GreenYes Archives

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


[GreenYes] Re: 10 new messages in 8 topics - digest



Like Eric, I am looking forward to the article on precycling
insurance. One note of caution, recycling needs a market but cannot
not be made dependent on the market as it is now. We have to continue
to change the market as we have done for 30 years. Looks like a good
discussion ahead.

Neil
On Apr 6, 2007, at 11:46 AM, GreenYes group wrote:

>
> GreenYes
> http://groups.google.com/group/GreenYes?hl=en
>
> GreenYes@no.address
>
> Today's topics:
>
> * RPF language for C&D Recycling?? - 1 messages, 1 author
> http://groups.google.com/group/GreenYes/browse_thread/thread/
> 4f7822722e07bf24?hl=en
> * Apparently they can make plastic out of anything...who need
> oil? :) - 1
> messages, 1 author
> http://groups.google.com/group/GreenYes/browse_thread/thread/
> 2e9c52b28600a51e?hl=en
> * Fwd: [GAIA] economic instrument for zero waste - 3 messages, 3
> authors
> http://groups.google.com/group/GreenYes/browse_thread/thread/
> d6b4329563f1be88?hl=en
> * Fwd: RE: [GreenYes] Fwd: [GAIA] economic instrument for zero
> waste - 1
> messages, 1 author
> http://groups.google.com/group/GreenYes/browse_thread/thread/
> 798430a23680ce29?hl=en
> * Programs Using Clear Plastic Bags for Trash Rather than
> Recycling... - 1
> messages, 1 author
> http://groups.google.com/group/GreenYes/browse_thread/thread/
> dfe6ca3977c7da2f?hl=en
> * a view of ZW from the "middle" - 1 messages, 1 author
> http://groups.google.com/group/GreenYes/browse_thread/thread/
> a835b379aed3bd4?hl=en
> * The Death of Recycling? - 1 messages, 1 author
> http://groups.google.com/group/GreenYes/browse_thread/thread/
> 2eafc46e23a71bb7?hl=en
> * economic instrument for zero waste - 1 messages, 1 author
> http://groups.google.com/group/GreenYes/browse_thread/thread/
> 192e1e2a2bde4af9?hl=en
>
> ======================================================================
> ========
> TOPIC: RPF language for C&D Recycling??
> http://groups.google.com/group/GreenYes/browse_thread/thread/
> 4f7822722e07bf24?hl=en
> ======================================================================
> ========
>
> == 1 of 1 ==
> Date: Thurs, Apr 5 2007 2:08 am
> From: "Nancy Poh"
>
>
> You should be able to get some answers from California Integrated
> Waste
> Management Board
>
> See extracted:
> The Board now provides fact sheets, case studies, processor lists, and
> reports on C&D material reuse and recycling to the construction and
> demolition industry, local governments, trade associations, and other
> interested parties. The C&D recycling program also works closely with
> the Board?s green building program (see next page) and military base
> closure groups to provide recycling information and document
> demolition
> activities at closing military bases. For more detailed information
> see
> the Board?s Web site at www.ciwmb.ca.gov/ConDemo/.
>
> The UBMA is now the Building Materials Reuse Association (BMRA), a
> non-profit educational organization whose mission is to facilitate
> building deconstruction and the reuse/recycling of recovered building
> materials.
> http://www.buildingreuse.org/about_us/
>
> Rgds
> GreenBeing Nancy
> http://greenbeingnancy.blogspot.com/index.html
>
> <-----Original Message----->
>> From: Christine.McCoy@no.address
> [Christine.McCoy@no.address]
>> Sent: 4/5/2007 12:07:22 AM
>> To: greenyes@no.address;jtrnet@no.address
>> Subject: Re: [GreenYes] RPF language for C&D Recycling??
>>
>>
>> Folks - can you send me any language that you include in
>> deconstruction/construction RFPs that would require the contractor to
> recycling
>> as much material as possible?? Any additional information or
> educational
>> material that you've produced to target this audience would also be
> greatly
>> appreciated.
>>
>> Thanks so much,
>>
>> Christine McCoy
>> City of Alexandria
>> 703/519-3486 ext. 132
>>
>
> Click here to solve your love problems with the best love advice
> <http://tagline.bidsystem.com/fc/CAaCDCZ0j9zlDFFj2T7ySTiouBCOIQ2k/>
>
>
>
> <span id=m2wTl><p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"
> size="2" style="font-size:
> 13.5px">______________________________________________________________
> _<BR>Get the Free email that has everyone talking at <a href=http://
> www.mail2world.com target=new>http://www.mail2world.com</a><br>
> <font color=#999999>Unlimited Email Storage &#150; POP3 &#150;
> Calendar &#150; SMS &#150; Translator &#150; Much More!</font></
> font></span>
>
>
>
>
> ======================================================================
> ========
> TOPIC: Apparently they can make plastic out of anything...who need
> oil? :)
> http://groups.google.com/group/GreenYes/browse_thread/thread/
> 2e9c52b28600a51e?hl=en
> ======================================================================
> ========
>
> == 1 of 1 ==
> Date: Thurs, Apr 5 2007 8:48 am
> From:
>
>
> OK - now I've heard everything!
>
>> Oh, Chicken Feathers! How to Reduce Plastic Waste
>> Andrea Thompson
>> LiveScience Staff Writer
>> LiveScience.com
>> Wed Apr 4, 9:20 AM ET
>>
>> Poultry farmers could soon be the source of much more
>> than buffalo wings and omelets. Chickens byproducts
>> could be used to make biodegradable plastics and cheap
>> energy, two new studies find.
>>
>> Many types of animal waste and plants, including corn
>> and soybeans, have been proposed as alternative
>> sources of plastics and fuel, and demand for them is
>> on the rise.
>>
>>
>> So one researcher has turned to agricultural waste,
>> such as poultry feathers and eggs that didn?t pass
>> inspection, which are currently used in low-value
>> animal feed or simply thrown away, to develop more
>> environmentally friendly plastics.
>>
>>
>> ?Twelve percent of all plastic packaging ends up in
>> landfills because only a fraction is recycled,? said
>> Virginia Tech researcher Justin Barone, who is heading
>> up the agricultural waste effort. ?Once in a landfill,
>> it doesn?t biodegrade. The challenge is, how can we
>> create a simpler plastic bag or a bottle that will
>> biodegrade??
