GreenYes Archives

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


[GreenYes] Landiflll economics


Title: [GreenYes] Landiflll economics

Sorry for not responding earlier, but sickness kept me away

Yes, the lengthening of the leachate lines will probably reduce costs of landfills . The goal of all economic enterprises, it seems to me, is to either reduce costs or improve features, or both. If company A sells a widget for X dollars, then company B must either produce that widget for less than X dollars or have additional features in their widget in order to offer a competitive service. That's the great part of competition and the invisible hand of the market.

There are some in the environmental field who look at reducing costs for landfills as an evil. I do not share that viewpoint. I feel that it frees up monies to be used for other purposes, like education, parks, discretionary income, on and on.

I think that we need to work towards a sustainable system and to do so means that we must also have a full accounting of the environmental impact and their costs. What I see "Zero Wasters" doing is narrowly focusing on the "evils" of two options -- landfilling and incineration -- and neglecting to analyze the total environmental impacts -- and the relative importance of individual impacts. That's the problem with the current
invisibile hand of the market -- not all costs are counted, a problem recognized since at least the 1920s, through the work of the British economist A. C. Pigou (see below).  Having been in the environmental movement since 1969 -- and having called for "internalizing the externalities" since then -- I find it discouraging that environmentalists are ill-informed about the techniques now available for internalizing externalities and, it seems to me, resistant to even learning about this field.


John

..........
from Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Cecil_Pigou

Pigou's major work, Wealth and Welfare (1912, 1920), brought welfare economics into the scope of economic analysis. In particular, Pigou is responsible for the distinction between private and social marginal products and costs. He originated the idea that governments can, via a mixture of taxes and subsidies, correct such perceived market failures - or "internalize the externalities". Pigovian taxes, taxes used to correct negative externalities, are named in his honor.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: GreenYes@no.address [mailto:GreenYes@no.address]On
> Behalf Of Neil Seldman
> Sent: Sunday, October 28, 2007 11:04 PM

