Today's Topics:
Composting info request
GreenYes Digest V97 #161
GreenYes Digest V97 #162
On Trees and Farms
Robert Samuelson 7/14/97
Styrofoam Coffee Cups (3 msgs)
This person needs a little help
thots on z.w. strategy
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, 10 Jul 1997 16:46:20 -0500
From: Chicago Recycling Coalition <crc@cnt.org>
Subject: Composting info request
All:
I have a composting question: as some of you may know, under the design
of our Blue Bag recycling/disposal program here in Chicago, the
city-owned Material Recovery Facilities have a sifting mechanism whereby
all material that is smaller that 3/16th of an inch is screened out of
the raw trash stream. This screened material is assumed to be yard
waste, is combined with the rest of the yard waste collected at the
MRF's, and is then trucked to rural Illinois to be composted or
landspread.
Does anyone have information or reports concerning this practice? Some
of our citizen contacts have raised questions as to the potential heavy
metal content of such material.
Any reports, documentation or resources would be very helpful. Thank
you.
Mehrdad Azemun
-- Chicago Recycling Coalition 2125 West North Avenue Chicago, Illinois 60647 tel 773.862.2370 fax 773.278.3840 email crc@cnt.org web http://www.cnt.org/crc/------------------------------
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 1997 23:00:20 -0700 From: chucksei@cwo.com (Chuck Seidler) Subject: GreenYes Digest V97 #161
In the process of changing the Presidio in San Francisco from a military post to a National Park a great deal of building deconstruction is required. The last I heard on discussions of the topic involved a significant amount of recycling of the material from the buildings. The contact for information on projects that have been completed is Amy Vincent, the Sustainability Coordinator for the National Park Service for the Presidio, at (415) 561-4321.
Chuck Seidler.
>Date: Tue, 8 Jul 1997 12:17:44 -0500 >From: Joshua Reiser <Joshua_Reiser@co.st-louis.mo.us> >Subject: Request for Demolition Recycling Stories > >The St. Louis County Office of the Solid Waste Coordinator (St. Louis, >MO), has been asked to speak before a group of local demolition >contractors about demolition debris recycling. Due to relatively low >landfill tip fees and many quarries in the state, however, St. Louis County >does not have much of a C&D recycling infrastructure. We would >therefore like to use this opportunity to basically "present" the idea of >C&D recycling to the contractors at this meeting. We would like to >provide them with examples of interesting and entrepreneurial C&D >recycling projects that have happened elsewhere and then pose the >question, "Why can't this happen here?" > >I would appreciate it if someone could send me either an example of an >interesting case study, or tell me who to contact in order to find it. I have >already been in touch with Mike Taylor (NADC) and Bill Turley (C&D >Recyling) and have left messages at FACE and Recycling Today. > >Thanks in advance for your help. > >Joshua Reiser >Project Manager >314-854-6878 > >------------------------------ > >Date: Tue, 8 Jul 1997 17:23:19 -0400 >From: "Barbara Schaefer" <B.Schaefer@facilities.utoronto.ca> >Subject: Request for Demolition Recycling Stories > >Joshua, > >Try getting in touch with Gord Van Dyk at the University of Toronto >in Scarborough. A few years ago, they had a storage barn burn down >and were able to recover almost all of the materials. His e-mail >address is vandyk@tsunami.scar.utoronto.ca > > > >> Date sent: Tue, 8 Jul 1997 12:17:44 -0500 >> From: Joshua Reiser <Joshua_Reiser@co.st-louis.mo.us> >> To: GreenYes@ucsd.edu >> Subject: Request for Demolition Recycling Stories > >> The St. Louis County Office of the Solid Waste Coordinator (St. Louis, >> MO), has been asked to speak before a group of local demolition >> contractors about demolition debris recycling. Due to relatively low >> landfill tip fees and many quarries in the state, however, St. Louis County >> does not have much of a C&D recycling infrastructure. We would >> therefore like to use this opportunity to basically "present" the idea of >> C&D recycling to the contractors at this meeting. We would like to >> provide them with examples of interesting and entrepreneurial C&D >> recycling projects that have happened elsewhere and then pose the >> question, "Why can't this happen here?" >> >> I would appreciate it if someone could send me either an example of an >> interesting case study, or tell me who to contact in order to find it. I have >> already been in touch with Mike Taylor (NADC) and Bill Turley (C&D >> Recyling) and have left messages at FACE and Recycling Today. >> >> Thanks in advance for your help. >> >> Joshua Reiser >> Project Manager >> 314-854-6878 >> >> >> >> *************************************** >Barbara Schaefer, Recycling Coordinator >University of Toronto >6th floor, 215 Huron Street >Toronto, Ont. M5S 1A1 CANADA "A clever person solves >phone (416) 978-7080 a problem; a wise person >fax (416) 971-2994 