>>
>>
>> Today, packaging adds 29 million tons of
>> non-biodegradable plastic waste to landfills every
>> year, according to the U.S. Environmental
>> Protection Agency,
>>
>>
>> Plastics from biomass (animal waste and plant
>> materials), like some recently developed to dissolve
>> in seawater, are made the same way as petroleum-based
>> plastics, are actually cheaper to manufacture and meet
>> or exceed most performance standards. But they lack
>> the same water resistance or longevity as conventional
>> plastics, said Barone, who presented his research at
>> the March 29 American Chemical Society National
>> Meeting in Chicago.
>>
>>
>> Adding polymers created with keratin, a protein that
>> makes hair, nails and feathers strong, may improve the
>> strength and longevity of the plastics made from
>> chicken feathers and eggs. Other modifications to the
>> polymer, such as adding chicken fat as a lubricant,
>> should help the polymer to be processed faster and
>> smell better.
>>
>>
>> Another scientist has developed a furnace system that
>> converts poultry litter into a fuel that can be used
>> to heat chicken houses.
>>
>>
>> The fuel, made from poultry waste and rice hulls and
>> wood shavings once used as chicken bedding, can be
>> gathered from hen houses, stored on-site, and put into
>> a heat-generating furnace, reducing farmers? energy
>> costs by as much as 80 percent.
>>
>>
>> While the fuel would reduce greenhouse gas emissions,
>> it does produce an ash that could hurt sensitive
>> watersheds if dumped there, said Tom Costello of the
>> University of Arkansas, who led work to develop the
>> furnace.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ======================================================================
> ========
> TOPIC: Fwd: [GAIA] economic instrument for zero waste
> http://groups.google.com/group/GreenYes/browse_thread/thread/
> d6b4329563f1be88?hl=en
> ======================================================================
> ========
>
> == 1 of 3 ==
> Date: Thurs, Apr 5 2007 9:22 am
> From: Gary Liss
>
>
> FYI - this is a reference that might be of interest for Zero Waste
>
>> From: pcostner@no.address
>> To: Gaia-members@no.address
>> Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2007 09:02:25 -0500
>>
>> Greyson, J., 2007. An economic instrument for zero waste, economic
>> growth and sustainability. Journal of Cleaner Production 15:
>> 1382-1390.
>>
>> Abstract
>> If global problems such as climate change and waste remain
>> unresolved, society can choose either to continue attempting to
>> incrementally reduce wastes and lessen impacts, or to consider a
>> more ambitious approach that paradoxically may be easier
>> to implement. This paper suggests how an approach designed to
>> prevent waste and other global impacts could be based upon the
>> established practices of precycling, circular economic policy and
>> recycling insurance. A new economic instrument called 'precycling
>> insurance' is proposed, so that decision-making can be led by the
>> market rather than by prescriptive regulation or educational
>> campaigns. The approach gains relevance now that China is developing
>> a national 'Law on the Promotion of the Development of Circular
>> Economy'.
>
> Gary Liss
> 916-652-7850
> Fax: 916-652-0485
> www.garyliss.com
>
>
>
> == 2 of 3 ==
> Date: Thurs, Apr 5 2007 11:28 am
> From: "Eric Lombardi"
>
>
> Wow, can someone get a copy of this article for us all to read?
>
>
>
> Eric
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: GreenYes@no.address [mailto:GreenYes@no.address]
> On Behalf
> Of Gary Liss
> Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2007 10:23 AM
> To: GreenYes@no.address; zwia@no.address; ZERI-
> US@no.address
> Subject: [GreenYes] Fwd: [GAIA] economic instrument for zero waste
>
>
>
> FYI - this is a reference that might be of interest for Zero Waste
>
>
>
>
> From: pcostner@no.address
> To: Gaia-members@no.address
> Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2007 09:02:25 -0500
>
> Greyson, J., 2007. An economic instrument for zero waste, economic
> growth
> and sustainability. Journal of Cleaner Production 15: 1382-1390.
>
> Abstract
> If global problems such as climate change and waste remain unresolved,
> society can choose either to continue attempting to incrementally
> reduce
> wastes and lessen impacts, or to consider a more ambitious approach
> that
> paradoxically may be easier to implement. This paper suggests how an
> approach designed to prevent waste and other global impacts could
> be based
> upon the established practices of precycling, circular economic
> policy and
> recycling insurance. A new economic instrument called 'precycling
> insurance'
> is proposed, so that decision-making can be led by the market
> rather than by
> prescriptive regulation or educational campaigns. The approach gains
> relevance now that China is developing a national 'Law on the
> Promotion of
> the Development of Circular Economy'.
>
> Gary Liss
> 916-652-7850
> Fax: 916-652-0485
> www.garyliss.com <http://www.garyliss.com/>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> == 3 of 3 ==
> Date: Thurs, Apr 5 2007 1:54 pm
> From: "Mario Laquerre"
>
>
> Yes this is a link to the whole document http://
> www.sdinnovation.co.uk/Resources/GreysonZEROWASTEfinal.doc
>
>
> Mario Laquerre
> Coordonnateur
> Secteur ICI
> RECYC-QUÉBEC
>
> 7171, rue Jean-Talon Est, bureau 200
> Anjou (Québec) H1M 3N2
> Tél.: 514-352-5002 poste 2244
> Téléc.: 514.873.6542
> 1-800-807-0678
> m.laquerre@no.address
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> De : GreenYes@no.address [mailto:GreenYes@no.address]
> De la part de Eric Lombardi
> Envoyé : jeudi 05 avril 2007 13:29
> À : 'Gary Liss'; GreenYes@no.address; zwia@no.address; ZERI-
> US@no.address
> Objet : [GreenYes] Re: Fwd: [GAIA] economic instrument for zero waste
>
>
>
> Wow, can someone get a copy of this article for us all to read?
>
>
>
> Eric
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: GreenYes@no.address [mailto:GreenYes@no.address]
> On Behalf Of Gary Liss
> Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2007 10:23 AM
> To: GreenYes@no.address; zwia@no.address; ZERI-
> US@no.address
> Subject: [GreenYes] Fwd: [GAIA] economic instrument for zero waste
>
>
>
> FYI - this is a reference that might be of interest for Zero Waste
>
>
>
>
> From: pcostner@no.address
> To: Gaia-members@no.address
> Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2007 09:02:25 -0500
>
> Greyson, J., 2007. An economic instrument for zero waste, economic
> growth and sustainability. Journal of Cleaner Production 15:
> 1382-1390.
>
> Abstract
> If global problems such as climate change and waste remain
> unresolved, society can choose either to continue attempting to
> incrementally reduce wastes and lessen impacts, or to consider a
> more ambitious approach that paradoxically may be easier to
> implement. This paper suggests how an approach designed to prevent
> waste and other global impacts could be based upon the established
> practices of precycling, circular economic policy and recycling
> insurance. A new economic instrument called 'precycling insurance'
> is proposed, so that decision-making can be led by the market
> rather than by prescriptive regulation or educational campaigns.
