Re: [greenyes] Re: recycling?

[muna@no.address]

On 5 Mar 2003 at 10:40, Troy Glasner wrote:

> Nick:
> 
> I don't understand that - why would anybody in their right mind be
> ant-recycling??  Wow... did I get that right - rather toss it into an
> incinerator versus recycling box?


absolutely - we have some work being done in our province by Danish consultants, 
who assume that incineration is the only way to go, as that is what happens in 
Scandinavia.... when queried, they look at me as if I am as thick as a brick, not to see 
the "obvious" advantages....

Regards
Muna


> Troy
> 
> Troy Glasner
> eKOS Building Solutions
> Tel: 613 821-6223
> Fax: 613 821-5909
> E: troy@no.address
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Nicky Scott" <NScott@no.address>
> To: "Pete Pasterz" <ppasterz@no.address>; <WYNNCALDER@no.address>;
> <GRNSCH-L@no.address> Cc: <greenyes@no.address> Sent: Wednesday,
> March 05, 2003 5:49 AM Subject: RE: [greenyes] Re: recycling?
> 
> 
> > My next door neighbour who is an avid Telegraph reader (British
> > right wing broadsheet) is always shoving antirecycling peices into
> > my mailbox . You are right we must counter them vigourously. Britain
> > is one of the few countries contemplating building incinerators -
> > personally I think it's all about power and not wanting to devolve
> > it back to the grassroots nick scott
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Pete Pasterz [SMTP:ppasterz@no.address]
> > > Sent: 04 March 2003 17:41
> > > To: WYNNCALDER@no.address; GRNSCH-L@no.address
> > > Cc: greenyes@no.address
> > > Subject: [greenyes] Re: recycling?
> > >
> > > So, what's new...the anti-recyclers exist in Europe, too.   And
> > > conservative papers print anti-recycling articles [so do "liberal"
> > > ones, like the John Tierney article in the NYT Magazine]
> > >
> > > I would hardly consider a former [conservative??] environment
> > > agency staffer [like J. Winston Porter, formerly of USEPA]  , a
> > > director of
> Keep
> > > Sweden Tidy [correlary to Keep America Beautiful, a
> > > industry-funded
> front
> > > to diffuse producer responsibility], and managing directors of
> > > solid
> waste
> > > collection companies as "leading environmentalists and waste
> > > campaigners...
> > >
> > > But, I'm not of the school which says we should dismiss and ignore
> > > these attacks...I think we should take these head on, or risk
> > > these tales to become truths...
> > >
> > > >>> WYNNCALDER@no.address 03/04/03 11:38AM >>>
> > > This article came out in today's Washington Times, a conservative
> > > paper. It may be worth noting since recycling questions never go
> > > away.  From my understanding, cardboard and aluminum recycling are
> > > both consistently profitable and better for the environment
> > > overall.  (Glass and plastic recycling get consistently mixed
> > > reviews.)   Any thoughts?
> > >
> > > Wynn Calder
> > > -------------------------------------------
> > > Time to throw out 'myth' of recycling
> > > By David Harrison
> > > LONDON DAILY TELEGRAPH
> > >
> > >
> > >       LONDON - Throw away the green and blue bags and forget those
> > >       trips
> > > to
> > > return bottles - recycling household waste is a load of, well,
> > > rubbish, say leading environmentalists and waste campaigners. Top
> > > Stories
> > >       In a reversal of decades-old wisdom, they argue that burning
> > > cardboard,
> > > plastics and food leftovers is better for the environment and the
> economy
> > > than recycling.
> > >       They dismiss household trash separation - a practice
> > >       encouraged by
> > > the
> > > green lobby - as a waste of time and money.
> > >       The assertions, likely to horrify many environmentalists,
> > >       are made
> > > by
> > > five campaigners from Sweden, a country renowned for its concern
> > > for the environment and advanced approach to waste.
> > >       They include Valfrid Paulsson, a former director-general of
> > >       the
> > > government's environmental protection agency; Soren Norrby, the
> > > former campaign manager for Keep Sweden Tidy, and the former
> > > managing directors of three waste-collection companies.
> > >       The Swedes' views are shared by many British local
> > >       authorities,
> who
> > > have
> > > drawn up plans to build up to 50 incinerators in an attempt to
> > > tackle a growing waste mountain and cut the amount of garbage
> > > going to landfills.
> > >       "For years, recycling has been held up as the best way to
> > >       deal
> with
> > > waste. It's time that myth was exploded," said one deputy council
> > > leader in southern England.
> > >       A spokesman for East Sussex County Council, which plans to
> > >       build
> an
> > > incinerator, said, "It's idealistic to think that everything can
> > > be recycled. It's just not possible. Incineration has an important
> > > role to play."
> > >       The Swedish group said that the "vision of a recycling
> > >       market
> > > booming by
> > > 2010 was a dream 40 years ago and is still just a dream."
> > >       The use of incineration to burn household waste - including
> > > packaging
> > > and food - "is best for the environment, the economy and the
> > > management
> of
> > > natural resources," they wrote in an article for the newspaper
> > > Dagens Nyheter.
> > >       Technological improvements have made incineration cleaner,
> > >       the
> > > article
> > > said, and the process could be used to generate electricity,
> > > cutting dependency on oil.
> > >       Mr. Paulsson and his co-campaigners said that collecting
> > >       household
> > > cartons was "very unprofitable."
> > >       Recycled bottles cost glass companies twice as much as the
> > >       raw
> > > materials, and recycling plastics was uneconomical, they said.
> > > "Plastics are made from oil and can quite simply be incinerated."
> > >       The Swedes stressed that the collection of dangerous waste,
> > >       such
> as
> > > batteries, electrical appliances, medicines, paint and chemicals
> > > "must
> be
> > > further improved."
> > >       They added, "Protection of the environment can mean economic
> > > sacrifices,
> > > but to maintain the credibility of environmental politics the
> > > environmental gains must be worth the sacrifice."
> > >       The Environmental Services Association, representing the
> > >       British
> > > waste
> > > industry, agreed that the benefits of incineration had been
> > > largely ignored.
> > >       Andrew Ainsworth, its senior policy executive, said, "This
> > >       is a
> > > debate
> > > that we need to have in this country. Recycled products have got
> > > to compete in a global market, and sometimes recycling will not be
> > > economically viable or environmentally sustainable."
> > >       A spokesman for the government's Department for Environment,
> > >       Food
> > > and
> > > Rural Affairs said incineration was "way down the list" because
> > > "it
> causes
> > > dangerous emissions, raises public concern and sends out a
> > > negative message about reuse."
> > >
> > > __________________
> > > Wynn Calder
> > > Associate Director
> > > University Leaders for a Sustainable Future
> > > 2100 L St., NW
> > > Washington, DC 20037
> > > T: 202-778-6114
> > > F: 202-778-6138
> > > W: www.ulsf.org
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > --- To unsubscribe, e-mail: greenyes-unsubscribe@no.address For
> > > additional commands, e-mail: greenyes-help@no.address
> >
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: greenyes-unsubscribe@no.address For
> > additional commands, e-mail: greenyes-help@no.address
> >
> >
> 
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: greenyes-unsubscribe@no.address For additional
> commands, e-mail: greenyes-help@no.address
>