GreenYes Digest V98 #180

GreenYes Mailing List and Newsgroup (greenyes@ucsd.edu)
Fri, 22 Jan 1999 17:26:16 -0500


GreenYes Digest Thu, 10 Sep 98 Volume 98 : Issue 180

Today's Topics:
'Half-life' disposal policy
[Fwd: [EcoTalk] styrofoam recycling]
Against Zero Waste
Fw: A response to 'GREENS FADE FROM THE SCENE'.
Fw: Fw: A response to 'GREENS FADE FROM THE SCENE'.
Fw: HELP CUT TIMBER SUBSIDIES NOW
Fwd: VENTURA COUNTY RECRUITMENT

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.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Loop-Detect: GreenYes:98/180
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1998 17:54:01 +0900
From: oldxeye@crisscross.com (Hop)
Subject: 'Half-life' disposal policy

In GreenYes Digest V98 #179 Stephen Suess <plactory@plactory.com> wrote:

> I was in Austria visiting relative two years ago. At that time they
>had virtually stopped throwing away anything. The country was at 90%
>recycling levels, and there were recycling dumpsters all over every small
>town and store in the country. The small village we were at had a
>landfill that was created by the Romans two thousand years ago to service
>the local rest stop. The villagers had every intention of making sure
>that landfill would never be full!
>
> I think this is the idea we need to agree upon. We ought to agree
>that we need a landfill, and we ought to be able to agree that it should
>never be filled up to the point where we need another one. Afterall if we
>keep filling these things up it is only a matter of time..... well I
>realize that can sound silly, but any child will see the point!

Well said! Infact, in New South Wales (Australia) the Nature Conservation
Council has just such a policy, as part of its broader waste minimisation
policy developed by its Waste Crisis Network. It reads:

6.4.5 Waste Disposal Pricing Policy

The Nature Conservation Council of NSW, being an umbrella organisation for
community and environment groups in this state, is committed to pursuing a
state-wide policy that:

" - no new landfill or incineration disposal facilities should be approved,
at least until the waste minimisation measures presented in this strategy
are fully implemented."

In line with this commitment, the state's waste disposal pricing policy
should reflect the finite nature of landfill and the environmental and
social problems caused by both landfill and incineration as a means of
disposing of otherwise valuable resources. To achieve this a 'half-life'
approach should be adopted whereby the cost of disposal is inversely
proportional to the remaining landfill capacity. Thus, each halving of
capacity would double the price of disposal.

Upon landfill charges rising to the level of incineration, the two should
be linked, and continue to rise together, according to the above-mentioned
formula - thus discouraging all forms of disposal and promoting an ever
increasing commitment to waste minimisation.

In addition, Differential Tipping Fees are required to further discourage
the generation of mixed waste and encourage source separation.

- Source-separated materials, that can be reused or recycled, should
attract fees which are sufficiently less than the mixed waste levy.
- Revenue from mixed waste disposal should be used to encourage waste
reduction while revenue from source separated materials should be used to
encourage and promote reusable alternatives.

With just a few years of landfill capacity remaining, adoption of such a
policy would demonstrate a responsible attitude - otherwise what landfill
capacity does remain will be squandered quickly and allow even less time
for the necessary transition to a waste-free society. Sooner or later we
will have nowhere left to dispose of our waste.

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 09 Sep 1998 17:25:42 -0800
From: aschneid@cats.ucsc.edu
Subject: [Fwd: [EcoTalk] styrofoam recycling]

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

--------------1B713A0229C
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Hi all:

Collegiate Recycling question on polystyrene single serve food
containers and options to get rid of them. Can any of you help Cody
Torgerson.

Please respond directly to him at cdtorger@ucalgary.ca

Do not reply to this message.

