Today's Topics:
'No Welfare for Wasting' - Local Op-Ed
Americania in the Twenty-First Century (2 msgs)
C & D Bans
Fwd: Web links to socioeconomic data sources
Low voter turnout
New Phone & Fax for GrassRoots Recycling Network
NRC Board Elections
PRIVATIZING WASTING NOT THE SOLUTION (2 msgs)
The Temper of America - Reply to Roger's Reply
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:98/155
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 7 Aug 1998 06:56:52 -0700 (PDT)
From: "David A. Kirkpatrick" <david@kirkworks.com>
Subject: 'No Welfare for Wasting' - Local Op-Ed
Letter to the Editor - Durham, NC - The Herald-Sun - Submitted: August 6, 1998
"No Welfare for Wasting"
I am writing in response to your editorial, "No to Garbage Gestapo," on
Durham's ban of recyclables from mixed trash. Garbage pick-up and disposal
is one of the few utility services in Durham for which we don't pay more if
we are more wasteful. If we waste electricity, gas, or water, it will show
up in our monthly bills. However, if we don't recycle and generate
excessive waste, all of Durham's taxpayers foot the bill in higher garbage
pick-up and transport costs to a Virginia landfill. The new recycling
separation ordinance is one simple way to ask everyone to put their
newspaper, cans, bottles, and cardboard in their blue bin so that they can
be recycled, generating revenues instead of disposal costs. The system we
have now is "welfare for wasting" -- those who recycle and reduce waste
subsidize those who don't.
The intent of the ordinance is to help create a civic expectation that
everyone should recycle -- because it makes fiscal sense; the environmental
and economic development benefits are a nice additional plus. Clearly City
officials aren't going to have the time to fine someone for an errant can or
bottle -- but rather to focus on those who are flagrantly wasteful. In the
same way, the police don't fine everyone for running stop signs -- but the
civic understanding that we should obey traffic signals makes driving more
efficient and safe for us all.
Does mandatory recycling work? Durham's Environmental Affairs Board asked
that question to recycling experts around the country in evaluating Durham's
ordinance a year ago. The answer was a resounding yes. Madison, Wisconsin
saw recycling participation jump from 72% to 97%, San Diego upped their rate
from 35% to 85%. A study of communities across the country diverting more
than 40% of their garbage from landfills found that the majority had
mandatory recycling ordinances, along with good education programs and
convenient recycling and yard waste pick-up.
So, for once, "let us not ask what our City can do for us, but what we can
do for our City", so that we can make Durham a more resourceful, efficient
and involved community.
------------------------
David Kirkpatrick is Chair of the Durham City-County Environmental Affairs Board
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 7 Aug 1998 09:00:08 -0500
From: "RecycleWorlds" <anderson@msn.fullfeed.com>
Subject: Americania in the Twenty-First Century
The 8/7/98 Wall Street Journal has an article, "A House for the
New Millennium," describing the American psyche -- through choice of
housing style -- that indirectly bodes significant obstacles to
grassroots efforts for social change.
According to the article's author, June Fletcher, the house of the
coming decade is not "the futuristic house like the Jetsons -- all
open and glassy...With the year 2001 nearly here, they are designing
homes that resemble the fortress and Spanish missions of yore. The
style is inward looking, with front-yard walls that keep out the
neighbors and with tall, anrrow windows that limit the light. ...
[Even though] architects and builders always try to come up with new
ways to make current houses seem outdated...the neo fortress movement
of the moment does seem to be popular, if only because it expresses a
general mood these days: 'Keep out.'
"...The 'Home of the Future,' ... presents an almost forbidding,
plain brick face, punctuated by two stone turrets. 'Turrets connote
fortification and strength'... Orlando, fla. architect Don Evans says
luxury homes are 'closing up and walling up.'" etc etc.
Previously, I forwarded a similar piece reporting that interior
decorators previously thought of living room preferences with big
chairs and couches haunched around the entertainment center sized TV
as "cocooning," but the subsequent drift toward sealed windows and so
on led them to feel the better expression of desire was "fortressing".
The reason that these trends are important is that the great
weight of the social research on what makes an activist closely
relates those motivations to a concern for the outside world coupled
with a belief that you can "beat city hall".
Fortressing is the antithesis of those prerequisites needed to
find grist for grassroots efforts.
All activists of whatever stripe need to think deeply about what
is happening to people's inner most attitudes and fears as this
century winds down in order how to figure out how to reestablish a
foundation that we can all build upon.
