GreenYes Archives

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

[GreenYes] Re: [ZWIA] Re: LA Zero Waste pans

To Eric and all on the current list: 

Unfortunately bioreactors aren't "jokes."  I believe the reason they are getting play these days is that landfill companies realize the era of putting new landfills on pristine land is over, and the only way to get new capacity (besides building on top of the old ones) is to shrink the volume of the existing fills.  They can do this by accelerating anaerobic decomposition and burning off the flammable gases.  This in itself is an admission of landfills' failure, which we could use to advantage in opposing their plans.  

I don't understand how getting to 70% reuse, recycling, and composting is "easy," except in technical theory.  In reality it hasn't seemed easy so far.  Also I don't see how actually to accomplish open-windrow composting of grossly contaminated "residual" leftovers, whatever they are depending on the batch.  I haven't seen any evidence that stabilizing residuals - let alone making them non-toxic - can be done without "any capital-intensive technologies."  

This whole big-tech black-box approach reminds me of way back in the 1980s, when some of us acted together across the nation in a broad movement to defeat the Big Ol' Boys' plans for multimillion-dollar garbage incinerators, rdf plants, and more.  I personally helped defeat a dozen or so, eight in the San Francisco Bay Area alone.  Our PR campaigns used straightforward sound science and tight argumentation, and we managed to avoid yielding to the activist's temptation of applying pejorative labels, which are dangerous because they can end up sounding glib or self-aggrandizing but don't convey information and take the focus off the ball.  With a slight time lag, the political and strategic history of this long but successful struggle was memorialized in Ellen and Paul Connett's Waste Not series of newsletters.  Ellen and Paul documented the campaigns as they went, and everyone used the information source.  But Waste Not stopped publication in the mid-1990s because incinerator proposals were so few.  Now there are only a few incinerators actually operating in the US.  Most are on the Atlantic seaboard, where their toxic emissions waft out to sea, not onto urban populations.  If they were anywhere else they would probably be shut down.  In California more than 40 were planned, but only two or three were built, to my knowledge.  

One small one that was built for a community college's operator training program had to shut down for technical problems, including a catastrophic boiler failure and nowhere to put the ash.  It managed to bankrupt the college.  This kind of operator training is a secondary economic development, which, once institutionalized, is difficult to dismantle unless the sponsoring technology fails.  That's one trouble with an expensive "bridge" concept.  It gets built into the culture, and then nobody wants to let it go.  

Not only that, but we've had almost no new landfills approved in the last several years in California, and most if not all of the expansion proposals statewide are being actively contested.  

Going in the other resource management direction that we all want, Mary Lou Van Deventer and I recently enjoyed a personal tour of the 65-acre campus of Roche International in Redwood City.  Roche is a big pharmaceutical manufacturer with a research facility here that is going for zero waste in a big way, and very successfully.  They use all the same source separation principles and techniques that my company uses, and they are quite scornful and dismissive of their local "dirty mrf" because of its high unrecyclable residue.  Urban Ore is helping them find beneficial uses for some of their unwanted stuff, mostly lab equipment.  It's mutually profitable.  

Good science and good economics will win the day for source separation again.  The principles that we started with three decades ago are still as good as gold, which is stronger than the dollar or Euro.  The science is stronger than ever for having served so well in the earlier struggles.  We know the technologies that work, and we've demonstrated how to use them to create jobs and conserve and enhance material wealth.  

I see no reason to abandon our best methods and arguments, which I restate as follows:

*  Build networks of 12 category resource development park infrastructures run by  dedicated zero waste resource development authorities (the latter is especially important and urgently in need of our best minds and organizational talent);

*  Use economic signals to penalize unwanted and reward wanted behaviors;   
   *  Differentiate disposal service charges and paybacks to reward effective recycling behavior;  
   *  Set waste disposal fees as the most expensive option; 
   *  Set reuse and recycling fees, including composting, lower than wasting and provide payment if appropriate, all based on the market value of the commodity in question; 

*  For any residual, use compostion analysis to find out what it is in each locality, then determine what parts can either be accommodated within the existing recovery system or redesigned out through EPR, and ban any nonrecyclable products if necessary; 
*  Resist waste manufacturing by mixing, and we source-separationistas should refrain from endorsing any mixing technologies; 

*  Execute, explain, and educate ceaselessly.

To me this is all the ''bridge strategy" we need.



