GreenYes Archives

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


[greenyes] Re: greenyes Digest 4 Mar 2005 21:25:35 -0000 Issue 28


I think that national solutions can have a big downside if the national solution preempts state and local efforts. See ILSR's preemption web page. ilsr.org.

Neil Seldman

greenyes-digest-help@no.address wrote:

> greenyes Digest 4 Mar 2005 21:25:35 -0000 Issue 28
>
> Topics (messages 273 through 282):
>
> Re: "Should Congress pass a national deposit law?"
> 273 by: Karl Zehr
> 274 by: Christine McCoy
> 275 by: RicAnthony.aol.com
> 276 by: Pat Franklin
> 279 by: Pat Franklin
> 280 by: Kendall Christiansen
> 281 by: RicAnthony.aol.com
>
> Re: Landfill Bans and The Ineffectiveness of MSW Regulations
> 277 by: Steve Bloom
>
> Alert 393: Giant pile of poison to be left on banks of Delaware River as a gift to future generations
> 278 by: Alan Muller
>
> Sustainability in the Inland Northwest: Conference wraps up in Boise, Idaho
> 282 by: Megan Kershner
>
> Administrivia:
>
> To subscribe to the digest, e-mail:
> <greenyes-digest-subscribe@no.address>
>
> To unsubscribe from the digest, e-mail:
> <greenyes-digest-unsubscribe@no.address>
>
> To post to the list, e-mail:
> <greenyes@no.address>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2005 10:00:18 -0800 (PST)
> To: greenyes@no.address
> From: Karl Zehr <thorshammer71678@no.address>
> Subject: Re: [greenyes] "Should Congress pass a national deposit law?"
> Message-ID: <20050304180018.19003.qmail@no.address>
>
> --0-2028458116-1109959218=:16744
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> What other strategies would there be?
>
> Christine McCoy <cmccoy@no.address> wrote:Jenny et al -
>
> Do you know what made them decide to ask the question in this manner? Seems
> to me that there could have been other options allowed for polling purposes.
> Aren't there other strategies that could reduce container waste? I think
> it's great that they put up a poll, just not sure they are asking the right
> questions.
>
> Comments?
>
> Christine McCoy
> Director, Environmental Programs
> Rural Community Assistance Partnership, Inc.
> 1522 K Street, NW, Suite #400
> Washington, DC 20005
> Phone: 202/408-1273 ext. 104
> Toll Free: 800/321-7227
> Fax: 202/408-8165
> Email: cmccoy@no.address
> Website: www.rcap.org
>
> For a free Subscription of the Safe Drinking Water Trust (SDWT) eBulletin,
> log on to: www.watertrust.org
>
> SDWT is a subsidiary of RCAP, Inc.
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
> --0-2028458116-1109959218=:16744
> Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
>
> <DIV>What other strategies would there be?<BR><BR><B><I>Christine McCoy &lt;cmccoy@no.address&gt;</I></B> wrote:
> <BLOCKQUOTE class=replbq style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid">Jenny et al -<BR><BR>Do you know what made them decide to ask the question in this manner? Seems<BR>to me that there could have been other options allowed for polling purposes.<BR>Aren't there other strategies that could reduce container waste? I think<BR>it's great that they put up a poll, just not sure they are asking the right<BR>questions.<BR><BR>Comments?<BR><BR>Christine McCoy<BR>Director, Environmental Programs<BR>Rural Community Assistance Partnership, Inc.<BR>1522 K Street, NW, Suite #400<BR>Washington, DC 20005<BR>Phone: 202/408-1273 ext. 104<BR>Toll Free: 800/321-7227<BR>Fax: 202/408-8165<BR>Email: cmccoy@no.address <mailto:cmccoy@no.address><BR>Website: www.rcap.org <HTTP: www.rcap.org><BR><BR>For a free Subscription of the Safe Drinking Water Trust (SDWT) eBulletin,<BR>log on to: www.watertrust.org <HTTP: www.watertrust.org /><BR><BR>SDWT is a subsidiary of RCAP,
> Inc.<BR></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV></mailto:cmccoy@no.address><p>__________________________________________________<br>Do You Yahoo!?<br>Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around <br>http://mail.yahoo.com
> --0-2028458116-1109959218=:16744--
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Fri, 04 Mar 2005 13:37:14 -0500
> To: Karl Zehr <thorshammer71678@no.address>, greenyes@no.address
> From: Christine McCoy <cmccoy@no.address>
> Subject: RE: [greenyes] "Should Congress pass a national deposit law?"
> Message-id: <ICEHLPKPHFIDNDJPBCGGGEIFEDAA.cmccoy@no.address>
>
> This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
>
> --Boundary_(ID_JTgG+wrdnVfhZiiIPlG2HQ)
> Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
> Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
>
> Well, someone for example said they wanted to say that curbside recycling
> programs are a better way to capture containers for recycling.
>
> Unfortunately the way the poll was done the only other option - other than a
> bottle bill - was a negative answer based on people's limited understanding
> of what other options exist.
>
> CM
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Karl Zehr [mailto:thorshammer71678@no.address]
> Sent: Friday, March 04, 2005 1:00 PM
> To: greenyes@no.address
> Subject: Re: [greenyes] "Should Congress pass a national deposit law?"
>
> What other strategies would there be?
>
> Christine McCoy <cmccoy@no.address> wrote:
> Jenny et al -
>
> Do you know what made them decide to ask the question in this manner?
> Seems
> to me that there could have been other options allowed for polling
> purposes.
> Aren't there other strategies that could reduce container waste? I think
> it's great that they put up a poll, just not sure they are asking the
> right
> questions.
>
> Comments?
>
> Christine McCoy
> Director, Environmental Programs
> Rural Community Assistance Partnership, Inc.
> 1522 K Street, NW, Suite #400
> Washington, DC 20005
> Phone: 202/408-1273 ext. 104
> Toll Free: 800/321-7227
> Fax: 202/408-8165
> Email: cmccoy@no.address
> Website: www.rcap.org
>
> For a free Subscription of the Safe Drinking Water Trust (SDWT)
> eBulletin,
> log on to: www.watertrust.org
>
> SDWT is a subsidiary of RCAP, Inc.
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
>
> --Boundary_(ID_JTgG+wrdnVfhZiiIPlG2HQ)
> Content-type: text/html; charset=US-ASCII
> Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
>
> <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
> <HTML><HEAD>
> <META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
> <META content="MSHTML 6.00.2800.1491" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
> <BODY>
> <DIV><SPAN class=789533318-04032005><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>Well,
> someone for example said they wanted to say that curbside recycling programs are
> a better way to capture containers for recycling. </FONT></SPAN></DIV>
> <DIV><SPAN class=789533318-04032005><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
> size=2></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>
> <DIV><SPAN class=789533318-04032005><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
> size=2>Unfortunately the way the poll was done the only other option - other
> than a bottle bill&nbsp;- was a negative answer based on people's limited
> understanding&nbsp;of&nbsp;what other options exist.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
> <DIV><SPAN class=789533318-04032005><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
> size=2></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>
> <DIV><SPAN class=789533318-04032005><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
> size=2>CM&nbsp;&nbsp;</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
> <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
> <DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader dir=ltr align=left><FONT face=Tahoma
> size=2>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B> Karl Zehr
> [mailto:thorshammer71678@no.address]<BR><B>Sent:</B> Friday, March 04, 2005
> 1:00 PM<BR><B>To:</B> greenyes@no.address<BR><B>Subject:</B> Re: [greenyes]
> "Should Congress pass a national deposit law?"<BR><BR></FONT></DIV>
> <DIV>What other strategies would there be?<BR><BR><B><I>Christine McCoy
> &lt;cmccoy@no.address&gt;</I></B> wrote:
> <BLOCKQUOTE class=replbq
> style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid">Jenny
> et al -<BR><BR>Do you know what made them decide to ask the question in this
> manner? Seems<BR>to me that there could have been other options allowed for
> polling purposes.<BR>Aren't there other strategies that could reduce
> container waste? I think<BR>it's great that they put up a poll, just not
> sure they are asking the
> right<BR>questions.<BR><BR>Comments?<BR><BR>Christine McCoy<BR>Director,
> Environmental Programs<BR>Rural Community Assistance Partnership,
> Inc.<BR>1522 K Street, NW, Suite #400<BR>Washington, DC 20005<BR>Phone:
> 202/408-1273 ext. 104<BR>Toll Free: 800/321-7227<BR>Fax:
> 202/408-8165<BR>Email: cmccoy@no.address <MAILTO:CMCCOY@no.address><BR>Website:
> www.rcap.org <HTTP: www.rcap.org><BR><BR>For a free Subscription of the Safe
> Drinking Water Trust (SDWT) eBulletin,<BR>log on to: www.watertrust.org
> <HTTP: www.watertrust.org /><BR><BR>SDWT is a subsidiary of RCAP,
> Inc.<BR></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV></MAILTO:CMCCOY@no.address>
> <P>__________________________________________________<BR>Do You
> Yahoo!?<BR>Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> <BR>http://mail.yahoo.com </P></BLOCKQUOTE>
> <P></P></BODY></HTML>
>
> --Boundary_(ID_JTgG+wrdnVfhZiiIPlG2HQ)--
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2005 13:51:25 EST
> To: greenyes@no.address
> From: RicAnthony@no.address
> Subject: Re: [greenyes] "Should Congress pass a national deposit law?"