/peter
____________________________________
Peter Anderson
RecycleWorlds Consulting
4513 Vernon Blvd. Ste. 15
Madison, WI 53705-4964
Phone:(608) 231-1100/Fax: (608) 233-0011
E-mail:recycle@msn.fullfeed.com
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 7 Aug 1998 11:56:40 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Roger M. Guttentag" <rgutten@concentric.net>
Subject: Americania in the Twenty-First Century
At 09:00 AM 8/7/98 -0500, you wrote:
> The 8/7/98 Wall Street Journal has an article, "A House for the
>New Millennium," describing the American psyche -- through choice of
>housing style -- that indirectly bodes significant obstacles to
>grassroots efforts for social change....
>
>==================================================================
Dear Peter:
I read out of curiosity the WSJ article cited in your e-mail and I think it
is important for the list members to understand that it is discussing home
designs that are in the $400K to over $3,000K range. All of us have some
degree of concern over issues relating to privacy and security - especially
the very affluent and the truly rich. What I believe we're seeing (perhaps)
is a significant fraction of this latter group who have the resources to
respond to these concerns through expensive archictectural solutions. There
is really nothing new about this behavior - in the 19th century the rich
built elaborate mansions in remote areas for the same reason. Frankly, I
think it may also be in response to the public's voyeuristic appetite for
information of any kind on the people who are wealthy, powerful, attractive
or smart that is catered to absurd proportions by all types of popular
media. In short, Peter I think you may be reading too much into this.
On the other hand, it is still useful to ask if there are social trends that
indicate a weakening of our collective socially progressive activist
impulses. I think there are some very important ones that are being
discussed. For example, many political commentators are expecting a record
low turnout for the upcoming mid-year elections. It is their belief that
these elections will be decided by a small group of voters who will be
motivated to vote due to their commitments to one specific issue or ideology
- which I think in many cases will be socially conservative /
anti-environmental. That prospect worries me far more than who is buying a
neo-fortress home.
Roger M. Guttentag
E-MAIL: rgutten@concentric.net
TEL: 215-513-0452
FAX: 215-513-0453
Read "Recycling In Cyberspace" in Resource Recycling
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 07 Aug 1998 09:41:00 -0700
From: "Dunlap, Roberta" <Roberta.Dunlap@ci.sj.ca.us>
Subject: C & D Bans
Does anyone know of any jurisdiction doing a C & D ban to their landfill?
Would like information on what materials are banned, details of the program,
how enforced, problems, successes. Thank you for any information.
Roberta Dunlap
City of San Jose
Environmental Services Dept.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 7 Aug 1998 20:02:21 EDT
From: GaryLiss@aol.com
Subject: Fwd: Web links to socioeconomic data sources
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--part0_902534542_boundary
Content-ID: <0_902534542@inet_out.mail.aol.com.1>
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
In a message dated 98-08-07 18:17:56 EDT, tim.nolan@moea.state.mn.us writes:
<< > From: Andrew Reamer[SMTP:reamer@thecia.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 05, 1998 2:06 PM
> To: Multiple recipients of list
> Subject: Web links to socioeconomic data sources
>
> For the U.S. Economic Development Administration, I'm in the midst of a
> study on the nature of the socio-economic data needs of regional economic
> development practitioners and researchers and how well those needs are
> being
> met by Federal statistical agencies. As part of that work, I and Joe
> Cortright, my project co-researcher, have put together a web page that has
> data links to about 100 Federal and other on-line sources of state,
> regional
> and local socio-economic data.
>
> I know that recycling market developers often seek out such data for a
> variety of analyses, like examining current industry concentrations and
> trends over time, sorting out recycling business activity in a particular
> area, or projecting local population trends into the next decade. I also
> know from our study's survey and interviews that most economic developer
> types are in the dark to some (often high) degree about what
> socio-economic
> data are out there and where to find them. I would imagine that a number
> of
> you, particularly those who come to recycling market development from the
> environmental side of the tracks, are in a similar situation. So you may
> find the web site useful. The address is:
> http://www.hevanet.com/lad/sources.htm
>
> To help those unfamiliar with any of the data sources, the site provides a
> short description, by source, of the nature of the data available.
>
> We will be updating this list over time, and welcome any suggestions for
> additional links that you think would be of interest to the regional
> economic development community at large. You can send suggestions and
> comments to me at reamer@thecia.net. I hope you find the site of use.