avoids it." >e-mail b.schaefer@facilities.utoronto.ca - A. Einstein >***************************************** > >------------------------------ > >Date: Tue, 08 Jul 1997 17:39:45 -0500 >From: "Susan K. Snow" <sksnow@1stnet.com> >Subject: Sewage sludge, tire burning garbage incinerators, and recycling/clean composting info > >This email is horribly impersonal, but I have misplaced many of your >addresses. I just wanted to say thank you to the many people who sent >me information about sewage sludge, garbage incineration, recycling and >composting information which hopefully will help the rural community in >southeast Louisiana who is battling dangerously polluting proposals. > >Thanks to all of you, she has good information now. >Unfortunately, her governing body will not allow her organization >approach the council. Corrupt politics is alive and well in Louisiana. >Bad things are brewing down here. But at least, thanks to you all, >information to the citizens is now forth coming. > >Thanks again. >Susan Snow > >------------------------------ > >End of GreenYes Digest V97 #161 >****************************** > >
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 1997 09:50:02 -0400 From: "Blair Pollock" <bpollock@town.ci.chapel-hill.nc.us> Subject: GreenYes Digest V97 #162
At 04:30 AM 7/10/97 PDT, you wrote: > >GreenYes Digest Thu, 10 Jul 97 Volume 97 : Issue 162
In reply to Michelle Raymond's remarks below -- I refer you to Dan Coleman's EcoPolitics Rutgers University Press c. 1994? for a rigorous disc. of the interaction of population/technology/poverty/centralization of wealth. He posits that population is an effect, not a cause and technology is notTHE solution. Well written and referenced. Not yr. standard impenetrable tome/diatribe. > >AND RE population growth, etc. I would like to see Mr Ackerman's book - I >have an old friend professor at University of Houston who is an expert on >technology transfer and third world economics. He wrote theory of >Technology. He is an optimist. Believes technology if applied correctly >will solve most of our problems. The problem is somehow the Africans were >never given the right tools to sustain themselves. > >****************************** > >
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 1997 16:31:26 -0400 (EDT) From: STEVESUESS@aol.com Subject: On Trees and Farms
I've been catching up on my reading and reread all of the tree debate stuff....
Also I've been reading The World Watch book on the State of the World, along with a local newspaper feature article on the way the central valley of California is getting paved over, along with a Scientifc American Article on the history and coming crises of fixing Nitrogen. What amuses me is the comparison of all of these articles: The World Watch book chapter on food talks about how there will be very few nations that grow a surplus of food in another 20-30 years. All these nations are looking to America to feed them in the next century. Then in the Mercury article on the loses of farm land in the central valley, they talk about how we are rapidly losing our best farm lands to suburbs and industry (in part because the freeways are there) and how in the next 20-30 years America will become an importer of food. The funny thing is that everyone seems to expect someone else to fill their needs - needs in this example that clearly cannot be filled as the land is simply no longer there! The World Watch book talks about how nitrogen fixing has lead to the ability to dose crops with tons of nitrogen and how this has in great part lead to the big increase in productivity. The questions is how much more of this can we do. The Scientific American Article talks about how fully one third of all nitrogen in our food is now artificially fixed and how this is affecting the environment - ie: eutrification and habitat degredation. And finally - in this weeks Newsweek, Robert Samuelson writes about the impossibility of getting carbon taxes passed in America to reducse greenhouse emissions. As much as he favors such taxes, he feels that realistically they will not happen, and that even with the darkest greenhouse scenario - well so what. He feels we may have to built a few sea walls, and adjuct farmers habits a bit, but all in all it won't matter much. Again World Watch talks about loses of 30% of the worlds farm lands, and displacing hundreds of millions of people... What I don't understand is: If I accept the extra costs to put smoke alarms and fire sprinklers in my home, along with air bags, seat belts in my car, and bomb detecting devices at the airport - well doesn't this tell you that I, and the rest of us are really very cautious when it comes to anything that might possibly (we're talking one in millions probabilities here) harm us, and that we spend fortunes to protect us from these unlikely events. Why are we so unwilling to protect ourselves from more global (and here it is all of us together in the same life boat) dangers? From what I can see of Mars, it does not look that hospitable in case we have to move.
