>I agree with Chaz, wanted to add that my message to an "anti-recycler"
would be
>that our goals are not simply about "recycling". Waste Reduction such as
>pollution prevention and maximizing manufacturing efficiency is (or should
be)
>a primary objective. Hence: REDUCE, REUSE, RECOVER, REPAIR (if feasible),
>RECYCLE. Efficient energy usage, fiscal expenditure, and natural resource
>conservation are integral parts of the Rs.
>
>A valid case in favor of Recycling can generally be made if true costs are
>measured from a product's cradle to it's grave. However, I must admint
that I
>haven't seen any recent studies on this topic. Can anyone provide the
>title/locale of those studies which best document energy expenditures & $$
>costs when comparing raw materials extraction to the recycling of resources?
>
>Thank you,
>jennifer.caldwell-kurka@dep.state.fl.us
>**********************************************
> 1) Anti-recyclers -Reply
> by "Chaz Miller" <cmiller@envasns.org>
>
>..I read the responses to your request, including Henry Ferland's and =
>Jim Hill's. I agree completely with Henry and Jim.
>
>Yes, some of the anti-recyclers are motivated by a blind hatred for =
>recycling. Most of them, however, raise legitimate points about the cost =
>and environmental efficiency of recycling programs. Some of their facts =
>are accurate and some of their arguments are valid. Instead of blindly =
>labeling those who raise objections as anti-recyclers, we need to listen =
>to them and respond with our heads, not our hearts.
>
>I have debated several of the anti-recyclers listed in the responses. =
>Based on my experiences in these debates, and the feedback I've received, =
>I'm convinced we can successfully respond - refuting their factual =
>inaccuracies and logical inconsistencies while acknowledging when the =
>so-called "anti-recyclers" are right.
>
>Chaz
>
>
Gary Liss
916-652-7850
Fax: 916-652-0485