Today's Topics:
call for Sr. Fellows
Computer Recycling and Reuse (2 msgs)
Conservatree Is Alive!!!
Corporations Acknowledge Global Warming
Federal Recycling Issues (4 msgs)
GreenYes Digest V98 #118
PAPER REDUCTION POSTER CONTEST
Recycling & waste management exhibitions
When is a "Tip" not a "Tip"?
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:98/119
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 13 May 1998 13:26:12 -0800
From: Ansje Miller <miller@rprogress.org>
Subject: call for Sr. Fellows
--============_-1317026975==_ma============
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
PLEASE POST
CALL FOR SENIOR FELLOWS
Redefining Progress is searching for distinguished individuals to join the
organization as Senior Fellows for the 1998-99 year (through June 1999).
The Senior Fellow position is not a full-time commitment and is generally
fulfilled in absentia.
Redefining Progress is a nonprofit public policy organization based in San
Francisco that critiques conventional definitions and frameworks for
progress; creates or refines "great ideas" that advance economic,
environmental, and social sustainability and equity; and injects these
critiques and ideas into dialogue and debate among policymakers and the
public. We conduct our work through three programs: Indicators, Resource
Incentives & Market-Based Policy, and Equity Analysis of Environmental
Issues. We also periodically embark on Strategic Initiatives to address
specific concerns such as climate change, or to develop issues that may
warrant program status in the future. See our website (www.rprogress.org)
for more information on our mission and strategy.
Since RP's inception, a central part of our operations has been
collaboration with a core group of outside advisors. The Senior Fellows
Program is designed to formalize and expand the breadth of those
relationships.
Opportunities and Role
The Senior Fellow position helps leading experts-academics and
practitioners-reach a larger audience with their current work, while
participating in the development of innovative ideas and policies that
ensure a more sustainable and socially equitable present and future.
Through the diverse network of experts affiliated with Redefining Progress,
Senior Fellows can also engage in regular dialogue with hundreds of
activists and thinkers working on similar issues.
The role of the Senior Fellows will vary with the expertise of the
individual, but will often include:
* helping to define program agendas, strategies, and ideas;
* reviewing documents;
* identifying opportunities such as new projects, research agendas, and
collaborative relationships for Redefining Progress;
* consulting with the RP Board, Executive Director and staff on specific
issues.
At this point, Redefining Progress cannot provide stipends to its Senior
Fellows for this involvement. The organization does contract with
specialists, including Senior Fellows, for specific work products. The
Senior Fellow role provides concrete benefits nevertheless:
* The Fellows' ongoing work-both that produced for us during the
fellowship, as well as that produced outside our purview or after the
fellowship-is likely to be highlighted in RP's communications with its
audiences and to colleagues in the academic, practitioner, public, policy,
media, and advocacy fields.
* Work performed with RP might include high-visibility roles, such as
speaking engagements, and publication of documents funded elsewhere or
under a contractual relationship with Redefining Progress (RP sent a Senior
Fellow to participate on our behalf at the conference on climate change in
Kyoto).
* Redefining Progress regularly recommends candidates for research and
writing support, and for slots at research retreats.
Qualifications
Redefining Progress Senior Fellows must be recognized leaders in their
specific fields. They might include Ph.D. economists and academics from
other fields, but also highly seasoned leaders from business, policy,
advocacy, or local affairs. Their professional work should be of the
highest caliber given their field, and embody the vision and mission of
Redefining Progress. Senior Fellows will be chosen to represent expertise
and professions that span the scope of our work.
Applications and Nominations
Send a cover letter describing your interest in the program and work
related to our mission, a copy of your resume, and the names, affiliations
and phone numbers of two references by May 29, 1998 to:
Senior Fellows Program
Redefining Progress
One Kearny Street
Fourth Floor
San Francisco, CA 94108
If you have questions or would like to nominate someone, communicate with
us via e-mail at: fellows@rprogress.org (no phone calls please).
Announcements will be made by July 1998. Women and people of color are
encouraged to apply.