> The approach gains relevance now that China is developing a
> national 'Law on the Promotion of the Development of Circular
> Economy'.
>
> Gary Liss
> 916-652-7850
> Fax: 916-652-0485
> www.garyliss.com <http://www.garyliss.com/>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ======================================================================
> ========
> TOPIC: Fwd: RE: [GreenYes] Fwd: [GAIA] economic instrument for zero
> waste
> http://groups.google.com/group/GreenYes/browse_thread/thread/
> 798430a23680ce29?hl=en
> ======================================================================
> ========
>
> == 1 of 1 ==
> Date: Thurs, Apr 5 2007 11:29 am
> From: Gary Liss
>
>
>
> From: "Monica Wilson" <mwilson@no.address>
> To: <Gaia-members@no.address>
> Cc: <pcostner@no.address>
> Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2007 11:16:33 -0700
> Subject: RE: [GAIA] economic instrument for zero waste
>
> A link to the whole document is available at
> <http://www.sdinnovation.co.uk/Resources/
> GreysonZEROWASTEfinal.doc>http://www.sdinnovation.co.uk/Resources/
> GreysonZEROWASTEfinal.doc
>
>
>> From: "Eric Lombardi" <eric@no.address>
>> To: "'Gary Liss'" <gary@no.address>,
>> <GreenYes@no.address>,
>> <zwia@no.address>,
>> <ZERI-US@no.address>
>> Subject: RE: [GreenYes] Fwd: [GAIA] economic instrument for zero
>> waste
>> Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2007 11:28:33 -0600
>>
>> Wow, can someone get a copy of this article for us all to read?
>>
>> Eric
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: GreenYes@no.address [mailto:GreenYes@no.address]
>> On Behalf Of Gary Liss
>> Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2007 10:23 AM
>> To: GreenYes@no.address; zwia@no.address; ZERI-
>> US@no.address
>> Subject: [GreenYes] Fwd: [GAIA] economic instrument for zero waste
>>
>> FYI - this is a reference that might be of interest for Zero Waste
>>
>>
>> From: pcostner@no.address
>> To: Gaia-members@no.address
>> Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2007 09:02:25 -0500
>>
>> Greyson, J., 2007. An economic instrument for zero waste, economic
>> growth and sustainability. Journal of Cleaner Production 15:
>> 1382-1390.
>>
>> Abstract
>> If global problems such as climate change and waste remain
>> unresolved, society can choose either to continue attempting to
>> incrementally reduce wastes and lessen impacts, or to consider a
>> more ambitious approach that paradoxically may be easier
>> to implement. This paper suggests how an approach designed to
>> prevent waste and other global impacts could be based upon the
>> established practices of precycling, circular economic policy and
>> recycling insurance. A new economic instrument called 'precycling
>> insurance' is proposed, so that decision-making can be led by the
>> market rather than by prescriptive regulation or educational
>> campaigns. The approach gains relevance now that China is developing
>> a national 'Law on the Promotion of the Development of Circular
>> Economy'.
>>
>> Gary Liss 916-652-7850 Fax: 916-652-0485
>> www.garyliss.com
>>
> Gary Liss
> 916-652-7850
> Fax: 916-652-0485
> www.garyliss.com
>
>
>
>
> ======================================================================
> ========
> TOPIC: Programs Using Clear Plastic Bags for Trash Rather than
> Recycling...
> http://groups.google.com/group/GreenYes/browse_thread/thread/
> dfe6ca3977c7da2f?hl=en
> ======================================================================
> ========
>
> == 1 of 1 ==
> Date: Thurs, Apr 5 2007 2:02 pm
> From:
>
>
> I apologize in advance for cross-postings!!!
>
> Ms. Ross is trying to get information from states throughout the
> U.S. and
> I told her I would assist by forwarding this to the various recycling
> related list-serves that might be able to help her in her search for
> information. Please respond directly to Allison, her email address
> is in
> the cc: section above. See her specific request below.
>
> Thanks very much,
>
> Christine McCoy
> City of Alexandria, VA
> --------------------------------------------
>
> Good day,
>
> Does anyone know of places that have experimented with clear bags for
> garbage (NOT recyclables) as a means to divert material from
> landfill and
> to increase recycling?
>
> My research is supported by Quinte Waste Solutions (
> www.quinterecycling.org) and Stewardship Ontario (
> www.stewardshipontario.ca). I am trying to identify places that have
> experimented with clear bags for garbage in North America (and
> elsewhere).
>
>
> Thanks for your help,
>
> Allison Ross (email: allison@no.address)
> Ontario, Canada
>
>
>
>
>
> ======================================================================
> ========
> TOPIC: a view of ZW from the "middle"
> http://groups.google.com/group/GreenYes/browse_thread/thread/
> a835b379aed3bd4?hl=en
> ======================================================================
> ========
>
> == 1 of 1 ==
> Date: Thurs, Apr 5 2007 2:18 pm
> From: "Eric Lombardi"
>
>
> Greetings all,
>
> It's interesting and important that we know how the rest of the
> world is
> discussing our revolution.
>
> Eric
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <http://blogtn.trucknews.com/>
>
>
> <http://www.trucknews.com> <http://www.trucknews.com/>
> <http://www.trucknews.com>
>
>
> Editors' commentary on the hot issues and topics of the Canadian
> transportation industry
>
>
> < <http://blogtn.trucknews.com/2007/03/
> hungry_for_meal_claims_rights.htm>
> Hungry for meal claims rights? Scott Taylor will fill you up. | Main
> <http://blogtn.trucknews.com/> | Jumpers
> <http://blogtn.trucknews.com/2007/03/
> jumpers_ruin_other_lives_on_th.htm>
> ruin other lives on their way out >
>
> <http://blogtn.trucknews.com/bios.html>
> <http://blogtn.trucknews.com/bios.html>
> <http://blogtn.trucknews.com/bios.html> Report from Americana 2007
> Posted by Guy Crittenden <http://blogtn.trucknews.com/bios.html>
> at 07:24
> AM
>
> Reflections on the Waste Management sessions of Americana 2007
>
> By Guy Crittenden, waste analyst
>
> The conference sessions at Americana 2007 that concerned solid waste
> management, taken as a whole, suggested that the industry is in a
> period of
> quite dramatic transition -- from a previous system in which the
> only value
> of garbage was the collection, transportation and disposal fees
> charged by
> waste haulers, to a new system in which waste is regarded as a
> valuable
> resource. The new market for waste is dynamic and is being
> influenced by new
> technologies such as those that better sort recyclable or compostable
> materials from the waste stream, and thereby divert them from landfill
> disposal, and those that capture the energy embodied in waste, such as
> thermal treatment systems for garbage residuals, and systems to
> capture
> methane gas at landfills to generate power.
