GreenYes Digest V98 #16

GreenYes Mailing List and Newsgroup (
Fri, 22 Jan 1999 17:34:38 -0500

GreenYes Digest Wed, 21 Jan 98 Volume 98 : Issue 16

Today's Topics:
chasing arrow symbol history
FW: Response from DuPont Tyvek(r) Representative
Which Virgin Subsidies Affect Recycling? (2 msgs)

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
Loop-Detect: GreenYes:98/16

Date: Tue, 20 Jan 1998 12:07:31 -0800
From: Ann Schneider <>
Subject: chasing arrow symbol history

Hi Pat:

The answer may be lost in the mist. I remember hearing that the symbol
was created by a student attending UC Berkeley in either 1969 or 1970
for the original Earth Day.

Later the symbol was trademarked by the Benelux Countries (Belgium).
The trademark has caused labeling problems when used on packaging sent
to Belgium or any of its protectorates.

Source: I was on a packaging committee back in 1991 called Reduce, Reuse
and Recycle of Protective Packaging (R3P2) a committee of the Institute
of Packaging Professionals (IoPP) out of Reston (?) Virginia. You might
try their website for a validated source.

Ann Schneider
3120 De la Cruz Blvd


Date: Tue, 20 Jan 1998 08:36:43 -0800
From: "Brennan, Terry" <>
Subject: FW: Response from DuPont Tyvek(r) Representative

Below is an e-mail John Reindl and I received from a representative of
the Tyvek division of DuPont.

Terry Brennan
Integrated Waste Management Specialist
California Integrated Waste Management Board

The opinions expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of the
California Integrated Waste Management Board or the State of California.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dian O'Leary []
> Sent: Monday, January 19, 1998 5:22 AM
> To: Brennan, Terry;
> Cc:
> Subject: DuPont Tyvek(r) Clarification
> >Date: Sun, 18 Jan 1998 15:13:01 -0500 (EST)
> >From: Postmaster@CSOC.EMAIL.DUPONT.COM
> >Subject: Undeliverable Mail
> To: Terry Brennan, CA Waste Management Board
> John Reindl, Dane County, WI, Recycling Manager
> Terry and John, I seem to have had some difficulty sending this
> message to
> you so I am going to try one more time.
> First, I want to thank you for alerting us to the concern over the "Go
> Ahead: Tear This Page" insert printed on Tyvek(r) spunbonded olefin
> that
> appeared in six publications during December, 1997. Our intent was
> never
> to cause such a concern and we have taken the matter very seriously.
> We have worked with those at DuPont knowledgable about the paper
> recycling
> process and based on that work regarding this matter, while
> acknowledging
> that each recycling operation is different, believe that this insert
> represents a small percentage of the actual waste stream and would be
> handled in the course of the normal recycling process.
> The insert appeared in six magazines, not 18 or 19 as has been
> reported.
> It insert appeared in the December issues of Architectural Digest and
> Institutional Investor; the December 15 issue of National Journal; the
> December 22 issues of Business Week and The Economist; and the
> December 15
> and 22 issues of Fortune. This phase of DuPont's media campaign is
> complete and the inserts are not scheduled to run again.
> We consider recycling to be a fundamental business process. DuPont
> uses
> post consumer recycled content in a significant amount of the Tyvek(r)
> it
> produces. In fact, since introducing Tyvek(r) with 25% PCR in 1992,
> DuPont
> has used more than 250 million milk and water jugs in the production
> of
> Tyvek(r), mostly for envelopes.
> DuPont also actively promotes the recycling of Tyvek(r) after its
> useful
> life. For instance, DuPont mangages recycling programs for Tyvek(r)
> envelope users that are designed to meet the needs of small, medium
> and
> large volume users, and also will accept single envelopes for
> recycling
> from individuals. DuPont captures and recycles scrap from its
> own production of Tyvek(r). In addition, direct customers, companies
> that
> use Tyvek(r) to make protective garments, car covers and other items,
> also
> recycle their scrap from the manufacture of these items.
> Again, thanks so much for letting us know about the concern regarding
> this
> matter. I have included below the address for those wishing to return
> the
> insert to us and if I can be of further assistance, please let me
> know. My
> phone number is (302) 999-5483. E-mail is
> Best regards, Dian.
> Anyone who wishes to do so can send the insert back to DuPont to be
> recycled. The address is DuPont Tyvek(r), DuPont Merck Plaza LR 2E5,
> P.O.
> Box 80-705, Wilmington, DE 19880-0705. The toll free number is
> 1-800-448-9835.


Date: Tue, 20 Jan 1998 14:37:04 -0500
From: "Bill Sheehan" <>
Subject: Which Virgin Subsidies Affect Recycling?