On Feb 3, 2008, at 6:08 PM, Eric Lombardi wrote:

Dan and all,

I want to expand upon the key starting point I made in introducing this "bridge strategy" concept, and which Enzo reminded us, and that is the need for a workable strategy to kill new incinerator proposals as they are emerging everywhere.  For my American peers, we also need to fight the emerging "new and improved landfill" called a bioreactor that Waste Management Inc. and all the other "integrated solid waste professionals" (ISWM) seem to think is the alternative to incinerators.  But these "bioreactors" are a joke... and they are winning more contracts than the Zero Wasters... so who is the joke on?   Our goal should be to create a technological-financial-political proposal that can compete at the table with a $100 million incinerator or bioreactor project.  Until we grow up, (and that line is sure to start a firestorm of debate!),  we will be delegated to be the head of the kids table at dinner.

Let's remember to not kill the good in pursuit of the perfect.  Credibility comes with speed of execution, and it's time for us to move.

That's enough pithy cliche's for one day!


-----Original Message-----
From: "Enzo Favoino" <enzofavoino@no.address>
Sent 2/3/2008 1:04:11 AM
To: dr.ore@no.address, eric@no.address
Cc: "Gerry Gillespie" <gerry.gillespie@no.address>, jeff.morris@no.address, "Helen Spiegelman" <hspie@no.address>, "Rick Anthony" <ricanthony@no.address>, zerowaste_sd@no.address, zwia@no.address, gaia-zero-waste@no.address, "GreenYes" <GreenYes@no.address>, "CRRA Listserve" <crra_members@no.address>, "Mary Lou Van Deventer" <marylouvan@no.address>, "Mark Gorrell" <markitekt@no.address>, "David Tam" <daviditam2@no.address>, "Mal Williams" <mal.williams@no.address>, "Jack Martin" <jmartin@no.address>
Subject: [ZWIA] Re: LA Zero Waste pans

Hi Dan - in your interesting reply to Eric you seem anyway to have overlooked a few key issues.
"As to your claim that "the 30% residual" will be stabilized without  "any capital-intensive technology," the Greenpeace report sent by Enzo last night shows MBT to be pretty capital-intensive."
If incineration is the alternative, would you argue incineration is less capital-intensive?
Certainly direct leandfilling is cheaper - let alone in the US. But we have already commented on whether it is a viable option (for neighbors and the global impact). In any case, sometimes local regulators make plans to overcome direct landfilling (for residual waste, let's remark it), and they may be misleadingly think incineration is the only possibility. This is what is being discussed.
Once again, MBT competes to incineration, not to anything else. Hence whatever the judgement, it has to be compared to incineration.
FYI, unit investment for incineration (I already told Helen) here in Europe is around 700-1000 Euro/tonne of operational capacity. For MBT it may be 200-500 Euro/tonne. (1)
Also, I feel relieved in a scenario in which the rankings in terms of costs are
incineration >> MBT >> recycling, don't you? 
"You advocate "simple window composting" for the residual, but how are you going to construct or turn a windrow made up of, say, 25% junk plastics, 10 % textiles, busted up pieces of wood, drywall fines, etc?" 
I have commented already on this statement of Eric's - saying there's an awful lot of different approaches. Anyway, you seem to have overlooked the "M" of "MBT".
No worries, Dan, there's an overall capacity of some 25 M tonnes for MBT in Europe, no stalled turning machine - or should MBT be judged on the basis of a crazy composter from Michigan? Tell that site manager to go pay a visit to thousands MBT sites (nt "mixed garbage composting sites") around the world. He'll have to face some expenditures, and this is fairly acceptable in terms of internalisation of environmental externalities, but this will also keep a "safety distance" between the costs/revenues of recycling and the costs of residual waste management.
If his Env. Agency or Dep. of Env. or whatever the name aren't supportive to a full set of enironmenal provisions - then not our fault.
Please consider the world may be different from that location in Michigan.
In any case,  the way this all started (let me remark this again) was a discussion on alternatives to incineration, not on alternatives to Urban Ore ;-) Well, whenever plans for incineration are underway (be it for an obligation on pretreatment, as in the EU, be it for local decision makers have in mind to stop direct landfilling) MBT provides an alternative that is  
  • flexible,
  • less expensive and
  • (most importantly) more prone to be converted into strategies for high recycling.
Full stop
With sympathy
PS - what does CEO stand for? I assume I undertsand PhD, instead.
(1) [It may be remarkably less for simplified approaches as e.g. passively aerated piles on the landfill that might be a viable approach for low-income countries (since they are static, ther will be no stalled turning machine) - basically, in that case, you let the waste to be landfilled "rest" for a few weeks in order to have most fermentables degraded to CO2 (which is neutral for climate change since it comes from biogenic C) instead of producing CH4 once landfilled (which gives a negative GHG load since it is 21 times more powerful than CO2) + benefits in terms of reduced chemical strength of leachates. This may be enhanced by forced aeration, still with static piles. Blowing always much less expensive than turning, and no stalled turner, then] 
Enzo Favoino 
Working Group on Composting
and Integrated Waste Management
Scuola Agraria del Parco di Monza
+39-335-355446 (mobile)
Skype: favoinomail
Click to add my contact info to your organizer:
----- Original Message -----
From: Dan Knapp
Sent: Sunday, February 03, 2008 12:45 AM
Subject: [ZWIA] Re: LA Zero Waste pans

