GreenYes Digest V98 #51

GreenYes Mailing List and Newsgroup (greenyes@ucsd.edu)
Fri, 22 Jan 1999 17:33:09 -0500


GreenYes Digest Fri, 27 Feb 98 Volume 98 : Issue 51

Today's Topics:
Apples/Oranges Aside - a reply
EPR, Take-Back Legislation, & Refundable-Deposits on Everything!
Fwd: Environmental Justice through Pollution Prevention Grants available
Fwd: Landfill or incineration bans on electronic equipment
glass crushers
NCRA letter to Governor Hunt - apples and oranges=20
PET Recycling
Post-consumer recycled plastic manda
Producer Responsibility - Continued Discussion
Thought on the Paper vs- Plastic debate (2 msgs)
wormcomposting history

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:98/51
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 26 Feb 1998 17:13:46 EST From: Jango <Jango@aol.com> Subject: Apples/Oranges Aside - a reply

david@kirkworks.com

>On a side note, the "increase" in the per capita disposal rate in >NC may be due to better measurement... that is, many C&D landfills >have installed scales in recent years and so more is being weighed >and recorded in 1998 than in 1991. NC state gov't is looking into >correcting for these measurement errors. > >David Kirkpatrick

I'm in the middle of writing an article on measurement issues. It seems=20 to me that if C&D stuff gets counted in your denominator...or if it is=20 being added to your disposal figures in any way, you've got to add the=20 C&D recovery rate to the numerator (or your recycling tonnage).=20

I always use two numbers in looking at regional waste: the Recycling Rate=20 (standard post-consumer recyclables); and then what I call the Recovery=20 Index which includes all post-consumer stuff and then recovered C&D,=20 scrap metal, tires, orphaned waste, electronics, textiles, composting,=20 industrial scrap, etc. It's always tough because so much in our field is=20 still not measured well, especially on the commercial and industrial side=20 of the equation, but as long as you add everything in the numerator into=20 your denominator the math allows you to come up with at least some sort=20 of meaningful numbers.=20

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

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

Date: Thu, 26 Feb 1998 14:27:44 +0900 From: oldxeye@crisscross.com (Hop) Subject: EPR, Take-Back Legislation, & Refundable-Deposits on Everything!

Dear Roger,

I agree ....

>Perhaps we should be pushing to require that an end-of-life product >management fee be placed on every computer, printer, fax, telephone, >scanner, monitor, modem, external drive, TV, radio, stero system, CD= player, >laser disk and DVD player, VCR, cassette deck and personal copier sold in >this country. How could we make that happen? > >Roger M. Guttentag

I'd call it a refundable-deposit!

However, my honest opinion is that it is not advisable to abandon pursuit of beverage container deposit legislation to exclusively achieve a similar objective for more (individually) valuable items (ie. furniture, electronics etc). All manufactured products which would otherwise end up as waste should be returned to the manufacturer - after all, the originator is in the absolutely best position to be able to re-use, recycling, or redesign a product.

Just because it's a bit hard to get refundable-deposits on bottles and cans doesn't mean you should give up and pick (what may appear to be) an easier target (ie. furniture, electronics etc). The manufacturers of these products are as equally likely to want to obstruct the introduction of any form of 'targetted' industry-responsibility legislation as the beverage & container industries continue to do.

I believe (as many others already do and promote, including beverage companies who say they alone are otherwise being picked on!) that the key for us as initiators of change is to raise the standard and seek to have all manufactured products & packaging returned at the end of its useful/reusable life. That is, 'extended producer responsibility' via 'take-back legislation'.

Refundable-deposits are the perfect compliment to such take-back arrangements. They provide a damn good and necessary incentive for consumers to return end-of-life products & packaging rather than contributing them to the waste-stream. Additionally, such returns are accomplished in a physically, financially, and conveniencely efficient way. By that I mean:

Physically - not too much stuffing-around trying to find someone to collect, and then recycle the material .... because responsibilities are clearly defined in such legislation in order to get the product/packaging back to its originator.