Thanks,

Ann Schneider
UCSC/BEAC

--------------1B713A0229C
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

X-arrival-time: 905311526
Received: from cats.ucsc.edu by cats-po-1 (8.8.8/4.8) id UAA14896; Tue, 8
Sep 1998 20:25:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gaea.earthsystems.org (gaea.earthsystems.org [206.205.42.199])
by cats.ucsc.edu (8.8.5/8.8.4.cats-athena) with ESMTP
id UAA18979 for <aschneid@cats.ucsc.edu>; Tue, 8 Sep 1998 20:25:33 -0700
(PDT)
Received: (from list@localhost) by gaea.earthsystems.org (8.8.6/8.6.9) id
XAA31701; Tue, 8 Sep 1998 23:23:34 -0400
Resent-Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1998 23:23:07 -0400
Message-Id: <9809090323.AA41692@acs5.acs.ucalgary.ca>
To: ecotalk@earthsystems.org
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 98 21:23:44 MDT
From: "Cody Torgerson" <cdtorger@ucalgary.ca>
Url: http://www.acs.ucalgary.ca/~ecoclub/Torgerson.html
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: [EcoTalk] styrofoam recycling
Resent-Message-ID: <"cexzUB.A.5tH.bSf91"@gaea>
Resent-From: ecotalk@earthsystems.org
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: ecotalk-request@earthsystems.org
Resent-To: multiple recipients of <ecotalk@earthsystems.org>

Hi, my name is Cody Torgerson and I am the VP Information Services of the
University of Calgary (Alberta, Canada) EcoClub and I am currently
researching styrofoam recycling as part of a project to reduce or
eliminate styrofoam from the waste generated by the food court at the U
of C. What I would like to know is if there are any styrofoam plants out
by where the recepients of this e-mail live that are able to take used
styrofoam back and reform it (and pretty much any other information that
you can give me on it - every little bit counts). Hope to hear from you
soon ..

--
Cody Torgerson
VP Information Services
University of Calgary EcoClub
http:/www.ucalgary.ca/~ecoclub

--------------1B713A0229C--

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1998 13:56:00 -0400
From: "Bill Sheehan" <zerowaste@grrn.org>
Subject: Against Zero Waste

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1998 16:07:43 -0400
From: "Bill Sheehan" <zerowaste@grrn.org>
Subject: Fw: A response to 'GREENS FADE FROM THE SCENE'.

-----Original Message-----
From: steve.charter@virgin.net <steve.charter@virgin.net>
To: Bill Sheehan <zerowaste@grrn.org>
Date: Monday, September 07, 1998 8:14 PM
Subject: A response to 'GREENS FADE FROM THE SCENE'.

Dear Bill

My brother (Centre for Sustainable Design) sent me a copy of your
article "Fewer than 56% of those polled believe the United States as a
whole is on the right track." What is this saying? It is saying, I
presume, that 55% (i.e. less than 56% - which is of course the
majority) believe that the US is on the right track ... Now that really
is frightening ...

The reality is ... yes many greens, eco-people, ethical caring people
have not given up saving the planet. Greener activity is growing.
However, 'greener' does not mean green or sustainable or ethical, etc.
AND at the same time the majority of activity, which is thoruoghly
ungreen and unsustainable, is growing too - and because its bigger its
growth is bigger than the growth of greener activities.

The reality, when you look at the way the human mind works, is that
repetition of thoughts and behaviour reinforces repetition. Most of our
behvaiour is unsustainable, so even if we are doing greener things,
until AT LEAST 50% OF OUR THOUGHTS AND ACTIVITIES ARE SUSTAINABLE THEN
ALL WE ARE EVER DOING IS REINFORCING SUSTAINABILITY WITHIN AN ILLUSION
OF MOVING TOWARDS SUSTAINABILITY ... LOOK AT THE REALITY OF KYOTO AND
'RIO 2' - LOOK AT THE REALITY OF GOVT. POLICY AND INDIVIDUAL ACTION
AND PUBLIC AWARENESS.