> Message-ID: <105.5c00e405.2f5a082d@no.address>
>
> -------------------------------1109962285
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
> In a message dated 3/4/2005 10:39:50 AM Pacific Standard Time,
> cmccoy@no.address writes:Well, someone for example said they wanted to say that curbside
> recycling programs are a better way to capture containers for recycling.
>
> Probably true and in California the deposit on the containers make the
> capturing of these containers at the curb profitable. The deposit also makes it
> more cost effective to collect containers away from home.
>
> The current salvage prices do not represent the actual cost to recover,
> although history, time and population growth seems to be changing that as well.
> Ricanthony@no.address
> RichardAnthonyAssociates.com
> San Diego, California
>
> -------------------------------1109962285
> Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>
> <HTML><HEAD>
> <META charset=3DUS-ASCII http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; cha=
> rset=3DUS-ASCII">
> <META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2900.2604" name=3DGENERATOR></HEAD>
> <BODY style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; BACKGROUND-COLOR: #fffff=
> f">
> <DIV>
> <DIV>In a message dated 3/4/2005 10:39:50 AM Pacific Standard Time, cmccoy@no.address=
> cap.org writes:<SPAN class=3D789533318-04032005><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#=
> 0000ff size=3D2>Well, someone for example said they wanted to say that curbs=
> ide recycling programs are a better way to capture containers for recycling.=
> </FONT></SPAN></DIV></DIV>
> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
> <DIV>
> <DIV><SPAN class=3D789533318-04032005><FONT color=3D#0000ff><FONT color=3D#0=
> 00000 size=3D3>Probably true and in California the deposit on the containers=
> make the capturing of these containers at the curb profitable.&nbsp;&nbsp;T=
> he deposit also makes it more cost effective to collect containers away from=
> home.&nbsp; </FONT></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
> <DIV><SPAN class=3D789533318-04032005><FONT color=3D#0000ff><FONT color=3D#0=
> 00000 size=3D3></FONT></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>
> <DIV><SPAN class=3D789533318-04032005><FONT color=3D#0000ff><FONT color=3D#0=
> 00000 size=3D3>The current&nbsp;salvage prices do not represent the actual c=
> ost&nbsp; to recover, although history, time&nbsp;and population growth seem=
> s to be changing that as well</FONT>.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
> <DIV><FONT lang=3D0 face=3DArial color=3D#004000 size=3D2 FAMILY=3D"SANSSERI=
> F" PTSIZE=3D"10"><B><A href=3D"mailto:Ricanthony@no.address";>Ricanthony@no.address=
> </A><BR>RichardAnthonyAssociates.com<BR>San Diego, California<BR></B></FONT>=
> </DIV></DIV></BODY></HTML>
>
> -------------------------------1109962285--
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2005 13:59:10 -0500
> To: <RicAnthony@no.address>,
> "Green Yes" <greenyes@no.address>
> From: "Pat Franklin" <pfranklin@no.address>
> Subject: RE: [greenyes] "Should Congress pass a national deposit law?"
> Message-ID: <NFBBILMKILHOHCBHKMOPIEHLHNAA.pfranklin@no.address>
>
> This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
>
> ------=_NextPart_000_007B_01C520C2.56C34830
> Content-Type: text/plain;
> charset="us-ascii"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
> Capturing beverage cans and bottles through a curbside program is one
> vehicle, but only if you have curbside. About 40% of the US population does
> NOT have access to curbside program. I don't know what the estimate is for
> the percent of folks who have access to curbside and take advantage of it,
> but it's probably under 80% on average. But even in cities, counties and
> towns where the public does have access to curbside recycling, a large
> percentage of beverage containers are being drained away from home, where
> collection programs are few and far between.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: RicAnthony@no.address [mailto:RicAnthony@no.address]
> Sent: Friday, March 04, 2005 1:51 PM
> To: greenyes@no.address
> Subject: Re: [greenyes] "Should Congress pass a national deposit law?"
>
> In a message dated 3/4/2005 10:39:50 AM Pacific Standard Time,
> cmccoy@no.address writes:Well, someone for example said they wanted to say
> that curbside recycling programs are a better way to capture containers for
> recycling.
>
> Probably true and in California the deposit on the containers make the
> capturing of these containers at the curb profitable. The deposit also
> makes it more cost effective to collect containers away from home.
>
> The current salvage prices do not represent the actual cost to recover,
> although history, time and population growth seems to be changing that as
> well.
> Ricanthony@no.address
> RichardAnthonyAssociates.com
> San Diego, California
>
> ------=_NextPart_000_007B_01C520C2.56C34830
> Content-Type: text/html;
> charset="us-ascii"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>
> <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
> <HTML><HEAD>
> <META charset=3DUS-ASCII http-equiv=3DContent-Type=20
> content=3D"text/html; charset=3DUS-ASCII">
> <META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2900.2604" name=3DGENERATOR></HEAD>
> <BODY style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; BACKGROUND-COLOR: =
> #ffffff">
> <DIV><SPAN class=3D423515318-04032005>Capturing beverage cans and =
> bottles through=20
> a curbside program is one vehicle, but only if you have curbside.&nbsp; =
> About=20
> 40% of the US population does NOT have access to curbside program.&nbsp; =
> I don't=20
> know what the estimate is for the percent of folks who have access to =
> curbside=20
> and take advantage of it, but it's probably under 80% on average.&nbsp; =
> But even=20
> in cities, counties and towns where the public does have access to =
> curbside=20
> recycling, a large percentage of beverage containers are being drained =
> away from=20
> home, where collection programs are few and far between.</SPAN></DIV>
> <DIV><SPAN class=3D423515318-04032005></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>
> <DIV><SPAN class=3D423515318-04032005></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>
> <BLOCKQUOTE dir=3Dltr style=3D"MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
> <DIV class=3DOutlookMessageHeader dir=3Dltr align=3Dleft><FONT=20
> face=3DTahoma>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B> =
> RicAnthony@no.address=20
> [mailto:RicAnthony@no.address]<BR><B>Sent:</B> Friday, March 04, 2005 =
> 1:51=20
> PM<BR><B>To:</B> greenyes@no.address<BR><B>Subject:</B> Re: [greenyes] =
> "Should=20
> Congress pass a national deposit law?"<BR><BR></FONT></DIV>
> <DIV>
> <DIV>In a message dated 3/4/2005 10:39:50 AM Pacific Standard Time,=20
> cmccoy@no.address writes:<SPAN class=3D789533318-04032005><FONT =
> face=3DArial=20
> color=3D#0000ff>Well, someone for example said they wanted to say that =
> curbside=20
> recycling programs are a better way to capture containers for =
> recycling.=20
> </FONT></SPAN></DIV></DIV>
> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
> <DIV>
> <DIV><SPAN class=3D789533318-04032005><FONT color=3D#0000ff><FONT =
> color=3D#000000=20
> size=3D3>Probably true and in California the deposit on the containers =
> make the=20
> capturing of these containers at the curb profitable.&nbsp;&nbsp;The =
> deposit=20
> also makes it more cost effective to collect containers away from =
> home.&nbsp;=20
> </FONT></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
> <DIV><SPAN class=3D789533318-04032005><FONT color=3D#0000ff><FONT =
> color=3D#000000=20
> size=3D3></FONT></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>
> <DIV><SPAN class=3D789533318-04032005><FONT color=3D#0000ff><FONT =
> color=3D#000000=20
> size=3D3>The current&nbsp;salvage prices do not represent the actual =
> cost&nbsp;=20
> to recover, although history, time&nbsp;and population growth seems to =
> be=20
> changing that as well</FONT>.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
> <DIV><FONT lang=3D0 face=3DArial color=3D#004000 size=3D2 =
> PTSIZE=3D"10"=20
> FAMILY=3D"SANSSERIF"><B><A=20
> =
> href=3D"mailto:Ricanthony@no.address";>Ricanthony@no.address</A><BR>RichardAntho=
> nyAssociates.com<BR>San=20
> Diego, =
> California<BR></B></FONT></DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>
>
> ------=_NextPart_000_007B_01C520C2.56C34830--
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2005 14:14:26 -0500
> To: "Kendall Christiansen" <KChristiansen@no.address>,
> "Green Yes" <greenyes@no.address>
> From: "Pat Franklin" <pfranklin@no.address>
> Subject: RE: [greenyes] "Should Congress pass a national deposit law?"
> Message-ID: <NFBBILMKILHOHCBHKMOPIEHMHNAA.pfranklin@no.address>
>
> This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
>
> ------=_NextPart_000_0085_01C520C4.79116870
> Content-Type: text/plain;
> charset="iso-8859-1"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
> Is there something wrong with street people benefiting from a system that
> rewards the redeemer of a deposit container. If the value of deposits on
> one-way containers had increased with inflation, as the refillable beer and
> soda bottles did (they started at a penny and by the time refillable soda
> bottles were taken off the market the deposit had increased to a dime)
> consumers would be returning the cans and bottles themselves. Legislators
> have failed to amend the laws to increase the deposit value so fewer and
> fewer consumers are incentivized to take their containers back. But the
> beauty of the deposit system is that there will always be someone for whom a
> nickel (or 4 cents in the case of CA) is enough of an incentive to pick the
> container up and take it back for the redemption value.
>
> Both systems have value and are not mutually exclusive.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kendall Christiansen [mailto:KChristiansen@no.address]
> Sent: Friday, March 04, 2005 2:06 PM
> To: Pat Franklin; RicAnthony@no.address
> Subject: RE: [greenyes] "Should Congress pass a national deposit law?"