Financially - refundable-deposits represent a break-even situation. Consumers are refunded the deposit they originally paid while manufacturers/retailers simply refund the deposit they previously received. Those consumers who fail to return are appropriately penalised by foregoing their deposit, usually to someone else who adopts responsibility for the return.

Conveniencely - consumers and retailers share the inconvenience of returning products & packaging to the originator, while manufacturers experience the (initial) inconvenience of dealing with the products & packaging material they generated in the first place. In this shared way everybody's (appropriately-assigned) inconvenience is kept tolerably small.

Regards, Hop.

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

Date: Thu, 26 Feb 1998 20:18:39 EST From: CRRA <CRRA@aol.com> Subject: Fwd: Environmental Justice through Pollution Prevention Grants available

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

--part0_888542320_boundary Content-ID: <0_888542320@inet_out.mail.aol.com.1> Content-type: text/plain; charset=3DUS-ASCII

Anyone interested in submitting proposal with CRRA? Please contact me ASAP!

Thanks!

Gary Liss

In a message dated 98-02-26 17:25:17 EST, Kaplan.Katharine@epamail.epa.gov writes:

<< Subject: EJP2 $ available =20 ************Reminder************Reminder************** Reminder*************Reminder************Reminder =20 The Environmental Justice through Pollution Prevention (EJP2) grant program is now accepting applications until the deadline of April 20, 1998. You can obtain copies of the application package one of three ways: =20 1. Call (703) 841-0483 2. Send an email to: ejp2@erg.com 3. Go the web site at: http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/ejp2> =20 Here's the a summary of the EJP2 info. Please feel free to pass this information along. If you have other suggestions as to how I can get the word out about this program, feel free to call me at 4-2190. Thanks! =20 FY98 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE THROUGH POLLUTION PREVENTION GRANTS =20 PURPOSE: To empower low income, minority communities through education on environmental issues and to provide pollution prevention resources and approaches for addressing these issues. =20 ELIGIBLE APPLICANTS: Any nonprofit organization incorporation under IRS tax code 501(c)(3), federally recognized Indian tribal government, State, city, county or local government organization. =20 AWARD AMOUNT: Up to $100,000 per grant =20 TOTAL $ AVAILABLE: Approximately $380,000 in Region 9 in FY98 =20 MATCHING SHARE: No matching share required =20 KEY DATES: Applications due: April 20, 1998 Selection by late Summer 1998 =20 =20 PRIORITIES: See Guidance in Application Package for more information. Overall, priorities include: =20 1. Projects by community-based organizations and local governments that improve environmental quality of affected communities using pollution prevention as a primary solution. 2. Projects that encourage institutionalization and innovative use of pollution prevention as the preferred approach for addressing environmental justice issues and whose activities and products can be supplied to other communities. =20 APPLICATIONS: Call (703) 841-0483 or send email to ejp2@erg.com Check the EPA web site at: http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/ejp2> =20 CONTACT Eileen Sheehan, U.S. EPA Region 9, Pollution Prevention Team Phone: (415) 744-2190 Fax: (415) 744-1680 Email: sheehan.eileen@epamail.epa.gov =20 =20 =20 =20 >>

--part0_888542320_boundary Content-ID: <0_888542320@inet_out.mail.aol.com.2> Content-type: message/rfc822 Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Content-disposition: inline