-- Ansje Miller Program Associate, Resource Incentives & Market-Based Policy and Senior Fellows Coordinator Redefining Progress miller@rprogress.org One Kearny St., 4th Floor http://www.rprogress.org San Francisco, CA 94108 (415) 781-1191, x315 --============_-1317026975==_ma============ Content-Type: text/enriched; charset="us-ascii"<bold> PLEASE POST
CALL FOR SENIOR FELLOWS
</bold>Redefining Progress is searching for distinguished individuals to join the organization as Senior Fellows for the 1998-99 year (through June 1999). The Senior Fellow position is not a full-time commitment and is generally fulfilled in absentia.
Redefining Progress is a nonprofit public policy organization based in San Francisco that critiques conventional definitions and frameworks for progress; creates or refines "great ideas" that advance economic, environmental, and social sustainability and equity; and injects these critiques and ideas into dialogue and debate among policymakers and the public. We conduct our work through three programs: Indicators, Resource Incentives & Market-Based Policy, and Equity Analysis of Environmental Issues. We also periodically embark on Strategic Initiatives to address specific concerns such as climate change, or to develop issues that may warrant program status in the future. See our website (www.rprogress.org) for more information on our mission and strategy.
Since RP's inception, a central part of our operations has been collaboration with a core group of outside advisors. The Senior Fellows Program is designed to formalize and expand the breadth of those relationships.
<bold>Opportunities and Role
</bold>The Senior Fellow position helps leading experts-academics and practitioners-reach a larger audience with their current work, while participating in the development of innovative ideas and policies that ensure a more sustainable and socially equitable present and future. Through the diverse network of experts affiliated with Redefining Progress, Senior Fellows can also engage in regular dialogue with hundreds of activists and thinkers working on similar issues.
The role of the Senior Fellows will vary with the expertise of the individual, but will often include:
* helping to define program agendas, strategies, and ideas;
* reviewing documents;
* identifying opportunities such as new projects, research agendas, and collaborative relationships for Redefining Progress;
* consulting with the RP Board, Executive Director and staff on specific issues.
At this point, Redefining Progress cannot provide stipends to its Senior Fellows for this involvement. The organization does contract with specialists, including Senior Fellows, for specific work products. The Senior Fellow role provides concrete benefits nevertheless:
* The Fellows' ongoing work-both that produced for us during the fellowship, as well as that produced outside our purview or after the fellowship-is likely to be highlighted in RP's communications with its audiences and to colleagues in the academic, practitioner, public, policy, media, and advocacy fields.
* Work performed with RP might include high-visibility roles, such as speaking engagements, and publication of documents funded elsewhere or under a contractual relationship with Redefining Progress (RP sent a Senior Fellow to participate on our behalf at the conference on climate change in Kyoto).
* Redefining Progress regularly recommends candidates for research and writing support, and for slots at research retreats.
<bold>Qualifications
</bold>Redefining Progress Senior Fellows must be recognized leaders in their specific fields. They might include Ph.D. economists and academics from other fields, but also highly seasoned leaders from business, policy, advocacy, or local affairs. Their professional work should be of the highest caliber given their field, and embody the vision and mission of Redefining Progress. Senior Fellows will be chosen to represent expertise and professions that span the scope of our work.
<bold>Applications and Nominations
</bold>Send a cover letter describing your interest in the program and work related to our mission, a copy of your resume, and the names, affiliations and phone numbers of two references by May 29, 1998 to:
Senior Fellows Program
Redefining Progress
One Kearny Street
Fourth Floor
San Francisco, CA 94108
If you have questions or would like to nominate someone, communicate with us via e-mail at: fellows@rprogress.org (no phone calls please). Announcements will be made by July 1998. Women and people of color are encouraged to apply.
--Ansje Miller
Program Associate, Resource Incentives & Market-Based Policy
and Senior Fellows Coordinator
Redefining Progress miller@rprogress.org
One Kearny St., 4th Floor http://www.rprogress.org
San Francisco, CA 94108
(415) 781-1191, x315
--============_-1317026975==_ma============--
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 13 May 1998 15:53:12 EDT From: ZeroWaste <ZeroWaste@aol.com> Subject: Computer Recycling and Reuse
I am writing an article for the King County (WA) Business Recycling Newsletter concerning recycling and reuse options for computers and other related electronics. Does anyone out there have information on leasing alternatives, buying with up-grades in mind and manufacturer responsibility? I would welcome some additional input. I have gathered information on the typical recycling and reuse options and a little on what is going on at the international level, but would welcome more ideas and/or contacts about leasing, up-grades and manufacturer responsibility. With respect to leasing, most of what I've gathered deals solely with it being a financing option, and does not really deal with the hardward when it becomes obsolete.