>
> all of which means a cookie-cutter/one size fits all concept/system needs
> local tailoring....conceptual dilemma is that curbside and redemption
> programs/systems were layered on top of or parallel to each other, and not
> effectively integrated/rationalized....so public messages get confused,
> unintended consequences magnified (including it turning into an underground
> jobs program for street-people), and systems aren't optimized....much of the
> "rebuttal" arguments with respect to redemption vs. curbside are themselves
> rebuttable opinions....one of these years maybe it'll be time for less
> posturing and more constructive thinking...
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> --
>
> From: Pat Franklin [mailto:pfranklin@no.address]
> Sent: Friday, March 04, 2005 1:59 PM
> To: RicAnthony@no.address; Green Yes
> Subject: RE: [greenyes] "Should Congress pass a national deposit law?"
>
> Capturing beverage cans and bottles through a curbside program is one
> vehicle, but only if you have curbside. About 40% of the US population does
> NOT have access to curbside program. I don't know what the estimate is for
> the percent of folks who have access to curbside and take advantage of it,
> but it's probably under 80% on average. But even in cities, counties and
> towns where the public does have access to curbside recycling, a large
> percentage of beverage containers are being drained away from home, where
> collection programs are few and far between.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: RicAnthony@no.address [mailto:RicAnthony@no.address]
> Sent: Friday, March 04, 2005 1:51 PM
> To: greenyes@no.address
> Subject: Re: [greenyes] "Should Congress pass a national deposit law?"
>
> In a message dated 3/4/2005 10:39:50 AM Pacific Standard Time,
> cmccoy@no.address writes:Well, someone for example said they wanted to say
> that curbside recycling programs are a better way to capture containers for
> recycling.
>
> Probably true and in California the deposit on the containers make the
> capturing of these containers at the curb profitable. The deposit also
> makes it more cost effective to collect containers away from home.
>
> The current salvage prices do not represent the actual cost to recover,
> although history, time and population growth seems to be changing that as
> well.
> Ricanthony@no.address
> RichardAnthonyAssociates.com
> San Diego, California
>
> ------=_NextPart_000_0085_01C520C4.79116870
> Content-Type: text/html;
> charset="iso-8859-1"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>
> <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
> <HTML><HEAD>
> <META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
> charset=3Diso-8859-1">
> <META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2900.2604" name=3DGENERATOR></HEAD>
> <BODY style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; BACKGROUND-COLOR: =
> #ffffff">
> <DIV><SPAN class=3D077280719-04032005>Is there something wrong with =
> street people=20
> benefiting from a system that rewards the redeemer of a deposit =
> container.&nbsp;=20
> If the value of deposits on one-way containers had increased with =
> inflation, as=20
> the refillable beer and soda bottles did (they started at a penny and by =
> the=20
> time refillable soda bottles were taken off the market the deposit had =
> increased=20
> to a dime) consumers would be returning the cans and bottles =
> themselves.&nbsp;=20
> Legislators have failed to amend the laws to increase the deposit=20
> value&nbsp;&nbsp;so fewer and fewer consumers are incentivized to take =
> their=20
> containers back.&nbsp; But the beauty of the deposit system is that =
> there will=20
> always be someone for whom a nickel (or 4 cents in the case of CA) is =
> enough of=20
> an incentive to pick the container up and take it back for the =
> redemption=20
> value.</SPAN></DIV>
> <DIV><SPAN class=3D077280719-04032005></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>
> <DIV><SPAN class=3D077280719-04032005>Both systems have value and are =
> not mutually=20
> exclusive.</SPAN></DIV>
> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
> <BLOCKQUOTE dir=3Dltr style=3D"MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
> <DIV class=3DOutlookMessageHeader dir=3Dltr align=3Dleft><FONT=20
> face=3DTahoma>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B> Kendall =
> Christiansen=20
> [mailto:KChristiansen@no.address]<BR><B>Sent:</B> Friday, March =
> 04, 2005=20
> 2:06 PM<BR><B>To:</B> Pat Franklin; =
> RicAnthony@no.address<BR><B>Subject:</B> RE:=20
> [greenyes] "Should Congress pass a national deposit =
> law?"<BR><BR></FONT></DIV>
> <DIV dir=3Dltr align=3Dleft><EM><FONT color=3D#0000ff size=3D3><SPAN=20
> class=3D047280119-04032005>all of which means a cookie-cutter/one size =
> fits all=20
> concept/system needs local tailoring....conceptual dilemma is that =
> curbside=20
> and redemption programs/systems were layered on top of or parallel to =
> each=20
> other, and not effectively integrated/rationalized....so public =
> messages get=20
> confused, unintended consequences magnified (including it turning into =
> an=20
> underground jobs program for street-people), and systems aren't=20
> optimized....much of the "rebuttal" arguments with respect to =
> redemption vs.=20
> curbside are themselves rebuttable opinions....one of these years =
> maybe it'll=20
> be time for less posturing and more constructive=20
> thinking...</SPAN></FONT></EM></DIV>
> <DIV dir=3Dltr align=3Dleft><EM><FONT color=3D#0000ff size=3D3><SPAN=20
> class=3D047280119-04032005></SPAN></FONT></EM>&nbsp;</DIV><BR>
> <DIV class=3DOutlookMessageHeader lang=3Den-us dir=3Dltr align=3Dleft>
> <HR tabIndex=3D-1>
> </DIV><FONT face=3DTahoma size=3D2><B>From:</B> Pat Franklin=20
> [mailto:pfranklin@no.address] <BR><B>Sent:</B> Friday, =
> March 04,=20
> 2005 1:59 PM<BR><B>To:</B> RicAnthony@no.address; Green =
> Yes<BR><B>Subject:</B>=20
> RE: [greenyes] "Should Congress pass a national deposit =
> law?"<BR></FONT><BR>
> <DIV></DIV>
> <DIV><SPAN class=3D423515318-04032005>Capturing beverage cans and =
> bottles=20
> through a curbside program is one vehicle, but only if you have=20
> curbside.&nbsp; About 40% of the US population does NOT have access to =
>
> curbside program.&nbsp; I don't know what the estimate is for the =
> percent of=20
> folks who have access to curbside and take advantage of it, but it's =
> probably=20
> under 80% on average.&nbsp; But even in cities, counties and towns =
> where the=20
> public does have access to curbside recycling, a large percentage of =
> beverage=20
> containers are being drained away from home, where collection programs =
> are few=20
> and far between.</SPAN></DIV>
> <DIV><SPAN class=3D423515318-04032005></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>
> <DIV><SPAN class=3D423515318-04032005></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>
> <BLOCKQUOTE dir=3Dltr style=3D"MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
> <DIV class=3DOutlookMessageHeader dir=3Dltr align=3Dleft><FONT=20
> face=3DTahoma>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B> =
> RicAnthony@no.address=20
> [mailto:RicAnthony@no.address]<BR><B>Sent:</B> Friday, March 04, 2005 =
> 1:51=20
> PM<BR><B>To:</B> greenyes@no.address<BR><B>Subject:</B> Re: [greenyes] =
> "Should=20
> Congress pass a national deposit law?"<BR><BR></FONT></DIV>
> <DIV>
> <DIV>In a message dated 3/4/2005 10:39:50 AM Pacific Standard Time,=20
> cmccoy@no.address writes:<SPAN class=3D789533318-04032005><FONT =
> face=3DArial=20
> color=3D#0000ff>Well, someone for example said they wanted to say =
> that=20
> curbside recycling programs are a better way to capture containers =
> for=20
> recycling. </FONT></SPAN></DIV></DIV>
> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
> <DIV>
> <DIV><SPAN class=3D789533318-04032005><FONT color=3D#0000ff><FONT =
> color=3D#000000=20
> size=3D3>Probably true and in California the deposit on the =
> containers make=20
> the capturing of these containers at the curb =
> profitable.&nbsp;&nbsp;The=20
> deposit also makes it more cost effective to collect containers away =
> from=20
> home.&nbsp; </FONT></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
> <DIV><SPAN class=3D789533318-04032005><FONT color=3D#0000ff><FONT =
> color=3D#000000=20
> size=3D3></FONT></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>
> <DIV><SPAN class=3D789533318-04032005><FONT color=3D#0000ff><FONT =
> color=3D#000000=20
> size=3D3>The current&nbsp;salvage prices do not represent the actual =
>
> cost&nbsp; to recover, although history, time&nbsp;and population =
> growth=20
> seems to be changing that as well</FONT>.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
> <DIV><FONT lang=3D0 face=3DArial color=3D#004000 size=3D2 =
> PTSIZE=3D"10"=20
> FAMILY=3D"SANSSERIF"><B><A=20
> =
> href=3D"mailto:Ricanthony@no.address";>Ricanthony@no.address</A><BR>RichardAntho=
> nyAssociates.com<BR>San=20
> Diego,=20
> California<BR></B></FONT></DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></H=
> TML>
>
> ------=_NextPart_000_0085_01C520C4.79116870--
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2005 14:26:13 -0500
> To: "Pat Franklin" <pfranklin@no.address>,
> "Green Yes" <greenyes@no.address>
> From: "Kendall Christiansen" <KChristiansen@no.address>
> Subject: RE: [greenyes] "Should Congress pass a national deposit law?"