Return-Path: <Kaplan.Katharine@epamail.epa.gov> Received: from relay25.mail.aol.com (relay25.mail.aol.com [172.31.109.25])= by air26.mail.aol.com (v39.9) with SMTP; Thu, 26 Feb 1998 17:25:17 1900 Received: from merlin.rtpnc.epa.gov (merlin.rtpnc.epa.gov [134.67.208.148]) by relay25.mail.aol.com (8.8.5/8.8.5/AOL-4.0.0) with ESMTP id RAA01274; Thu, 26 Feb 1998 17:25:15 -0500 (EST) From: Kaplan.Katharine@epamail.epa.gov Received: from EPAHUB8.RTPTOK.EPA.GOV by epamail.epa.gov (PMDF V5.1-8= #22480) with SMTP id <0EP0BBMNR00119@epamail.epa.gov>; Thu, 26 Feb 1998 17:18:58 -0500 (EST) Received: by EPAHUB8.RTPTOK.EPA.GOV(Lotus SMTP MTA v1.1 (385.6 5-6-1997)) id 852565B7.007B20D2 ; Thu, 26 Feb 1998 17:24:53 -0500 Date: Thu, 26 Feb 1998 14:22:43 -0800 Subject: Environmental Justice through Pollution Prevention Grants available To: k8ling@sirius.com (Kate Dowling), jfox@haas.berkeley.edu (Josh Fox), KiviLeroux@aol.com, crra@aol.com, jack_macy@ci.sf.ca.us, bmathews@stopwaste.org, Ann_Schneider.aschneid.cats.ucsc.edu@epamail.epa.gov, Jill_Zachary.jzachary.rain.org@epamail.epa.gov Message-id: <882565B7.007A6D18.00@EPAHUB8.RTPTOK.EPA.GOV> X-Lotus-FromDomain: EPA Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=3DUS-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit

Hi. Is this of interest to you or those with whom you work? Sorry if you get this message from multiple folks here at EPA.

Kathy ---------------------- Forwarded by Katharine Kaplan on 02/26/98 02:09 PM ---------------------------

Eileen Sheehan 02/26/98 02:10 PM

To: Elizabeth Adams@EPA, Sam Agpawa/R9/USEPA/US@EPA, Laurie Amaro/R9/USEPA/US@EPA, Julie Anderson/R9/USEPA/US@EPA, Joann Asami/R9/USEPA/US@EPA, Greg Baker@EPA, Angela Baranco/R9/USEPA/US@EPA, Bonnie Barkett/R9/USEPA/US@EPA, Sara Bartholomew/R9/USEPA/US@EPA, Laura Bloch@EPA, Jerry Bock/R9/USEPA/US@EPA, Adam Browning/R9/USEPA/US@EPA, Mark Brucker/R9/USEPA/US@EPA, Helen Burke/R9/USEPA/US@EPA, Josephine Chien/R9/USEPA/US@EPA, Jack Colbourn/R9/USEPA/US@EPA, Wendy Colombo/R9/USEPA/US@EPA, Valerie Cooper/R9/USEPA/US@EPA, Paul Feder/R9/USEPA/US@EPA, Laura Fujii@EPA, Jenee Gavette/R9/USEPA/US@EPA, Greg Gholson/R9/USEPA/US@EPA, Beth Godfrey/R9/USEPA/US@EPA, Kathleen Goforth/R9/USEPA/US@EPA, Alisa Greene@EPA, Lois Grunwald@EPA, Anna Hackenbracht@EPA, Heidi Hall/R9/USEPA/US@EPA, Karen Heisler/R9/USEPA/US@EPA, Julia Jackson/R9/USEPA/US@EPA, Bill Jones/R9/USEPA/US@EPA, Arlene Kabei/R9/USEPA/US@EPA, Katharine Kaplan@EPA, John Katz@EPA, David Katzki@EPA, Carl Kohnert/R9/USEPA/US@EPA, Frederick Leif/R9/USEPA/US@EPA, Leif Magnuson/R9/USEPA/US@EPA, Cheryl McGovern/R9/USEPA/US@EPA, Joe Ochab@EPA, Mary ODonnell/R9/USEPA/US@EPA, Dan Opalski@EPA, Susan Polanco/R9/USEPA/US@EPA, Latha Rajagopalan/R9/USEPA/US@EPA, Nikole Reaksecker/R9/USEPA/US@EPA, Daniel Reich/R9/USEPA/US@EPA, Chris Reiner/R9/USEPA/US@EPA, Roberta Riccio@EPA, Kay Rudolph/R9/USEPA/US@EPA, Sara Russell@EPA, Mark Samolis/R9/USEPA/US@EPA, Cynthia Sans@EPA, Debbie Schechter/R9/USEPA/US@EPA, Jeff Scott/R9/USEPA/US@EPA, Sara Segal@EPA, Clint Seiter@EPA, Jo-Ann Semones/R9/USEPA/US@EPA, Eileen Sheehan/R9/USEPA/US@EPA, Keith Silva/R9/USEPA/US@EPA, Barbara Spark/R9/USEPA/US@EPA, Mike Stenburg/R9/USEPA/US@EPA, Karen Sundheim@EPA, Wienke Tax/R9/USEPA/US@EPA, Katherine Taylor/R9/USEPA/US@EPA, Alice Tobriner@EPA, Pam Tsai/R9/USEPA/US@EPA, Rich Vaille/R9/USEPA/US@EPA, Martha Vega/R9/USEPA/US@EPA, Mae Wang/R9/USEPA/US@EPA, Terri Wilsie/R9/USEPA/US@EPA, Bill Wilson/R9/USEPA/US@EPA, Julia Wolfe/R9/USEPA/US@EPA, Laura Yoshii/R9/USEPA/US@EPA, Nancy Yoshikawa/R9/USEPA/US@EPA, Denise Zvanovec@EPA, Donn Zuroski/R9/USEPA/US@EPA cc: Subject: EJP2 $ available

