3D
wrote for general distribution. This article address the general topic =3D
of waste elimination and government responsibility.=3D20
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE OR PUBLICATION
Contact: Lynn Landes Executive Director, Zero Waste America, Inc. (215) =3D
493-1070 LynnLandes@earthlink.net www.ZeroWasteAmerica.com
=3D20
RIVER OF WASTE=3D20
The United States is sinking under a "river of waste." Zero Waste =3D
America (ZWA) estimates that in 1997, Americans will
dispose of more than 1.5 billion tons of domestic and imported waste. =3D
That amounts to approximately 5 tons of waste
disposed for every person in the country.* The cost to public health and =3D
natural resources is incalculable.
In 1970, Congress passed legislation establishing National Environmental =3D
Policy to "enhance the quality of renewable
resources and approach the maximum attainable recycling of depletable =3D
resources." That policy was a mandate from
Congress. It should serve as a lifeboat to a sustainable environment, to =3D
no more landfills or incinerators, and to Zero Waste.
Instead, the U.S. has no effective national plan to eliminate or reduce =3D
waste. There is no government effort to create
sustainable markets for recyclables. There is no national ban on the =3D
disposal of waste, compost, or recyclables into landfills or =3D
incinerators. There is no limit on the amount of waste imported from =3D
other countries. The EPA does not even track the total amount of waste =3D
that is generated, imported, or disposed in the U.S.
The free market has not provided a foundation this nation needs to =3D
reduce, eliminate, or recycle waste. Voluntary programs of waste =3D
recycling and reduction have not been sufficient to curb the =3D
ever-increasing need to build more landfills and incinerators.=3D20
Bucks County, Pennsylvania, is a good example of failed policies and =3D
enforcement by both federal and state authorities. Bucks County disposes =3D
of approximately 2,000 tons of county waste daily. Waste Management =3D
(WMX) is permitted by PA's Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) =3D
to dispose of 20,000 tons of waste each day in Bucks County. Federal law =3D
requires that states must have a "state solid waste management plan" to =3D
ensure maximum recycling and resource conservation, and to assess =3D
environmental impact of waste disposal facilities. Pennsylvania has no =3D
such state plan, yet the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) allows =3D
the state to continue accepting waste and issuing permits for more =3D
disposal facilities. Currently, Pennsylvania is the leading importer of =3D
foreign and domestic waste in the nation.
Many states complain that waste imports undercut their efforts at waste =3D
reduction and recycling. For the last several years,
states have looked to proposed federal legislation that promises states =3D
protection from imports. This proposed legislation will not protect =3D
states for three reasons:
=3DB7 The proposed legislation only applies to "unwanted" waste. A state =3D
cannot prohibit a municipality from accepting waste, if an agreement is =3D
reached between the host municipality and a waste disposal company. This =3D
invites the waste industry to "shop" for disadvantaged communities who =3D
may want the host fees to offset tax increases, or can't afford to =3D
defend themselves against well-funded waste industry legal action.=3D20
=3DB7 There is no limit on other types of disposal waste that can be =3D
imported from other states or nations. Only "municipal" waste will be =3D
affected by this legislation. That may account for as little as 20% of =3D
all waste disposed in a state.=3D20
=3DB7 This legislation will encourage the importation of more toxic waste, =
=3D
such as: hazardous, industrial, infectious, asbestos,
sewage sludge, contaminated soil, and incinerator ash. Much of this =3D
waste is allowed in municipal landfills, as well as in private and =3D
commercial landfills and incinerators.=3D20
So, what's the answer? In the absence of Congressional action or federal =3D
enforcement of current environmental law, how do states eliminate waste =3D
and protect themselves from waste imports?=3D20
First, states can issue waste "disposal bans" for both in-state and =3D
imported waste. They can begin by banning compostables, such as food and =3D
yard waste. A general rule is that waste must be free from hazardous =3D
materials in order to be composted or recycled safely.=3D20
Second, states can legislate a variety of measures to sustain recycling =3D
markets. They can set minimum recycled content
standards and establish bottle bills and other "take-back" legislation. =3D
With markets guaranteed, recyclables can be banned for disposal.=3D20
Lastly, states should store hazardous waste until it can be safely =3D
recycled. Never bury or burn waste!