>
> Andy Reamer >>
--part0_902534542_boundary
Content-ID: <0_902534542@inet_out.mail.aol.com.2>
Content-type: message/rfc822
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Content-disposition: inline
Return-Path: <jtrnet@valley.rtpnc.epa.gov>
Received: from relay31.mx.aol.com (relay31.mail.aol.com [172.31.109.31]) by
air18.mail.aol.com (v47.2) with SMTP; Fri, 07 Aug 1998 18:17:56 -0400
Received: from valley.rtpnc.epa.gov (valley.rtpnc.epa.gov [134.67.208.16])
by relay31.mx.aol.com (8.8.8/8.8.5/AOL-4.0.0)
with ESMTP id SAA28978;
Fri, 7 Aug 1998 18:17:44 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from valley (valley [134.67.208.16]) by valley.rtpnc.epa.gov
(8.8.7/8.8.0) with SMTP id SAA29361; Fri, 7 Aug 1998 18:17:42 -0400
(EDT)
Date: Fri, 7 Aug 1998 18:17:42 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <6CF0581EC9C1D111B48600805FBEB878212D80@pca-ex01.pca.state.mn.us>
Errors-To: jwhitehe@erg.com
Reply-To: jtrnet@valley.rtpnc.epa.gov
Originator: jtrnet@unixmail.rtpnc.epa.gov
Sender: jtrnet@valley.rtpnc.epa.gov
Precedence: bulk
From: "Nolan, Tim" <tim.nolan@moea.state.mn.us>
To: Multiple recipients of list <jtrnet@valley.rtpnc.epa.gov>
Subject: RE: Web links to socioeconomic data sources
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment: EPA's "Jobs Through Recycling" Grants Network
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Andy, just wanted to let you know I perodically review JTR e-mails, most of
which are not useful to me, and the information you take the time to provide
is very useful. I'm now overseeing a Sustainable Communities program at the
MN Office of Environmental Assistance and have limited involvement in market
dev. However, I will likely find some of the info., such as that below,
useful to my work. Thanks for taking the time to convey such advice!
Timothy Nolanb (Previous MN RBAC fame)
> ----------
> From: Andrew Reamer[SMTP:reamer@thecia.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 05, 1998 2:06 PM
> To: Multiple recipients of list
> Subject: Web links to socioeconomic data sources
>
> For the U.S. Economic Development Administration, I'm in the midst of a
> study on the nature of the socio-economic data needs of regional economic
> development practitioners and researchers and how well those needs are
> being
> met by Federal statistical agencies. As part of that work, I and Joe
> Cortright, my project co-researcher, have put together a web page that has
> data links to about 100 Federal and other on-line sources of state,
> regional
> and local socio-economic data.
>
> I know that recycling market developers often seek out such data for a
> variety of analyses, like examining current industry concentrations and
> trends over time, sorting out recycling business activity in a particular
> area, or projecting local population trends into the next decade. I also
> know from our study's survey and interviews that most economic developer
> types are in the dark to some (often high) degree about what
> socio-economic
> data are out there and where to find them. I would imagine that a number
> of
> you, particularly those who come to recycling market development from the
> environmental side of the tracks, are in a similar situation. So you may
> find the web site useful. The address is:
> http://www.hevanet.com/lad/sources.htm
>
> To help those unfamiliar with any of the data sources, the site provides a
> short description, by source, of the nature of the data available.
>
> We will be updating this list over time, and welcome any suggestions for
> additional links that you think would be of interest to the regional
> economic development community at large. You can send suggestions and
> comments to me at reamer@thecia.net. I hope you find the site of use.
>
> Andy Reamer
>
>
--part0_902534542_boundary--
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 7 Aug 1998 12:37:43 EDT
From: RESRECYCLE@aol.com
Subject: Low voter turnout
Roger: You see low voter turnout as a problem, and in terms of what this
apathy indicates in terms of broad societal change, I agree. But you are in
error about its likely effect in 1998. Low voter turnout is an advantage for
those who espouse certain political views and who can deliver the voters.
While this has typically meant that right-wing conservatives get elected in
low-turnout elections, it is also the case that the "green" voter is someone
to target. This is why the Sierra Club's political organization is using the
majority of its dollars in this campaign to get out the environmental vote,
and not to simply donate to environmental candidates. I'm a fundraiser for
the League of Conservation Voters here in Orygun, and OLCV is also launching a
get out the vote effort. We can take advantage of voter apathy.
Jerry Powell
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 7 Aug 1998 17:19:05 -0400
From: "Bill Sheehan" <bill_sheehan@mindspring.com>
Subject: New Phone & Fax for GrassRoots Recycling Network
All,
The GrassRoots Recycling Network has new phone and fax numbers. Please make a
note of these.
Thanks,
Bill Sheehan
************************
Bill Sheehan
Network Coordinator
GrassRoots Recycling Network
P.O. Box 49283
Athens GA 30604-9283
Tel: 706-613-7121
Fax: 706-613-7123
bill_sheehan@mindspring.com
http://www.kirkworks.com/grrn.htm
************************
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 7 Aug 1998 19:02:30 EDT
From: GaryLiss@aol.com
Subject: NRC Board Elections
If you are a member of the National Recycling Coalition, I would like your
vote in the election of the Board of Directors.