>
> Simply put, an industry that used to be merely a low-tech municipal
> service
> is now going high-tech and is increasingly attracting investment
> from the
> private sector.
>
> Opinions differ, however, as to what the value of waste really is,
> and from
> the different presentations one could detect some important and
> conflicting
> trends that will play themselves out in the decade to come.
>
> For example, the audience was treated to an excellent presentation
> from a
> technology company, Plasco, which has built a demonstration
> facility in
> Ottawa that uses plasma arc torches to destroy waste. The company is
> currently in the testing and ramp-up stage to full operation, and
> results
> will be interesting to monitor in the summer of 2007. The value
> proposition
> of the technology is that it uses computer systems to control the
> blended
> feedstock of raw garbage and plastic to create just the right
> gaseous fuel
> to drive special combustion engines. This control of the fuel -
> waste that
> needs minimal preparation - may allow Plasco to succeed where other
> plasma-based systems have failed, for technical and/or economic
> reasons. In
> any case, the technology was one of several presented at the
> conference that
> illustrate the leading edge of innovation in waste disposal.
>
> Plasco also illustrates another important trend, and that is the
> recognition
> of the BTU value - the embodied energy - in waste. This has already
> been
> recognized by the engineers of conventional mass-burn incinerators,
> who
> regularly refer to their systems as "waste-to-energy" and, in the
> best and
> most efficient examples (e.g., Sweden) generate both electricity
> and steam.
> The trick, though, has been to use technology to clean the
> emissions from
> such systems so that they represent a reduced threat to human
> health and the
> environment, and to use technology to garner public acceptance of such
> facilities by the public in their jurisdictions.
>
> In that regard, the presentation from David Merriman of MacViro
> Consultants
> was interesting. Merriman led the audience on a compelling journey
> through
> the history of waste disposal in the Greater Toronto Area, where
> several
> important projects are under development. It was a convoluted tale,
> but the
> gist was that Toronto and the surrounding regions are diverting as
> much
> waste as possible through recycling and composting, and at least
> one area
> (York Region) plans to build a large waste-to-energy plant. (There
> was some
> discussion at the conference that perhaps conventional mass burn
> may be just
> as effective as gasification and other higher-tech systems, at a lower
> cost.)
>
> However, another set of values also informed the discussion, as was
> evident
> from certain presentations and especially in questions from the
> audience.
> There's an entirely different sense of "value" that many people see
> in waste
> that doesn't view as beneficial the capture of a relatively small
> amount of
> energy via thermal treatment. In fact, there's a school of thought
> that even
> the most successful waste-to-energy schemes are a poor idea,
> because they
> encourage the notion that we can continue consuming the earth's
> resources
> and then just make our waste byproducts "go away."
>
> Proponents of this alternative view regard any material sent for
> disposal as
> a poorly-allocated resource. In their opinion, change needs to occur
> upstream at the manufacturing and natural resource extraction stage.
> Anything that can't be recycled or composted or reused, they would
> argue,
> shouldn't be produced in the first place. An efficient and effective
> municipal waste disposal system, in their view, is really a subsidy to
> companies that foist their packaging and built-for-obsolescence
> products on
> the taxpayer.
>
> This philosophy, sometimes called the "zero waste" movement, looks
> at the
> entire lifecycle of products and places emphasis on packaging
> redesign and
> such things as renewable energy. A zero waste proponent would never
> regard a
> plastic soft drink bottle burned in a waste-to-energy plant as the
> appropriate consumption of "renewable" energy. Primarily due to
> climate
> change concerns, the link between consumption and environmental
> impacts is
> increasingly being understood by the public and policymakers, and
> producer
> responsibility systems (rather than efficient waste disposal) are the
> solution advocated by zero waste proponents.
>
> Proper markets are needed for materials diverted from landfill
> (e.g., metal,
> plastic and fibre, and also compostable organics). For this reason
> the last
> panel discussion was especially interesting. Representatives from five
> different municipalities across Canada presented on the different
> technologies and approaches they are implementing to manage waste, and
> especially to divert it from landfill. One had the sense of Canada
> as a vast
> laboratory in which different experiments are being conducted on
> waste,
> analogous to different steam engines being developed in England
> during the
> industrial revolution. (Edmonton's co-composting facility and new
> gasifier
> are a good example.)
>
> Most importantly, each jurisdiction is struggling with the new
> economic
> equation for waste and, to be honest, not yet fully making the
> connection
> between the value of what is diverted from disposal and proper
> markets. Some
> could not find markets for their source-separated organics (e.g.,
> kitchen
> scraps). Indeed, not one of them charged a user fee ("bag tag") for
> waste
> placed at the curb, and most often the cost of garbage disposal was
> hidden
> in municipal tax bills, among charges for other services.
>
> It was clear that waste reduction and greater recycling and
> composting will
> occur when cities and towns charge a visible fee - i.e., a price
> signal - to
> waste, that rewards people for doing the "right thing" (diversion)
> and tolls
> them for the "wrong thing" (waste).
>
> Realistically one can conclude that the era of zero waste will only
> come as
> the second part of a two-step process. We are half-way through the
> first
> step - poised to soon divert as much as 60 to 70 per cent of waste
> from
> disposal via both high-tech and low-tech recycling and composting,
> and then
> dispose of the residuals in thermal treatment plants, anaerobic
> digesters or
> stabilized landfills. The days of the old low-tech dump are almost
> over.
> When that step is complete (and perhaps a bit sooner), society will
> be ready
> to drive change up the production line to the point of the
> manufacturer or
> brand owner, and this will prevent many materials from entering the
> waste
> stream in the first place. Only then will we be able to say we have
> moved
> from consumerism to sustainability.
>
> Guy Crittenden is editor of Solid Waste & Recycling magazine and
> HazMat
> Management magazine. He can be reached at gcrit@no.address
>
> Permalink
> <http://blogtn.trucknews.com/2007/03/report_from_americana_2007.htm>
>
>
>
>
> Post a comment
>
>
> Name:
>
> Email Address:
>
> URL:
>
> Remember personal info?