In order to withstand legal challenge by waste importers, states must =3D
apply disposal bans equally to both in-state and
out-of-state waste. In August 1995, The Federal Court of Appeal, 7th =3D
Circuit in National Solid Waste Association v. Meyer
(representing Wisconsin), ruled that Wisconsin could ban designated =3D
waste and recyclables. However, Wisconsin could not discriminate against =3D
waste imports; it could not apply disposal bans only to out-of-state =3D
waste.
As a nation, we can turn this "river of waste" into a "reservoir of =3D
recyclables." We should do whatever it takes to eliminate
waste. Zero Waste is our goal. A healthy and clean environment...let =3D
that be our legacy.
__________________________________
* ZWA based its estimates on publicly available documents, including =3D
Biocycle Magazine's April 1997 issue which reported 1996 data of 235 =3D
million tons of mostly "municipal" waste disposed. We calculated that, =3D
in some states, "municipal" waste accounts for as little as 20% of total =3D
waste disposed.=3D20
Zero Waste America, Inc. is a non-profit environmental organization =3D
dedicated to the elimination of waste and pollution through legislative =3D
reform and the encouragement of "zero waste" business and practices. We =3D
provide analysis and a wide range of information on waste issues. =3D
Membership is free.
Lynn Landes, ZWA Founder and Director=3D20
Pennsylvania's Solid Waste Advisory Committee for Dept. of Environmental =3D
Protection (PA DEP) 1995-96
Pennsylvania Municipal Waste Stakeholder (PA DEP) 1995-96
Sierra Club, Solid Waste Chair for Pennsylvania 1995-96
----------
From: Bill Sheehan[SMTP:bill_sheehan@mindspring.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 09, 1997 9:56 AM
To: GreenYes (E-mail)
Subject: Mandatory Recycling
Greenyesers,
Thought you might be interested in a discussion happening on
recycle@envirolink. A brave soul with great faith in the
freeness of the free market is weighing in with the usual Lynn
Scarlett-John Tierney-Cato arguments (in fact one commentator=3D20
pointed out that the selection has apparently been lifted
without=3D20
attribution from Reason Foundation materials. Like it or not,
these
views are in the political ascendancy in many places and=3D20
big-picture recyclers ignore them at risk.
Since greenyes is supposed to be more for policy issues (and
recycle@envirolink more for technical issues) I am taking the
liberty of reposting this here.
--Bill Sheehan
Mandatory Recycling
Recycling can be a useful exercise, reducing the need for
raw materials and the costs of waste disposal. Recycling can
also be a wasteful use of energy, time and money. Even from the
environmental standpoint, recycling is not always the best
option. The benefits of recycling, environmental and otherwise,
vary on a case-by-case and material-by-material basis.
Recycling can even impose environmental costs, such as the
sludge generated from recycling paper or the increased energy
use of collecting and sorting some recyclable products. Whether
or not to recycle a particular material or product should be
determined by the marketplace, not by government fiat.
The primary problem with recycling is that for most
materials it is far more expensive to sort, collect and process
recyclables than it is to use raw materials. Indeed, the costs
of collection alone are often more than the value of the
recyclable materials. Where using recycled materials is not
more expensive than other options, recycling typically occurs
absent government intervention. Thus mandatory recycling
programs act as a hidden tax on consumers who must pay for the
additional cost of recycling through higher prices, higher
local taxes, or higher waste hauling assessments. It is likely
that most people who support recycling are not aware that it
will cost them more.
A variant of mandatory recycling is to mandate a set
percentage of recycled content for particular products, such as
newspapers. As with other recycling mandates, recycled-content
laws increase costs for consumers while providing minimal
benefits. For example, it has been estimated that a 25 percent
recycled-content standard for plastics would increase the price
of soft drink containers by 10 percent. Additionally, some
materials that are more difficult to recycle are actually to be
preferred on environmental grounds, because they are lighter,
more compact, and require fewer resources to manufacture (the
widely popular "juice box" is a perfect example of this).