IT'S MISERABLE STUFF HOWEVER UNTIL WE ACCEPT THE NATURE OF THE PROBLEM
WE CAN NEVER FIND A 'SOLUTION' / APPROPRIATE (conscious?) RESPONSE. IF
WE ARE ONLY DEALING WITH SYMPTOMS TREATMENT OF THE SYMPTOMS ONLY SERVES
TO SUSTAIN THE DISEASE. THAT'S HOW I SEE IT. THE PROBLEM / DISEASE IS
NOT OUT THERE - IT IS IN HERE ... THINKING AND VALUES / PERCEPTION /
CONSCIOUSNESS I.E. IN OUR SELVES. (As per Fritjof Capra's work on
crisis of perception, and Arthur Koestler in Ghost In The Machine, 'the
evidence suggests a screw loose in the human mind ...' etc.) EVERYTHING
COMES FROM OUR THINKING AND VALUES ..

Apply Capra's Web of Life model to the life process that builds and
sustains the human consciousness system - we have changed the
biochemical inputs from their evolutionary optimums signifcantly. What
kind of effects might this have? What kind of world might you expect to
see if we were building ourselves and our consciousness out of
sub-optimal material generation after generation, and particularly
during the most recxent junk food generation - YOU, and your
consciousness - WE and OUR consciousness - are / is what you / we
eat. JUNK.
EVERYTHING in science, biology, chemisrty, ecology says this HAS TO have
an effect on the nature, functioning and health of the system.

What do you think ...?

AND once we accept the nature of the problem is on our thinking and
values / consciousness then really awesome things do become possible
because we start looking at the nature of the human mind and
consciousness and our awesome, and well-known, unrealised potential. We
perhaps then might start to move from being clever to being wise, and
start to inteligently use the vast mass of information that our
reductionist minds have created, alongside the different perspective of
holistic EXPERIENCE ... Sustainability is all in the mind ...

BLAH, BLAH, BLAH ... SORRY ABOUT HIS RANT BUT I GET SO, SO, SO
FRUSTRATED - IT IS NOT 'AIMED' AT YOU IN PARTICULAR - JUST A
TYPING-FINGER-JERK RESPONSE ...

Thanks, regards and best wishes in your work, what ever it is.

Steve Charter

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1998 03:52:41 -0400
From: "Bill Sheehan" <zerowaste@grrn.org>
Subject: Fw: Fw: A response to 'GREENS FADE FROM THE SCENE'.

-----Original Message-----
From: David Biddle<Jango@aol.com>
Date: Wednesday, September 09, 1998 11:02 PM
Subject: Re: Fw: A response to 'GREENS FADE FROM THE SCENE'.

I was fascinated to read "Greens Fade From Scene" (couldn't tell what was
really being said, by the way)...Mr. Charter's comments on his feelings
about that piece, below, too are interesting and bring to mind two
somewhat related notions of concern that I have always had about
environmentalism in general (and environmentalists). The first is the
issue of environmentalism's struggle with whether it is a political force
or whether it is a discipline (i.e., a field of some sort seeking Truth).

The second notion has to do with the abscence of social science
(especially anthropology and social psychology) from the core of
environmental endeavors. With regard to Greens Fade... social scientists
have long been aware of a phenomenon called cognitive dissonance which at
its root focuses on the problem that what people say they believe in and
what they actually do are two very different things. This is clearly a
fundamental problem in environmental management (and the rest of life,
I'm afraid).

What is even more interesting is the rise of popular notions, the
expression of them through cognitive dissonance, and then the gathering
gloom that this dissonance creates in the psyche (or culture if you're an
anthropologist) and the eventual dismembering of that original notion
(once noble and ideal, now tarnished and "proven" to be a sham) into so
much deconstructed drivel.

I'm working on a number of levels here, I know, but I just thought I'd
throw this in the pot to spice things up a bit. Remember, in the greater
scheme of things, we have only been at this stuff for the last three
decades (before we didn't have the science to make rational decisions).
It will most likely take another century for things to truly be gotten
right. In the mean time, it is a sad fact that we shall have to go
through some very serious crises before the basic cognitive dissonance
most of us operate by (whether we know it or not) begins to wain
environmentally.

Regards to all...