>
> Comments: (you may use HTML tags for style)
>
> Please type the word 'submit' below (required):
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Eric Lombardi
>
> Executive Director/CEO
>
> Eco-Cycle Inc
>
> Boulder, CO. USA
>
> 303-444-6634
>
> www.ecocycle.org
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ======================================================================
> ========
> TOPIC: The Death of Recycling?
> http://groups.google.com/group/GreenYes/browse_thread/thread/
> 2eafc46e23a71bb7?hl=en
> ======================================================================
> ========
>
> == 1 of 1 ==
> Date: Thurs, Apr 5 2007 4:31 pm
> From: "Reindl, John"
>
>
> I thought that people might like to see this article, which was
> sent out by a mail service known as Rachel's Democracy and Health
> News.
>
> John
> ....................
>
> THE DEATH OF RECYCLING
>
> By Paul Palmer, Ph.D
> [ <http://gettingtozerowaste.com/> Paul Palmer hold a Ph.D. in
> Physical Chemistry from Yale. He is
> interested in hearing from readers who may want to join him in
> starting a new organization focused on zero waste. Contact him at
> <mailto:paulp@no.address> paulp@no.address]
>
> A little more than a year ago, an article entitled <http://
> www.grist.org/news/maindish/2005/01/13/doe-reprint/> The Death of
> Environmentalism by Shellenberger and Nordhaus made a splash when it
> claimed that environmentalists had become complacent, relying on their
> time-honored methods of banning behaviors that they found
> objectionable through political and judicial activism, rather than
> through engaging the moral base of the American public. The critique
> was applied to the looming crisis of global warming and seemed to
> portend a gigantic failure if environmentalists did not embrace a new
> awareness of public concern and participation and stop relying on
> public policy correctness and technical fixes.
>
> Shellenberger and Nordhaus noted the lack of inspiring visions to
> energize the public. They went on to lament the smugness of officials
> of environmental organizations who have become used to rich rewards in
> salaries, grants, dues and acclaim from growing membership lists.
>
> There is a movement for resource recapture that suffers from the same
> defects. It has come to be called Recycling. Latterly it too has
> become lazy, relying on yesterday's methods and advancing no new ideas
> to inspire the public. The practitioners, while not profiting from
> dues or grants nearly as much as the defenders of wildlife,
> nevertheless have their own stultifying income source. They have
> become used to income derived from the low grade collection of
> garbage. Their method is to pick away at garbage streams recapturing
> small amounts of smashed up lowgrade materials. Alternatively they
> profit by exacting garbage dumping surcharges, resembling guilt taxes,
> from the dumpers. They have formed close alliances with the garbage
> industry, the two often being indistinguishable. Since no approach to
> conservation that relies on harvesting garbage can ever threaten the
> garbage paradigm, they have no way to inspire the public. They do
> promote themselves mendaciously as being fundamentally opposed to
> garbage, but that ideology is merely a holdover from a time when
> recycling was young. The contradiction is disturbing to even casual
> observers.
>
> What would you think about a gigantic piece of the environmental
> movement, involving trillions of dollars worth of resources annually
> in this country alone, that environmentalists ignore? The way in which
> resources are used to create products is exactly such an item. After
> working in this field for thirty years, I have seen that
> environmentalists are afraid to deal with industrial production
> because they don't understand it. It seems like a technical subject
> that they have no hope of getting a handle on. If a single resource is
> badly harvested, like old growth trees, they will organize. If the
> process produces an obvious pollution, they will demand regulation to
> correct it. But there it stops. The way in which products are designed
> specifically for waste is simply not on their screen.
>
> In the United States, recycling as a theory of resource management
> arose in the nineteen seventies. Since that time, no new theory or
> even interpretation has been put forward until today. Three major
> developments should be noted.
>
> ** First, the garbage industry realized that it could take over the
> movement for recycling, turning it into a division of garbage
> management, finally paying recyclers a surcharge to co-opt them.
>
> ** Second, the recyclers accepted the pre-eminence of the garbage
> industry and dropped any notion of replacing or closing dumps.
>
> ** Third, a few progressive individuals and organizations began to
> discuss a new resource management plan to which they gave the name
> zero waste.[1,2,3]
>
> At some point, the recyclers, now working for garbage management, saw
> that zero waste could become a slogan that appeared to the public to
> be a higher theory of resources. Because of their immersion in the
> recycling paradigm as an ultimate theory, they were actually unable to
> put flesh on the bones of the zero waste approach, but they began to
> spread the bare slogan. On the ground, nothing changed. The recyclers
> went to a number of jurisdictions (several California cities
> especially) and urged the cities to join them in putting forward the
> facade of a new resource management plan, which a number of cities
> did. In actuality, the new plans concerned Zero Waste in name only.
> They proposed only more recycling.
>
> How Does Zero Waste Differ From Recycling?
>
> What should have been in such plans, that would have revealed a truly
> new theory of resource conservation? The essence of the new synthesis
> can be summed up in one pregnant phrase: redesign for reuse. But what
> kind of redesign for what kind of reuse? That is where the new theory
> flexes its muscles.
>
> The basic problem that has always plagued recycling is that it accepts
> garbage creation as fundamental. Zero waste strategies reject garbage
> creation as a failure, actually an abomination that threatens the
> planet, an historical accident, a politically motivated defect in the
> design of our industrial-commercial system of production. Zero waste
> actually goes deeper in that it rejects waste of every kind at every
> stage of production. Zero waste demands that all products be
> redesigned so that they produce no waste at all and furthermore, that
> the production processes (a kind of product in themselves because they
> too are carefully designed) also produce no waste. Zero waste at no
> point interfaces with garbage but rather simply looks beyond it. In
> the theory of zero waste, once all waste is eliminated, there will be
> no garbage, no need for any garbage collection, no garbage industry
> and no dumps. All that superstructure of garbage management will fade
> away as simply irrelevant.
>
> The currently operative theory of recycling is entirely different. It
> contemplates the continual, even perpetual collection of garbage and
> then attempts to find innovative ways to reuse the maximum part of
> that garbage. In the current jargon, recycling is an end-of-pipe
> theory. Zero waste is a redesign theory. Because end-of-pipe
> approaches are necessarily inefficient and difficult (since products
> were never designed for reuse) the best that recycling is able to hold
> out for in most cases is destruction of products after one use
> (through smashing, chopping, grinding, etc.) and the laborious
> recapture of only the bare materials. Thus the common recycling
> obsession with steel, aluminum, paper, glass and plastic, ignoring
> fifty thousand additional common chemicals, plastics, metals, glasses,
> minerals etc. It is no exaggeration to say that recycling has no
> comment on the vast majority of products, processes and materials,
> while zero waste has solutions or improved practices to offer for
> every single product, production process, material and (current)
> waste. In addition, zero waste offers a compelling spirituality as it
> elevates the conservation of our one precious planet to the level of a
> holy creed and demands that our design for resources usage reflects
> that creed.