Ballots were mailed on 8/5/98. Fourteen candidaes will compete for eight
seats on the NRC Board. Six will be elected for a two year term and two will
be elected. The only "proxies" that will be accepted this year are those
mailed to the official CPA firm on the ballots. Individuals will not be able
to vote the proxies of other individuals in Albuquerque as in the past.
So...now is the time to focus on the NRC elections.
There are 3800 current members and 10% are required to vote for a valid quorum
for the election. Often, elections are decided by just a few votes, so I
would appreciate your help in voting NOW and helping to talk me up with your
friends and colleagues.
The following people and organizations have endorsed my candidacy (individual
affiliations are listed for identification only):
California Resource Recovery Association
Northern CA Recycling Association (NCRA)
Grassroots Recycling Network (GRRN)
Institute for Local Self-Reliance (ILSR)
Mark Lichtenstein, Oswego County, NY and Past President, NRC
Bill Sheehan, Network Coordinator, Grassroots Recycling Network
John Young, Materials Efficiency Project
Susan Kinsella, Susan Kinsella and Associates
Brenda Platt, ILSR
Linda Christopher, Legislative Chair, NCRA
Robin Salsburg, Chair, CRRA Global Recycling Council
Ann Schneider, University of CA, Santa Cruz Extension; Repair, Resale and
Reuse Council, CRRA Boardmember and Construction Materials Recycling
Association Boardmember
Jeff Morris, Sound Resource Management
Anne Morse, Winona County, MN
Following is my candidate statement and more background information on my
credentials. If you have any questions on my positions or background and
experience, please phone (916-652-7850), fax (916-652-0485) or email
(GaryLiss@aol.com) them to me. If you are willing to be listed in subsequent
promotional materials as a supporter (individually and/or your organization),
please email me that information at your earliest convenience.
Please vote for me and ask your friends who are NRC members to vote for me.
Thanks!
Gary Liss
916-652-7850
Fax: 916-652-0485
Background:
- 25 years in recycling (last 6 with CRRA);
- Developed San Jose recycling programs which achieved 44% diversion and saved
millions through competition, public/private partnerships and economic
incentives;
- A founder, first Chair and past President of NRC;
- NRC Board member (1978-1992).
Goals:
- Partner with SROs;
- Involve members via Internet;
- Strengthen Technical Councils and BRBA;
- Adopt a Zero Waste policy, and
- Advocate Elimination of Corporate Subsidies for Wasting.
More Background Information from NRC Nominations Form:
I was the designated representative of the Sierra Club on the first Board of
Directors of NRC in 1978 to represent the environmental perspective on the
Board. Through the years, I have continued to maintain close relations with
environmental and grassroots recyclers and would work hard to ensure their
voice is heard within the NRC. I helped form and was on the initial Steering
Committee of the Grassroots Recycling Network, and would work to ensure their
continued participation in NRC activities. I am also currently affiliated
with the Business Environmental and Economic Assistance Center, a 501(c)3
nonprofit organization of the University of California, Santa Cruz Extension,
to work together on educational, technical assistance and research activities.
Over the past six years, I also helped form specialized Technical Councisl for
CRRA to represent all aspects of the recycling industry in California
(including organics recyclers, reuse businesses, independent recyclers, local
agencies, colleges and universities and general businesses), and believe
strongly in helping to expand NRC Technical Councils and BRBA to become more
active and vibrant parts of this Coalition. I would also be a strong advocate
for strengthening the partnership between the NRC and State Recycling
Organizations (SROs), through joint implementation of new member services
(particularly workshops).
I have served in many capacities to help build the NRC into the organization
that it is today, including: first Chair of the Board (1978-84); President
(1983-86); Vice-President for Conferences (1986-87); and Board Member
(1978-1992). I organized the Second National Recycling Congress with
colleagues in Boulder, CO in 1982-83. I initiated the Committee system in
1983 and joint membership relationships with State Recycling Organizations
(SROs) in 1984. I helped develop the National Policy on Recycling as
President in 1986. From 1986-1992, I was a strong advocate for NRC to adopt
clear policies to represent recyclers of all backgrounds in Washington, DC.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 7 Aug 1998 13:14:30 -0400
From: "Bill Sheehan" <bill_sheehan@mindspring.com>
Subject: PRIVATIZING WASTING NOT THE SOLUTION
PRIVATIZING WASTING NOT THE SOLUTION
[The following letter refers an editorial
-- published in the Athens paper yesterday
and appended below -- applauding the
privatization of waste disposal in
Northeast Georgia. --Bill Sheehan]
TO THE EDITOR:
Privatizing waste disposal may appear to
be a bargain at first blush, but it is
unlikely to remain a bargain as
monopolization of the industry proceeds
(and that's happening rapidly). More
importantly, reliance on landfills, and
on wasting generally, for managing our
discards is poor public policy.