Look forward to hearing from you all!
Susan Fife-Ferris Sound Resource Management Group Seattle, WA Zerowaste@aol.com
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 13 May 1998 15:36:48 -0700 From: Myra Nissen <myracycl@inreach.com> Subject: Computer Recycling and Reuse
Wilcox High School in Santa Clara, CA is having some of their shop classes refurbish and upgrade discarded computers donated from the community to be reused in the schools--A truly needed resource by public schools--They also scap out usable parts and buy new parts to create hybrid computers with new and used parts. All non-reusable scrap is recycled.
Myra Nissen myracycl@inreach.com
ZeroWaste wrote: > > I am writing an article for the King County (WA) Business Recycling Newsletter > concerning recycling and reuse options for computers and other related > electronics. Does anyone out there have information on leasing alternatives, > buying with up-grades in mind and manufacturer responsibility? I would > welcome some additional input. I have gathered information on the typical > recycling and reuse options and a little on what is going on at the > international level, but would welcome more ideas and/or contacts about > leasing, up-grades and manufacturer responsibility. With respect to leasing, > most of what I've gathered deals solely with it being a financing option, and > does not really deal with the hardward when it becomes obsolete. > > Look forward to hearing from you all! > > Susan Fife-Ferris > Sound Resource Management Group > Seattle, WA > Zerowaste@aol.com
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 14 May 1998 04:49:28 EDT From: SEEK251 <SEEK251@aol.com> Subject: Conservatree Is Alive!!!
Re: Fritz Franke's e-mail --
The demise of Conservatree, to paraphrase Mark Twain, is greatly exaggerated! The company closed down at the end of 1997, thus ending its newsletter on recycled, tree-free and chlorine-free printing-and-writing papers and issues. But I am committed to carrying on the cutting-edge education and advocacy that people always expected -- and got -- from Conservatree during its more than 20 years of jumpstarting and pushing the envelope on developing recycled paper markets. (Recycled printing and writing papers in most grades were first introduced by Conservatree.)
Many of you know that I've worked for, with, or around Conservatree for more than a dozen years, and much of its information was written by me, including its most recent Greenline newsletter. (David Assmann also did a stint as ESP News editor in the early '90s and produced some terrific information that people still ask for.) I'm joined in establishing the "new" Conservatree by Gerard Gleason, who has researched the paper markets for Conservatree's comprehensive annual guide of more than 500 environmentally sound printing and writing papers for the past 8 years.
We expect to have nonprofit status by the end of the week and are fundraising to turn our website -- www.conservatree.com -- into a mega-site for information (ONLY, we're not selling paper) on environmentally sound papers. Our first goal, once we have initial funding, is to put up the whole North American list of recycled -- and other environmentally sound -- papers that we've published and updated for more than a decade. We want it to be as widely available as possible, rather than limited only to newsletter subscribers. So watch our website. There already are useful articles there -- including sources and tips for those buying in small quantities and a discussion of which type of environmentally sound paper is "best," I'll put up more as soon as possible, and I'll send a message around as soon as we know when the paper listing will be up.
Recycled printing and writing paper markets are rapidly falling -- currently down to only about 7% of paper sold -- because people think they don't have to ask for it anymore. Any reliable information available is great, but there's darn little of it around, and an increasing boatload of misinformation and disinformation out there. So don't discount Conservatree. We're not gone -- we're raising funds to come back stronger than ever, as soon as possible.
And please -- specify recycled EVERY TIME you buy paper. If you don't, you won't get it and we'll all lose out.
Susan Kinsella Executive Director Conservatree 100 Second Avenue San Francisco, CA 94118 phone/fax 415/883-6264 www.conservatree.com
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 14 May 1998 03:52:21 -0400 From: "Bill Sheehan" <bill_sheehan@mindspring.com> Subject: Corporations Acknowledge Global Warming
[Forwarded from Sierra Club listserve. Should be just a small step to support design for recyclability, right? --Bill Sheehan]
13 Corporations Join in Ad on Global Warming Principles
QUESTION: What do we all agree on? ANSWER: Taking on the challenge of global climate change.