Dear Folks concerned about virgin material subsidies:

WHICH virgin material subsidies affect recycling and should be eliminated?

The policy working group of the National Recycling Coalition is looking at
this issue, in response from a mandate from its membership. There is some
discussion that we lack sufficient data to make informed decisions, and that
the issue needs in-depth study before proceeding. The author of the 1990 EPA
study on the subject (released in 1994; Doug Koplow) concurs.

Does anyone out there have SPECIFIC, DETAILED information on subsides for
virgin materials, how they affect recycling, how much, together with sources
and references? Are there subsidies whose elimination can be justified on the
basis of existing information and without extensive, further studies? Which
should be top priorities?

Even if more study is needed, such information could help the working group
develop a prioritized list.

Thanks in advance for helping the work of the policy working group.

Bill S.

Bill Sheehan
Zero Waste Associates
268 Janice Drive
Athens GA 30606
Tel & Fax 706-208-1416


Date: Tue, 20 Jan 1998 13:09:00 -0800
From: (Emily Miggins)
Subject: Which Virgin Subsidies Affect Recycling?


I think this dove-tails nicely with your question!

No Commercial Logging on Public Land- we need to get rid of this VIRGIN
subsidy immediately.

Zero Cut! meets Zero Waste!

Approximately 22% of timber logged on National Forests go dirrectly into
pulp and paper manufacture. Another 10% is funneled indirectly into pulp
and paper in the form of lumber co-products (chips, sawdust).

The USFS is responsible for the care and management of our public forests.
But instead of protecting these forests, it sells them to corperations at
an annual loss of $800 million.

Worst of all the FED buys it back from Weyerhaeuser, Champion, Boise
Cascade, Fort James- in the form of office paper and these papers are
supplied by the GPO & the GSA.

We need the national Forests Protection and Restoration Act NOW!

Bill Synopsis: The National Forest Protection and Restoration Act
by Rep. Cynthia McKinney

The National Forest Protection and Restoration Act (NFPRA):

Preserves America's national forest heritage, protecting and restoring
the ecological values of our federal public forests by ending the
federal government's timber sale program on National Forests, National
Wildlife Refuges, and Bureau of Land Management lands.

Immediately protects all roadless areas from logging by canceling
existing timber sales in those areas.

Immediately prohibits all new timber sales, cancels Salvage Rider
sales, and phases out all existing timber sales within 2 years.

Will save tax-payers hundreds of millions of dollars annually by
ending the fiscally irresponsible federal timber sales program. (The
Government Accounting Office has reported that the timber sales
program on National Forests loses hundreds of millions of dollars each

Redirects logging subsidies to provide funds for worker retraining;
and gives preference to displaced timber workers for jobs in the woods
doing ecological restoration.

Redirects logging subsidies, providing funding to replace 25% revenue
sharing payments to states for counties and local governments.

Redirects logging subsidies to provide funding for environmentally
sensitive non-wood alternative paper and construction materials.

Begins a scientifically-based ecological restoration program for
federal public forests.


Q: What is the Sierra Club's position regarding logging of federal public

A: Sierra Club's position calls for ending "commercial logging" or "timber
sales" on all "federal public lands" including National Forests, Bureau of Land
Management lands, and National Wildlife Refuges. The Club does not oppose paid
permits or free use permits for noncommercial gathering of wood. Individuals
and families would still be able to cut wood from federal lands for their own
personal use, such as firewood and Christmas trees, subject to established
permits and environmental laws. Nor would Club policy prohibit federal land
managers from ever cutting another tree on public lands if necessary for reasons
of public safety, recreation, or ecological restoration; however, those trees
could not be sold.

Q: What about forest health and fire risk? Don't you need to log sometimes to
deal with these issues?

A: Only rarely, and even when limited logging is found ecologically necessary
to restore forests damaged from past mismanagement, there is no need to sell the
trees in a commercial timber sale: they can be made available to the public for
firewood, for example. In fact, not surprisingly, timber sales are a major
cause of forest health problems and, according to a recent
Congressionally-commissioned study, timber sales increase both risk and severity
of forest fires more than any other human activity. The timber corporations
have used forest health and fire risk as a scare tactic to increase timber sale
levels on public lands. There are a lot of scientific ways to address forest
health issues and fire risk (including prescribed burning) but timber sales
cannot be scientifically justified to solve these problems. Timber sales are
commodity production, not science.

Q: Won't ending commercial logging on federal lands reduce timber jobs and
displace many timber workers?