************Reminder************Reminder************** Reminder*************Reminder************Reminder

The Environmental Justice through Pollution Prevention (EJP2) grant program is now accepting applications until the deadline of April 20, 1998. You can obtain copies of the application package one of three ways:

1. Call (703) 841-0483 2. Send an email to: ejp2@erg.com 3. Go the web site at: http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/ejp2>

Here's the a summary of the EJP2 info. Please feel free to pass this information along. If you have other suggestions as to how I can get the word out about this program, feel free to call me at 4-2190. Thanks!

FY98 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE THROUGH POLLUTION PREVENTION GRANTS

PURPOSE: To empower low income, minority communities through education on environmental issues and to provide pollution prevention resources and approaches for addressing these issues.

ELIGIBLE APPLICANTS: Any nonprofit organization incorporation under IRS tax code 501(c)(3), federally recognized Indian tribal government, State, city, county or local government organization.

AWARD AMOUNT: Up to $100,000 per grant

TOTAL $ AVAILABLE: Approximately $380,000 in Region 9 in FY98

MATCHING SHARE: No matching share required

KEY DATES: Applications due: April 20, 1998 Selection by late Summer 1998

PRIORITIES: See Guidance in Application Package for more information. Overall, priorities include:

1. Projects by community-based organizations and local governments that improve environmental quality of affected communities using pollution prevention as a primary solution. 2. Projects that encourage institutionalization and innovative use of pollution prevention as the preferred approach for addressing environmental justice issues and whose activities and products can be supplied to other communities.

APPLICATIONS: Call (703) 841-0483 or send email to ejp2@erg.com Check the EPA web site at: http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/ejp2>

CONTACT Eileen Sheehan, U.S. EPA Region 9, Pollution Prevention Team Phone: (415) 744-2190 Fax: (415) 744-1680 Email: sheehan.eileen@epamail.epa.gov

--part0_888542320_boundary--

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

Date: Thu, 26 Feb 1998 20:18:50 EST From: CRRA <CRRA@aol.com> Subject: Fwd: Landfill or incineration bans on electronic equipment

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

--part0_888542330_boundary Content-ID: <0_888542330@inet_out.mail.aol.com.1> Content-type: text/plain; charset=3DUS-ASCII

--part0_888542330_boundary Content-ID: <0_888542330@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 relay11.mail.aol.com (relay11.mail.aol.com [172.31.109.11])= by air14.mail.aol.com (v40.1) with SMTP; Thu, 26 Feb 1998 14:28:07 -0500 Received: from valley.rtpnc.epa.gov (valley.rtpnc.epa.gov [134.67.208.16]) by relay11.mail.aol.com (8.8.5/8.8.5/AOL-4.0.0) with ESMTP id OAA09512; Thu, 26 Feb 1998 14:28:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from valley (valley [134.67.208.16]) by valley.rtpnc.epa.gov (8.8.7/8.8.0) with SMTP id OAA04969; Thu, 26 Feb 1998 14:27:54 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 26 Feb 1998 14:27:54 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <s4f53d74.009@mail3.allegro.net> 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: Dawn Amore <AMORED@nsc.org> To: Multiple recipients of list <jtrnet@valley.rtpnc.epa.gov> Subject: Landfill or incineration bans on electronic equipment 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=3DUS-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit

JTRnetters:

I'm trying to find out which states may be planning landfill or incineration bans of electronic equipment. Such bans could promote recycling and reuse efforts. =20

I have heard that Wisconsin and one New England state are looking at a CRT landfill and incineration ban, and I would like to find out if there are any other states or municipalities that are considering this or bans on other pieces of electronic equipment. I also understand that California had issued a bill on such a matter a few years ago, but I don't know the outcome of that, if anything. Please let me know if you have any information on this, and contact names and numbers if possible.=20 Thanks.

Dawn Amore =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D Dawn Amore Senior Program Leader Environmental Health Center A division of the National Safety Council 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1200 Washington, DC 20036 Phone: (202) 293-2270 extension 483 Fax: (202) 293-0032 E-mail: amored@nsc.org

--part0_888542330_boundary--

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

Date: Wed, 25 Feb 1998 17:52:33 -0800 (PST) From: TARA PIKE <pike@nevada.edu> Subject: glass crushers

Does anyone know of a manufacturer that makes glass crushers? I am actually not sure what the proper terminology is, but I think most of you will understand 8). Thanks! Tara

8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8)=20 Tara Pike e-mail: pike@nevada.edu Rebel Recycling Coordinator phone: (702) 895-1630 University of Nevada Las Vegas (UNLV) fax: (702) 895-4436 (8 (8 (8 (8 (8 (8 (8 (8 (8 (8 (8 (8 (8 (8 (8 (8 (8 (8 (8 (8 (8 (8 (8 (8

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

Date: Thu, 26 Feb 1998 12:45:16 -0800 (PST) From: "David A. Kirkpatrick" <david@kirkworks.com> Subject: NCRA letter to Governor Hunt - apples and oranges=20

As a clarification - we are not mixing the "rotten apples" of mixed solid waste with the "good oranges" of source=20 separated recyclables in the calculation of the NC per capital disposal rate.

The per capita measure for MSW generation in NC is calculated=20 to include only the MSW disposed in permitted disposal facilities - that is, landfills, transfer stations, and incinerators. Only mixed solid waste disposal is included, not recyclables. Thus, any recycling and source reduction progress in the state helps to reduce the per capita disposal rate. If we were not recycling about 22% of total discards, then the per capita MSW disposal rate would be that much higher.

On a side note, the "increase" in the per capita disposal rate in NC may be due to better measurement... that is, many C&D landfills have installed scales in recent years and so more is being weighed and recorded in 1998 than in 1991. NC state gov't is looking into correcting for these measurement errors.

David Kirkpatrick

>Date: Mon, 23 Feb 1998 13:27:22 -0500 >From: Pablo Collins <collins@csandh.com> >Subject: NCRA letter to Governor Hunt - apples and oranges > >The draft letter to Governor Hunt is unfortunately mixing apples with >oranges, or more specifically, waste reduction with recycling. > >>"Indeed, per capita waste production not been reduced, but has risen from >>1.08 tons/capita in 1991 to 1.11 tons/capita (or 1.20 tons/capita with >>Hurricane Fran debris included) in 1997. This increase in solid waste >>generation per capita has come even with the tripling of the state's >>recycling rate since 1991 to about 22% in 1996. =20 >> >Why are we not making progress on our goal?" =20 > >The measurement of municipal solid waste, handed down to us for as many >years as government agencies have been tracking MSW, has always counted >recyclable materials as solid waste. So no matter how much you >recycle, you will never bring down you measurement of waste generation. > >Given this faulty measure, one must be careful not to confuse waste >generation with waste disposal. One can hope that despite the increase >in per capita waste generation between 1991 and 1997, that North >Carolina's has reduced the amount of waste disposed in landfills and >incinerators because of recycling. =20 > >If we are ever going to make real progress in decreasing solid waste >generation, and increasing our industrial reliance on recovered >materials, we must first start by recognizing that material diverted or >removed from the waste stream for recycling is not waste ---- it should >not be measured as waste, or regulated as such ---- At the moment that >material is diverted or recovered from solid waste it is a raw material, >and should be treated as such. =20 > >Bales of corrugated containers behind grocery stores and bundles of >newspapers left for curbside pickup should not be included in the solid >waste generation numbers. Once we start using the appropriate measures >of waste, we will be able to measure our progress in eliminating waste. >=20 > > Pablo Collins >> collins@csandh.com >