>
> Recyclers also try to find last-minute ways of reuse, such as is done
> by thrift shops, by turning junk into artwork or by construction reuse
> yards which resell doors, windows, sinks and more. While a single
> piece reused is indeed a victory, these are again end-of-pipe
> enterprises which probably account for less than 1% of all discards.
> Zero waste seeks to elevate reuse into an integral part of the design
> of 100% of all of these products.
>
> In the new zero waste theory, products are designed from the start to
> be reused over and over. After many uses, including repairs,
> rebuilding, remanufacturing etc., disassembly into materials may
> become necessary for a step that resembles recycling, but even at this
> last stage, the reuse of materials has been carefully designed into
> the original product, planning for it in many critical ways. Thus even
> when zero waste comes down to the reuse of component materials, it
> does so in a way that is sharply different from an end-of-pipe method.
> For example, zero waste principles strongly recommend against the
> lamination or joining of different materials in an indissoluble bond
> unless the lamination can be reused as lamination, or disassembled.
> All parts must be well identified by markings and history, not
> something to be guessed at with inadequate symbols (like the recycling
> labels on plastic) of such generality that they convey little
> information of any use. Extensive information about every part, every
> piece, every material will be key, using every tool of modern
> information tracking such as radio frequency tags (rfid's), bar codes,
> public specifications and the internet. Recyclers, by contrast, have
> no response to difficult items like laminations except to toss them
> into a dump, as non-recyclable.
>
> If zero waste thinking is new to you, you may be wondering how all of
> this can be done. In my book, <http://www.amazon.com/Getting-Zero-
> Waste-Paul-Palmer/dp/0976057107/ref=sr_1_1/002-5585451-2353662?
> ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1175031276&sr=1-1> Getting To Zero Waste, I
> detail many
> practical applications that are simple and straightforward even in
> this world of production dedicated to waste. As one simple example,
> repair has all but faded away. Repair of electronic and other
> technical instruments has been replaced with discard followed by
> purchase of a new, cheap product from China. But why did repair become
> so economically disfavored? For electronics, four major reasons were
> these:
>
> ** Circuit diagrams were generally unobtainable, necessitating a
> constant series of educated guesses.
>
> ** When circuit diagrams were obtained, they were filled with arcane,
> uninterpretable proprietary symbols. Even a simple resistor could be
> unrecognizable.
>
> ** Parts, including simple mechanical ones, were not grouped into
> standard, interchangeable assemblies such as a standard circuit board
> or a tape loading mechanism.
>
> ** Lastly, parts themselves became unavailable, sometimes after a few
> months or at most after a few years.
>
> Look at this list! The needed changes leap off the page at you. Begin
> by demanding, under pain of not being allowed to sell product, that
> every single circuit diagram must be published openly on the web, for
> all to see. Then demand that all symbols used on the diagrams must be
> publicly understandable and explained. Insist that repair shops be
> established, or certified, for every group of products or by every
> manufacturer. Require long-term availability of parts. This is only
> the beginning, yet it shows the narrow end of a funnel opening up to a
> revolution in reparability.
>
> Even products that the recyclers have no clue how to reuse or even
> think about are commonplace for zero waste strategizing. I worked
> successfully and easily in chemical reuse for thirty years. The
> recyclers have never had any ideas to offer except fear, bans and
> urging users to discard chemicals into dumps. The software industry
> depends critically on reuse of its intellectual creations, yet the
> recyclers have only the trivial focus on the paper or discs that are
> used for storage of software.
>
> Why have the designers been able to design waste so cavalierly into
> their products? A large part of the answer is the ready availability
> of a subsidized dump. As we get further into a zero waste society,
> dumps will not only become unnecessary but as soon as any zero waste
> solution can be applied, the dump can be legally put off limits. When
> there is no eternally welcoming dump for a product, there will be no
> alternative to designing for perpetual reuse.
>
> Necessarily, this is only a hint of a long discussion. Are there too
> many products and designs for you to contemplate? Simple, establish
> Zero Waste Divisions in the Engineering Departments of every
> university. Obviously this author, or a hundred like him, are not
> going to be able to subject every product to a deep analysis with
> solutions. That is the function of research. Let us give employment to
> thousands of industrial redesigners, chemical engineers, biologists,
> fermentation technicians and every other kind of professional. The
> kinds of jobs found in the garbage industry are not worth hanging on
> to, compared to the brand new jobs needed for innovative, intelligent
> and responsible design of products for perpetual reuse. Design for
> responsibility should create a flood of new patents, protecting
> designs which can then spread worldwide as brand new businesses carry
> the message around the globe that the Age of Garbage has ended.
>
> By now the reader can see that zero waste differs from recycling
> approaches in an important way: its intellectual roots. Recycling is a
> simple notion, hardly more complicated than the dumping of garbage
> into a hole in the ground. Simply find some component of the garbage
> being collected and divert it into a (usually existing) alternate
> process as a raw material. True, recycling encounters many political
> problems needing to be solved, collection and diversion systems to be
> designed, as well as the difficulties of introducing mixed or
> contaminated materials to a processing system used to completely
> refined and "clean" raw materials. Engineering and scientific
> professionals play almost no role. Zero waste, on the other hand,
> essentially requires high level redesign. Every product being made
> needs to be designed under a brand new constraint -- the disappearance
> of easy discard. Chemical products will require chemists and chemical
> engineers. Other technical products will likewise require help from
> other professionals. Contamination will be fundamentally unacceptable.
>
> Hopefully the reader begins to see the outlines of a new paradigm
> which will make garbage creation obsolete. Yet it is only common sense
> applied to production. We have come back to a tenet of <http://
> www.grist.org/news/maindish/2005/01/13/doe-reprint/> The Death of
> Environmentalism -- the one that laments the lack of inspiration. Is
> it not an inspiring vision to demand that rational design be applied
> to reuse? Is the complete elimination of garbage and dumping not a
> vision that ordinary people can seize and insist on? In another
> hundred years, people will read with disbelief that in the twenty-
> first century, industry actually designed products for a single use,
> then to be smashed and buried underground. That will seem to be a
> story about Neanderthal behavior.
>
> I have had to digress to explain zero waste so that the reader will be
> able to understand the most recent developments.