> Message-ID: <61A07AAF33FF4D4B96093C4B19194B762D2AA6@no.address>
>
> This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
>
> ------_=_NextPart_001_01C520F0.07C24B02
> Content-Type: text/plain;
> charset="iso-8859-1"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>
> i didn't suggest "wrong"; i suggested "unintended consequences" -- i =
> wasn't aware that bottle-bill planners had that in mind when redemption =
> systems were created...
> =20
> and, as i suggested, both systems do have value, but so do localized =
> approaches....
> =20
> as i hear it, the beauty of the deposit system -- as originally intended =
> -- was for litter prevention, and while it still serves that purpose, =
> it's also enabled many municipalities to forego recycling systems that =
> include public space recycling....
> =20
> =20
> ________________________________
>
> From: Pat Franklin [mailto:pfranklin@no.address]=20
> Sent: Friday, March 04, 2005 2:14 PM
> To: Kendall Christiansen; Green Yes
> Subject: RE: [greenyes] "Should Congress pass a national deposit law?"
>
> Is there something wrong with street people benefiting from a system =
> that rewards the redeemer of a deposit container. If the value of =
> deposits on one-way containers had increased with inflation, as the =
> refillable beer and soda bottles did (they started at a penny and by the =
> time refillable soda bottles were taken off the market the deposit had =
> increased to a dime) consumers would be returning the cans and bottles =
> themselves. Legislators have failed to amend the laws to increase the =
> deposit value so fewer and fewer consumers are incentivized to take =
> their containers back. But the beauty of the deposit system is that =
> there will always be someone for whom a nickel (or 4 cents in the case =
> of CA) is enough of an incentive to pick the container up and take it =
> back for the redemption value.
> =20
> Both systems have value and are not mutually exclusive.
> =20
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kendall Christiansen [mailto:KChristiansen@no.address]
> Sent: Friday, March 04, 2005 2:06 PM
> To: Pat Franklin; RicAnthony@no.address
> Subject: RE: [greenyes] "Should Congress pass a national deposit law?"
> =09
> =09
> all of which means a cookie-cutter/one size fits all concept/system =
> needs local tailoring....conceptual dilemma is that curbside and =
> redemption programs/systems were layered on top of or parallel to each =
> other, and not effectively integrated/rationalized....so public messages =
> get confused, unintended consequences magnified (including it turning =
> into an underground jobs program for street-people), and systems aren't =
> optimized....much of the "rebuttal" arguments with respect to redemption =
> vs. curbside are themselves rebuttable opinions....one of these years =
> maybe it'll be time for less posturing and more constructive thinking...
> =20
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: Pat Franklin [mailto:pfranklin@no.address]=20
> Sent: Friday, March 04, 2005 1:59 PM
> To: RicAnthony@no.address; Green Yes
> Subject: RE: [greenyes] "Should Congress pass a national deposit law?"
> =09
> =09
> Capturing beverage cans and bottles through a curbside program is one =
> vehicle, but only if you have curbside. About 40% of the US population =
> does NOT have access to curbside program. I don't know what the =
> estimate is for the percent of folks who have access to curbside and =
> take advantage of it, but it's probably under 80% on average. But even =
> in cities, counties and towns where the public does have access to =
> curbside recycling, a large percentage of beverage containers are being =
> drained away from home, where collection programs are few and far =
> between.
> =20
> =20
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: RicAnthony@no.address [mailto:RicAnthony@no.address]
> Sent: Friday, March 04, 2005 1:51 PM
> To: greenyes@no.address
> Subject: Re: [greenyes] "Should Congress pass a national deposit law?"
> =09
> =09
> In a message dated 3/4/2005 10:39:50 AM Pacific Standard Time, =
> cmccoy@no.address writes:Well, someone for example said they wanted to say =
> that curbside recycling programs are a better way to capture containers =
> for recycling.=20
> =20
> Probably true and in California the deposit on the containers make the =
> capturing of these containers at the curb profitable. The deposit also =
> makes it more cost effective to collect containers away from home. =20
> =20
> The current salvage prices do not represent the actual cost to =
> recover, although history, time and population growth seems to be =
> changing that as well.
> Ricanthony@no.address
> RichardAnthonyAssociates.com
> San Diego, California
> =09
>
> ------_=_NextPart_001_01C520F0.07C24B02
> Content-Type: text/html;
> charset="iso-8859-1"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>
> <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
> <HTML><HEAD>
> <META content=3D"text/html; charset=3Diso-8859-1" =
> http-equiv=3DContent-Type>
> <META content=3D"MSHTML 5.00.3700.6699" name=3DGENERATOR></HEAD>
> <BODY style=3D"BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; FONT-SIZE: =
> 10pt">
> <DIV align=3Dleft dir=3Dltr><EM><FONT color=3D#0000ff size=3D3><SPAN=20
> class=3D765212219-04032005>i didn't suggest "wrong"; i suggested =
> "unintended=20
> consequences" -- i wasn't aware that bottle-bill planners had that in =
> mind when=20
> redemption systems were created...</SPAN></FONT></EM></DIV>
> <DIV align=3Dleft dir=3Dltr><EM><FONT color=3D#0000ff size=3D3><SPAN=20
> class=3D765212219-04032005></SPAN></FONT></EM>&nbsp;</DIV>
> <DIV align=3Dleft dir=3Dltr><EM><FONT size=3D3><FONT =
> color=3D#0000ff><SPAN=20
> class=3D765212219-04032005>and, as i suggested, both systems do have =
> value, but so=20
> do localized approaches....</SPAN></FONT></FONT></EM></DIV>
> <DIV align=3Dleft dir=3Dltr><EM><FONT size=3D3><FONT =
> color=3D#0000ff><SPAN=20
> class=3D765212219-04032005></SPAN></FONT></FONT></EM>&nbsp;</DIV>
> <DIV align=3Dleft dir=3Dltr><EM><FONT size=3D3><FONT =
> color=3D#0000ff><SPAN=20
> class=3D765212219-04032005>as i hear it, the beauty of the deposit =
> system --=20
> as&nbsp;originally intended -- was for litter prevention, and while it =
> still=20
> serves that purpose, it's also enabled many municipalities to forego =
> recycling=20
> systems that include public space =
> recycling....</SPAN></FONT></FONT></EM></DIV>
> <DIV align=3Dleft dir=3Dltr><EM><FONT size=3D3><FONT =
> color=3D#0000ff><SPAN=20
> class=3D765212219-04032005></SPAN></FONT></FONT></EM>&nbsp;</DIV>
> <DIV align=3Dleft dir=3Dltr><EM><FONT size=3D3><FONT =
> color=3D#0000ff><SPAN=20
> class=3D765212219-04032005>&nbsp;</SPAN></FONT></FONT></EM></DIV>
> <DIV align=3Dleft dir=3Dltr>
> <HR tabIndex=3D-1>
> </DIV><FONT face=3DTahoma size=3D2><B>From:</B> Pat Franklin=20
> [mailto:pfranklin@no.address] <BR><B>Sent:</B> Friday, =
> March 04,=20
> 2005 2:14 PM<BR><B>To:</B> Kendall Christiansen; Green =
> Yes<BR><B>Subject:</B>=20
> RE: [greenyes] "Should Congress pass a national deposit =
> law?"<BR></FONT><BR>
> <DIV></DIV>
> <DIV><SPAN class=3D077280719-04032005>Is there something wrong with =
> street people=20
> benefiting from a system that rewards the redeemer of a deposit =
> container.&nbsp;=20
> If the value of deposits on one-way containers had increased with =
> inflation, as=20
> the refillable beer and soda bottles did (they started at a penny and by =
> the=20
> time refillable soda bottles were taken off the market the deposit had =
> increased=20
> to a dime) consumers would be returning the cans and bottles =
> themselves.&nbsp;=20
> Legislators have failed to amend the laws to increase the deposit=20
> value&nbsp;&nbsp;so fewer and fewer consumers are incentivized to take =
> their=20
> containers back.&nbsp; But the beauty of the deposit system is that =
> there will=20
> always be someone for whom a nickel (or 4 cents in the case of CA) is =
> enough of=20
> an incentive to pick the container up and take it back for the =
> redemption=20
> value.</SPAN></DIV>
> <DIV><SPAN class=3D077280719-04032005></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>
> <DIV><SPAN class=3D077280719-04032005>Both systems have value and are =
> not mutually=20
> exclusive.</SPAN></DIV>
> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
> <BLOCKQUOTE dir=3Dltr style=3D"MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
> <DIV align=3Dleft class=3DOutlookMessageHeader dir=3Dltr><FONT=20