So says a 2/3 page add in today's (5/13/98) edition of the Washington Post. Signed by 13 major corporations, including Toyota, Maytag, American Electric Power, Boeing, US Generating Company, British Petroleum, Intercontinental Energy Corporation, 3M, Sunoco, Lockheed Martin, United Technologies, Enron, and Whirlpool, the ad argues that we must begin to address global warming today.
The companies are working together through the Pew Center on Global Climate Change to "respond to global climate change while maintaining economic growth." The companies have agreed to several statements of principle on the issue. They include an acceptance of the science of global warming, and that action is justified. They also urge other businesses to reduce pollution, and invest in more efficient products, practices and technologies. They argue that by adopting reasonable policies, programs and transition strategies, the US can make significant progress in addressing climate change and sustaining economic growth.
The one negative the group supports is an increased reliance on pollution trading. In the context of global warming, pollution trading is often advocated as a cheap way of achieving pollution reductions overseas rather than adopting new technology here at home. In reality such schemes are hard to monitor, harder to enforce, and could actually lead to an increase in pollution.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 13 May 1998 09:51:34 -0600 From: "John Reindl" <reindl@co.dane.wi.us> Subject: Federal Recycling Issues
Cindy Shea wrote, in part_
> Bill, > > Re the White House Conference.
> 3. Close the organics loop.
I second Cindy's recommendation. But an interesting side problem comes up with EPA's /Franklin Associates Ltd counting method for on-site composting -- they don't count this material as being generated, and hence, not recovered. Instead, EPA views this as "source reduction" and no credit is given for this diversion.
I think that this is a big mistake in at least two ways.
First, I don't think it is "source reduction" at all. The material was still produced (I've already mowed my lawn three times this year - far more than normal), resources were consumed to produce the yard material (water, fertilizer, lots of time in yard work). It's just that the material was handled on-site.
True waste reduction would have been not to produce the material at all, eliminating the consumption of resources to produce the material, such as by having a natural lawn, or, as is the case of lots of people, to live in an apartment with no lawn at all. On-site composting is a great way to divert material, but it is not source reduction -- the material was still produced, still consumed resources in its production.
It does not make sense to me to consider material produced if and only if it is put at the curb for the city to collect, haul to a compost site and spend time and money to compost, and then not count this same material if it is handled at the place where it is generated.
The second problem I see with this accounting is that it does not give credit to the programs that work hard to promote on-site composting. Many cities give away or sell at reduced prices home composting bins and run extensive education programs to encourage home composting. If these materials are not counted as diversion, those communities aren't being given credit for their efforts, even though they make great economic and environmental sense. In addition, they then get "beat up" in comparisons with other communities that don't promote on-site composting.
I realize that gathering the data for on-site composting is difficult. But to truly gauge our results, we need to count these data. I would hope that EPA would be more inclusive on its data collection.
John Reindl, Recycling Manager Dane County
reindl@co.dane.wi.us (608)267-1533 - fax (608)267-8815 - phone
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 13 May 1998 12:33:26 -0400 From: Richard_Denison@edf.org Subject: Federal Recycling Issues
From: Richard Denison@EDF on 05/13/98 12:33 PM
Subject: Re: Federal Recycling Issues
I'm not sure I agree with John on this one. The only way that material composted on-site would reasonably considered as "generated" and thence diverted is if it is to be considered "waste" in the first place. Defining this material put directly into productive use through on-site composting as waste is not appropriate: it is not a waste at all in my view -- it is waste avoidance, i.e., source reduction in the best sense of that term.
Only if that material enters a stream where it must be managed off-site does it become a waste, it seems to me.
Regarding not getting credit for programs that promote on-site composting: I agree that such programs deserve credit, indeed, even more so than those that promote off-site composting, given the benefits of source reduction over recycling more generally. But the fault lies in source reduction not getting its due, which is a larger problem than just this case, but which this case illustrates aptly.