Private landfills might be worth
considering if tipping fees reflected
true environmental costs. But they
don't. All landfills - even 'state of
the art' Subtitle D landfills that meet
state and federal requirements --
primarily delay, not prevent,
environmental contamination. In other
words, our grandchildren will pick up the
tab for the perpetual maintenance that
will be required to prevent groundwater
contamination. That cost is not included
in the tipping fee.
Not a problem if we send our trash out of
county, you say? From a public policy
perspective, the problem is the trash
itself and the rate that we are creating
it. In our industrial system landfills
function to remove products from commerce
so that more resources can be sucked from
the Earth to replace them. Wasting in
landfills is therefore a fundamental
cause of habitat destruction, loss of
biodiversity and other environmental
problems (in addition to the
environmental liability of the landfill
itself). Landfilling also wastes human
resources, since the alternative - reuse,
recycling and composting - creates more
than 15 times as many jobs and local
economic development as wasting.
Government's role in waste management is
historically based on seeing waste as a
sanitation issue. If we aim to eliminate
waste by making the producers of products
and packaging share responsibility for
disposal (rather than only taxpayers),
and if we encourage the development of
efficient systems to reuse, recycle and
compost what is left, one can envision a
market-driven system that competes for
the entire discard supply (no longer the
'waste stream').
Government may be needed not as a market
participant, but to change the rules so
that resource conservation can out-
compete resource wasting. The rules now
make it easier to waste, but at a huge
social and environmental cost that
amounts to a massive taxpayer subsidy.
By changing the rules, government can
make manufacturers assume more
responsibility and empower local reuse,
recycling and composting entrepreneurs to
compete for discards by providing
incentives for delivering clean,
separated materials.
Privatizing resource management makes
sense; privatizing waste management is
poor public policy. Regional cooperation is
an excellent idea, but it faltered in our
10-county region because the focus is on
waste management rather than on resource
management. We need some new thinking
outside the usual box.
Sincerely,
Bill Sheehan
Athens GA
Editorial in Athens Banner-Herald, August 6, 1998.
NEW PRISON, LANDFILL DEMONSTRATE BENEFITS
OF PRIVATIZING SERVICES
Over the past several months, these newspapers have
chronicled the collapse of efforts to develop a single
landfill to serve a 10-county area of Northeast Georgia.
But no sooner had we editorially chastised area
officials for failing to make the regional landfill concept
work, than we learned that at least one of the
governments involved has found privatization to be a
better choice.
The Oconee County Board of Commissioners decided
not only to abandon the area landfill strategy, it has
voted to eschew government-run garbage disposal
altogether and go with a privately owned landfill.
Pending the development of the area disposal facility,
Oconee County has been trucking its garbage to a
landfill jointly operated by Clarke and Oglethorpe
counties.
But now with the Athens-Clarke County Commission
looking at closing the landfill to other area counties,
Oconee is making the switch to the Oak Grove Landfill
in Barrow County. Oak Grove is a two-year old
privately run operation that serves Walton, Morgan
and Wilkes County.
While still meeting state and federal requirements for
landfill operations, at $30.25 cents a ton versus $33.50
Clarke-Oglethorpe, Oak Grove's dumping fees are
almost 10 percent less than the government-run
facility.
Having the private landfill position to fall back on no
doubt was a factor in Oconee's decision to withdraw
support for the 10-county solid waste plan. That
support might have continued longer if more serious
consideration had been given to private landfills as a
viable option in the area planning process.
By a quirk of timing, on the same day news of
Oconee's decision hit the papers, the Associated
Press carried another story heralding the opening of
the first privately run prison in Georgia. The D. James
Ray State Prison, owned by Texas-based Cornell
Corrections, began operations Monday in a $38 million
facility about 5 miles from Folkston near the
Okefenokee Swamp. The 750-inmate facility is the
first of three private prisons opening in South Georgia
over the next several months.
State officials decided to go the privatization route with
prisons in order to save money. Georgia spends about
$54 a day to house an inmate, but taxpayers will have
to fork out only $37 a day per prisoner under the
privatization arrangement. Not only will the operations
save taxpayers money, they will contribute tax money
to the counties in which they are located. Unlike
government-operations, as private facilities, they'll be
subject to property taxes and other levies.
The private prison in Charlton County and the private
landfill in Barrow County illustrate the advantages of
privatization of government services, but there'll
always be some operations more suited to public
control, and as long as that is the case, there'll remain
a need for regional planning and cooperation to more
efficiently meet those needs.