> face=3DTahoma>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B> Kendall =
> Christiansen=20
> [mailto:KChristiansen@no.address]<BR><B>Sent:</B> Friday, March =
> 04, 2005=20
> 2:06 PM<BR><B>To:</B> Pat Franklin; =
> RicAnthony@no.address<BR><B>Subject:</B> RE:=20
> [greenyes] "Should Congress pass a national deposit =
> law?"<BR><BR></FONT></DIV>
> <DIV align=3Dleft dir=3Dltr><EM><FONT color=3D#0000ff size=3D3><SPAN=20
> class=3D047280119-04032005>all of which means a cookie-cutter/one size =
> fits all=20
> concept/system needs local tailoring....conceptual dilemma is that =
> curbside=20
> and redemption programs/systems were layered on top of or parallel to =
> each=20
> other, and not effectively integrated/rationalized....so public =
> messages get=20
> confused, unintended consequences magnified (including it turning into =
> an=20
> underground jobs program for street-people), and systems aren't=20
> optimized....much of the "rebuttal" arguments with respect to =
> redemption vs.=20
> curbside are themselves rebuttable opinions....one of these years =
> maybe it'll=20
> be time for less posturing and more constructive=20
> thinking...</SPAN></FONT></EM></DIV>
> <DIV align=3Dleft dir=3Dltr><EM><FONT color=3D#0000ff size=3D3><SPAN=20
> class=3D047280119-04032005></SPAN></FONT></EM>&nbsp;</DIV><BR>
> <DIV align=3Dleft class=3DOutlookMessageHeader dir=3Dltr lang=3Den-us>
> <HR tabIndex=3D-1>
> </DIV><FONT face=3DTahoma size=3D2><B>From:</B> Pat Franklin=20
> [mailto:pfranklin@no.address] <BR><B>Sent:</B> Friday, =
> March 04,=20
> 2005 1:59 PM<BR><B>To:</B> RicAnthony@no.address; Green =
> Yes<BR><B>Subject:</B>=20
> RE: [greenyes] "Should Congress pass a national deposit =
> law?"<BR></FONT><BR>
> <DIV></DIV>
> <DIV><SPAN class=3D423515318-04032005>Capturing beverage cans and =
> bottles=20
> through a curbside program is one vehicle, but only if you have=20
> curbside.&nbsp; About 40% of the US population does NOT have access to =
>
> curbside program.&nbsp; I don't know what the estimate is for the =
> percent of=20
> folks who have access to curbside and take advantage of it, but it's =
> probably=20
> under 80% on average.&nbsp; But even in cities, counties and towns =
> where the=20
> public does have access to curbside recycling, a large percentage of =
> beverage=20
> containers are being drained away from home, where collection programs =
> are few=20
> and far between.</SPAN></DIV>
> <DIV><SPAN class=3D423515318-04032005></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>
> <DIV><SPAN class=3D423515318-04032005></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>
> <BLOCKQUOTE dir=3Dltr style=3D"MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
> <DIV align=3Dleft class=3DOutlookMessageHeader dir=3Dltr><FONT=20
> face=3DTahoma>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B> =
> RicAnthony@no.address=20
> [mailto:RicAnthony@no.address]<BR><B>Sent:</B> Friday, March 04, 2005 =
> 1:51=20
> PM<BR><B>To:</B> greenyes@no.address<BR><B>Subject:</B> Re: [greenyes] =
> "Should=20
> Congress pass a national deposit law?"<BR><BR></FONT></DIV>
> <DIV>
> <DIV>In a message dated 3/4/2005 10:39:50 AM Pacific Standard Time,=20
> cmccoy@no.address writes:<SPAN class=3D789533318-04032005><FONT =
> color=3D#0000ff=20
> face=3DArial>Well, someone for example said they wanted to say that =
> curbside=20
> recycling programs are a better way to capture containers for =
> recycling.=20
> </FONT></SPAN></DIV></DIV>
> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
> <DIV>
> <DIV><SPAN class=3D789533318-04032005><FONT color=3D#0000ff><FONT =
> color=3D#000000=20
> size=3D3>Probably true and in California the deposit on the =
> containers make=20
> the capturing of these containers at the curb =
> profitable.&nbsp;&nbsp;The=20
> deposit also makes it more cost effective to collect containers away =
> from=20
> home.&nbsp; </FONT></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
> <DIV><SPAN class=3D789533318-04032005><FONT color=3D#0000ff><FONT =
> color=3D#000000=20
> size=3D3></FONT></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>
> <DIV><SPAN class=3D789533318-04032005><FONT color=3D#0000ff><FONT =
> color=3D#000000=20
> size=3D3>The current&nbsp;salvage prices do not represent the actual =
>
> cost&nbsp; to recover, although history, time&nbsp;and population =
> growth=20
> seems to be changing that as well</FONT>.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
> <DIV><FONT color=3D#004000 face=3DArial lang=3D0 size=3D2 =
> FAMILY=3D"SANSSERIF"=20
> PTSIZE=3D"10"><B><A=20
> =
> href=3D"mailto:Ricanthony@no.address";>Ricanthony@no.address</A><BR>RichardAntho=
> nyAssociates.com<BR>San=20
> Diego,=20
> California<BR></B></FONT></DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></H=
> TML>
>
> ------_=_NextPart_001_01C520F0.07C24B02--
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2005 14:40:46 EST
> To: greenyes@no.address
> From: RicAnthony@no.address
> Subject: "Should Congress pass a national deposit law?"
> Message-ID: <12e.58f1ab93.2f5a13be@no.address>
>
> -------------------------------1109965246
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
> .....(or 4 cents in the case of CA) is enough of an incentive to pick the
> container up and take it back for the redemption value.
>
> ....one of these years maybe it'll be time for less posturing and more
> constructive thinking...
>
> In a rational (perfect, natural) system, it is a full circle.
>
> If economics drives the decision the cost impacts of wasting has to be part
> of the calculation, otherwise we are back to faith again.
>
> What we have here in the USA is public funded wasting, competing with the
> recovery of recyclable materials. The law is the great equalizer.
>
> It is an American value as individuals that everyone is responsible for their
> actions. We believe in charity (love), hard work and democracy. Why is it
> posturing to ask for a reexamination of the rules?
>
> Both systems have value and are not mutually exclusive.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kendall Christiansen [mailto:KChristiansen@no.address]
> Sent: Friday, March 04, 2005 2:06 PM
> To: Pat Franklin; RicAnthony@no.address
> Subject: RE: [greenyes] "Should Congress pass a national deposit law?"
>
> all of which means a cookie-cutter/one size fits all concept/system needs
> local tailoring....conceptual dilemma is that curbside and redemption
> programs/systems were layered on top of or parallel to each other, and not effectively
> integrated/rationalized....so public messages get confused, unintended
> consequences magnified (including it turning into an underground jobs program for
> street-people), and systems aren't optimized....much of the "rebuttal" arguments
> with respect to redemption vs. curbside are themselves rebuttable
> opinions....one of these years maybe it'll be time for less posturing and more constructive
> thinking...
>
> From: Pat Franklin [mailto:pfranklin@no.address]
> Sent: Friday, March 04, 2005 1:59 PM
> To: RicAnthony@no.address; Green Yes
> Subject: RE: [greenyes] "Should Congress pass a national deposit law?"
>
> Capturing beverage cans and bottles through a curbside program is one
> vehicle, but only if you have curbside. About 40% of the US population does NOT have
> access to curbside program. I don't know what the estimate is for the
> percent of folks who have access to curbside and take advantage of it, but it's
> probably under 80% on average. But even in cities, counties and towns where the
> public does have access to curbside recycling, a large percentage of beverage
> containers are being drained away from home, where collection programs are few
> and far between.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: RicAnthony@no.address [mailto:RicAnthony@no.address]
> Sent: Friday, March 04, 2005 1:51 PM
> To: greenyes@no.address
> Subject: Re: [greenyes] "Should Congress pass a national deposit law?"
>
> In a message dated 3/4/2005 10:39:50 AM Pacific Standard Time,
> cmccoy@no.address writes:Well, someone for example said they wanted to say that curbside
> recycling programs are a better way to capture containers for recycling.
>
> Probably true and in California the deposit on the containers make the
> capturing of these containers at the curb profitable. The deposit also makes it
> more cost effective to collect containers away from home.
>
> The current salvage prices do not represent the actual cost to recover,
> although history, time and population growth seems to be changing that as well.