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

Date: Wed, 25 Feb 1998 16:55:57 -0600 From: "RecycleWorlds" <anderson@msn.fullfeed.com> Subject: PET Recycling

The following article is from the 2/23/98 Plastics News. Does anyone have any information concerning the economics of the Crown Cork & Seal system, does it require feedstock from bottle bill states only, what kind of technology is used (is it similar to Johnson Control's, now Schmalbach-Lubeca)?

FDA OKs more recycled content By Sarah S. Smith PLASTICS NEWS STAFF

PHILADELPHIA (Feb. 20, 1:30 p.m. EST) -- Crown Cork & Seal Co. Inc.=B4s recycling subsidiary has received a letter of no objection from the Food and Drug Administration for use of post-consumer PET in all types of beverage and food containers. Nationwide Recyclers Inc. developed a proprietary, secondary recycling process to produce post-consumer PET of suitable purity to be used at any percentage of content, including 100 percent. The recycling process, which the firm has been developing for more than two years, utilizes advance cleaning procedures. Philadelphia-based Crown Cork & Seal, the largest blow molder in North America, claims the process is economically feasible. The company has started marketing containers with this material to its customers. "We are confident that this accomplishment will accelerate the use of recycled PET resins in plastic containers and will enable our customers to respond to the consumer=B4s growing desire for recycled packaging," Ronald Thomas, Crown Cork & Seal executive vice president of procurement and traffic, said in a news release.

____________________________________ 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: Wed, 25 Feb 1998 16:50 -0800 (PST) From: "Lacaze, Skip" <Skip.Lacaze@ci.sj.ca.us> Subject: Post-consumer recycled plastic manda

On Tue, 24 Feb 1998, Chuck Irvine wrote re: Post-consumer recycled plastic= =20 mandates

>Your idea for mandates on a local basis is not viable. Soft drinks are >bottled in large facilities destined in most cases for multistate >distribution.

After years of losing to the litter lobby in the legislature, and after=20 losing an initiative campaign in which the beer distributors, soft drink bottlers,=20 grocers, and container manufacturers outspent the proponents 20:1, California finally passed a compromise bottle deposit law -- AB 2020. One of the factors that led to industry participation in the final compromise was the passage= =20 of many local bottle deposit ordinances. Marin County and several of its=20 cities had passed ordinances that would go into effect in one or two years if no statewide bottle deposit legislation was enacted. Several other cities and counties had done the same, or were about to do so.

The prospect of dozens of more stringent local ordinances, with Oregon- style requirements that every beverage retailer take back bottles and pay out refunds, was probably the most important change from prior year's=20 efforts.

There is every reason to think that the same thing would happen if local mandatory content laws were passed, or if local Advance Disposal Fees were imposed on materials that are difficult to recycle, or to otherwise dispose of, such as household toxics.

>Many bottlers do not make their own bottles.

Excuse me, but so what? Any P-C mandate could as easily apply to bottle manufacturers who are not bottlers.

>Coke and Pepsi have done a great deal of research on using pc plastic >[PET] and the economics are simply not there.

The Coca Cola Company assured the environmental community and their customers that they would use post-consumer plastic in their packaging, but they have failed to do so. The following item was circulated on this list on April 14, 1997.