To Eric and all the rest of you who think getting to 70% discard recovery is easy.

With all due respect, it has hardly been easy, and for those of us who have helped our communties get close, it's not easy keeping our hard-won position.  During the eighties, for example, we had to survive direct attempts to sabotage us or otherwise put us out of business in favor of capital-intensive approaches.  Three decades later in the land-short new millennium, we are competing with global corporations and mega-universities and greedy rich land developers for the very land we need to do business.

Gerry Gillespie's ReVolve in Canberra is struggling to survive right now due to a procurement scandal brought on by a hostile waste agency that has for years cloaked itself in the protective mantle of Zero Waste.  These competitive forces are real, and we've got to defeat them or they will finish us. 

Our competition the garbage companies are used to contracts that guarantee all wasting costs will be paid plus a handsome profit.  We get no such consideration.  How can you say it's easy to compete in this grossly unfair context, Eric?

As to your claim that "the 30% residual" will be stabilized without  "any capital-intensive technology," the Greenpeace report sent by Enzo last night shows MBT to be pretty capital-intensive.  It also seems to be a lot of different things:  some say dry it; others say pump it full of water.  You advocate "simple window composting" for the residual, but how are you going to construct or turn a windrow made up of, say, 25% junk plastics, 10 % textiles, busted up pieces of wood, drywall fines, etc?  I remember one time in Michigan passing a field where someone was trying to do garbage composting.  There in the middle of a grossly contaminated windrow was a stalled compost turner, its flails hopelessly fouled by the aforementioned stuff, all highly resistant to composting.  Somebody had to clean that poor sucker out; I wouldn't want to be the one.  When my company ran a compost facility we had huge problems with plastics plugging screens.  And how are you going to get any permits to turn this toxic mess onto a piece of land for long enough to ""stabilize" it?  

Last November I attended the Southeast Precautionary Conference organized by the Center for Health, Environment, and Justice.  We were organized into three working groups based on attendee interest:  nuclear power, land application of sludge, and zero waste.  I was the only speaker representing the recycling industry.  When the sludge people found out I was a recycler, I felt a wave of hostility directed at me personally such as I've never encountered in a public meeting?  Why?  Because the sludge people were fighting sludge applicators who were putting out onto agricultural land sludges full of needles, condoms, and God knows what else and calling it beneficial recycling.  I was a recycler, therefore I was bad.  It took most of a day to get some of them to realize that I was not the oppressor they had come there to learn better how to fight.

We play with these forces at our peril, I warn.

Dan Knapp, Ph.D. and CEO
Urban Ore, Inc.

On Feb 2, 2008, at 11:41 AM, Eric Lombardi wrote:

Hi Gerry and all,


This has been a fruitful global discussion.  Since GRRN and Eco-Cycle have been actively creating and presenting workshops about ?Zero Waste Community Planning,? I want to continue to tap this online brain-trust to create two things: (1) as I said before, we need a ?bridge strategy?, and (2) as this group discussion has shown, we need to establish a clear and simple ?5-Point Platform for a Zero Waste Future? ? or some wording like that.


(1)     Bridge Strategy ? what I heard is the following ?

a.       Getting to 70% Discard Recovery is easy, and more a matter of political will than economics or technology;

b.       Getting from 70-90% is harder and will require increased levels of participation from industry in the design and recovery of their products;

c.       The last 10% of ?mixed waste? will be with us until we all hit the 90% level, and then at that point the world will be a very different place and the solution to this last 10% will emerge in ways we can?t imagine today. 

d.       Processing of this ever-shrinking 30% mixed waste will NOT be incineration or any capital-intensive technology? rather it will be a simple MANDATE to stabilize the organic fraction and then bury it in a dry tomb landfill.  Simple windrow composting would accomplish this, and the dirty stabilized material could then be used as daily cover.  This is NOT a good long-term solution, and that is the point? that without source separation, there is NO good solution for mixed waste.

e.       Upstream ?. We must make the purchase of ?toxic, non-recyclable and non-compostable products? a social taboo? like smoking cigarettes has become.  Just as we are all proud of our ?green? products, we must now define what ?non-green products are so that they can be as easily avoided as green products are to find.