The conversation Bill McGowan and DavidOrr got into, like most conversations, seems to always boil down to dollars vs. something else. The something else is not just how pretty we want things to be, or how many cuddly teddy bears we feel good about having run around the forests, or even about how much people are "willing to spend". Somehow these conversations always seem to boil down to the dollars bit. The problem is that dollars are an artificial and abstract creation of ours - nature and this planet are real. If they and their needs somehow get lost in the way we view our dollars, well then ultimately they will react - and the reaction will be to make our dollars worthless. It is not a question of how much we are "willing to spend", but of how much we "must spend" if we want to stay here for the long haul and keep some sort of improving quality of life thing going....
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 1997 19:08:59 -0400 (EDT) From: STEVESUESS@aol.com Subject: Robert Samuelson 7/14/97
Dear Newsweek Letters Dept.,
Although I understand Robert Samuelson's (Don't Hold Your Breath, July 14,1997) assertion that we won't do much about global warming, I was concerned about his implication that an energy tax is the only way to limit greenhouse gas emissions, and I was even more concerned about how he came across as feeling that no matter how bad it gets, we will adapt, and that the whole thing is really no big deal.
Why do we need to talk about carbon taxes, when we already have huge tax credits and other subsidies on fossil fuels. It seems to me that, in this era of limited government and anti-welfare sentiment, we ought to be talking about eliminating fuel subsidies as well. One would think both Republicans and Democrats would jump at this opportunity to both save tax payers money and help reduce greenhouse emissions. (Unless there is something else involved - lobbying and campaign finance perhaps - but then that is another topic.) The cost of solar energy has dropped by more than a factor of fifteen since the 70's, and another drop like that would make solar energy more than competitive with fossil fuels even at todays subsidized prices. Why not subsidize solar energy research instead of fossil fuel consumption? If we can develop less expensive renewable energy sources we would benefit in many ways including: The virtual elimination of our balance of payments deficit by the elimination of our oil imports, to say nothing of the resulting economic and political ramifications. Other nations would replace their fossil fuel consumption with a renewable energy system as well, leading to a virtual halt in the atmospheric rise of carbon dioxide and thus eliminating that issue altogether. In addition we would eliminate much of the air pollution issues affecting cities everywhere, and innumerable health costs along with that. Through the use of energy conservation methods we managed to keep our fossil fuel consumption at essentially the same rate through more than a decade of economic growth following the embargoes of the 70's. These energy saving systems required that we spend time and money making them happen, but in the long run they have saved us money. What is astonishing is that we now seem to have stopped in our efforts to save energy and money.
My father wrote the first scientific paper (with Roger Revelle in 1957) on his (the first) measurements that showed that we were in fact having an impact on the carbon dioxide level of the Earths atmosphere. I grew up listening to my fathers concerns - which were so great that he wanted to build a nuclear power plant on every street corner. His research was on the radioactive form of carbon (Carbon 14), and specifically calibrating the natural levels over time so that one could accurately date archeological artifacts. In his work he discovered a correlation between the Carbon 14 level and world climate, and based on this he predicted a cooling trend, and not the warming trend we are experiencing. The last ice age, which covered much of the North American continent with a mile thick sheet of ice was the result of a world wide cooling of some five degrees. An increase of even one degree does not mean that we have marginally warmers days, but rather it means that our weather systems have significantly more energy, leading to increases in violent storms, flooding, and so forth. The insurance industry is becoming aware of how this slight increased warmth could bankrupt the entire industry. (Could the fossil fuel industry be held legally accountable for this in the same way cigarette makers are now responsible for societies added health costs?) A seemingly small rise in sea level may not drown much of Earths land surface, but it is just the land closest to sea level that is the most fertile agricultural and most densely populated. By some (admittedly the worst case) estimates we are talking about losing a third of the worlds agricultural land and moving a fourth of the worlds population.
I recently built a new home and had to install smoke alarms, fire sprinklers, and a fire hydrant all of which added about 10% to the cost of my home. My car has seat belts and air bags, and when I go to the airport they x-ray my bags and ask me all kinds of questions, all of which costs lots of money. We live in a society where we want to be protected from all events that have a greater than one in say ten million to a billion chance of occurring, and we spend huge amounts of money creating vast systems of industries to do this. Why we are not equally cautious when it comes to protecting the health of this planet is something I can not fathom. Some ten years ago, Newsweek wrote that "the environmental nightmare scenarios of the 60's are now beginning to come to pass." I believe that Mr. Samuelson does a real disservice to the public by catering to that desire not to know what bad thing might happen to us if we continue in our ways, and in feeding that sense of hopelessness too many of us feel in our ability to have any influence in improving things. And finally, I suggest he read the World Watch Institutes book on the State of the World, perhaps the Ecology of Commerce by Paul Hawken, or look up what the Natural Step People are doing before he does the typical reporters routine of giving equal credence to all sides of any issue.