###
************************
Bill Sheehan
Network Coordinator
GrassRoots Recycling Network
P.O. Box 49283
Athens GA 30604-9283
Tel: 706-613-7121
Fax: 706-613-7123
bill_sheehan@mindspring.com
http://www.kirkworks.com/grrn.htm
************************
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 7 Aug 1998 13:06:25 -0500
From: "RecycleWorlds" <anderson@msn.fullfeed.com>
Subject: PRIVATIZING WASTING NOT THE SOLUTION
Bill-
To add to the mix, the 8/5/98 Wall Street Journal had a great
article tearing apart privatization in prisons, "Violence at Prison
Run By Corrections Corp. Irks Youngstown Ohio."
/peter
-----Original Message-----
From: Bill Sheehan <bill_sheehan@mindspring.com>
To: GreenYes <greenyes@ucsd.edu>
Date: Friday, August 07, 1998 12:24 PM
Subject: PRIVATIZING WASTING NOT THE SOLUTION
>PRIVATIZING WASTING NOT THE SOLUTION
>
>[The following letter refers an editorial
>-- published in the Athens paper yesterday
>and appended below -- applauding the
>privatization of waste disposal in
>Northeast Georgia. --Bill Sheehan]
>
>TO THE EDITOR:
>
>Privatizing waste disposal may appear to
>be a bargain at first blush, but it is
>unlikely to remain a bargain as
>monopolization of the industry proceeds
>(and that's happening rapidly). More
>importantly, reliance on landfills, and
>on wasting generally, for managing our
>discards is poor public policy.
>
>Private landfills might be worth
>considering if tipping fees reflected
>true environmental costs. But they
>don't. All landfills - even 'state of
>the art' Subtitle D landfills that meet
>state and federal requirements --
>primarily delay, not prevent,
>environmental contamination. In other
>words, our grandchildren will pick up the
>tab for the perpetual maintenance that
>will be required to prevent groundwater
>contamination. That cost is not included
>in the tipping fee.
>
>Not a problem if we send our trash out of
>county, you say? From a public policy
>perspective, the problem is the trash
>itself and the rate that we are creating
>it. In our industrial system landfills
>function to remove products from commerce
>so that more resources can be sucked from
>the Earth to replace them. Wasting in
>landfills is therefore a fundamental
>cause of habitat destruction, loss of
>biodiversity and other environmental
>problems (in addition to the
>environmental liability of the landfill
>itself). Landfilling also wastes human
>resources, since the alternative - reuse,
>recycling and composting - creates more
>than 15 times as many jobs and local
>economic development as wasting.
>
>Government's role in waste management is
>historically based on seeing waste as a
>sanitation issue. If we aim to eliminate
>waste by making the producers of products
>and packaging share responsibility for
>disposal (rather than only taxpayers),
>and if we encourage the development of
>efficient systems to reuse, recycle and
>compost what is left, one can envision a
>market-driven system that competes for
>the entire discard supply (no longer the
>'waste stream').
>
>Government may be needed not as a market
>participant, but to change the rules so
>that resource conservation can out-
>compete resource wasting. The rules now
>make it easier to waste, but at a huge
>social and environmental cost that
>amounts to a massive taxpayer subsidy.
>By changing the rules, government can
>make manufacturers assume more
>responsibility and empower local reuse,
>recycling and composting entrepreneurs to
>compete for discards by providing
>incentives for delivering clean,
>separated materials.
>
>Privatizing resource management makes
>sense; privatizing waste management is
>poor public policy. Regional cooperation is
>an excellent idea, but it faltered in our
>10-county region because the focus is on
>waste management rather than on resource
>management. We need some new thinking
>outside the usual box.
>
>Sincerely,
>Bill Sheehan
>Athens GA
>
>
>Editorial in Athens Banner-Herald, August 6, 1998.
>
>NEW PRISON, LANDFILL DEMONSTRATE BENEFITS
>OF PRIVATIZING SERVICES
>
>Over the past several months, these newspapers have
>chronicled the collapse of efforts to develop a single
>landfill to serve a 10-county area of Northeast Georgia.
>But no sooner had we editorially chastised area
>officials for failing to make the regional landfill concept
>work, than we learned that at least one of the
>governments involved has found privatization to be a
>better choice.
>
>The Oconee County Board of Commissioners decided
>not only to abandon the area landfill strategy, it has
>voted to eschew government-run garbage disposal
>altogether and go with a privately owned landfill.
>Pending the development of the area disposal facility,
>Oconee County has been trucking its garbage to a
>landfill jointly operated by Clarke and Oglethorpe
>counties.