(2)     ZW Futures Platform ? a few points to get started ? each point needs to be expanded ? but? let?s keep it simple:

a.       Healthy Soils is our vision for biodegradable discards;

b.       Resource Conservation and Energy Use Reduction is our vision for recycling our dry discards;

c.       A ?double bottom line? financial accounting system which includes both profit AND community benefit (environment and jobs) is the appropriate framework to compare different discard management options;  (My mantra has been ?waste is a social issue first and a market issue second?)

d.       Product Design and Producers Responsibility is AS IMPORTANT AS Downstream Recovery systems;


I?ll stop there ?and let the next creative step begin. 




-----Original Message-----
From: zwia@no.address [mailto:zwia@no.address] On Behalf Of Gillespie Gerry
Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2008 11:12 PM
To: Eric Lombardi; jeff.morris@no.address; hspie@no.address; ricanthony@no.address; zerowaste_sd@no.address;zwia@no.address; gaia-zero-waste@no.address; GreenYes@no.address; crra_members@no.address
Subject: [ZWIA] Re: LA Zero Waste pans




Sorry to be slow to respond ? I have been out west for the last few days.


We are currently working on a model to move composted products into agriculture where the urban waste stream would be only one part of the input products.


I will try to get a few dots points together based around the recent conversation if we could all do the same perhaps we could run some form of ?affinity? process where they were all pulled together ? this may result in a few very simple phrases we could use around the world.


Common ground is a very important point because it gives us a single voice.


Talk to you soon.




From: Eric Lombardi [mailto:eric@no.address]
Sent: Tuesday, 29 January 2008 11:17 AM
To: Gillespie Gerry; jeff.morris@no.address; hspie@no.address; ricanthony@no.address; zerowaste_sd@no.address;zwia@no.address; gaia-zero-waste@no.address; GreenYes@no.address; crra_members@no.address
Subject: RE: [ZWIA] Re: LA Zero Waste pans


Hey mate,


Your points are spot on? so ? we need to bring it all together into something that creates a simple vision for the masses.  I am currently in discussions about the ?slogan? and the ?hook? for the new GRRN campaign we?re launching in April called COOL2012??Compostable Organics Out of Landfill by 2012?.   We have decided that the healthy soils/water/CO2 capture/local food angles are all important? but how to pull it together into a winning soundbite?   We are going to make a major link with global warming and the landfill industry bullshit on gas capture? but that is all very technical.   That is why I have always loved your City to Soil program down there in Australia ? and I use in my conversation often with elected leaders.   Recently I?ve been thinking about bringing something like switchgrass into the ?circle? since it could be one of the best biofuel alternatives to oil, and, it grows in marginal lands, and? with the application of compost it REALLY produces.   So not only do we lower GHG methane by keeping biodegradables out of the ground, but we also grow biofuels to replace oil ? now THAT is a virtuous circle !!!


What do you think?





-----Original Message-----
From: Gillespie Gerry [mailto:Gerry.Gillespie@no.address]
Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2008 2:55 PM
To: jeff.morris@no.address; eric@no.address; hspie@no.address; ricanthony@no.address; zerowaste_sd@no.address;zwia@no.address; gaia-zero-waste@no.address; GreenYes@no.address; crra_members@no.address
Subject: RE: [ZWIA] Re: LA Zero Waste pans


Dear all,


I agree with Eric and Jeff.


To back up all the points from Helen, Eric and Jeff can I suggest that a focus on the return of organic material to the food chain must defeat incineration in the long run.


No matter where you are in the world the organic fraction of your soils is falling rapidly.


You in the northern hemisphere may have started with a lot more organic material in your soils than we had in Australia but with sheer guts and determination you will reach the same point.


A report from the UK in 2001 stated that the soils in the UK are unstable due to a lack of organic material. This was confirmed with the DEFRA Soil Strategy released in 2004. The silly thing is that the same Department which looks after the Soil Strategy looks after waste.


The only things which will burn in an incinerator are organic in origin ? the vast majority of this material is compostable and retriveable by source separation.


