Re: [GreenYes] recycling plastic number 5's and 6's. -Why makeit at all?

["Mike Morrow" <mmorrow@together.net>]

I think we are moving to full cost accounting with superfund and
environmental regulation.  No one can come in and change things with the
sweep of a hand (wishful thinking).

Our society and its' attendant technology (including spiritual) is
constantly evolving.  For those who try to change our wasteful practices the
key is place ourselves in the position to steer.  Like most living things
our society moves in the direction where the living is easy.

Segue is a good example of technical development.  Those that are poo poo
ing the vehicle don't want to give up their cars.  If Segue works then the
poo poo ers won't have any choice but to adapt.  Then we'll have a wonderful
prospect of seeing our big hunks of junk paraded around every year, in our
towns' parade.

Thanks for the logic of science.  Best wishes for the new year to everyone.

Mike

----- Original Message -----
From: "Aluotto, Jeffrey" <Jeffrey.Aluotto@hamilton-co.org>
To: <greenyes@grrn.org>
Sent: Friday, December 21, 2001 8:07 AM
Subject: RE: [GreenYes] recycling plastic number 5's and 6's. -Why makeit at
all?


> Appropriate technolology vs. technology for its own sake is a valid
point -
> but let's not attach blame to one nation for this type of thought. The
> mentality truly does extend world wide.  The modern ballpoint, or
papermate
> pen, was actually first developed by the Biro brothers . . . Hungarians .
.
> . after trying to commercialize the technology in . . . Argentina.  They
> formulated a pen that relied upon capilary action rather than gravity (as
> earlier models had done)to provide ink flow.  American and British
military
> pilots later adopted the pen because of its reliability at high altitudes
> (my understanding is that pilots didn't want to have to fumble around for
a
> new instrument if the lead broke on a pencil). I have to plead ignorance
on
> any later NASA involvement (it wouldn't suprise me) but the "barn doors"
had
> been open for some time.
>
> I'll agree with the comments on full-cost accounting but wonder if anyone
> has any insight on successful examples where the tool has actually been
used
> to effectively internalize environmental and social costs - or at least
how
> those costs have been quantified - for a typical consumer product.  Until
> that can be done, proponents of more sensible accounting alternatives will
> be forced to rely upon qualitative, anecdotal arguments to battle
corporate
> political support and the multi-million dollar advertising campaigns
> targeted at consumers - most of whom have never heard the term
> sustainability.
>
> Anyone know of any areas where some progress is being made here?
>
> Happy Holidays,
>
> Jeff
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Muna Lakhani [mailto:muna@iafrica.com]
> Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2001 3:41 AM
> To: Mike Morrow
> Cc: Wayne Turner; swolpow@abacus.bates.edu; sp@cast.uark.edu;
> gottlich@infi.net; info@edensterling.com; greenyes@grrn.org
> Subject: Re: [GreenYes] recycling plastic number 5's and 6's. -Why
> makeit at all?
>
>
> Mike Morrow wrote:
> >
> > I appreciate the reasoning and sentiment, but we can't go back.  The
> weight
> > and breakability of the glass places it at an economic disadvantage.
>
> that is the key - "economic" disadvantage, and to h%&ll with the people,
> health and environmental costs....
>
> > Furthermore, recovery costs are driving glass out of the MRFs which must
> > adjust their operations to reduce costs.
>
> again: including full cost accounting would resolve these discrepancies
> - it is the perverse subsidies that we allow, and the power of lobbies,
> that is the barrier, not whether the product (for example, glass) is
> worthwhile or not..
>
> > Our best bet is to use technology
> > to solve our problems.
>
> *grin* I have to laugh - please don't take this personally - but we
> often debate the technology issues here in South Africa - and people
> seem to have problems (worldwide) understanding that the issue is not
> hi-tech or low tech, but appropriate tech - the usual story? USA
> astronauts went into space, and due to a lack of gravity, pens did not
> function well... NASA budgeted US$1 million, and developed what I
> believe later became the Papermate pen... the then USSR cosmonauts had
> the same problem - they were given pencils!!
>
> take care all....
>
> Muna
>
>
> ******************************************
> To post to the greenyes list,
> email to: greenyes@grrn.org
>
> Subscription information for
> this list is available here:
> http://www.grrn.org/general/greenyes.html
> ******************************************
> ******************************************
> To post to the greenyes list,
> email to: greenyes@grrn.org
>
> Subscription information for
> this list is available here:
> http://www.grrn.org/general/greenyes.html
> ******************************************


******************************************
To post to the greenyes list,
email to: greenyes@grrn.org

Subscription information for
this list is available here:
http://www.grrn.org/general/greenyes.html
******************************************