>
> Dear JW, Excuse me for not being specific enough. And my impressions 
> can be subject to dialogue and constructive criticism.
>
> But here is my reasoning. If the leachate pipe is extended, as was 
> the rule in WI (from 1200 to 2000 ft) it expands the capacity of the 
> landfill by four-fold. Thus lowering the cost of landfill.
>
> This is not the only technique used to increase the use of landfill, 
> and reduce landfill costs.. In CA  there is the ubiquitous
> ADC rule---
> use of alternative daily cover. This tactic increases 'recycling' 
> rates by 15-20% in some jurisdictions. See Dan Knapp's recent
> comments.
>
> My initial point was that incineration is not the sustainable 
> solution, nor is endless landfilling. Zero waste needs to be applied 
> to solid waste management and recycling, so that the economy can get 
> the most use out of each material. An environmental policy as if 
> molecules and communities matter.
>
> Neil
>
> On Oct 27, 2007, at 11:41 AM, JW Spear, Sr. wrote:
>
> >  I have been trying to follow this thread but, now I am thoroughly 
> > confused.
> > How does Wisconsin allowing 'extra leachate lines' lower the cost of
> > landfill? Wouldn't the additional engineering, construction
> cost, and
> > operating cost attributable to additional leachate lines increase 
> > landfill
> > cost?
> >
> > JW.
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: GreenYes@no.address [mailto:GreenYes@no.address
> > On Behalf
> > Of Neil Seldman
> > Sent: Saturday, October 27, 2007 9:10 AM
> > To: GreenYes group
> > Cc: GreenYes digest subscribers
> > Subject: [GreenYes] Re: 6 new messages in 6 topics - digest
> >
> >
> > John, I really do not understand what you mean. Subsidized 
> > incineration and
> > low cost landfill are a major part of the problem.
> > Not the entire set of problems we face but a critical one
> nonetheless.
> >
> > In my response I posed the example of aluminum cans and recycling.
> > You choose not to address it. So provide us with some examples of 
> > what you
> > are talking about.
> >
> > Here is an example of why focusing on end of stream is as
> important as
> > upstream focus:
> >
> > I understand that at a recent WI DNR meeting, a staff 
> > recommendation was
> > ignored and the DNR voted to dramatically weaken the existing 
> > landfill rules
> > by permitting extra leachate lines. This decreases the cost of 
> > landfill in
> > your state by 25%, undercutting market based and regulatory
> efforts to
> > increase recycling, reuse and redesign. With landfill disposal so 
> > cheap how
> > will the state move forward with sustainable discard management? 
> > ILSR and
> > many other groups have been working on upstream issues for years. 
> > But we
> > cannot ignore the easy access to material destruction by 
> > incineration and
> > landfill. These issues are a necessary complement to
> upstream work. 
> > Nor can
> > we ignore upstream strategies that do not get to zero waste, e.g, 
> > returning
> > all computers to OEMs which precludes refurbishing and
> local economic
> > development. The environmental, economic and community benefits of 
> > reuse
> > over recycling are staggering.
> >
> > ILSR has been a primary, sometimes sole, organization calling for
> > refillables and reusables and product redesign. At the same
> time we 
> > help
> > communities fight incinerators and landfills. Other groups take on 
> > other key
> > aspects like haz waste, medical waste, mining subsidies,
> etc. Isn't 
> > it clear
> > that a multi-pronged strategy is needed?
> >
> > Please provide examples of what point you are trying to emphasize.
> >
> > Neil
> >
> >
> >>
> >> GreenYes
> >> http://groups.google.com/group/GreenYes?hl=en
> >>
> >> GreenYes@no.address
> >>
> >> Today's topics:
> >>
> >> * Letter sent to Mayor of Albuquerque, Ma rtin J. Chávez, 9/07 - 1
> >> messages, 1 author
> >> http://groups.google.com/group/GreenYes/browse_thread/thread/
> >> e9a8f548e264d1d2?hl=en
> >> * Letter sent to Mayor of Albuquerque, Ma rtin J. Chávez, 9/07 - 1
> >> messages, 1 author
> >> http://groups.google.com/group/GreenYes/browse_thread/thread/
> >> e801d460598d1fde?hl=en
> >> * Source separation of household waste: A case study in China - 1
> >> messages, 1 author
> >> http://groups.google.com/group/GreenYes/browse_thread/thread/
> >> 142405293210bf21?hl=en
> >> * baseline impacts of what WE are doing. - 1 messages, 1 author
> >> http://groups.google.com/group/GreenYes/browse_thread/thread/
> >> 6a6949ec07989d0a?hl=en
> >> * LA ZERO WASTE PLAN - Policies and Programs is focus of 3rd 
> >> series of
> >> regional workshops - 1 messages, 1 author
> >> http://groups.google.com/group/GreenYes/browse_thread/thread/
> >> cc04e6b209f57afa?hl=en
> >> * Mining Reform Bill clears commitetee - Time Magazine - 1 
> >> messages, 1
> >> author 
> http://groups.google.com/group/GreenYes/browse_thread/thread/
> >> 416ead668232edbf?hl=en
> >>
> >>
> =====================================================================
> >> =
> >> ========
> >> TOPIC: Letter sent to Mayor of Albuquerque, Ma rtin J. Chávez, 9/07
> >> http://groups.google.com/group/GreenYes/browse_thread/thread/