David Biddle
jango@aol.com

David Biddle
Center for Solid Waste Research
7366 Rural Lane
Philadelphia, PA 19119
215-247-2974 (voice and fax)
jango@aol.com

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1998 08:15:05 -0400
From: "Bill Sheehan" <zerowaste@grrn.org>
Subject: Fw: HELP CUT TIMBER SUBSIDIES NOW

-----Original Message-----
From: Western Ancient Forest Campaign <wafcdc@igc.apc.org>
To: mlist.wafcdc@conf.igc.apc.org <mlist.wafcdc@conf.igc.apc.org>
Date: Tuesday, September 08, 1998 8:54 PM
Subject: BRYAN AMENDMENT ON SENATE FLOOR TOMORROW

[Fwd: Help cut $50 million virgin timber tax subsidy.]

TO: All Activists
FROM: Jim Jontz & Steve Holmer
DATE: September 9, 1998

SUBJECT: BRYAN AMENDMENT ON SENATE FLOOR

The Senate began consideration of the Interior
Appropriations bill today. The Bryan amendment is expected to
come to a vote today, Wednesday, September 9. Please contact
your Senators at 202/224-3121 ASAP and urge
them to support the Bryan amendment.

Sen. Richard Bryan (D-NV) will offer Members of the Senate
one of the best opportunities they will have this year to do a favor for
both taxpayers and the environment when he seeks to cut subsidies to
the timber industry for National Forest logging. Sen. Bryan seeks to
cut around $50 million from subsidies which would otherwise support
timber sales and timber road construction in our National Forests. The
Bryan amendment is a meaningful step toward weaning the timber
industry from the taxpayer dole that drives abusive logging in our
forests, and costs the Treasury dearly (the Forest Service's own study
admitted to an $88 million loss in its timber program last year).

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1998 13:12:35 EDT
From: GaryLiss@aol.com
Subject: Fwd: VENTURA COUNTY RECRUITMENT

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

--part0_905361156_boundary
Content-ID: <0_905361156@inet_out.mail.aol.com.1>
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII

In a message dated 98-09-08 16:13:26 EDT, KAY.MARTIN@mail.co.ventura.ca.us
writes:

<< I am recruiting for a senior
management position to head up the Department's Recycling Division.
The salary range is $44,412-$63,390 annually, with an additional $3,132
per year for a Master's Degree. If you know anyone who is interested,
please have them contact me at 805-654-2472, or check out the Senior
Waste Management Analyst position on the County Home Page at :
http://www.ventura.org/personnel/pereo1.htm

The position will close on September 18, 1998. Thanks!

Kay >>

--part0_905361156_boundary
Content-ID: <0_905361156@inet_out.mail.mail.co.ventura.ca.us.2>
Content-type: message/rfc822
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Content-disposition: inline

Return-Path: <KAY.MARTIN@mail.co.ventura.ca.us>
Received: from rly-za01.mx.aol.com (rly-za01.mail.aol.com [172.31.36.97]) by
air-za02.mail.aol.com (v49.1) with SMTP; Tue, 08 Sep 1998 16:13:25
-0400
Received: from fw.co.ventura.ca.us (fw.co.ventura.ca.us [157.145.220.1])
by rly-za01.mx.aol.com (8.8.8/8.8.5/AOL-4.0.0)
with ESMTP id QAA18127 for <GaryLiss@aol.com>;
Tue, 8 Sep 1998 16:13:23 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from fw.co.ventura.ca.us (root@localhost)
by fw.co.ventura.ca.us with ESMTP id NAA14067
for <GaryLiss@aol.com>; Tue, 8 Sep 1998 13:11:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailhq.co.ventura.ca.us (mailhq.co.ventura.ca.us
[157.145.4.26])
by fw.co.ventura.ca.us with ESMTP id NAA14063
for <GaryLiss@aol.com>; Tue, 8 Sep 1998 13:11:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from x400@localhost) by mailhq.co.ventura.ca.us (8.7.1/8.7.1) id
NAA27787 for GaryLiss@aol.com; Tue, 8 Sep 1998 13:11:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Authentication-Warning: mailhq.co.ventura.ca.us: x400 set sender to
KAY.MARTIN@mail.co.ventura.ca.us using -f
Received: by TELEMAIL; Tue, 8 Sep 1998 13:14:00 -0700
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1998 13:14:00 -0700
From: KAY MARTIN <KAY.MARTIN@mail.co.ventura.ca.us>
Subject: RECRUITMENT
To: GaryLiss@aol.com (Receipt Notification Requested)
Message-Id: <35F58FF6.4E0D.0049.000@MHS>
X-Mailer: Worldtalk (NetJunction 4.5.1-p4)/MIME
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit

