GreenYes Archives
[GreenYes Home] - [Thread Index] - [Date Index]
[Date Prev] - [Date Next] - [Thread Prev] - [Thread Next]

RE: [greenyes] NO TO SUBSIDIES FOR WASTE
Thanks for the note, David, and for the plan that GRRN will get involved in
this issue. 

I would hope that the campaign could at least highlight all the subsidies
that the US and the states give to virgin materials and energy. As noted in
the GRRN report "Welfare for Waste", the US provides some $800 million a
year for timber subsidies, $1.3 billion a year for energy subsidies, and
$500 million for mining. In addition, states and local governments also
provide subsidies for virgin materials; as an example, in Wisconsin, the
subsidies to the timber industry are estimated at between $50 and $100
million a year.

Without these subsidies, the prices for virgin materials would increase --
leading to source reduction -- and the amount paid for recyclables would
increase -- leading to better economics for recycling programs.

John Reindl, Recycling Manager
Dane County, WI 

> Thanks Lance, and everyone else who has contributed to the e-mail
> exchange on the energy bill, subsidies in it, etc. I agree that GRRN
> should take the lead on this, and will offer GRRN to assume that role.
> When the cloture votes failed in the Senate, I knew we'd have time to
> assess our options and take that time to develop a real strategy. For
> folks who contacted their Senators in the flurry of activity late last
> week, thank you. 
> 
> Bill Sheehan, Peter Anderson and I have exchanged initial e-mails about
> the various strategic options and how best to use GRRN's limited
> resources. 
> 
> David Wood
> GRRN
> Madison, WI
> 608-255-4800, ext. 100
>  
> -----Original Message-----
> From: lkingeco2@no.address [mailto:lkingeco2@no.address] 
> Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 2003 12:27 PM
> To: susanh@no.address; dpw180@no.address;
> Jeffrey.Aluotto@no.address; pfranklin@no.address;
> greenyes@no.address
> Cc: davids@no.address; Timf@no.address;
> alexd@no.address; carolynl@no.address;
> diannak@no.address; Jimp@no.address;
> Kario@no.address; Karys@no.address;
> kenh@no.address; Margieo@no.address;
> noelleb@no.address; Timb@no.address; 
> lkingeco2@no.address
> Subject: Re: [greenyes] NO TO SUBSIDIES FOR WASTE
> 
> Susan Hubbard, Peter Anderson and Doug Koplow have raised 
> subsidy issues
> over 
> the past few days concerning landfill gas, bioreactors and 
> ways in which
> the 
> Energy Conference Report on HR 6 adversely affects recycling.  While
> each 
> raised somewhat different points, there is a new opportunity for the
> recycling 
> community to address recycling and subsidy issues with members of the
> U.S. Senate 
> in the next
> 4-5 weeks.
> 
> The filibuster last week delayed potential action on HR 6 
> until January
> 2004. 
>  If the recycling community can develop a simple message (2 
> or 3 bullet 
> points), then it is worth circulating a one-page sign-on letter and a
> one-page fact 
> sheet to all U.S. Senators.
> 
> GRRN had Peter doing some work on landfills and bioreactors.  
> Would GRRN
> want 
> to take the lead?  I haven't seen the staff or board weigh in on the
> GreenYes 
> e-mail exchange.
> 
> Frankly, the problem in the Senate Finance Commmittee and House Ways &
> Means 
> Committee was that GRRN didn't have a champion on the issue.
> 
> But with the filibuster on the Senate floor, the more people unearth
> about 
> the bill the greater the possibility of halting or changing the bill.
> 
> MTBE affects 1,500 communities, with 153,000 locations.  The League of
> Cities 
> says the liability cap in HR 6 amounts to an "unfunded mandate" that
> will 
> cost local government $32 billion.  The Conference of Mayors makes the
> same kind 
> of argument, but puts the cost at $29 billion.  If this issue 
> gets taken
> out, 
> HR 6 would probably pass easily.  But President Bush couldn't 
> get House 
> Majority Leader Tom DeLay to back down.