> Ricanthony@no.address
> RichardAnthonyAssociates.com
> San Diego, California
>
> -------------------------------1109965246
> Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>
> <HTML><HEAD>
> <META charset=3DUS-ASCII http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; cha=
> rset=3DUS-ASCII">
> <META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2900.2604" name=3DGENERATOR></HEAD>
> <BODY style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; BACKGROUND-COLOR: #fffff=
> f">
> <DIV><SPAN class=3D077280719-04032005>.....(or 4 cents in the case of CA) is=
> enough of an incentive to pick the container up and take it back for the re=
> demption value.</DIV>
> <DIV><EM><FONT color=3D#0000ff></FONT></EM>&nbsp;</DIV>
> <DIV><EM><FONT color=3D#0000ff>....one of these years maybe it'll be time fo=
> r less posturing and more constructive thinking...</FONT></EM></DIV>
> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
> <DIV><FONT size=3D3><STRONG>In&nbsp;a rational (perfect, natural) system, it=
> is a full circle.&nbsp; </STRONG></FONT></DIV>
> <DIV><FONT size=3D3><STRONG></STRONG></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
> <DIV><FONT size=3D3><STRONG>If economics drives the decision the cost impact=
> s&nbsp;of wasting has to be part of&nbsp;the calculation, otherwise we are b=
> ack to faith again.&nbsp;</STRONG></FONT></DIV>
> <DIV><FONT size=3D3><STRONG></STRONG></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
> <DIV><FONT size=3D3><STRONG>What we have here in the USA&nbsp;is public fund=
> ed wasting,&nbsp;competing with&nbsp;the recovery of recyclable materials.&n=
> bsp; The law is the great equalizer.&nbsp; </STRONG></FONT></DIV>
> <DIV><FONT size=3D3><STRONG></STRONG></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
> <DIV><FONT size=3D3><STRONG>It is an American value as individuals that&nbsp=
> ;everyone is responsible for their actions.&nbsp; We believe in charity (lov=
> e), hard work and democracy.&nbsp; Why is it posturing to ask for a reexamin=
> ation&nbsp;of the rules?</STRONG></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
> <BLOCKQUOTE style=3D"PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: blue=20=
> 2px solid">
> <DIV><SPAN class=3D077280719-04032005></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>
> <DIV><SPAN class=3D077280719-04032005>Both systems have value and are not mu=
> tually exclusive.</SPAN></DIV>
> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
> <BLOCKQUOTE dir=3Dltr style=3D"MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
> <DIV class=3DOutlookMessageHeader dir=3Dltr align=3Dleft><FONT face=3DTahoma=
> >-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B> Kendall Christiansen [mailto:KCh=
> ristiansen@no.address]<BR><B>Sent:</B> Friday, March 04, 2005 2:06 PM<B=
> R><B>To:</B> Pat Franklin; RicAnthony@no.address<BR><B>Subject:</B> RE: [greeny=
> es] "Should Congress pass a national deposit law?"<BR><BR></FONT></DIV>
> <DIV dir=3Dltr align=3Dleft><EM><FONT color=3D#0000ff size=3D3><SPAN class=
> =3D047280119-04032005>all of which means a cookie-cutter/one size fits all c=
> oncept/system needs local tailoring....conceptual dilemma is that curbside a=
> nd redemption programs/systems were layered on top of or parallel to each ot=
> her, and not effectively integrated/rationalized....so public messages get c=
> onfused, unintended consequences magnified (including it turning into an und=
> erground jobs program for street-people), and systems aren't optimized....mu=
> ch of the "rebuttal" arguments with respect to redemption vs. curbside are t=
> hemselves rebuttable opinions....one of these years maybe it'll be time for=20=
> less posturing and more constructive thinking...</SPAN></FONT></EM></DIV>
> <DIV dir=3Dltr align=3Dleft><EM><FONT color=3D#0000ff size=3D3><SPAN class=
> =3D047280119-04032005></SPAN></FONT></EM>&nbsp;</DIV><EM><FONT color=3D#0000=
> ff size=3D3></FONT></EM><BR>
> <DIV class=3DOutlookMessageHeader lang=3Den-us dir=3Dltr align=3Dleft>
> <HR tabIndex=3D-1>
> </DIV><FONT face=3DTahoma size=3D2><B>From:</B> Pat Franklin [mailto:pfrankl=
> in@no.address] <BR><B>Sent:</B> Friday, March 04, 2005 1:59 PM<=
> BR><B>To:</B> RicAnthony@no.address; Green Yes<BR><B>Subject:</B> RE: [greenyes=
> ] "Should Congress pass a national deposit law?"<BR></FONT><BR>
> <DIV></DIV>
> <DIV><SPAN class=3D423515318-04032005>Capturing beverage cans and bottles th=
> rough a curbside program is one vehicle, but only if you have curbside.&nbsp=
> ; About 40% of the US population does NOT have access to curbside program.&n=
> bsp; I don't know what the estimate is for the percent of folks who have acc=
> ess to curbside and take advantage of it, but it's probably under 80% on ave=
> rage.&nbsp; But even in cities, counties and towns where the public does hav=
> e access to curbside recycling, a large percentage of beverage containers ar=
> e being drained away from home, where collection programs are few and far be=
> tween.</SPAN></DIV>
> <DIV><SPAN class=3D423515318-04032005></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>
> <DIV><SPAN class=3D423515318-04032005></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>
> <BLOCKQUOTE dir=3Dltr style=3D"MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
> <DIV class=3DOutlookMessageHeader dir=3Dltr align=3Dleft><FONT face=3DTahoma=
> >-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B> RicAnthony@no.address [mailto:RicAn=
> thony@no.address]<BR><B>Sent:</B> Friday, March 04, 2005 1:51 PM<BR><B>To:</B>=20=
> greenyes@no.address<BR><B>Subject:</B> Re: [greenyes] "Should Congress pass a=20=
> national deposit law?"<BR><BR></FONT></DIV>
> <DIV>
> <DIV>In a message dated 3/4/2005 10:39:50 AM Pacific Standard Time, cmccoy@no.address=
> cap.org writes:<SPAN class=3D789533318-04032005><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#=
> 0000ff>Well, someone for example said they wanted to say that curbside recyc=
> ling programs are a better way to capture containers for recycling. </FONT><=
> /SPAN></DIV></DIV>
> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
> <DIV>
> <DIV><SPAN class=3D789533318-04032005><FONT color=3D#0000ff><FONT color=3D#0=
> 00000 size=3D3>Probably true and in California the deposit on the containers=
> make the capturing of these containers at the curb profitable.&nbsp;&nbsp;T=
> he deposit also makes it more cost effective to collect containers away from=
> home.&nbsp; </FONT></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
> <DIV><SPAN class=3D789533318-04032005><FONT color=3D#0000ff><FONT color=3D#0=
> 00000 size=3D3></FONT></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>
> <DIV><SPAN class=3D789533318-04032005><FONT color=3D#0000ff><FONT color=3D#0=
> 00000 size=3D3>The current&nbsp;salvage prices do not represent the actual c=
> ost&nbsp; to recover, although history, time&nbsp;and population growth seem=
> s to be changing that as well</FONT>.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
> <DIV><FONT lang=3D0 face=3DArial color=3D#004000 size=3D2 PTSIZE=3D"10" FAMI=
> LY=3D"SANSSERIF"><B><A title=3Dmailto:Ricanthony@no.address href=3D"mailto:Rica=
> nthony@no.address">Ricanthony@no.address</A><BR>RichardAnthonyAssociates.com<BR>Sa=
> n Diego, California</B></FONT></DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQ=
> UOTE>
> <DIV></DIV></BODY></HTML>
>
> -------------------------------1109965246--
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2005 11:04:03 -0800
> To: "Green Yes" <greenyes@no.address>
> From: "Steve Bloom" <spbloom@no.address>
> Subject: RE: [greenyes] Landfill Bans and The Ineffectiveness of MSW Regulations
> Message-ID: <KDEOKEHKPNJAGALHEHDJCEOBJBAA.spbloom@no.address>
>
> I haven't looked at the article, but my suspicion is that what was mostly involved were
> regulations without adequate independent enforcement. In any case we're talking about
> data that's 25 years out of date.
> -- Steve Bloom
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Wolbert, Brad [mailto:Brad.Wolbert@no.address]
> > Sent: Friday, March 04, 2005 7:25 AM
> > To: sp@no.address; Green Yes
> > Subject: RE: [greenyes] Landfill Bans and The Ineffectiveness of MSW
> > Regulations
> >
> >
> > For those of us without ready access to a law library, perhaps you'd be willing
> > to relate the gist of the argument that MSW regulations are ineffective? I
> > know that as a regulator from a state with landfill bans that are considered to
> > be extremely successful in achieving their purpose, I'd be curious.
> >
> > Brad Wolbert
> > Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Stephan Pollard [mailto:sp@no.address]
> > Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2005 11:09 PM
> > To: Green Yes
> > Subject: [greenyes] Landfill Bans and The Ineffectiveness of MSW
> > Regulations
> >
> >
> > For an instructive piece of literature on the ineffectiveness of MSW
> > regulations from a historical legal standpoint see:
> >
> > Lanza, D. R. Municipal solid waste regulations: An ineffective solution
> > to a national problem. Fordham Urban Law Journal 1981-1982, 10(1), 215-245.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Stephan Pollard
> >
> > --
> > Stephan Pollard
> > Environmental Dynamics Doctoral Program
> > University of Arkansas
> > Rm 113 Ozark Hall
> > Fayetteville, AR 72701
> > Tel: (479) 575-6603
> > http://www.cast.uark.edu/~sp
> >
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Fri, 04 Mar 2005 14:03:18 -0500
> To: <greenyes@no.address>
> From: Alan Muller <amuller@no.address>
> Subject: Alert 393: Giant pile of poison to be left on banks of
> Delaware River as a gift to future generations
> Message-Id: <6.0.1.1.0.20050304140259.06458788@no.address>
>
> --=====================_529567703==.ALT
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
>
> Green Delaware Alert #393
> (please post/forward)
>
> Public hearings on DuPont's Edge Moor dioxin factory:
> March 1 and 2, 2005.
>
> DuPont admits dioxin-laced wastes were used to treat Wilmington drinking
> water...
>
> Giant pile of poison to be left on banks of Delaware River as a gift to
> future generations
>
> Community Meeting planned for March 16, 2005
>
> March 2, 2005 This Alert tries to summarize, very briefly, much
> information collected over a period of years. Recently, folk from Green
> Delaware and Common Cause have spent many hours reviewing files. Please
> try to plow through this summary and take action.
>
> One of the great scandals of Delaware is the Edge Moor plant of E.I. duPont
> de Nemours & Company. In the 1950s this plant became the world's first
> plant to manufacture titanium dioxide (a white pigment) by what DuPont
> calls the "chloride-illmanite" process.
>
> This plant is the largest reported source in the United States of dioxin, a
> family of chemical compounds of unequaled toxicity. Dioxins cause cancer,
> birth defects, and other health problems in parts per trillion concentrations.