Sincerely,
Stephen Suess President Zero Waste Institute 1000 Larken Valley Road Watsonville, CA 95076 (408) 462-1565
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 1997 08:09:59 -0700 From: iuf@ix.netcom.com Subject: Styrofoam Coffee Cups
My husband works in a coffee house and the owner insists on using styrofoam coffee cups, believing that the environmental damage from non-CFC styrofoam is roughly comparable to that from wax-coated paper. And besides, styrofoam keeps the coffee hotter, doesn't burn customers' fingers, etc. etc. I believe that the owner is mistaken and I would like to present him with solid, impartial evidence of that. Do you have any information that I could use? Can you suggest someplace to contact to get more information? I tried contacting Peet's Coffee (a Bay-Area based chain of coffee houses) because they use paper rather than styrofoam. But they never got back to me. If you know someone specific at Peet's who could explain their cup decision to me, I'd very much like to contact them.
Any assistance is appreciated. You can reply either through this list or directly by e-mail to iuf@ix.netcom.com (if you reply directly, please put "Sharon" somewhere in the subject line).
Thanks much, Sharon Gates Integrated Urban Forestry iuf@ix.netcom.com
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 1997 13:19:27 -0700 (PDT) From: Tedd Ward <ncol0043@telis.org> Subject: Styrofoam Coffee Cups
I can give you supporting information, but would have to dig it out. The gist of the comparison goes something like this: 1. Paper or styro? is really the wrong question. If you want coffee or cocoa, why not bring your own mug or go to a coffee house which provides mugs for you? You can always ask, and insist you will go elsewhere if they can't offer a mug of coffee. 2. In terms of cost, energy, resource consumption, and weight of material, styro beats paper by a large margin. It takes a lot of energy to turn a tree into pulp, and very little styro-resin is needed to make a single cup. Most of the CFC's (attacks ozone like the Terminator) used in styro have been replaced by HCFC's (attacks ozone like a civilized assasin) or propane (leads to smog). 3. Both paper and styro have damaging health impacts on the customer. Styro dissolves, especially in hot liquids containing some oils (coffee, chicken soup, etc.) This results in ethyl benzene and other carcinogens dissolving in the liquids and being stored indefinitely in our fat cells. Studies have shown that even eggs stored in styro can absorb the ethyl benzene! Paper cups often use bleached paper pulps which can contain dioxins, also notorious carcinogens. 4. One of the big problems with "to-go" containers is that they DO go. In our coastal community, styro litter or windblown trash ends up in the ocean, rivers, and lakes where it is consumed by critters. It clogs their digestive systems and they die. Paper litter is rarely mistaken for a food it is not, and it eventually breaks down. 5. Recycling is not really an issue. Styro collection programs are rare to non-existent, due to the low density of material and high collection costs. The glues, waxes, and food contamination in paper cups nixes their recyclability. Trees can be grown to make more paper, but producing more styro after the earth's oil has been consumed is unlikely unless recycling increases. The small amount of styro resin used per cup and the large amount of energy required to make a paper cup from trees make the "renewable resource" argument a bit silly in this case. 6. Bring your mug. Disposables don't really make your life convenient so much as they are making the planet miserable.
Tedd Ward
At 08:09 AM 7/10/97 -0700, you wrote: >My husband works in a coffee house and the owner insists on using >styrofoam coffee cups, believing that the environmental damage from >non-CFC styrofoam is roughly comparable to that from wax-coated paper. >And besides, styrofoam keeps the coffee hotter, doesn't burn customers' >fingers, etc. etc. I believe that the owner is mistaken and I would >like to present him with solid, impartial evidence of that. Do you have >any information that I could use? Can you suggest someplace to contact >to get more information? I tried contacting Peet's Coffee (a Bay-Area >based chain of coffee houses) because they use paper rather than >styrofoam. But they never got back to me. If you know someone specific >at Peet's who could explain their cup decision to me, I'd very much like >to contact them. > >Any assistance is appreciated. You can reply either through this list >or directly by e-mail to > iuf@ix.netcom.com >(if you reply directly, please put "Sharon" somewhere in the subject >line). > >Thanks much, > Sharon Gates > Integrated Urban Forestry > iuf@ix.netcom.com > >
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 1997 23:31:54 -0400 From: Myra Nissen <MyraCycle@compuserve.com> Subject: Styrofoam Coffee Cups
Paper cups can be composted.