>
>But now with the Athens-Clarke County Commission
>looking at closing the landfill to other area counties,
>Oconee is making the switch to the Oak Grove Landfill
>in Barrow County. Oak Grove is a two-year old
>privately run operation that serves Walton, Morgan
>and Wilkes County.
>
>While still meeting state and federal requirements for
>landfill operations, at $30.25 cents a ton versus $33.50
>Clarke-Oglethorpe, Oak Grove's dumping fees are
>almost 10 percent less than the government-run
>facility.
>
>Having the private landfill position to fall back on no
>doubt was a factor in Oconee's decision to withdraw
>support for the 10-county solid waste plan. That
>support might have continued longer if more serious
>consideration had been given to private landfills as a
>viable option in the area planning process.
>
>By a quirk of timing, on the same day news of
>Oconee's decision hit the papers, the Associated
>Press carried another story heralding the opening of
>the first privately run prison in Georgia. The D. James
>Ray State Prison, owned by Texas-based Cornell
>Corrections, began operations Monday in a $38 million
>facility about 5 miles from Folkston near the
>Okefenokee Swamp. The 750-inmate facility is the
>first of three private prisons opening in South Georgia
>over the next several months.
>
>State officials decided to go the privatization route with
>prisons in order to save money. Georgia spends about
>$54 a day to house an inmate, but taxpayers will have
>to fork out only $37 a day per prisoner under the
>privatization arrangement. Not only will the operations
>save taxpayers money, they will contribute tax money
>to the counties in which they are located. Unlike
>government-operations, as private facilities, they'll be
>subject to property taxes and other levies.
>
>The private prison in Charlton County and the private
>landfill in Barrow County illustrate the advantages of
>privatization of government services, but there'll
>always be some operations more suited to public
>control, and as long as that is the case, there'll remain
>a need for regional planning and cooperation to more
>efficiently meet those needs.
>
>###
>
>************************
>Bill Sheehan
>Network Coordinator
>GrassRoots Recycling Network
>P.O. Box 49283
>Athens GA 30604-9283
>Tel: 706-613-7121
>Fax: 706-613-7123
>bill_sheehan@mindspring.com
>http://www.kirkworks.com/grrn.htm
>************************
>
>
>
>
>
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 7 Aug 1998 13:01:54 -0500
From: "RecycleWorlds" <anderson@msn.fullfeed.com>
Subject: The Temper of America - Reply to Roger's Reply
I forwarded a piece earlier today from the Wall Street Journal,
describing the recent trend to design homes to resemble fortresses
(including turrets), even within gated communities, and expressed the
concern that this "looking inward" had serious negative implications
for grassroots efforts.
Roger replied that his reading of the article, which showed that
these were half million dollar homes, suggested to him that it has
little to do with the majority of the people who we organize.
Apart from the minor point that there were some fortresses going
for as little as $269,000 in the article, I don't think that Roger's
still valid observation really affects the conclusion that I had
drawn. Here's why.
In 1979 pollster Daniel Yankelovich wrote a great analysis of the
'60's in which he carefully analyzed polling data from the '60's and
'70's. He observed that by the end of the sixties, the
self-actualization schtick that started the decade concentrated among
a rarefied subset of the elite college population, had rapidly spread
to Joe Lunchbucket. That's when the world turned on its head.
That is to say, the fact that an expression of attitude is today
limited in its reach does not mean there are no wider implications, if
that limited group is a bellweather for what is coming down the pike.
When I look at the fortressing that's spreading in living room's of
all income classes across America for the past 10 years (i.e. the big
couches haunched around the TV), I see something more ominous than
Roger.
The fact that we no longer have a "village square" is very
relevant to the strength of money in the political debate in America
today. With each new moat that people hide behind, the situation
continues to deteriorate.
What does this mean about what we should be doing differently
tomorrow morning: it suggests that somewhere the idea needs to be
raised in social discourse identifying what is happening and
explaining why the result is not satisfying to our souls etc. When th
e auto workers took over the Flint plant in 1938 and everyone in the
erstwhile liberal establishment ran for cover because no one would
defend an assault on private property, even during the Great
Depression, John L. Lewis came to the plant and intoned in his
inimitable way, "The right to a man's job is more important than the
right of private property."
Articulation of the broad truth can be an enormously powerful tool
... if it resonates. I think that one of the ways that we overcome
the knowledge of our mortality, in addition to having children, is by
the strength we draw from our "tribe" (neighborhood, community) who
helps us in times of need. Fortresses destroy that strength that we
draw upon to get up every day, and that means that we are really
working here at its root with primal issues not academic abstractions.