> PRESS RELEASE (used in Atlanta 4/7/97)

> GRASSROOTS ACTIVISTS TELL COKE THEY WANT 'THE REAL THING'

> ATLANTA -- Recyclers and activists representing more than > fifty community organizations from seventeen states gathered at > the World of Coca-Cola Pavilion today to demand that Coke do > the Real Thing - Recycle!

> The newly-formed Grassroots Recycling Network (GRN) is > calling upon Coca-Cola to fulfill a prior commitment to use > recycled content in its plastic bottles and to take responsibility > for the reuse and recycling of its empty containers.

> "Coca-Cola made a commitment in 1990 to turn its old bottles > into new bottles," said Richard Anthony, steering committee > member of the Grassroots Recycling Network. "Seven years > later, Coke still isn't using recycled plastics here in the United > States - but Coke is using recycled plastics in New Zealand, in > Australia, and in Europe. And, in other countries they use > refillable bottles that need deposits. If Coke can do the Real > Thing there, why not here?"

I don't believe that Coke has made a meaningful reply.

>... it's a >market thing and many producers have been scaling up to meet anticipated >demand. They don't consult with each other [against the law] so when >they all build more capacity at the same time, the price goes down.

Excuse me again, but without accusing anybody of engaging in a conspiracy in restraint of trade, it is fair to point out that the beverage industry,= =20 the container manufacturers, the plastic manufacturers, the beer distributors,= =20 the grocers, and the other members of the "litter lobby" have all used existing industry groups, as well as organizations formed specifically for the=20 purpose, to obstruct passage of bottle deposit legislation that is overwhelmingly favored by the American public (until they are swamped with misleading advertising, as happened during the Prop 11 campaign in California); to circulate misleading "public education" about their products (such as "degradable" plastics); and to seek special legislation that permits=20 price-fixing for secondary materials (another California example).

To the extent that pure market forces in the virgin resin industry impact=20 the secondary market, and hence recyclers and municipal recycling programs, a mandatory content provision that segments the market for primary and secondary materials is an obvious cure.

>If you do a little research, you will find there are many uses for pc >PET , some are even economically feasible.

It is clear that post-consumer PET bottles are recycled at high rates in states with mandatory deposit or redemption systems (although at a rate still much lower than for aluminum, and much, much lower than for refillable= =20

glass bottles). It is also clear that PET bottles are recycled at only low levels in states without such mandates. Economic feasibility is not just determined by the invisible hand of the market. The market is already manipulated by governments, by cartels, by unions, by the media. It is no less reasonable to direct the market for beverage containers by requiring p-c content, or deposits, than it is to affect the manufacture of virgin containers through depletion allowances, accelerated depreciation, or subsidy of the Interstate Highway system.

>Many hard-core >environmentalists have raised the mandate flag before you and have been >unceremoniously shot down. You will undoubtedly hear from them with your >posting.

"Hard-core environmentalists" is an interesting choice of terms. The coalitions that typically supported bottle deposit legislation, such as Prop 11 and AB 2020, included the dedicated environmentalists and community development advocates who opened recycling depots after Earth Day. They also included the Farm Bureau, bicyclists, the League of Women Voters, fishermen and other outdoorsmen, auto clubs, consumers unions, and community beatification groups. A real hard-core bunch. Generally, the same groups support long- range solid waste planning, mandatory content rules, and some other forms of producer responsibility. Many of them do so because of concerns about resource conservation, while others have easy-to- understand economic interests, like the farmers who have to clean up the litter left by tourists, or care for the livestock injured by broken bottles. (Or the cities that have to pick up the litter, collect the=20 garbage, collect the recyclables, pay for disposal, pay for processing, pay for long-term monitoring, and, in the end, risk the liability for site remediation.)

As for being "shot down," that is not always the result. In addition to bottle bills, there are mandates for minimum content in newspaper, plastic bags, and other materials that have been made law.

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

Date: Thu, 26 Feb 1998 08:59:46 -0500 (EST) From: "Roger M. Guttentag" <rgutten@concentric.net> Subject: Producer Responsibility - Continued Discussion

Dear Hop:

With regard to your reply of 2/26/98:

With all due respect to the arguments you adduce in favor of container deposits - I don't disagree with them but in some ways they don't address my concerns. I blame myself for not making my previous messages clearer.