> 
> Those individuals, organizations and public officials concerned about 
> treating landfill gas as a "renewable" energy source, about 
> bioreactors
> and about 
> subsidies that undermine recycling have a reasonable amount of time to
> mount a 
> grassroots campaign with at least one national news release, letter
> writing to 
> all 100 senators, telephone calls and visits. But somebody 
> needs to take
> the 
> lead and commit resources.
> 
> Lance King
> Community Solutions
> Tel 703/536-7282
> 
> In a message dated 11/26/03 12:40:11 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
> susanh@no.address writes:
> 
> > 
> > Yes, let's see.
> > 
> > Subsidies in the form of tax credits for landfill gas and waste to
> > energy projects are not beneficial to the environment. 
> Landfill owners
> > should be required to collect and use gas generated in 
> their disposal
> > operations. They should not be subsidized. The real cost of disposal
> is
> > hidden within these subsidies. Subsidizing waste hurts recycling.
> > 
> > Waste to energy and landfill gas is not renewable - they 
> are man made.
> > Solar and wind power is renewable. Subsidizing these 
> energies make it
> > harder for real renewables like wind and solar energy to compete.
> > 
> > Please call your Senators stating your opposition for the 
> energy bill
> > and tax incentives for landfill gas to energy projects, and
> > waste-to-energy projects.   
> > 
> > 
> > Susan Hubbard 
> > CEO
> > Eureka Recycling
> > 
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Dan De Grassi [mailto:dpw180@no.address] 
> > Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 2003 11:14 AM
> > To: Aluotto, Jeffrey; Pat Franklin; Green Yes
> > Subject: RE: [greenyes] City of Cleveland to discontinue curbside
> > recycling
> > 
> > Lets see now...
> > 
> > The comprehensive energy bill is coming to vote in the Senate, but
> > opposition is trying to mount a filibuster to stop final passage of
> the
> > bill.  Tax credits for landfill gas and waste-to-energy 
> where included
> > in the final conference report and would provide meaningful 
> financial
> > incentives for those industries.  These projects will 
> provide reliable
> > green energy while helping to diversify our country's 
> energy sources.
> > 
> > Just a heads up that HR6, the Energy Policy Act of 2003 
> that has just
> > been passed by the House, contains a range of provisions likely to
> harm
> > recycling and composting.  Though I am still in the process of
> analyzing
> > the bill, it is clear that many wastes that can be recycled will
> receive
> > tax subsidies of 1.8 or 1.2 cents per kWh if they are instead burned
> for
> > electricity
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Aluotto, Jeffrey [mailto:Jeffrey.Aluotto@no.address]
> > Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 2003 4:12 AM
> > To: 'Pat Franklin'; Green Yes
> > Subject: RE: [greenyes] City of Cleveland to discontinue curbside
> > recycling
> > 
> > 
> > In other Ohio news, the Cincinnati Enquirer is reporting 
> this morning
> > that
> > the City's proposed 2004 budget does not include the curbside
> recycling
> > program.  The Mayor characterized this as a program 
> "suspension" which
> > would
> > resume "when the economy picks up".  Council members still need to
> vote
> > on
> > the budget and most seem to be fairly supportive.
> > 
> > Cincinnati operates one of Ohio's oldest and largest curbside
> recycling
> > programs - collecting over 12,000 tons annually.  For more 
> information
> > on
> > Cincinnati please see 
> > www.cincinnati-oh.gov
> > 
> > Jeff
> > 
> > Jeffrey W. Aluotto
> > Manager,
> > Hamilton County Solid Waste Management District
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: greenyes-unsubscribe@no.address
> For additional commands, e-mail: greenyes-help@no.address
> 




[GreenYes Home] - [Date Index] - [Thread Index]
[Date Prev] - [Date Next] - [Thread Prev] - [Thread Next]