From: John Reindl <reindl@co.dane.wi.us> on 05/13/98 03:51 PM GMT
Please respond to reindl@co.dane.wi.us
To: mcshea1@gte.net, bill_sheehan@mindspring.com cc: GreenYes <greenyes@ucsd.edu> (bcc: Richard Denison) Subject: Re: Federal Recycling Issues
Cindy Shea wrote, in part_ > Bill, > > Re the White House Conference. > 3. Close the organics loop. I second Cindy's recommendation. But an interesting side problem comes up with EPA's /Franklin Associates Ltd counting method for on-site composting -- they don't count this material as being generated, and hence, not recovered. Instead, EPA views this as "source reduction" and no credit is given for this diversion. I think that this is a big mistake in at least two ways. First, I don't think it is "source reduction" at all. The material was still produced (I've already mowed my lawn three times this year - far more than normal), resources were consumed to produce the yard material (water, fertilizer, lots of time in yard work). It's just that the material was handled on-site. True waste reduction would have been not to produce the material at all, eliminating the consumption of resources to produce the material, such as by having a natural lawn, or, as is the case of lots of people, to live in an apartment with no lawn at all. On-site composting is a great way to divert material, but it is not source reduction -- the material was still produced, still consumed resources in its production. It does not make sense to me to consider material produced if and only if it is put at the curb for the city to collect, haul to a compost site and spend time and money to compost, and then not count this same material if it is handled at the place where it is generated. The second problem I see with this accounting is that it does not give credit to the programs that work hard to promote on-site composting. Many cities give away or sell at reduced prices home composting bins and run extensive education programs to encourage home composting. If these materials are not counted as diversion, those communities aren't being given credit for their efforts, even though they make great economic and environmental sense. In addition, they then get "beat up" in comparisons with other communities that don't promote on-site composting. I realize that gathering the data for on-site composting is difficult. But to truly gauge our results, we need to count these data. I would hope that EPA would be more inclusive on its data collection.
John Reindl, Recycling Manager Dane County reindl@co.dane.wi.us (608)267-1533 - fax (608)267-8815 - phone
Richard A. Denison, Ph.D. Senior Scientist Environmental Defense Fund and Alliance for Environmental Innovation 1875 Connecticut Avenue, NW Suite 1016 Washington, DC 20009 Phone 202/387-3500 Fax 202/234-6049 email richard@edf.org
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 13 May 1998 11:49:35 -0600 From: "John Reindl" <reindl@co.dane.wi.us> Subject: Federal Recycling Issues
Richard Denison@EDF said in part: > > Subject: Re: Federal Recycling Issues > > Only if that material enters a stream where it must be managed > off-site does it become a waste, it seems to me.
Hi Richard -
I hear where you are coming from. But whether the grass clippings are a "waste" or a "resource" or even just a "material", they were produced, and hence, to me, are not truly "source reduction".
One of the many benefits that we look for from recycling is to reduce the inputs and impacts of manufacturing -- less energy, less water and air pollution, less material extraction.
Source reduction is better than recycling in this regard as it means no inputs. And once a thing is source reduced, it is gone. We don't have to manage it. By sending email, we source reduce paper . There is no paper that we have to handle.
But growing grass takes inputs. Thus, it is not source reduced, even if we handle it at home. It is still a material that needs to be managed. The fact that I take my own energy and build a compost pile, put the yard material in it, turn it, and then spread it on my garden are all examples of managing it. Even with a mulching lawn mower, I still have to manage the grass clippings property.
Thus, I cannot feel comfortable with calling on-site management source reduction. It is with some envy that I look at my neighbor, who has truly source reduced, by having large beds of mulch, and no grass clippings at all to handle. While he lays in the hammock sipping a lemonade, I am cutting, raking and composting. His is source reduction, mine is on-site management. He should get credit for his reduction, I should at least get credit for my composting.
Best wishes for your lawn care!
John
reindl@co.dane.wi.us (608)267-1533 - fax (608)267-8815 - phone
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 13 May 1998 14:38:35 -0400 From: Cindy Shea <mcshea1@gte.net> Subject: Federal Recycling Issues
Hi John et al,
You should come to Florida, where you can actually watch things grow. I just finished a master gardener course at the extension service so I can reduce inputs by properly tending colorful, food bearing, and wildlife attracting native species. How would you categorize all that? And yes, I do have a compost bin. Unfortunately, my municipality doesn't have pick-up or drop-off for yard waste so the tree trimmings get landfilled.