>
> All design work takes place in a universe of broadly shared
> assumptions. These include the availability and cost of materials, the
> price of robots or labor, consumer acceptance, etc. Sometimes the
> intended use controls everything, such as with high end research
> equipment or racing yachts. But there is one assumption that always
> pervades the entire design process -- waste is to be expected and it
> costs practically nothing.
>
> Eliminate this one assumption of wasting and the whole design process
> will be turned on its head. Time-honored methods of designing for
> cheap assembly and quick obsolescence will themselves need to be
> discarded. Instead, quality components, expertly assembled will be the
> norm and the design will necessarily become one for perpetual repair,
> refurbishment, upgrading, reuse of every part and every function.
>
> The recyclers also like to talk about an end to dumps. So how does
> this vision differ from theirs?
>
> One can reasonably say that recycling and reuse has always been with
> us. We wash our clothes hundreds of times; we do not throw them out
> after one use. We repair our automobiles endlessly. Home Depot counts
> on the fact that we will fix up our houses. We patch roads. Since
> airplanes can never be allowed to fall out of the sky due to
> obsolescence, the airplane industry maintains a kind of zero waste
> attitude, constantly repairing and downgrading for decades. Yet in
> spite of these conservative attitudes, garbage dumping exploded in the
> last century and is still growing. Various studies claim that
> Americans account for many tons of garbage for every pound of product
> they buy.[4] The recycling approach has clearly failed to stanch this
> torrent of garbage.
>
> More troubling is the development over the last thirty years of a
> close, symbiotic relationship between the methods of the garbage
> industry and the recycling movement. When recyclers seek inputs of
> materials, they primarily employ collection methods based on discard.
> Classically, they simply task the garbage collector to set out one
> more green or blue or red container next to his garbage can. The
> result is predictable -- the public frames recycling as tantamount to
> garbage collection and treats it with disdain. Households have no idea
> which container to use for what and everything gets mixed up. If there
> is any doubt, it is understood that recycling is just garbage anyway
> so what difference can it make which can is used? The recyclers
> themselves go along with the garbage company pleas and accept the
> nonsensical notion that everything can all be mixed together (i.e.
> making garbage) and then sorted out later.
>
> The public acceptance of waste comes from two sources. First, the
> unconcerned public have come to accept the canard that garbage is
> natural. They support the whole superstructure of subsidized dumps and
> profitable garbage collection. We hear that "you have to put it
> somewhere"; "just get rid of it" and we treat garbage as a social
> "service". Second, the only claim to a popular alternative is the
> recycling one, which in turn supports garbage to the hilt. The
> developing crisis in planetary resources will force the abandonment of
> both of these defective notions.
>
> Recyclers have recently begun to create analyses claiming to be based
> on zero waste. Many of these claim to be aware that zero waste is not
> just more recycling. However, despite the good words, not one of them
> presents any programs, projects or ideas which go beyond mere
> recycling or challenge the primacy of garbage. This is not an
> accident. The close relationship to garbage methods contaminates the
> analysis. These erroneous writings are easily available on the web
> under the name of various cities and counties, especially in
> California, that have adopted putative zero waste resolutions. These
> include Palo Alto, San Francisco, Oakland and Nevada County.[5] It is
> essential that newcomers not accept every program that calls itself
> "zero waste" as part of the new paradigm.
>
> Even without its crippling association with the garbage industry,
> recycling suffers from a crippling constriction of goals. At its best,
> the ideology of recycling has always been limited to an enervating
> focus on the dump! Because it has never transcended its early
> ideology, which was forged in the 1960's and early '70's, recycling
> has never claimed to do more than target the elimination of dumps, yet
> even this modest goal is unattainable by recycling. Even if recycling
> were amazingly effective, taking out 90% of some material which was
> heading to the dump (no project is close to this effectiveness), ten
> percent would still go into the dump on every cycle. After about eight
> cycles, virtually the entire load of original material will be sitting
> at the bottom of a dump and it is only new, virgin materials which are
> still circulating. In the case of aluminum cans, the project that
> recyclers like to point at with pride, about fifty percent of the
> aluminum ends up in the dump on each cycle and the typical cycle is
> about three months long. At the end of a year, just about the whole
> load of aluminum is found in the dump and all the cans in circulation
> are made of new material which will likewise soon be residing in the
> dump. No wonder the garbage industry is hardly shaking in its shoes
> over the success of recycling. The deficiencies of recycling are even
> worse than this. As I said earlier, recycling entirely overlooks the
> processes that call for the materials that it is concerned with. So
> the processes can continue to be as wasteful as a waste oriented
> society can make them. Instead of a tightly designed process, we find
> them designed in a lazy way to create, for example, chemical excesses
> for which recyclers can find no use. No problem: our society reserves
> portions of soil, water and air by regulation that are good for
> nothing but being polluted. So long as the regulations are followed,
> pollution is accepted. But who is to question why unusable excesses
> are produced in the first place? Recycling makes no objection, while
> zero waste thinking demands that cheap disposal eventually be
> eliminated and that wasteful practices be redesigned to function
> without the benefit of the welcoming dump.
>
> Consider now the enormous waste of designing products to be fragile,
> breakable, trashy, lightweight and with signature, critically weak
> parts inside. This practice is part of the strategy called "planned
> obsolescence". When the pieces immediately break, the recyclers may be
> standing by to snatch some of the materials, but how does that compare
> to a product that is so well designed for reuse that only a tenth as
> much raw material ends up passing through the industrial meatgrinder?
> Only a fraction as much energy has to be used. Only a fraction as much
> soil exhaustion is caused in extracting the natural resources that go
> into the product. And remember that among those natural resources is
> food for the humans working in the factory as well as fuel for their
> transportation and the resources for their education, entertainment
> and all the rest of life. That can all be minimized by repairing and
> refurbishing the products endlessly. The recycler, by contrast,
> accepts this wasting as natural, so long as a portion of the bare
> materials are captured for reuse at the last moment.
>
> The conceptual analysis which ties up all the loose ends is functional
> reuse. This means the reuse of the highest function of every product,
> not the lowest materials. For example, the unfortunately classical
> method of recycling a glass bottle is to destroy its function. As a
> container, its function is to contain. The fact that it is made from a
> nearly valueless glass material is of virtually no interest. Yet the
> recycler will gleefully abandon the valuable function for the
> valueless material and crow about his success. This is a serious
> failure of design. The common-sense way that zero waste approaches
> this reuse is by using the containment function -- by refilling the
> bottle. All of the value is recaptured and there is no reason to
> transport broken glass across the country, remelt it, fill it in a
> distant factory and ship it back to where it started.