Hi Gary:

I've been meaning to contact you since you left the CRRA, just to say
hello and let you know that there are many of us in the field who are
rooting for you. That organization has taken some strange twists and
turns of late, some of which I find difficult to support. In any event, I
hope your consulting business is doing well and that neat things are on
the horizon for you professionally.

I just wanted to make you aware that I am recruiting for a senior
management position to head up the Department's Recycling Division.
The salary range is $44,412-$63,390 annually, with an additional $3,132
per year for a Master's Degree. If you know anyone who is interested,
please have them contact me at 805-654-2472, or check out the Senior
Waste Management Analyst position on the County Home Page at :
http://www.ventura.org/personnel/pereo1.htm

The position will close on September 18, 1998. Thanks!

Kay

--part0_905361156_boundary--

------------------------------

Date: (null)
From: (null)

Mr. Don Kneass is President of WSRA and
Western Regional Director for the
National Association for PET Container
Resources. [NAPCOR's member companies
are PET Resin Producers, -- including
Amoco, Shell, DuPont, Eastman --PET
bottle manufacturers, and suppliers to
the PET industry.]

ZERO WASTE - A WASHINGTONIAN'S
PERSPECTIVE

By Don Kneass

Zero waste, an idea originated in
California by well meaning recycling
activists, intends to put together, under
a single concept, policies viewed as
necessary for creating a sustainable
future. Outside of California, however,
zero waste has generated little interest.
Many in the recycling community, I
believe, find that the idea stands to
weaken the push for sustainability,
rather than strengthen it. Zero waste is
potentially a harmful idea being promoted
at a bad time and here are my reasons
why:

* Lacks an Implementation Plan. Zero
waste, rather than being viewed as a
complex process for achieving
sustainability has become simply a
slogan. Lost is the discussion of how
it's to be achieved? Many of the
policies and actions supporters say are
necessary to meet zero waste are
proposals that have a history of
fruitless advocacy. Where is the
implementation plan and just where are
the capable politicians that will
champion the statutes necessary to enact
these policies?

* Weakens the Attainable. Each of the
zero waste agenda items has some merit;
however, some are more within reach than
others. Some have serious support; some
have legions of powerful opposition.
Throwing them all under one umbrella
concept draws resources and attention
away from the attainable and focuses the
opposition onto the entire agenda.

* It's an Impossible Goal. Like world
peace, the elimination of poverty, and an
end to disease, zero waste is an
admirable ideal. It is, however, an
impossible objective. Even the
businesses being touted as zero waste
models produce waste. Why promote a goal
that can't be achieved? Frustration and
disillusionment will be the result.

* Lacks public support.
Environmentalism's arguably most popular
and enduring accomplishments, energy
conservation and recycling, achieved
their success because they were driven by
public demand. The public defined the
issue and led the way. There is no
public interest in, or demand for, zero
waste. The letters of support to the
editor or elected officials, the
neighborhood advocates, the media
attention to public mood, all of which
bolstered recycling's success, don't
exist for zero waste.

* Its Timing is Poor. Recycling is
slipping, sliding and fading badly. Just
holding on to its status quo level of
support from the public and private
sector will be a Herculean task.
Recycling skeptics abound and the John
Tierney/New York Times anti-recycling
mantra is still taking its toll. Now,
more than ever, recycling needs to
identify a plausible near-term agenda in
order to focus its energy and resources
and move forward towards completing the
job. It is not the right time to expand
the agenda. Our hands are full.

Should the recycling community have a
sustainable future as our objective?
Absolutely, but it won't come pell-mell
or without a sensible, concerted effort
that sets reasonable goals and attempts
to achieve them cooperatively one hard
step at a time.

------------------------------

End of GreenYes Digest V98 #180
******************************