On the broader issue of source reduction/reuse, I think
1. slower growing native species that aren't pumped up with lots of water and fertilizer constitute source reduction.
2. composting of food and yard waste, however, should be categorized as reuse or recycling, and yes, it is VERY hard to quantify.
Best, Cindy Pollock Shea Promoting Sustainable Development http://sustainable.state.fl.us
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 13 May 1998 13:02:59 -0700 (PDT) From: Pat Franklin <cri@igc.org> Subject: GreenYes Digest V98 #118
Somehow I missed the original question from Bill S. regarding issues to bring to the White House Confence. But, YES, YES, YES, to Peter A.'s suggestion - DESIGN FOR RECYCLABILITY. In his email today, Peter talked about the need for the plastics industry to return to a more 'cooperative effort'. I don't disagree with this statement at all, however, I think we need to keep in mind that the folks who are making the plastic bottles and containers are responding/reacting to the needs/requirements of their customers. The following provides a good example of what I mean.
Bill Bregar reported on a blow molding session of the Society of Plastics Engineer's Annual Technical Conference in Atlanta, (April 29) in an article entitled "Coke exec calls for new bottles" in the May 11, 1998 issue of Plastics News. Ian Roberts (a top packaging official at Coke) in his keynote address told attendees we at Coca Cola Co. are wholly committed to finding ways to differentiate our products, and the packaging that surrounds them, in whatever way we can."
He then said, with regard to problems surrounding the process of putting handles on large PET soda bottles, "Well, quite frankly, ladies and genglemen, I'm not happy with that answer. And I look to those of you who want to see your busiess grow and flourish to provide me with some better answers." He challenged the plastics engineers to provide "...new material variance that will ultimately delight the consumer through new and different packaging structures."
If Coca-Cola is DEMANDING new and different packaging structures from blow molders, why can't we in the recycling community DEMAND design for recycling, recycled content, reuse, etc. from the soda companies????????
Perhaps of even more significance, an engineer at a resin firm asked Mr. Roberts whether Coke has any intention of using recycled plastic in the US since it is doing so in Australia. Roberts said "Coke has the capability to use recycled PET wherever the materials are available." He added that "We have all of the qualifications in place to utilize those materials whenever they're available to us, both in the US, Europe and the Far East." When asked about a timetable for US recycled plastic in soda bottles he responded, "I don't have that information."
Well, ladies and gentlemen, I'm not happy with that answer!!! How about you? Pat Franklin Container Recycling Institute 1911 Ft Myer Drive, Suite 900 Arlington, Virginia 22209 703/276-9800 fax 276-9587 email: cri@igc.org web: www.igc.apc.org/cri/
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 13 May 1998 14:31:08 -0400 From: "Bill Sheehan" <bill_sheehan@mindspring.com> Subject: PAPER REDUCTION POSTER CONTEST
[Forwarded]
********** ATTENTION ARTISTS! ************
--- A CALL FOR SUBMISSIONS --- POSTER CONTEST --- READ ON!!! -----
US paper consumption now exceeds 730 pounds per person per year, and one of the biggest threats to the worlds remaining native forests is the export of US consumer waste habits to the rest of the world. Approximately 75% of the wood fiber consumed in the US comes from the Southeast. In 1996, an estimated 1.2 million acres in the Southeast were cleared for the production of disposable paper products and certain building materials, such as oriented strand board.
************ POSTER CONTEST **************
Entries should be 11 high by 28 wide and should focus on at least one of the following:
* Promote the personal, social and environmental benefits of freedom from over-consumption (with a focus on disposable wood products)
* Inform consumers about the availability and affordability of alternatives to virgin wood products (such as re-usable products and recycled, agricultural residue and traditional fiber paper)
* Empower consumers to challenge corporate dominance
The deadline for entries is December 1, 1998. A panel will select winners, who will receive cash awards and will have their art distributed nation-wide in stores, restaurants, and magazines, as well as on busses & subways. Contact Samantha Pearson (signature below) for more information or to submit entries.