> >> e9a8f548e264d1d2?hl=en
> >>
> =====================================================================
> >> =
> >> ========
> >>
> >> == 1 of 1 ==
> >> Date: Fri, Oct 26 2007 6:21 am
> >> From: "Reindl, John"
> >>
> >>
> >> Helen ~
> >>
> >> I must strongly disagree that this is the best place to put the 
> >> focus.
> >> It is too narrow, and misses the impacts both of the
> actions taken 
> >> for
> >> the alternatives and the total system impacts.
> >>
> >> We in the waste reduction and recovery field often criticize people
> >> and businesses in other fields for not looking at the
> impacts of what
> >> they are doing. Why do we exempt ourselves from that same
> requirement
> >> to take a broad and comprehensive view?
> >>
> >> John
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: GreenYes@no.address [mailto:GreenYes@no.address]
> >> On Behalf Of Helen Spiegelman
> >> Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2007 1:36 PM
> >> To: Lindsay Reopelle; GreenYes@no.address
> >> Subject: [GreenYes] Re: Letter sent to Mayor of
> Albuquerque, Ma rtin
> >> J. Chávez, 9/07
> >>
> >>
> >> Neil understandably and effectively puts the focus on the end of
> >> life impacts and, particularly, on local communities, because it's
> >> a place to start.
> >>
> >> The willingness, presently, of local communities to provide a
> >> "pauper's grave" for poorly designed products is what forgives
> >> wasteful product design and allows waste to happen. Neil's good
> >> work helps people in local communities understand that they can
> >> influence product design by withdrawing "convenient" waste disposal
> >> as an option. Our local communities hold the handle of a whip that
> >> will eventually snap producers into awareness of their
> >> responsibility in product design and supply chain management.
> >>
> >> Helen.
> >>
> >>
> >> At 07:12 AM 10/25/2007, Reindl, John wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> Neil ~
> >>
> >> Why does Zero Waste focus in on two management techniques and not
> >> on the issue of reducing environmental impacts -- wherever they
> >> occur? It seems to me that Zero Waste does not necessarily lead
> >> towards sustainability, since there does not seem to be much -- if
> >> any -- consideration of the environmental impacts of its decision-
> >> making.
> >>
> >> Best wishes,
> >>
> >> John
> >>
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >>
> >>
> >> From: GreenYes@no.address [ mailto:GreenYes@no.address]
> >> On Behalf Of Lindsay Reopelle
> >>
> >>
> >> Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2007 9:05 AM
> >>
> >>
> >> To: GreenYes@no.address
> >>
> >>
> >> Subject: [GreenYes] Letter sent to Mayor of Albuquerque, Martin J.
> >> Chávez, 9/07
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Dear Martin J. Chávez,
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> It is heartening to learn that Albuquerque is yet another US city
> >> focusing on zero waste, the logical extension of the US post World
> >> War II recycling movement.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Zero waste is defined as 90%, or more, diversion from disposal in
> >> landfills or incinerators. It involves high degrees of source
> >> separation for recycling and composting, as well as clean
> >> manufacturing without toxic materials in our products and packages.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Incineration is not included in the zero waste calculation as this
> >> process destroys materials requiring new extraction from virgin
> >> resources and the resulting pollution from mining, forestry and
> >> transportation. Thus so-called waste to energy plants are in fact
> >> wasted energy plants as more energy is needed to replace materials
> >> than energy is created though incineration. With regard to air
> >> emissions from garbage incinerators---they are cleaner than years
> >> ago, but still emit pollutants.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Further, incineration contradicts another key component of the zero
> >> waste paradigm----more good jobs. Incineration creates one job per
> >> 10,000 tons processed, while recycling, composting and reuse create
> >> from 4 - 250 times more jobs per 10,000 tons of materials,
> >> depending upon which material is considered.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> The city can also recover energy from clean organics that are
> >> currently discarded with alternative technologies operating at low
> >> temperatures, then compost the residue afterwards from those
> >> processes.  By not using high temperature systems and clean
> >> materials, you do not volatilize heavy metals that are in the mixed
> >> waste stream, and do not produce dioxins and furans, which are
> >> created when high temperature systems cool down.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ILSR and other groups, such as Zero Waste International Alliance
> >> and the California Resource Management Training Institute, can help
> >> train your staff to implement a plan that is developed for your
> >> city that can get you to 75%-90% diversion within three years. We