>
> Recycling claims to save energy, but this is by and large an empty
> claim, Recycling actually is a way to insure that energy is wasted for
> no reason. Zero waste already shows the way to recapture almost 100%
> of the energy, by refilling, so why are we still smashing bottles?
> Only because garbage fleets demand methods which make use of their
> core capability -- hauling heavy loads around the country, no matter
> whether to a dump or a recycling facility.
>
> Functional reuse is a broad general principle that applies to every
> single product made anywhere. Not to ten or twenty percent of the
> contaminated materials in a garbage can, but to everything. It is only
> from working with inherent functions that new patents and new
> worldwide businesses can emerge.
>
> One estimate says that industry produces seventy-one times as much
> garbage as households,[4] while producing the products we want. A
> theory that ignores 98.5% of a problem no longer commands respect.
>
> The conclusion is inescapable. Recycling has had its day and is now
> moribund. Those of us concerned about the destruction of the earth
> need to adopt a new, healthier understanding of the real world. That
> new synthesis is Zero Waste.
>
> ==============
>
> Paul Palmer wants to hear from readers who may want to join him in
> starting a new organization focused on zero waste. Contact him at
> <mailto:paulp@no.address> paulp@no.address
>
> ========================================================
>
> [1] <http://www.grrn.org/> Grassroots Recycling Network
>
> [2] Eric Lombardi, Boulder <http://www.ecocycle.org/ZeroWaste/
> index.cfm> http://www.ecocycle.org/Zer
> oWaste/index.cfm
>
> [3] Paul Palmer, Getting To Zero Waste, <http://
> gettingtozerowaste.com/> http://gettingt
> ozerowaste.com
>
> [4] Brenda Platt and Neil Seldman, <http://www.grrn.org/assets/
> pdfs/wasting/WRUS.pdf> Wasting and Recycling in the
> United States 2000, pg. 18, citing Office of Technology Assessment,
> Managing Industrial Solid Wastes from manufacturing, mining, oil, and
> gas production, and utility coal combustion (OTA-BP-O-82), February
> 1992, pp. 7, 10.
>
> [5] Oakland <http://www.newrules.org/environment/
> zerowasteoakland.html> Zero Waste Resolution, and <http://
> www.oaklandpw.com/AssetFactory.aspx?did=2123> http://ww
> w.oaklandpw.com/AssetFactory.aspx?did=2123.
>
> <outbind://
> 41-000000005BC6FD20B2C2D311820B00805F65DF2B0700C166E48F0374D21181E7008
> 05F65DF2B000000C2BDEE00004BF9916121B58B49BFE44358BE20D71800000C71327B0
> 000/#Table_of_Contents> Return to Table of Contents
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ======================================================================
> ========
> TOPIC: economic instrument for zero waste
> http://groups.google.com/group/GreenYes/browse_thread/thread/
> 192e1e2a2bde4af9?hl=en
> ======================================================================
> ========
>
> == 1 of 1 ==
> Date: Fri, Apr 6 2007 10:27 am
> From: "Reindl, John"
>
>
> Eric (and others) ~
>
> There are many publications on economic instruments for solid waste
> management available on the Internet. Some are quite specific;
> others are more general. Some are quite old; others are quite new.
>
> As examples of very specific studies , at <http://www.unep.ch/etb/
> publications/EconInst/Kenya.pdf> http://www.unep.ch/etb/
> publications/EconInst/Kenya.pdf is Selection, Design and
> Implementation of Economic Instruments in the Solid Waste
> Management Sector in Kenya. The Case of Plastic Bags. At <http://
> wmr.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/19/4/342> http://
> wmr.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/19/4/342 is Instruments for
> sustainable solid waste management in Botswana.
>
> An older report is on Waste Management: Evaluation of Economic
> Instruments to Achieve the Principle of 'Waste Not Want Not, from
> 1996, is at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4270
>
> One of the larger resources is at <http://www2.oecd.org/ecoinst/
> queries/index.htm> http://www2.oecd.org/ecoinst/queries/index.htm,
> the OECD/EEA database on instruments used for environmental policy
> and natural resources management.
>
> Time to get out the college econ books !
>
> Best wishes,
>
> John
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: GreenYes@no.address [mailto:GreenYes@no.address]
> On Behalf Of Eric Lombardi
> Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2007 12:29 PM
> To: 'Gary Liss'; GreenYes@no.address; zwia@no.address; ZERI-
> US@no.address
> Subject: [GreenYes] Re: Fwd: [GAIA] economic instrument for zero waste
>
>
>
> Wow, can someone get a copy of this article for us all to read?
>
>
>
> Eric
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: GreenYes@no.address [mailto:GreenYes@no.address]
> On Behalf Of Gary Liss
> Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2007 10:23 AM
> To: GreenYes@no.address; zwia@no.address; ZERI-
> US@no.address
> Subject: [GreenYes] Fwd: [GAIA] economic instrument for zero waste
>
>
>
> FYI - this is a reference that might be of interest for Zero Waste
>
>
>
>
> From: pcostner@no.address
> To: Gaia-members@no.address
> Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2007 09:02:25 -0500
>
> Greyson, J., 2007. An economic instrument for zero waste, economic
> growth and sustainability. Journal of Cleaner Production 15:
> 1382-1390.
>
> Abstract
> If global problems such as climate change and waste remain
> unresolved, society can choose either to continue attempting to
> incrementally reduce wastes and lessen impacts, or to consider a
> more ambitious approach that paradoxically may be easier to
> implement. This paper suggests how an approach designed to prevent
> waste and other global impacts could be based upon the established
> practices of precycling, circular economic policy and recycling
> insurance. A new economic instrument called 'precycling insurance'
> is proposed, so that decision-making can be led by the market
> rather than by prescriptive regulation or educational campaigns.
> The approach gains relevance now that China is developing a
> national 'Law on the Promotion of the Development of Circular
> Economy'.
>
> Gary Liss
> 916-652-7850
> Fax: 916-652-0485
> www.garyliss.com <http://www.garyliss.com/>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ======================================================================
> ========
>
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "GreenYes"
> group.
>
> To post to this group, send email to GreenYes@no.address or
> visit http://groups.google.com/group/GreenYes?hl=en
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to GreenYes-
> unsubscribe@no.address
>
> To change the way you get mail from this group, visit:
> http://groups.google.com/group/GreenYes/subscribe?hl=en
>
> To report abuse, send email explaining the problem to
> abuse@no.address
>
> ======================================================================
> ========
> Google Groups: http://groups.google.com?hl=en
>


--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "GreenYes" group.
To post to this group, send email to GreenYes@no.address
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to GreenYes-unsubscribe@no.address
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/GreenYes?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---




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