Title: [GreenYes] Re: Most important recycling legislation in 135 years!! Congress Votes on General Mining Act of 1872
Dan,
What I mean is that we cannot sell our recyclables for a price higher than
virgin materials. Virgin materials prices are the ceiling. Without an
artificial ceiling, we could collect recyclables directly from the landfill.
As is common in every country without the General Mining Law of 1872. Yes,
Avoided disposal cost became an important way to sell recycling as a
'service'. But the 'product' of recycling competes with trees and ores.
Mr.Robin
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dan Knapp" <dr.ore@no.address>
To: "retroworks" <robin@no.address>
Cc: "GreenYes" <GreenYes@no.address>; <katek@no.address>
Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2007 3:55 PM
Subject: Re: [GreenYes] Most important recycling legislation in 135 years!!
Congress Votes on General Mining Act of 1872
> Hello Mr/Ms Ingrethron:
>
> What business does retroworks do that would lead you to say landfills
> don't compete with recycling, and that they may even be recyclers'
> clients under some scenario that you envision?
>
> I am in the reuse and recycling business and used to be in the composting
> business, and throughout my long career in the materials recovery
> industry I have gone to work everyday knowing that my business is
> competing with area landfills in all the ways that matter to customers:
> convenience, cost, products, and service quality.
>
> The service, of course, is the service of disposal. We recyclers compete
> with landfills for the supply of discards. We also compete for disposal
> service fees. This competition is woven into all of our everyday
> activities, especially pricing. You would deny this?
>
> I've tried to imagine a scenario in which a landfill could be a client of
> "recyclers," and the only one I can envision is the one now playing
> throughout California where it's OK for "recyclers" to deliberately
> manufacture extremely contaminated Alternative Daily Cover out of
> otherwise refined and separated resource streams, then bury it in the
> landfill and claim its tonnage as recycling credit for purposes of
> complying with the state's goal of 50% "diversion" goal. This is an
> obviously corrupt and fraudulent practice, but as of right now it is
> perfectly legal. I guess the market is now such that dirty mrf companies
> that make ADC are selling it, but I suppose even giving it away might
> qualify as setting up a "client" relationship with a landfill.
>
> Is continuing the ADC loophole what you are advocating in your "client"
> scenario?
>
> I say: let's "close the loop" allright, and while we're at it let's
> close the loopholes that let fraudulent forms of recycling proliferate
> and pollute.
>
> Dan Knapp
> Urban Ore, Inc.
> A Berkeley reuse and recycling business since 1980.
>
>
>
>
> On Oct 3, 2007, at 8:25 AM, retroworks wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> I have often said landfills are not recycling's competitors. They are
>> potential clients. Whether we collect, waste paper, scrap computers,
>> steel cans, iron, or glass, we sell in competition against virgin
>> materials, period. In the USA, the price of mining and forestry has
>> been defined by two pieces of legislation - Superfund (which is
>> enforced against secondary smelters but not against mines) and the GMA
>> of 1872.
>>
>> The General Mining Act was signed by Ulysess Grant during the Apache
>> Indian Wars to spur development of federal lands in the west. It
>> offers mining and timber companies a lease of $5 per acre. All the
>> minerals and royalties belong to the mining company, the mine tailings
>> and waste remain the property of the taxpayer. The $5 remains the
>> price today.
>>
>> Finally our friends at EarthworksAction.org and others have gotten
>> movement on the issue, and Congress will be debating this raw material
>> subsidy this week.
>>
>> See USA Today Article from Monday Oct 1
>> http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-09-30-mining_N.htm
>>
>> Robin Ingenthron www.retroworks.com
>>
>>
>> >>
>>
>
|