> >> can do this without incineration, which is the most expensive
> >> system (capital and operating costs)  you can use to handle
> >> discards from households and businesses.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Please review the documents prepared by ILSR for the US EPA which
> >> detail case studies of communities that have cut their waste stream
> >> in half, and then continued to recover more and more materials with
> >> the same infrastructure. The URLs for these reports are as follows:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> http://www.ilsr.org/recycling/recordsetters/index.html and  http://
> >> www.ilsr.org/recycling/zerowaste/index.html  <http://www.ilsr.org/
> >> recycling/zerowaste/index.html>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> I am available for any questions you may have.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Sincerely,
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Neil Seldman
> >>
> >>
> >> Institute for Local Sel-Reliance
> >>
> >>
> >> Washington, DC
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> =====================================================================
> >> =
> >> ========
> >> TOPIC: Letter sent to Mayor of Albuquerque, Ma rtin J. Chávez, 9/07
> >> http://groups.google.com/group/GreenYes/browse_thread/thread/
> >> e801d460598d1fde?hl=en
> >>
> =====================================================================
> >> =
> >> ========
> >>
> >> == 1 of 1 ==
> >> Date: Fri, Oct 26 2007 7:26 am
> >> From: Alan Muller
> >>
> >>
> >> At 09:12 AM 10/25/2007 -0500, Reindl, John wrote:
> >>> Neil ~
> >>>
> >>> Why does Zero Waste focus in on two management
> >>> techniques and not on the issue of reducing
> >>> environmental impacts -- wherever they occur? It
> >>> seems to me that Zero Waste does not necessarily
> >>> lead towards sustainability, since there does
> >>> not seem to be much -- if any -- consideration
> >>> of the environmental impacts of its decision-making.
> >>>
> >>> Best wishes,
> >>>
> >>> John
> >>
> >> John:
> >>
> >> I suppose you could be right that "zero waste"
> >> does not necessarily lead towards sustainability,
> >> but it seems to me that ending the most
> >> flagrantly unsustainable practices--dumping and
> >> burning--is essential for generating (forcing)
> >> progress in better directions.  It is also
> >> essential for the communities impacted by these
> >> types of facilities.  We have got to start somewhere....
> >>
> >> Is "sustainability" becoming a dangerous cliche
> >> in its own right?  People are opening new stores
> >> to sell "sustainability supplies" ......
> >>
> >> Alan Muller
> >> Green Delaware
> >>
> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >>> From: GreenYes@no.address
> >>> [mailto:GreenYes@no.address]On Behalf Of Lindsay Reopelle
> >>> Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2007 9:05 AM
> >>> To: GreenYes@no.address
> >>> Subject: [GreenYes] Letter sent to Mayor of
> >>> Albuquerque, Martin J. Chávez, 9/07
> >>>
> >>> Dear Martin J. Chávez,
> >>>
> >>> It is heartening to learn that Albuquerque is
> >>> yet another US city focusing on zero waste, the
> >>> logical extension of the US post World War II recycling movement.
> >>>
> >>> Zero waste is defined as 90%, or more, diversion
> >>> from disposal in landfills or incinerators. It
> >>> involves high degrees of source separation for
> >>> recycling and composting, as well as clean
> >>> manufacturing without toxic materials in our products and
> packages.
> >>>
> >>> Incineration is not included in the zero waste
> >>> calculation as this process destroys materials
> >>> requiring new extraction from virgin resources
> >>> and the resulting pollution from mining,
> >>> forestry and transportation. Thus so-called
> >>> waste to energy plants are in fact wasted energy
> >>> plants as more energy is needed to replace
> >>> materials than energy is created though
> >>> incineration. With regard to air emissions from
> >>> garbage incinerators---they are cleaner than
> >>> years ago, but still emit pollutants.
> >>>
> >>> Further, incineration contradicts another key
> >>> component of the zero waste paradigm----more
> >>> good jobs. Incineration creates one job per
> >>> 10,000 tons processed, while recycling,
> >>> composting and reuse create from 4 - 250 times
> >>> more jobs per 10,000 tons of materials,
> >>> depending upon which material is considered.
> >>>
> >>> The city can also recover energy from clean
> >>> organics that are currently discarded with
> >>> alternative technologies operating at low
> >>> temperatures, then compost the residue
> >>> afterwards from those processes.  By not using
> >>> high temperature systems and clean materials,
> >>> you do not volatilize heavy metals that are in
> >>> the mixed waste stream, and do not produce
> >>> dioxins and furans, which are created when high temperature
> >>> systems cool down.
> >>>
> >>> ILSR and other groups, such as Zero Waste
> >>> International Alliance and the California
> >>> Resource Management Training Institute, can help
> >>> train your staff to implement a plan that is