1. We must not confuse discussions of principles versus politics. (Though those who are venally opportunistic act only in terms of the latter.) In an ideal world all products (if we really need them) should be designed to be reusable and then recyclable. We are not in that world right now.

2. How do we achieve the world we desire by our principles? By achieving actions that get us there incrementally because we don't want to get too far ahead of those who we hope to persuade and because of our own resource constraints. Many of us believe that universal container deposits must be these first incremental steps. I don't want to disagree or argue with this position. I am also not arguing for any cessation of political activities in support of their adoption. I do accept that universal container reuse / recycling (when we must use containers) must eventually be part of the world that we all want.

3. I do want to argue that working on durable product reuse may be less politically arduous, may have greater intrinsic economic rewards in the long run and divert even more materials from disposal (I also admit that future history can prove me wrong). For these reasons, I would like to avoid situations where a focus on container (or non-durable product) reuse / recycling diverts our attention from durables reuse / recycling.

4. I recognize that an argument can be made that we should pursue both issues. Well, if you have the resources(eg. financial, political, organizational, creative, etc.) to pursue both issues equally well and effectively then you should. However, when your resources are constrained (as it is for most of us) then I believe you need to assess where your scarce resources can best be put to use in support of our principles. In some cases this assessment may still favor pursuing non-durable product reuse / recycling issues. On the other hand, I believe there may be times when it may be better to refocus on durable products. However, I also believe that durable product reuse / recycling has not gotten the attention it deserves because of a)lack of widespread activist history on its behalf and b)in many cases very fundamental questions on how to reuse or recycle many classes of durable products (such as electronic products) have yet to be worked out.=20

Roger M. Guttentag E-MAIL: rgutten@concentric.net TEL: 215-513-0452 FAX: 215-513-0453

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

Date: Thu, 26 Feb 1998 14:44:08 -0500 From: "Lisa Beavers" <lbeavers@town.ci.chapel-hill.nc.us> Subject: Thought on the Paper vs- Plastic debate

Methinks that paper bags are better for this reason....they compost! Lisa Beavers lbeavers@town.ci.chapel-hill.nc.us phone: 919-968-2788 fax: 919-932-2900

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

Date: Thu, 26 Feb 1998 12:44:32 -0800 From: Gregg Foster <inc@northcoast.com> Subject: Thought on the Paper vs- Plastic debate

Why paper is better...

1. They are edible. 2. They stand up by themselves. 3. My son can use them as masks without fear of suffocation. 4. They sound cool when you fling them open. 5. You can't see through them, which means they can be used as wrapping= paper. 6. Worms can call them home

-----Original Message----- From: Lisa Beavers [SMTP:lbeavers@town.ci.chapel-hill.nc.us] Sent: Thursday, February 26, 1998 11:44 AM To: GreenYes@UCSD.EDU Subject: Thought on the Paper vs- Plastic debate

Methinks that paper bags are better for this reason....they compost! Lisa Beavers lbeavers@town.ci.chapel-hill.nc.us phone: 919-968-2788 fax: 919-932-2900

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

Date: Thu, 26 Feb 1998 11:32:36 -0800 From: Gerardo =3D?iso-8859-1?Q?Rodr=3DEDguez?=3D <gerardor@colef.mx> Subject: wormcomposting history

Hi to all of you lovers of the environment,

I=B4m wondering if you know where can I get information of the= wormcomposting history and wormcomposting in sewage sludges.

I=B4ll aprreciate al your help

I=B4m composting sewage sludges with worms at Ecoparque in Tijuana, with a good success, but I need to know about more in special the used that it given to the compost.

thanks for all,=20

gerardo rodriguez

P.O. Box. L Chula vista Ca. 91912 gerardor@colef.mx Gerardo Rodr=EDguez Quiroz Maestr=EDa en Adminitraci=F3n Intergral del Ambiente El Colegio de la Frontera Norte Email. gerardor@colef.mx fax. 66-31-3556

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

End of GreenYes Digest V98 #51 ******************************