**********************************************
The Wood-Use Reduction Media Campaign will reduce the unsustainable logging on both private and public forest lands of the Southeast through a multi-faceted, nation-wide media campaign. This goal will be achieved by decreasing the sales of disposable wood products through consumer education and advocacy.
The Wood-Use Reduction Campaign is a project of MEDIA RIGHTS. MEDIA RIGHTS was created to bring under- reported news and information and under-appreciated creative art to the public with a mission to raise awareness about pressing social and environmental issues.
------------------------------ Samantha Pearson Sequatchie Valley Institute and MEDIA RIGHTS at Moonshadow Route 1 Box 304 Whitwell, TN 37397 423-949-5922 sam@envirolink.org
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 13 May 98 15:10:29 PDT From: "Haya Geva" <haya@aipm.co.il> Subject: Recycling & waste management exhibitions
Hello members,
I am looking for information about exhibitions dealing with recycling and especually waste management due to open in the near future until the end of this yea.
Thank you.
Haya Geva Amnir Recycling Industries, Israel haya@aipm.co.il
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 14 May 1998 10:15:57 +0900 From: oldxeye@crisscross.com (Hop) Subject: When is a "Tip" not a "Tip"?
Sydney Morning Herald - Thursday, May 14, 1998
Neath, population 300, has a big future ... as Sydney's garbage dump
[Image] Long-time resident Paddy Thomas campaigning against the proposed waste depot for Sydney in their sleepy town. Photograph by PETER RAE
By RICHARD MACEY
The hamlet of Neath, just outside Cessnock, boasts one hotel, a service station and about 300 residents living mostly in weatherboard and iron-roofed cottages.
But, from 2001, the former mining village could be home for Sydney's next waste depot, taking up to 400,000 tonnes of garbage each year.
With waste sites in Sydney filling up, the authority responsible for dumping the city's garbage, Waste Service NSW, has selected a gravel quarry 700 metres from Neath as a possible new landfill tip.
According to Councillor Merv Pyne, the mayor of Cessnock, four kilometres away, the proposal is "a rare opportunity".
Waste Service NSW had offered to pay his council $6 million up front plus a further $800,000 a year for the next 20 years to operate the depot, Cr Pyne said.
It would also allocate $21 million to help build a bypass road around Cessnock, and fund other local works.
But the residents of Neath are far from happy.
"I would hate Neath to be the garbage dump for Sydney," growled Mr Paddy Thomas, 73, a former miner who has lived in the town all his life.
"I have never struck anyone in Neath who is in favour of the tip.
"We did a petition against the tip and people were tearing the pen out of my hand to get their name on it."
Mr Thomas also fears "property values around here will be going down to hell" if the project goes ahead. Mr John Tubridy, who sold insurance and real estate in Sydney for 37 years before moving to Neath in 1996 to open a bed-and-breakfast, said he feared the project would destroy the town.
"People come here for the country atmosphere," Mr Tubridy said.
"They like to wake up to the noise of ducks and geese.
"But Neath will become a dustbowl. The stench and the rats will follow."
Ms Hilary Oliver, who chairs Cessnock Against Sydney Tip (CAST), said the depot would destroy the local tourist industry once 300 trucks a week began hauling garbage to the area.
"Cessnock gets almost a million visitors a year," Ms Oliver said.
"People won't want to sit in traffic behind all those trucks. It will give Cessnock a stigma."
She said CAST had already collected more than 7,700 signatures from people opposing the project.
A spokesman for Waste Service NSW rejected Ms Oliver's claim that 90 per cent of local residents opposed the project.
"We believe there has been a turnaround in public opinion," the spokesman said.
He said the project would earn Cessnock more than $40 million in benefits over 20 years, as well as a new place to dump its own refuse.
Cr Pyne believes the dispute can at least partly be blamed on the media's insistence upon calling the proposal a "tip".
"It's a waste-management facility," he said.
"There is no comparison between it and a tip."
Cr Pyne said the dumped garbage would be buried daily and there would be strict environmental guidelines.
------------------------------
End of GreenYes Digest V98 #119 ******************************