____________________________________
Peter Anderson
RecycleWorlds Consulting
4513 Vernon Blvd. Ste. 15
Madison, WI 53705-4964
Phone:(608) 231-1100/Fax: (608) 233-0011
E-mail:recycle@msn.fullfeed.com
------------------------------
Date: (null)
From: (null)
I would like to expand NRC's Technical Councils to become a more independent
and vital force within NRC, as they have been within CRRA. I would like to
implement the adopted NRC policy to work more closely with State Recycling
Organizations (SROs) as partners as NRC works to provide more services to
members (particularly as partners on workshops and outreach programs in the
states). I would like to represent the environmental community's perspectives
and ensure the meaningful participation of interested environmental members
through inexpensive Internet postings, discussions, input and debates. I
would like to work with the Grassroots Recycling Network to have NRC adopt a
policy supporting Zero Waste. And I would work to ensure that NRC advocates
for the elimination of corporate subsidies for wasting, a policy embraced by
all aspects of NRC's members and highlighted as one of the top priorities
repeatedly of State Recycling Organizations throughout the nation.
More General Background Information:
I have just setup my own consulting firm as Gary Liss & Associates to provide
the following consulting services to public and private sector clients:
Contracts Negotiations; Strategic Analyses of Garbage Rates and Solid Waste
Fees; Commercial Recycling Incentives and Program Development; Flow Control
Responses; Integrated Waste Management Systems Design; Project Management;
Program Planning and Implementation; RFPs, Grants and Proposals Writing;
Policy and Program Analysis & Advocacy; Organizing Industrial Recycling Parks;
Small business and nonprofit Partnership Development; and Regulatory
Compliance Assistance.
I am working with the Grassroots Recycling Network to organize Workshops on
Zero Waste and am also affiliated with the Business Environmental and Economic
Assistance Center of the University of California, Santa Cruz Extension. I'm
particularly interested in working with small reuse, recycling and composting
businesses and putting together joint ventures to pursue City and business
proposals for services. I'm also interested in developing one or more
industrial recycling parks, where reuse, recycling and composting processing,
manufacturing and retail businesses are colocated for economies of scale.
I have over 25 years of experience in the solid waste and recycling field.
Most recently I was Executive Director of the California Resource Recovery
Association (CRRA) for the past six years. CRRA is the oldest state recycling
organization in the nation and has over 600 government, industry and
environmental groups as members working to expand reuse, recycling, composting
and market development in California. For CRRA, I advocated for reuse,
recycling and composting, organized frequent timely workshops, organized the
state's largest recycling Conference (over 1000 attendees, 250 speakers and
100 exhibitors in 1997), assisted its 6 chapters, organized and supported 8
technical councils and published a monthly newsletter. CRRA recently adopted
its third major policy document, the Agenda for the New Millenium which calls
for Zero Waste as a new goal for resource and waste management, eliminating
subsidies for wasting, and creating jobs through better product and systems
design and efficient use of discards.
Prior to CRRA, as Manager of Integrated Waste Management for the City of San
Jose (1983-1991), I:
- Initiated and managed their nationally recognized recycling programs and
their total solid waste system of over $50 million per year.
- Through a comprehensive Solid Waste Strategy, saved San Jose more than $77
million over the next 30 years through competitive awards of a $200 million 30
year
Disposal Contract and a $200 million 7 year Collection Contract.
- Successfully planned, monitored and managed the transition of the largest
garbage collection contract in the nation, without any billing or service data
provided by the previous contractor.
- Developed one of the nation's first Waste Reduction Strategies in 1985 to
reduce San Jose's waste by 25% through curbside, yard waste and commercial
recycling programs, which by 1998 has resulted in a 44% diversion rate
citywide.
- Revised the solid waste fees and taxes collected by the City to provide
clear price signals to the marketplace so that generators, haulers, recyclers
and landfill operators would all benefit economically by preventing waste and
recycling, instead of continued disposal in the landfills.
- Advocated for open competition rather than continued regulation of
commercial garbage to enable food waste composting services to be developed
more aggressively through innovative private sector initiatives.
Previously, I worked for the U.S. Conference of Mayors, a national solid waste
management consulting firm (GBB), the New Jersey Department of Energy and the
City of Newark, New Jersey. I have a Masters in Public Administration from
Rutgers University in Newark, New Jersey and a Bachelor's in Civil Engineering
(Environmental Engineering major) from Tufts University.
I have also been active professionally throughout my career. I was Secretary
to the California State Senate Task Force on Waste Management in 1989 which
led to the adoption of AB939 and related legislation. I also assisted in the
development of the CRRA's State Recycling Policy, CRRA's Recycling Agenda for
the 1990s, and the National Recycling Coalition's National Policy on
Recycling.
------------------------------
End of GreenYes Digest V98 #155
******************************