A: The transition away from timber production on federal lands -- and toward
diversified economies -- is well underway already. A consensus report by
dozens of Northwest economists found that -- contrary to the timber industry's
dire predictions -- the region actually saw a net increase of 940,000 jobs
between 1988 and 1994. In Oregon, for example, three years after sharp
reductions in logging levels on Federal forests, the state is showing an
unemployment rate of about 5%, the lowest in many years. What's more, the
state's economy in 1994 added nearly 100,000 jobs, compared to a stagnant timber
employment level of 64,000 jobs. Even the so-called "timber dependent"
communities were reporting a net increase in jobs.

In fact, according to the Forest Service, by the year 2000, recreation, hunting,
and fishing in National Forests will contribute 38 times more income to the
nation's economy, and create 31 times more jobs, than logging on National

Besides, the vast majority of timber jobs in the United States are not dependent
on the federal timber sales program at all, but on logging privately-held and
corporate timber lands. For the small percentage of workers directly employed
by the timber sales program on federal lands, there are several ways to help
assist them to find other work. During a period of transition, current timber
subsidies could be redirected to both retraining programs and ecological
restoration jobs on public lands that will benefit the long-term ecological
health of our federal forests, and utilize many of the outdoor skills of current
timber workers.

As a result of retraining opportunities associated with reductions in Pacific
Northwest federal timber sales, there are former timber workers now working as
teachers, cabinet makers, machinists, health care professionals, and computer
technicians - often with comparable salaries and generally better benefits than
they were receiving in the logging industry.

Q: Doesn't the federal timber sales program generate revenue for the U.S.
Treasury? How will ending commercial logging affect the federal budget and U.S.

A: Ending commercial logging will save taxpayers billions of dollars over the
next decade. In 1996 over $800 million was appropriated for expenditures
related to the timber sale program on National Forests. At the same time, the
Forest Service returned no money to the U.S. Treasury from timber sales
receipts. Most revenues from timber sales were diverted to off-budget timber
accounts, and 25% was paid to counties as revenue sharing payments.

Q: How would ending commercial logging on federal lands affect the timber

A: The timber now cut annually from National Forests accounts for only 3.9% of
our nation's total yearly wood consumption, according to U.S. Forest Service
data. Meanwhile, 48% of the hardwood lumber produced each year in the U.S. is
used to make wooden shipping pallets -- 54% of which are used once and thrown
away. In addition, billions of board feet of raw logs and wood chips are
exported from U.S.ports, which could easily replace all the timber cut off
federal public lands.

Q: Isn't the Sierra Club's no commercial logging policy a "radical" agenda?

A: Not at all, though the timber industry and its allies in Congress would like
you to believe so. In fact, the Forest Service itself conducted a nationwide
random poll in 1994 and found that 58% of Americans who expressed an opinion on
this issue oppose all commodity production on public forests, including logging.
A subsequent poll found that 59% of Americans expressing an opinion support the
Sierra Club's position of ending all commercial logging on federal public lands.
Far from being "radical", the Sierra Club's policy represents the majority view.

Q: How does the Club's no commercial logging policy affect Sierra Club members
and leaders working to protect public lands at the local level?

A: Sierra Club members and leaders have worked for 105 years to stop
ecologically destructive logging of federal lands, to improve federal agency
management of natural forest ecosystems, and to restore federal forest habitats,
watersheds, fish and wildlife populations, and recreation opportunities where
past activities have left them damaged and degraded. Sierra Club members and
leaders can, and will, continue to work toward these goals in a range of ways
that do not directly result in an end to all commercial logging. However, Club
support for ending timber sales on public lands is now an additional way that
Club members can work on behalf of protecting federal lands.

Q: Why does the Sierra Club support Rep. Cynthia McKinney's "National Forest
Protection and Restoration Act"?

A: This landmark legislation would protect our Federal public lands by ending
the federal timber sales program, and will put an end, once and for all, to the
destruction and abuse that this program has caused. Additionally, the bill
would redirect current federal subsidies for the timber sales program to
ecological restoration of forest ecosystems damaged from commercial logging.
It provides for worker retraining to individuals effected by the Act, and
restructures federal payments to states and local governments so they are no
longer dependent on the sale of timber from public lands. The McKinney bill
will save hundreds of millions of U.S. taxpayer dollars annually by
reallocating "timber slush funds" toward worker retraining and county
payments, and by capping authorizations for ecological restoration at 1/3 the
current timber sales subsidy.

The bill's ecological restoration program will give preference to former timber
workers for employment in this effort. The bill calls for a committee of
scientists to develop regional standards, guidelines, and procedures that will
guide federal forest management to ensure that the best available science is
applied to on-the-ground restoration activities.

Emily Miggins, Director ReThink Paper a project of Earth Island Institute

300 Broadway, STE 28 San Francisco, California 94133
Phone 415 788 3666 x 132 Facsimile 788 7324 email

the cyber fiber broker


End of GreenYes Digest V98 #16