>
> In fact, the DuPont plant reports releasing more than one-half of all the
> dioxins reported released in the entire United States. Amounts have been
> increasing. (DuPont claims to have plans to reduce dioxin output but has
> refused to provide any details to Green Delaware.) Reported releases in
> recent years have been as much as 169 pounds. This is about 770 thousand
> times the minimum "reportable quantity" of 0.1 grams.
>
> The dioxin output of Edge Moor is a story generally blacked out by
> Delaware's media, probably under pressure from DuPont. Green Delaware has
> reported on it at least three times:
>
> Alert 104--DuPont and Dioxin, Monday, July 2, 2001
> http//www.greendel.org/item.xhtml?name=alert_0104
>
> DUPONT DOSES DELAWARE WITH DIOXIN, MOST TOXIC KNOWN CHEMICAL, Thursday, May
> 23, 2002 http//www.greendel.org/item.xhtml?name=release_dioxin1
>
> Alert 242--52% of total US dioxin emissions are from Delaware--Up from 38%
> in 2000, Wednesday, July 2, 2003
> http//www.greendel.org/item.xhtml?name=alert_0242
>
> DuPont presumably began belching dioxin when the "chloride" process started
> up around 1956. But, DuPont doesn't admit to knowing about the dioxin
> releases until the 1990s, and only then as a result of investigations by
> the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
>
> Before 1997 the wastes were handled without any special precautions, and
> sometimes promoted as valuable products to be sold. They were used as road
> base, landfill cover, for treating drinking water and wastewater and for
> other purposes.
>
> Beginning in 1997 and continuing until 2001 wastes (containing much but not
> all of Edge Moor's dioxin) were piled up in an unpermitted dump on the West
> bank of the Delaware River next to Shellpot Creek. DuPont has reluctantly
> admitted to Green Delaware that "Although the mass is
> not relevant, the mass of dioxins in the iron-rich pile on a totals basis
> is estimated to be between 294 and 363 pounds..."
>
> DuPont's Edge Moor wastes also contain radioactive uranium and thorium,
> arsenic, lead, hexachlorobenzene, PCBs and many other poisonous and
> cancer-causing chemicals. In fact, DNREC and DuPont claim that the dioxin
> is not really a problem because it is below the state action levels. (This
> is similar to the arsenic levels scandal we reported on in Alert 392,
> "Toxic backyards for Delaware kids?,"
> <http:///>http://www.greendel.org/item.xhtml<http:///>?name=alert_0392)
>
> Now, these wastes are being sent to a garbage dump near Bishopville, South
> Carolina, in impoverished, rural Lee County. Green Delaware has been told
> by the landfill manager and South Carolina officials that they don't know
> there is dioxin in the DuPont wastes from Delaware. (Why are the wastes
> going to South Carolina rather than to the Delaware Solid Waste Authority
> garbage dump right next to DuPont? Interesting question.....)
>
> Why are these wastes not being handled as the "hazardous wastes" they so
> obviously are? Minner administration officials claim the wastes are exempt
> due to a loophole called the "Bevill Amendment." But, at the same time,
> they claim the SAME wastes in the big pile are not exempt and therefore are
> too expensive to get rid of. Therefore this pile of five hundred thousand
> tons of dangerous wastes should be left on the bank of the Delaware River,
> next to Shellpot Creek, as a gift to the community and to future generations.
>
> A hearing was held on March 1, 2005, about a Coastal Zone Act permit for
> Edge Moor to make a different flavor of product. The Minner administration
> likes the idea and intends to give the permit without any real
> consideration of what DuPont is already doing to the area and to the
> Delaware River.
>
> Informed people at the hearing expressed a different opinion. Former
> DuPont chemist and engineer Glenn R. Evers worked at the plant for many
> years. He testified that the dioxin put out by Edge Moor is the "Darth
> Vader of toxins," causing all sorts of cancers and other health
> problems. He said, and DuPont officials confirmed, that Edge Moor waste
> ferric chloride waste containing dioxins is sold for treating drinking
> water. Wilmington uses this "product."
>
> Alan Muller of Green Delaware said we were "very disappointed in DNREC's
> performance in this matter." He said that DNREC has been giving out
> permits "like peanuts" and offered a bag of peanuts as a final
> exhibit. Hearing officer Robert Haynes refused to accept the peanuts.
>
> A hearing is scheduled for five o'clock p.m. on March 2nd at the Edge Moor
> Community Center. (Why does the hearing begin at 5:00. dinner time? Good
> question....)
>
> WHAT YOU CAN DO NOW:
>
> Contact Governor Ruth Ann Minner. Ask (1) the giant waste pile not be left
> on the banks of the Delaware River, but handled properly , and (2) that
> DuPont's Edge Moor plant NOT receive a coastal zone permit to make
> different products until it starts making it's present products safely.
>
> Governor's office: 1.800.929.9570, leeann.walling@no.address, FAX: 577.3118
>
> Come to the March 2nd hearing.
>
> Green Delaware and other organizations are planning a community meeting on
> March 16, 2005 (6:30 p.m.) to provide more information on DuPont's Edge
> Moor Plant and an opportunity to discuss what might be done about it. Put
> this on your calendar! More details will follow.
>
> Green Delaware is a community based organization working on environment and
> public health issues. We try to provide information you can use. Please
> use it. Do you want to continue receiving information from Green
> Delaware? Please consider contributing or volunteering. Reach us at
> 302.834.3466, greendel@no.address, www.greendel.org, Box 69, Port Penn, DE,
> USA, 19731-0069
>
> --=====================_529567703==.ALT
> Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
>
> <html>
> <body>
> <div align="center"><font face="Times New Roman TUR, Times" size=5 color="#008000"><b>Green
> Delaware Alert #393<br>
> </b></font><font face="Times New Roman TUR, Times" size=4 color="#008000">&nbsp;&nbsp;
> (please post/forward)<br><br>
> </font><font face="Times New Roman TUR, Times" size=4 color="#FF0000"><b>Public
> hearings on DuPont's Edge Moor dioxin factory:<br>
> March 1 and 2, 2005.<br><br>
> DuPont admits dioxin-laced wastes were used to treat Wilmington drinking
> water...<br><br>
> Giant pile of poison to be left on banks of Delaware River as a gift to
> future generations<br><br>
> Community Meeting planned for March 16, 2005<br><br>
> <br>
> </b></font></div>
> <font face="Times New Roman TUR, Times" size=4>March 2, 2005&nbsp; This
> Alert tries to summarize, very briefly, much information collected over a
> period of years.&nbsp; Recently, folk from Green Delaware and Common
> Cause have spent many hours reviewing files.&nbsp; Please try to plow
> through this summary and take action.<br><br>
> </font><font face="Times New Roman TUR, Times" size=4 color="#FF0000">One
> of the great scandals of
> Delaware</font><font face="Times New Roman TUR, Times" size=4> is the
> Edge Moor plant of E.I. duPont de Nemours &amp; Company.&nbsp; In the
> 1950s this plant became the world's first plant to manufacture titanium
> dioxide (a white pigment) by what DuPont calls the
> &quot;chloride-illmanite&quot; process.<br><br>
> </font><font face="Times New Roman TUR, Times" size=4 color="#FF0000">This
> plant is the largest reported source in the United States of
> dioxin</font><font face="Times New Roman TUR, Times" size=4>, a family of
> chemical compounds of unequaled toxicity.&nbsp; Dioxins cause cancer,
> birth defects, and other health problems in parts per trillion
> concentrations.<br><br>
> In fact, the DuPont plant reports releasing more than one-half of all the
> dioxins reported released in the entire United States.&nbsp; Amounts have
> been increasing.&nbsp;&nbsp; (DuPont claims to have plans to reduce
> dioxin output but has refused to provide any details to Green
> Delaware.)&nbsp; Reported releases in recent years have been as much as
> 169 pounds.&nbsp; This is about 770 thousand times the minimum
> &quot;reportable quantity&quot; of 0.1 grams.<br><br>
> The dioxin output of Edge Moor is a story generally blacked out by
> Delaware's media, probably under pressure from DuPont.&nbsp; Green
> Delaware has reported on it at least three times:<br><br>
> Alert 104--DuPont and Dioxin, Monday, July 2, 2001 <br>
> http//www.greendel.org/item.xhtml?name=alert_0104<br><br>
> DUPONT DOSES DELAWARE WITH DIOXIN, MOST TOXIC KNOWN CHEMICAL, Thursday,
> May 23, 2002
> http//www.greendel.org/item.xhtml?name=release_dioxin1<br><br>
> Alert 242--52% of total US dioxin emissions are from Delaware--Up from
> 38% in 2000, Wednesday, July 2, 2003
> http//www.greendel.org/item.xhtml?name=alert_0242<br><br>
> DuPont presumably began belching dioxin when the &quot;chloride&quot;
> process started up around 1956.&nbsp; But, DuPont doesn't admit to
> knowing about the dioxin releases until the 1990s, and only then as a
> result of investigations by the U.S. Environmental Protection
> Agency.&nbsp; <br><br>
> Before 1997 the wastes were handled without any special precautions, and
> sometimes promoted as valuable products to be sold.&nbsp; They were used
> as road base, landfill cover, for treating drinking water and wastewater
> and for other purposes.<br><br>
> Beginning in 1997 and continuing until 2001 wastes (containing much but
> not all of Edge Moor's dioxin) were piled up in an unpermitted dump on
> the West bank of the Delaware River next to Shellpot Creek.&nbsp; DuPont
> has reluctantly admitted to Green Delaware that <i>&quot;Although the
> mass is <br>
> not relevant,
> </font><font face="Times New Roman TUR, Times" size=4 color="#FF0000">the
