GreenYes Archives

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


[GreenYes] Re: 2 new messages in 2 topics - digest


Title: [GreenYes] Re: 2 new messages in 2 topics - digest

Dear Colleagues,

With regard to my recent posting about tire burning, please excuse my 
poor proof reading. Here is the correction---
Erie Renewable Energy has stated that they will use 800 tons per day
or 292,000 tons per year.

Sorry for any inconvenience.

Neil

On Nov 10, 2007, at 3:45 AM, GreenYes group wrote:

>
> GreenYes
> http://groups.google.com/group/GreenYes?hl=en
>
> GreenYes@no.address
>
> Today's topics:
>
> * "total recycling" isn't Zero Waste... and who are they fooling 
> here anyway? -
>  1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/GreenYes/browse_thread/thread/
> ea2254f6f1855f5c?hl=en
> * Mayor Bloomberg supports Pigovian fees on carbon emissions - 1 
> messages, 1
> author
http://groups.google.com/group/GreenYes/browse_thread/thread/
> 63c658de95bf50ba?hl=en
>
> ======================================================================
> ========
> TOPIC: "total recycling" isn't Zero Waste... and who are they 
> fooling here
> anyway?
> http://groups.google.com/group/GreenYes/browse_thread/thread/
> ea2254f6f1855f5c?hl=en
> ======================================================================
> ========
>
> == 1 of 1 ==
> Date: Fri, Nov 9 2007 3:14 am
> From: precycled
>
>
> Thanks Eric - here's another link for the Lancashire example:
> http://www.lancashire.gov.uk/corporate/web/view.asp?
> siteid=3306&pageid=8753&e=e
>
> Yes, source separation is the obvious route; underused in the UK due
> to government's view that managing residual waste means technology,
> and that delivering the technology means Private Finance Initiative
> contracts (which allow public views to be ignored). At national and
> County levels there is rarely any mention that residual waste can be
> managed in large part by progressively recycling and composting more.
> Funding for waste services and technical advice on waste are
> centralised so Councils are herded towards PFI-based technical
> 'solutions'.
>
> This situation presents an interesting challenge for Pigouvian fees.
> What happens when governments don't have the vision, will or technical
> competence to recognise a sustainable waste strategy? How could they
> possibly design the economic vehicles to get us there? It would seem
> that (in Europe at least) we have Pigouvian corrections exactly
> consistent with government vision and fondness of central control.
>
> GreenYes members may enjoy this review of European Union thinking on
> market-based instruments, http://www.blindspot.org.uk/
> EU_MBI_review.html
> which presents the typical governmental approach and some of the
> issues this overlooks. For example in government there is not even an
> awareness (as posted by Neil Seldman) that the same pollution pricing
> scheme might apply to both climate and waste issues.
>
> Interesting discussion about cap and trade vs cap and tax. Could also
> consider whether taxes (or other forms of Pigouvian fees) when
> reinvested in making less wasteful choices cheaper could make capping
> redundant. Sustainably reformed markets might turn out to be more
> powerful than political constraints on unsustainable markets. Given
> that the international political process has seen 15 years pass
> without any global emissions cuts we may find that market reforms
> could also work faster.
> Best wishes
> James Greyson
>
> On Nov 7, 8:54 pm, "Eric Lombardi" <e...@no.address> wrote:
>> 'Total recycling' aims to make landfill history
>> A company that has patented its new recycling process is the 
>> commercial face
>> of a trend towards "zero waste", in which every last gram of 
>> rubbish is reused
>>
>> I feel like repeating a new version of that old Clinton Campaign 
>> slogan .
>> "It's Source Separation Stupid!"
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ======================================================================
> ========
> TOPIC: Mayor Bloomberg supports Pigovian fees on carbon emissions
> http://groups.google.com/group/GreenYes/browse_thread/thread/
> 63c658de95bf50ba?hl=en
> ======================================================================
> ========
>
> == 1 of 1 ==
> Date: Fri, Nov 9 2007 8:22 am
> From: "Doug Koplow"
>
>
> A cap and trade system grants free pollution only if the initial 
> allocation of credits is granted for free.  If the grants are 
> auctioned, the price signals are comparable to those from a carbon 
> tax.  A credit system provides greater certainty on the quantity of 
> emissions; a tax system on the price.  My personal preference is a 
> tax approach due to potentially easier administration.  Loopholes 
> and gaming are possible under both systems -- most commonly through 
> special tax exemptions (the proposed Clinton Btu tax was sunk by 
> these), free allocation of credits, or through poorly structured or 
> monitored credits for sequestration.
>
> Bloomberg's approach of taxing businesses for GHG emissions 
> illustrates the problems of inaction on the national level.  A much 
> cleaner solution, both in terms of market prices and ease of 
> administration, is to have these types of taxes levied as close to 
> the point of extraction of fuels as possible.  This is the easiest 
> point to measure the GHG content of the fuels, and doesn't require 
> a government agency to try to measure and enforce charges at 
> thousands of different types of businesses.
>
> Doug
>
> _______________________________
> Doug Koplow
> Earth Track, Inc.
> 2067 Massachusetts Avenue - 4th Floor
> Cambridge, MA  02140
> www.earthtrack.net
> Tel:  617/661-4700
> Fax: 617/354-0463
>
>            CONFIDENTIAL
> This message, and all attachments thereto, is for the designated 
> recipient
> only and may contain privileged, proprietary, or otherwise private
> information.  If you have received it in error, please notify the 
> sender
> immediately and delete the original.  Any other use of the email by 
> you
> is prohibited.
>
>>>> "Reindl, John" <Reindl@no.address> 11/5/2007 9:05 AM >>>
>
> New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg proposed a national 
> "pollution pricing" plan Friday that would tax companies directly 
> for the greenhouse gases they release. Bloomberg suggested a fee of 
> $15 for every ton of greenhouse gas companies emit, with the money 
> used to reduce payroll taxes and finance tax credits for companies 
> that reduce their greenhouse gas pollution. He also said another 
> carbon-reduction approach known as cap-and-trade, which many 
> Democratic candidates have endorsed, is a flawed solution and could 
> create bidding wars.
> I also believe that a cap-and-trade approach is wrong, as it 
> essentially grants polluters a right to pollute up to the limits of 
> their permit. I believe that no one should have any right to 
> pollute and should be required to pay for any pollution that they 
> discharge.
> A news story on Mayor Bloomberg's position can be found on the 
> internet at http://edition.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/11/03/
> bloomberg.emissions.ap/index.html
> John
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ======================================================================
> ========
>
> 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]