|
Helen
~
I think that the
distinction between 'cost' and "price" is not that important and gets off the
issue.
The Pigouvian
fees -- when properly set -- produce the true cost and price -- the
cost of the environmental/social impacts and the proper price for someone who
wants to buy the product or service. While I of course cannot assure you that
they will be set at the proper level on any solid waste alternative -- reuse,
recycling, composting, landfilling or incineration -- currently, this impact is
being ignored and so this cost is not included. The work of Jeffrey Morris, the
Governor's Task Force from Wisconsin, economists from the UK, Denmark and
Norway, have all provided reasonable estimates that will continue to be sifted,
winnowed and constantly improved.
John
PS ~ I specifically
used Pigouvian 'fees' rather than Pigouvian 'taxes'. I view taxes as an amount
paid regardless of the impact or level of service received -- such as income,
property and sales taxes. Fees, however, reflect the impact imposed or the
service delivered,.such as a recycling or advance disposa fee when purchasing a
computer (this often takes the cost off local taxes), or a fee to build
roads based on the amount of gasoline used, or the fee that we should be
paying for the carbon we put in the air.
PPS ~ Part of
the first recommendation of the Governor's Task Force is that all
University of Wisconsin students in environmental and conservation fields be
required to take at least one semester in environmental economics.
From:
GreenYes@no.address [mailto:GreenYes@no.address]On Behalf Of
Helen Spiegelman
Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2007 10:59
AM
To: GreenYes@no.address
Subject: [GreenYes] Re:
Landiflll economics
One
point of clarification, John, to clarify the distinction between between
"costs" and "prices." In the market it seems to me that the "price" is set to
include the "cost" and the "profit margin" and in a similar way government
policy can use Pigovian taxes to arrive at a "price" that includes "cost" and
"externalities/incentive/disincentives."
In the landfill example you
give, the "cost" of landfilling is reduced by extending the leachate lines.
But can you assure us that the "price" of landfilling set at a rate high
enough through Pigovian surcharges to both cover externalities and incentivize
waste reduction?
In the interests of transparency, it would also be
good public policy to clearly post the difference between "cost" and "price."
This would help the public understand the economics -- as well as the
government's moral and civic purpose -- in adjusting the price.
It also
reinforces the public's expectation that the funds raised through the Pigovian
tax will indeed be allocated to public purposes like the ones you mention and
allow the public to hold the government accountable for doing
so.
Absent any of these conditions, it seems to me that reducing the
cost of landfilling undermines the very objective you seek: changes in
producer and consumer behaviour.
H.
At 08:28 AM 10/31/2007,
Reindl, John wrote:
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
> >>
>
>
> >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
> >
>
|