> mass of dioxins in the iron-rich pile on a totals basis is estimated to
> be between 294 and 363 pounds...&quot;<br><br>
> </i></font><font face="Times New Roman TUR, Times" size=4>DuPont's Edge
> Moor wastes also contain radioactive uranium and thorium, arsenic, lead,
> hexachlorobenzene, PCBs and many other poisonous and cancer-causing
> chemicals.&nbsp; In fact, DNREC and DuPont claim that the dioxin is not
> really a problem because it is below the state action levels. (This is
> similar to the arsenic levels scandal we reported on in Alert 392,
> <b>&quot;</font><font face="Times New Roman TUR, Times" size=4 color="#FF0000">Toxic
> backyards for Delaware
> kids?</font><font face="Times New Roman TUR, Times" size=4>,&quot;</b>
> <a href="http:///";>http://</a>www.greendel.org/item.xhtml<a href="http:///";>?name=alert_0392</a>)<br><br>
> Now, these wastes are being sent to a garbage dump near Bishopville,
> South Carolina, in impoverished, rural Lee County.&nbsp; Green Delaware
> has been told by the landfill manager and South Carolina officials that
> they don't know there is dioxin in the DuPont wastes from Delaware. (Why
> are the wastes going to South Carolina rather than to the Delaware Solid
> Waste Authority garbage dump right next to DuPont?&nbsp; Interesting
> question.....)&nbsp; <br><br>
> Why are these wastes not being handled as the &quot;hazardous
> wastes&quot; they so obviously are?&nbsp; Minner administration officials
> claim the wastes are exempt due to a loophole called the &quot;Bevill
> Amendment.&quot;&nbsp; But, at the same time, they claim the SAME wastes
> in the big pile are not exempt and therefore are too expensive to get rid
> of.&nbsp; Therefore this pile of five hundred thousand tons of dangerous
> wastes should be left on the bank of the Delaware River, next to Shellpot
> Creek, as a gift to the community and to future generations.<br><br>
> A hearing was held on March 1, 2005, about a Coastal Zone Act permit for
> Edge Moor to make a different flavor of product.&nbsp; The Minner
> administration likes the idea and intends to give the permit without any
> real consideration of what DuPont is already doing to the area and to the
> Delaware River.&nbsp; <br><br>
> Informed people at the hearing expressed a different opinion.&nbsp;
> Former DuPont chemist and engineer Glenn R. Evers worked at the plant for
> many years.&nbsp; He testified that the dioxin put out by Edge Moor is
> the &quot;Darth Vader of toxins,&quot; causing all sorts of cancers and
> other health problems.&nbsp; He said, and DuPont officials confirmed,
> that Edge Moor waste ferric chloride waste containing dioxins is sold for
> treating drinking water.&nbsp; Wilmington uses this
> &quot;product.&quot;<br><br>
> Alan Muller of Green Delaware said we were
> &quot;</font><font face="Times New Roman TUR, Times" size=4 color="#FF0000">very
> disappointed in DNREC's performance in this
> matter</font><font face="Times New Roman TUR, Times" size=4>.&quot;&nbsp;
> He said that DNREC has been giving out permits &quot;like peanuts&quot;
> and offered a bag of peanuts as a final exhibit.&nbsp; Hearing officer
> Robert Haynes refused to accept the peanuts.<br><br>
> A hearing is scheduled for five o'clock p.m. on March 2<sup>nd</sup> at
> the Edge Moor Community Center.&nbsp; (Why does the hearing begin at
> 5:00. dinner time?&nbsp; Good question....)<br><br>
> </font><font face="Times New Roman TUR, Times" size=4 color="#FF0000"><b>WHAT
> YOU CAN DO NOW:<br><br>
> Contact Governor Ruth Ann
> Minner.</font><font face="Times New Roman TUR, Times" size=4>&nbsp; Ask
> (1)</font><font face="Times New Roman TUR, Times" size=4 color="#FF0000">
> the giant waste pile not be left on the banks of the Delaware
> River</font><font face="Times New Roman TUR, Times" size=4>, but handled
> properly , and (2)
> </font><font face="Times New Roman TUR, Times" size=4 color="#FF0000">that
> DuPont's Edge Moor plant NOT receive a coastal zone permit to make
> different products until it starts making it's present products
> safely.<br><br>
> </font><font face="Times New Roman TUR, Times" size=4>Governor's
> office:&nbsp; 1.800.929.9570, leeann.walling@no.address, FAX:
> 577.3118<br><br>
> </b></font><font face="Times New Roman TUR, Times" size=4 color="#FF0000">Come
> to the March 2nd hearing.<br><br>
> Green Delaware and other organizations are planning a community meeting
> on March 16, 2005</font><font face="Times New Roman TUR, Times" size=4>
> (6:30 p.m.) to provide more information on DuPont's Edge Moor Plant and
> an opportunity to discuss what might be done about it.&nbsp; Put this on
> your calendar!&nbsp; More details will follow.<br><br>
> </font><div align="center"><font face="Times New Roman TUR, Times" size=4 color="#008000"><b><i>Green
> Delaware is a community based organization working on environment and
> public health issues.&nbsp; We try to provide information you can
> use.&nbsp; Please use it.&nbsp; Do you want to continue receiving
> information from Green Delaware?&nbsp; Please consider contributing or
> volunteering.&nbsp; Reach us at 302.834.3466, greendel@no.address,
> <a href="http://www.greendel.org/"; eudora="autourl">www.greendel.org</a></i></b>,<i>
> <b>Box 69, Port Penn, DE, USA, 19731-0069<br>
> </font></b></i></div>
> </body>
> </html>
>
> --=====================_529567703==.ALT--
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Fri, 04 Mar 2005 14:24:50 -0700
> To: <greenyes@no.address>
> From: "Megan Kershner" <Mkershner@no.address>
> Subject: Sustainability in the Inland Northwest: Conference wraps up in
> Boise, Idaho
> Message-Id: <s2286fc3.062@no.address>
>
> True 'green' shoppers are few and far between
> Polls: Only 10% consistently buy 'green' products
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> The Idaho Statesman | Edition Date: 03-04-2005
> http://www.idahostatesman.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050304/NEWS02/503040338
>
> Polls indicate that most Americans consider themselves
> sustainability-aware, "green"-savvy consumers. In fact, a full 75
> percent of Americans place themselves in this category.
>
> But presenters at the last day of the two-day "Sustainability in the
> Inland Northwest" conference said a discrepancy exists between the
> number of consumers who refer to themselves as "green"-savvy, and those
> who truly follow through on their convictions and buy environmentally
> friendly products on a consistent basis.
>
> "There are not that many true 'green' consumers," said Shelley Zimmer,
> Nike's senior manager of footwear sustainability.
>
> In reality, only about 10 percent of American consumers are truly
> green-conscious shoppers, Zimmer said. These are the shoppers who
> actively search out such products and are willing to pay more to get
> them, she said.
>
> The remaining 65 percent are not as willing to go out of their way to
> find them or pay extra for them, but are still interested in such
> products, Zimmer said. "They're busy. They have lots of things going on
> in their lives," she said. "They want to be able to buy them in
> accessible ways."
>
> Zimmer's projects include improving Nike's footwear packaging,
> gathering consumer insights related to sustainability and driving
> sustainable design innovations.
>
> In recent years, she said, Nike has introduced products like athletic
> shoes that are both comprised of less toxic materials and designed to be
> more easily recycled.
>
> In Nike's case, making green products more accessible has meant moving
> towards incorporating as many green characteristics into all of their
> product lines as possible.
>
> In that way, Zimmer said, customers can more easily support
> sustainability and "don't have to make those trade-offs" between
> high-priced green and less expansive non-green products.
>
> But there are smaller businesses which are unable to benefit from
> widespread advertising. For them, success in marketing green products
> comes down to offering "something different," said Janie Burns, the
> owner of Meadowlark Farms in Nampa.
>
> Burns sells organic food products like eggs, grass-fed lamb and
> vegetables. Burns spoke at the same session as Nike's Zimmer.
>
> What differentiates her products from others, Burns said, are the
> health and environmental benefits they offer to customers.
>
> In the move towards greener products, manufacturers are increasingly
> relying on industry-specific certification programs or eco-labels to
> help consumers differentiate between green and regular products.
>
> Matthew Buck of the Food Alliance in Portland said businesses selling
> products straight to the consumer at places like farmers' markets may
> not benefit from certification. Customers who shop there are the 10
> percent who actively search out green products, he said, and are
> therefore more knowledgeable about the products they buy.
>
> It's the roughly 65 percent of consumers who consider themselves green
> shoppers that may be more attracted to a product that advertises green
> certification, organic certification or eco-labels, Buck said.
>
> "Certification is not a magic bullet," Buck said. "It will not sell
> your products for you."
>
> Instead of just peddling what they've got to consumers, Buck said
> businesses wishing to sell green products need to "market what people
> need."
>
> About 300 people attended the two-day conference at Boise's Grove
> Hotel.
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of greenyes Digest
> ***********************************

--
Neil Seldman
President

Institute for Local Self-Reliance
927 15th St., NW - 4th Flr.
Washington, DC 20005
(202) 898-1610 ext. 210
(202) 898-1612 [fax]
www.ilsr.org




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