Finally, politically determined recycled-content mandates will
always be set at arbitrary levels. There is no environmental
basis upon which to prefer 10 percent recycled content over 12
percent or 7 percent.
It is important to remember that when recycling costs more
than other options, this reflects the higher value of resource
expenditures required to recycle. Dedicating these resources to
recycling means that they cannot be used for other things, no
matter how useful or important. If driven by the market,
recycling will only occur where it is the most efficient use of
resources. If driven by politics, recycling will be an
expensive and wasteful policy.
The United State generates approximately 200 million
tons-per-year of municipal solid waste. There is no doubt that
some portion of this will be recycled. How much should be
determined by market forces, rather than by government-imposed
mandatory recycling or recycled-content laws.=3D20
Q: Don't we need to recycle because we are running out of
landfill space?
A: No. 200 million tons sounds like a lot of solid waste to
dispose of in one year. However, disposing of that waste in
landfills poses little problem for a nation nearly three
million square miles big (not including Alaska). Indeed, all of
the solid waste produced in the United Sates over the next
one-thousand years could be landfilled on less than one-tenth
of one percent of America's land.
Q: Doesn't recycling save resources?
A: Sometimes recycling does save resources. Recycling
aluminum, for example, saves energy, and consequently money as
well. This is why aluminum has been recycled for decades even
without a government mandate. In other instances, however,
recycling may not save resources. Recycling may require a
greater use of energy or water, or even labor and money - all
of which are important resources. Finally, it needs to be
recognized that as resources become scarce, their prices rise.
This gives the market a signal to begin conserving, recycling
or developing alternatives. Recycling can be encouraged by the
market in this way, without political intervention.
Q: Doesn't recycling a ton of paper save 17 trees?
A: Not necessarily. Demand for paper is not a significant
factor in deforestation. Most paper is made from either sawmill
waste, scrap wood, or trees planted solely for that purpose.
The planting of trees has been a key factor in the growth of
America's forests during the past several decades; timberland
acreage has increased by approximately 10 percent since 1952
and there are now more trees in America's forests than at any
other time in this century. In fact, by reducing the demand for
paper, recycling could actually discourage timber companies
from planting more trees.=3D20
Phil Fredericks
pjf@nwark.com
http://www.uark.edu/~ecti/
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 15:02:20 -0400 (EDT)
From: BOSSHAT72@aol.com
Subject: Participate in Dialogue With America
Greetings from the Steel Recycling Institute!
As environmental professionals with Internet access, we enjoy the benefits=
of
forums, such as this mailing list, to discuss programs and developments
within our industry.
In fact, we would appreciate your input on a program that we are currently
hosting on our website. The program is called Dialogue With America and is
designed to educate consumers about the benefits of recycling.
Each month a new question will be posted on our site along with an e-mail
with the answer. I'd like to ask you, as online environmental=
professionals,
to give it a try and give us any input you feel is appropriate.
To access the Dialogue, start at the Steel Recycling Institute homepage=
(http:
//www.recycle-steel.org) and click on the banner ad. Everything else should
be self explanatory from there. =20
Thank you in advance!
Jom Woods
Communications Services Coordinator
Steel Recycling Institute
http://www.recycle-steel.org
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 20:54:30 -0400 (EDT)
From: Lneums@aol.com
Subject: To have HP Laserjet 4P cartridges + refilled (in Missouri)
Two places here in Missouri handle refilling the HP4P and 5MP toner
cartridges. Don't know anything about shipping them, but you can reach them
at:
NSC Diversified 314/940-8080
M & M Office Products 314/918-1714 or e-mail them: OfficeMM@aol.com
They both have exhibited at the St. Louis Earth Day Festival. Cost for the
5MP refill is $49, compared to $100+ for new. Win, win!
Tell 'em we sent you,
Laura Neuman
Missouri Environmental Fund
------------------------------
End of GreenYes Digest V97 #244
******************************