Myra
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 1997 19:15:47 -0400 (EDT) From: EcoMarty@aol.com Subject: This person needs a little help
>My name is Kristen Riegel and I am looking for some help! Currently, I >am enrolled in a Masters of Public Health program at Loma Linda >University, majoring in Environmental Health. In order to earn my >degree, I must complete a 400 hour internship in some aspect of >Environmental Health. For my internship, I would like to begin a >community educational program on the importance of source reduction and >recycling. This program would be introduced to the city of Chino Hills >where I live, and would hopefully extend not only to the homeowners, but >the schools and businesses that are located in Chino Hills also. > >What I am looking for is any assistance I can get. Mainly, I am looking >for grant money so that I can propose this to my city and show them that >this program would cost the city and tax payers nothing. If I can prove >this to the city's delight, I would hope that they would sponsor me in >my internship. Any assistance that you could provide would be greatly >appreciated!!! > >Thank you in advance! If you can not help, please forward this message >on to someone who could help. > >Thanks, >Kristen Riegel >15158 Via Maravilla >Chino Hills, California 91709 >(909) 606-1937 >email: chariotair@earthlink.net or jriegel@sph.llu.edu
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 1997 16:31:36 -0400 (EDT) From: STEVESUESS@aol.com Subject: thots on z.w. strategy
Bill, Thanks for your long and thoughtful notes on Zero Waste and Bottle Bills. I believe that most people are not particularly visionary, so when you ask them what do they want, they typically answer you with ideas already floating around. If you give them a standard list of ideas, they will most likely pick the one they know best, and perhaps feel has the best chance of working. But if you talk to them instead about their feelings, what goes on in their guts - what is their big picture view (and that is hard for most people to do, and it typically emerges as vague yearnings and incomplete thoughts), well then you will get somewhere very different, and I might add you will most liekly find surprising consencus across the political spectrum. Don't get me wrong - I am not opposed to recycling bottles, or putting deposits on the,. I just think that these are vehicles to get to a goal. It is the goal that is the most important thing, because after all the old idea is: If you do not know where you are going, how do you expect to get there? You may think of a bottle bill as a goal, but I ask to what end? Initially bottle bills were introduced as anti-little initiatives - something to make the roads cleaner. Then farmers got into the act with their complaints about glass in their fields getting into the grain and ultimately cows stomachs. And now we talk about waste reduction goals. You see - all of these goals are different and will lead to different kinds of bottle bills. If you just care about little and cows, you simply pay to pick up the stuff and continue to land fill it - an idea resurfacing here in California amongst the "let the market do it" anti-bottle billers at the govenors office. If your ultimate goal is a sustainable society - then a zero waste goal must logically follow. Current bottle bills tend to provide subsidies for continued wastful practises regarding containers by locking in place a large infrastructture that is hard to upgrade and is typically not very zero wastful! I see much of the current environmental legislation we have as just slowing down the non-sustainable consumption of this planet, and not of actually improving things. Yes - The Natural Step is positive and does promote negative waste, and I do support this kind of movement. The Natural Step is a big picture, goal oriented, and well systematized movement. They work with businesses - and you yourself pointed out that thus far only one American business has signed on. The trick is: How do we light a fire under the rest of business to follow suit. I do not believe that pushing action specific bills such as bottle bills will do this. Rather we nned to push more generically with broad based campaigns. And as I said in the beginning - if you sit down with people and listen to their hearts, you will find they are worried and scared. They know things are somehow going to hell. They know something's got to change. They do not know exactly what it is, or exactly how to do it, but they know something's got to be done. We need to harness this unease to promote the broad based issue! The big picture is what we need to get agreement on, and then keep the presure of public opinion on so that those who do things begin to realize that they must do them in a sustainable manner, and can no longer do them as they have been.... A bottle bill is buyt one battle, and frankly we do not need to get into that one, and I believe we ought not get into that one. Let Coke figure out how to be zero waste, sustainable, environment improving on their own! Just make sure they do it!!! When all is said and done, isn't that really the bottom line of what people want? Then why not do that? Why deflect energies away from the real goal? Energies that will most likely NOT get us to the real goal by pursuing a bottle bill! So I guess my conclusion is: If you believe that it is bottle bills that people most want, then I think you have not engaged them in enough conversation!
------------------------------
End of GreenYes Digest V97 #163 ******************************