> >>> developed for your city that can get you to
> >>> 75%-90% diversion within three years. We can do
> >>> this without incineration, which is the most
> >>> expensive system (capital and operating
> >>> costs)  you can use to handle discards from households and
> >>> businesses.
> >>>
> >>> Please review the documents prepared by ILSR for
> >>> the US EPA which detail case studies of
> >>> communities that have cut their waste stream in
> >>> half, and then continued to recover more and
> >>> more materials with the same infrastructure. The
> >>> URLs for these reports are as follows:
> >>>
> >>> <http://www.ilsr.org/recycling/recordsetters/index.html>http://
> >>> www.ilsr.org/recycling/recordsetters/index.html
> >>> and
> >>> <http://www.ilsr.org/recycling/zerowaste/index.html>http://
> >>> www.ilsr.org/recycling/zerowaste/index.html
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> I am available for any questions you may have.
> >>>
> >>> Sincerely,
> >>>
> >>> Neil Seldman
> >>> Institute for Local Sel-Reliance
> >>> Washington, DC
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> =====================================================================
> >> =
> >> ========
> >> TOPIC: Source separation of household waste: A case study in China
> >> http://groups.google.com/group/GreenYes/browse_thread/thread/
> >> 142405293210bf21?hl=en
> >>
> =====================================================================
> >> =
> >> ========
> >>
> >> == 1 of 1 ==
> >> Date: Fri, Oct 26 2007 10:02 am
> >> From: RicAnthony@no.address
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Zhuang et al., 2007. Source separation of household  waste: A case
> >> study in
> >> China. Waste Management.  Article in Press.  _doi:10.1016/j.wasman.
> >> 2007.08.012
> >> _ (http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2007.08.012)
> >> Abstract
> >> A pilot program concerning source separation of  household waste
> >> was launched
> >> in Hangzhou, capital city of Zhejiang province,  China. Detailed
> >> investigations on the composition and properties of household
> >> waste in the experimental
> >> communities revealed that high water content and high  percentage
> >> of food waste
> >> are the main limiting factors in the recovery of  recyclables,
> >> especially
> >> paper from household waste, and the main contributors to  the high
> >> cost and low
> >> efficiency of waste disposal. On the basis of the investigation, a
> >> novel
> >> source separation method, according to which household waste was
> >> classified as
> >> food waste, dry waste and harmful waste, was proposed and
> >> performed in four
> >> selected communities. In addition, a corresponding  household waste
> >> management
> >> system that involves all stakeholders, a recovery  system and a
> >> mechanical
> >> dehydration system for food waste were constituted to  promote
> >> source separation
> >> activity. Performances and the questionnaire survey  results showed
> >> that the
> >> active support and investment of a real estate company  and a
> >> community
> >> residential committee play important roles in enhancing public
> >> participation and
> >> awareness of the importance of waste source separation. In
> >> comparison with the
> >> conventional mixed  collection and transportation system of
> >> household waste, the
> >> established source  separation and management system is cost-
> >> effective. It could
> >> be extended  to the entire city and used by other cities in China
> >> as a source
> >> of reference.
> >>
> >>
> >> Ricanthony@no.address
> >> RichardAnthonyAssociates.com
> >> San Diego,  California
> >>
> >> Ricanthony@no.address
> >> RichardAnthonyAssociates.com
> >> San Diego,  California
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ************************************** See what's new at http://
> >> www.aol.com
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> =====================================================================
> >> =
> >> ========
> >> TOPIC: baseline impacts of what WE are doing.
> >> http://groups.google.com/group/GreenYes/browse_thread/thread/
> >> 6a6949ec07989d0a?hl=en
> >>
> =====================================================================
> >> =
> >> ========
> >>
> >> == 1 of 1 ==
> >> Date: Fri, Oct 26 2007 3:08 pm
> >> From: RicAnthony@no.address
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> In a message dated 10/26/2007 6:21:59 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
> >> Reindl@no.address writes:We in the waste reduction and recovery
> >> field often criticize
> >> people and  businesses in other fields for not looking at the
> >> impacts of what
> >> they are  doing. Why do we exempt ourselves from that same
> >> requirement to
> >> take a broad and  comprehensive view?
> >>
> >>
> >> HI  John:
> >>
> >> I agree with you that, the environmental  impacts of mixed waste
> >> collection,
> >> transfer and land filling and /or incineration should be the base 
> >> line
> >> comparison of all other schemes.
> >>
> >> We need to include resource  availability in the analysis as well
> >> as energy
> >> and water pollution   impacts.
