Re: [greenyes] Re: recycling?

[muna@no.address]

This is not unusual, unfortunately - we have apologists for incineration here too!
Analyse their motivation:
Keep "anything" tidy associations certainly in South Africa, are usually run by what i 
call litter activists - who do not generally understand life cycle issues, and are driven 
by public relations more than anything else.... and never seem to criticise corporate 
behaviour!
I will not attribute motivation to the EPA type person - there are reactionaries in ALL 
environmental departments in all countries.
The waste companies support incineration, as this will mean that they do not have to 
pay for expensive landfill sites, as land is getting more and more expensive, I am 
sure, in all the world...

maybe it is worth "attacking back" by saying that incineration liberates dioxins and 
furans (POP's) and as these are pollutants that are key in the Stockholm Convention, 
we have an international responsibility to phase out and eventually halt, production of 
these POP's - the fact that these are bio-accumulative, hormone disruptors, 
carcinogenic, etc etc etc would just be the first volley....

(listen to me use war analogies!)

also: we should be designing waste out of the system BEFORE it needs recycling - 
basic Zero Waste principles... I have a great pic in my head - a person labelled 
"recycling" is hanging on by their fingertips on a cliff, and the fall would be to a landfill!

regards
Muna

On 4 Mar 2003 at 12:41, Pete Pasterz wrote:

> 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
>