[greenyes] FW: SWANA

["William Ramcheck" <bramcheck@no.address>]

Mac,
FYI.
Bill 

-----Original Message-----
From: William Ramcheck 
Sent: Friday, September 10, 2004 2:33 PM
To: 'Reindl, John'; 'Susan Hubbard'
Subject: RE: SWANA 

Again I agree with both John and Susan, but I also know that others on
the Waste Reduction, Recycling & Composting Technical Division are
serious about trying to do something about subsidies (both ways) to even
the playing fields.  As strength comes from numbers it may be better to
assist that effort rather than downplaying it.  WASTECON attendees may
have an opportunity to do that, as well as others who can follow up with
their technical division.
Bill 

-----Original Message-----
From: Reindl, John [mailto:Reindl@no.address] 
Sent: Friday, September 10, 2004 2:23 PM
To: 'Susan Hubbard'; William Ramcheck
Subject: SWANA 

I not only agree with Susan's statements on SWANA on the subsidies for
waste
for energy and landfill gas, but have never found SWANA to be very
active on
working to either stop the subisidies for virgin materials nor to
internalize the externalities of solid waste management techniques.

In fact, what I find is that several of the leadership of the Wisconsin
Chapter of SWANA are antagonistic towards recycling, especially a member
from our largest county.

John 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Susan Hubbard [mailto:susanh@no.address]
> Sent: Friday, September 10, 2004 2:18 PM
> To: 'William Ramcheck'; 'Reindl, John'; 'Jerry Powell';
> greenyes@no.address
> Subject: RE: [greenyes] An explanation
> 
> 
> Bill,
> 
> I agree that recyclers are fighting subsidies. I also find it 
> interesting
> that SWANA thinks that subsidies for virgin materials are 
> unfair and create
> barriers to increased recycling and composting and at the 
> same time SWANA
> believes that subsidies for burning or landfilling trash (in 
> the form of
> renewable energy credits) are good and do not compete with 
> recycling or
> composting. To me this is speaking or of both sides of your 
> mouth...... when
> it is full.
> 
> Susan Hubbard
> CEO
> Eureka Recycling
> 2828 Kennedy St., NE
> Minneapolis, MN 55413
> 
> (651)222-7678
> (612)623-3277
> www.eurekarecycling.org
> 
> Waste is Preventable Not Inevitable
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: William Ramcheck [mailto:bramcheck@no.address] 
> Sent: Friday, September 10, 2004 1:04 PM
> To: Reindl, John; Jerry Powell; greenyes@no.address
> Subject: RE: [greenyes] An explanation
> 
> 
> Hi John, Jerry, and others in this virgin subsidy discussion:
> 
> I tend to agree with John's points as previously stated, and would
> answer his question below specifically by referencing that 
> recyclers ARE
> fighting to get rid of the subsidies, or at least to modify 
> them.  Go to
> SWANA's position paper on "Pushing the Envelope on Waste Reduction and
> Recovery" at
> http://www.swana.org/pdf/swana_pdf_48.pdf and go to page 10 to find
> their statements regarding this.  Keep in mind that is a working
> document and will likely be revised at the upcoming WASTECON.  Perhaps
> the points you're all raising should be relayed to the group 
> working on
> that revision effort, and other national groups join in that effort.
> 
> Bill Tarman-Ramcheck
> Public Works Programs Analyst
> City of Wauwatosa Public Works
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Reindl, John [mailto:Reindl@no.address] 
> Sent: Friday, September 10, 2004 1:06 PM
> To: 'Jerry Powell'; greenyes@no.address
> Subject: RE: [greenyes] An explanation
> 
> Hi Jerry ~
> 
> The question should really be "why don't recyclers fight to get rid of
> the
> subsidies". Instead, I see them asking for subsidies for 
> their programs.
> 
> 
> I wouldn't expect the integrated producers to want any of their
> subsidies to
> be reduced. But even conservative and libertarian groups want these
> subsidies eliminated.
> 
> And worse, why don't recyclers want to go to an environmental 
> valuation
> fee
> system like that used in other countries? This would "internalize the
> externalities".
> 
> John 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Jerry Powell [mailto:jpowell@no.address]
> > Sent: Friday, September 10, 2004 11:35 AM
> > To: greenyes@no.address
> > Subject: [greenyes] An explanation
> > 
> > 
> > John and Richard:  One reason why the removal of virgin tax 
> > subsidies does not receive wide support among consumers of 
> > secondary materials is that more than half of the recyclables 
> > collected in the U.S. are consumed by integrated producers 
> > (those who use both virgin and secondary materials).  In 
> > newspaper recycling, the two largest users of ONP are Abitibi 
> > Consolidated and Weyerhaueser, both integrated producers.  In 
> > aluminum cans, it's Alcoa and Alcan.  In fact, only a fairly 
> > small portion of secondary materrials is used to make 
> > all-recycled-content products.  There's no 100-percent 
> > recycled glass bottle, there's no all-recycled corrugated 
> box, etc.   
> > _______
> > Jerry Powell, Editor and Publisher
> > Resource Recycling Magazine
> > E-Scrap News
> > Plastics Recycling Update
> > 
> > P.O. Box 42270
> > Portland, OR 97242-0270
> > (503) 233-1305 office                                         
> >               ; 
> > (503) 233-1356 fax
> > (503) 781-2183 cell
> > jpowell@no.address
> > www.resource-recycling.com
> > www.e-scrapnews.com
> > 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
> 
> 
>