> >>
> >> Is pollution acceptable when it is  the least costly alternative?
> >>
> >> Rick
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Ricanthony@no.address
> >> RichardAnthonyAssociates.com
> >> San Diego,  California
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ************************************** See what's new at http://
> >> www.aol.com
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> =====================================================================
> >> =
> >> ========
> >> TOPIC: LA ZERO WASTE PLAN - Policies and Programs is focus of 3rd
> >> series of
> >> regional workshops
> >> http://groups.google.com/group/GreenYes/browse_thread/thread/
> >> cc04e6b209f57afa?hl=en
> >>
> =====================================================================
> >> =
> >> ========
> >>
> >> == 1 of 1 ==
> >> Date: Fri, Oct 26 2007 3:13 pm
> >> From: Gary Liss
> >>
> >>
> >> Apologies for Cross-Postings - Please forward to
> >> colleagues interested in Zero Waste, and JOIN US at these
> workshops.
> >>
> >> Counting down to Zero
> >> Los Angeles
> >> ZERO WASTE PLAN Workshop 3
> >> Solid Waste Integrated Resources Plan
> >>
> >> The November 2007 Solid Waste Integrated
> >> Resources Plan workshops will focus on one of the
> >> most exciting and important elements of the City
> >> of Los Angeles Zero Waste Plan:  Policies and Programs.
> >>
> >> Community members who are helping the City of Los
> >> Angeles develop a Zero Waste Plan will answer hard questions like
> >> these:
> >>
> >>   What PROGRAMS should the Plan include to
> >> achieve Zero Waste, support GREEN BUSINESSES and to create good
> >> GREEN JOBS?
> >>
> >>   What NEW RULES do we want our government to
> >> adopt TO ENSURE A CLEAN, HEALTHY AND SUSTAINABLE CITY?
> >>
> >>   What POLICIES do we want adopted to ENSURE
> >> SOCIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE as Los Angeles
> >> strives towards becoming a ZERO WASTE CITY?
> >>
> >>   What INCENTIVES are critical to help our
> >> businesses and service providers produce GREEN
> >> GOODS AND SERVICES and to MAKE LOS ANGELES A LEADER IN GREEN
> >> TECHNOLOGIES?
> >>
> >> Invite your friends and neighbors and together,
> >> let's plan for a zero waste LA!  If you need an
> >> interpreter, please let us know 72 hours in
> >> advance of the workshop you will attend and we will gladly make
> >> arrangements.
> >>
> >> Start the path to zero waste by bringing your own
> >> reusable cup to one of these November workshops.
> >>
> >> REMEMBER ... It's Not a Plan Without YOU!
> >>
> >> UPCOMING WORKSHOPS
> >> Series 3:  Policies and Programs
> >>
> >> South Los Angeles
> >> Saturday, November 3, 10:00 a.m.
> >> Los Angeles Urban League
> >> West Adams/Baldwin Hills Center
> >> 5681 W. Jefferson Blvd.
> >> Los Angeles, CA 90016
> >>
> >> Western
> >> Monday, November 5, 6:30 p.m.
> >> Felicia Mahood Center
> >> 11338 Santa Monica Blvd.
> >> Los Angeles, CA 90025
> >>
> >> West Valley
> >> Wednesday, November 7, 7:00 p.m.
> >> D.C. Tillman Water Reclamation Plant
> >> 6100 Woodley Ave.,
> >> Van Nuys, CA 91406
> >> (Follow signs to Japanese Garden parking lot;
> >> meeting in Tillman conference room)
> >>
> >> North Central
> >> Thursday, November 8, 6:00 p.m.
> >> Center for the Arts, Eagle Rock
> >> 2225 Colorado Blvd.
> >> Los Angeles, CA 90041
> >>
> >> East Valley
> >> Tuesday, November 13, 7:00 p.m.
> >> John H. Francis Polytechnic High School Auditorium
> >> 12431 Roscoe Blvd.
> >> Sun Valley, CA 91352
> >>
> >> Downtown Daytime Meeting
> >> Thursday, November 15, 1:00 p.m.
> >> Public Works Building
> >> 1149 South Broadway
> >> Sub-basement Room 6
> >> Los Angeles, CA 90015
> >>
> >> Harbor
> >> Thursday, November 15, 6:00 p.m.
> >> Port of Los Angeles High School
> >> 250 West 5th Street
> >> San Pedro, CA 90731
> >>
> >> Gary Liss
> >> 916-652-7850
> >> Fax: 916-652-0485
> >> www.garyliss.com
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> =====================================================================
> >> =
> >> ========
> >> TOPIC: Mining Reform Bill clears commitetee - Time Magazine
> >> http://groups.google.com/group/GreenYes/browse_thread/thread/
> >> 416ead668232edbf?hl=en
> >>
> =====================================================================
> >> =
> >> ========
> >>
> >> == 1 of 1 ==
> >> Date: Fri, Oct 26 2007 5:54 pm
> >> From: retroworks
> >>
> >>
> >> The most significant recycling bill in our lifetime faces a tough 
> >> sell
> >> in the house.
> >>
> >> The subsidy of federal land mining (and unequal treatment of virgin
> >> pollution by Superfund) diverts trillions of dollars of stock
> >> investment from recycling technology to virgin extraction.
>  See Time
> >> mag articl
> >>
> >> http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1674700,00.html
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> =====================================================================
> >> =
> >> ========
> >>
> >> 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
> >>
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
> >
>



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