The increase in the price of fossil fuel will make fertiliser much more expensive ? in rural Australia it just hit $1000 per tonne. This is driving the farming market in the direction of compost and biologically active fluid products.


I feel that if we can shift the argument over to concentrate of organic recovery it defeats incineration because there is nothing to burn and it defeats landfill because the only reason we were burying it in the first place was because of the ?yuk? factor.


Moving the argument over from waste disposal and solving a ?problem? to agricultural protection and taking and ?opportunity? is going to be a very sound argument now that chemical fertiliser has hit the wall.


Even in Australia now there are more calls for incineration ? we need a broad strategy.


Could I suggest that a combination of Helen?s comments on the needs of nature, Eric?s points on source separation and Jeff?s on the 30% residual could all be combined under an organics protection banner which takes us in the direction of a carbon economy.


Perhaps if we all worked toward a 5 point plan for resource protection we could have a world-wide document defining the Zero Waste in all countries around the world against mixed waste incineration and disposal to landfill.





From: zwia@no.address [mailto:zwia@no.address] On Behalf Of Jeffrey Morris
Sent: Friday, 25 January 2008 8:02 AM
To: eric@no.address; hspie@no.address; ricanthony@no.address; zerowaste_sd@no.address; zwia@no.address; gaia-zero-waste@no.address; GreenYes@no.address; crra_members@no.address
Subject: [ZWIA] Re: LA Zero Waste pans


Hey Eric,

Thanks for making the effort to put this argument together.  I would add a couple of points to your list:

1. Many of the products left in that 30% are in fact made up of fossil fuel material that will generate GHGs when burned ? e.g., plastics, rubber, paints and pesticides.  This is why incinerators even with energy recovery are net GHG emitters even after taking into account the electric power grid offsets from the electricity that incinerators generate.

2. Production of incineration equipment and emissions control equipment that make up the incinerator facility, as well as the fuel and other energy consumed in constructing the incinerator, are also sources of GHG emissions.

3. composting done correctly should emit little GHGs, although the equipment and energy to operate a compost facility will be GHG sources.  However, the cost of a compost facility compared with the cost on an incinerator indicates the relative amount of GHGs for a composting operation versus an incineration disposal facility.


What do you think?



From: zwia@no.address [mailto:zwia@no.address] On Behalf Of Eric Lombardi
Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2008 12:36 PM
To: hspie@no.address; ricanthony@no.address; zerowaste_sd@no.address; zwia@no.address; gaia-zero-waste@no.address;GreenYes@no.address; crra_members@no.address
Subject: [ZWIA] Re: LA Zero Waste pans


Helen is right, and I just got an email from Scotland that their ?ZW Scotland? will include 25% efw.


I suggest we come up with a position on how to build the bridge to a ZW Future.  Since 90%+ resource recovery isn?t going to happen immediately, we need to advocate for a positive solution to the remaining mixed waste fraction.   ?They? out there are saying ?it?s a waste to NOT make energy out of it?? and in today?s world that is a very compelling and logical position.  If we don?t like that, than what is our alternative?


Let me share what I?ve been saying to counter the efw proponents ? (just did it this morning) ? and I know this isn?t the preferred future we are all working for, but I do present it as a ?bridge? strategy:

1.      Source separated community MSW is the cleanest and cheapest way to manage 70% of the community?s discards, and this has been proven in numerous communities;

2.      The remaining 30% of mixed waste will be gradually phased down to only 10% over about a ten year period (in truth no one has done this yet so we don?t know how long it will take), and while we?re getting there we will process the material at the landfill either through (1) an energy-producing anaerobic digestion system and then using the stabilized digestate as daily cover (this approach is for big cities that can afford it); or (2) a simple windrow composting system that will stabilize the biowaste fraction of the mixed waste, and then again use as daily cover.   After ten years, there will no more than 10% mixed waste, maybe even zero (but I doubt it), and it will continue to be processed and stabilized. 

3.      This approach will triple or more the life of the existing landfill infrastructure in America, and it?s possible that no new landfills or incinerators need be built for the next 100 years, if ever.


Since there is a flood of new incinerator and ?bioreactor? proposals popping up all around us, I suggest that the above argument combined with a moratorium for five years on new incinerators and landfills is a winner.  We need to argue that there is no sense in moving forward with the multi-million dollar facilities to bury and burn our resources until after a serious pursuit of 70% has been implemented.   


Feedback?  Where is this argument weak?  My goal is to stop the flow of investments into the new bury/burn facilities, so what else can we do to accomplish that?




Eric Lombardi

Executive Director

Eco-Cycle Inc

5030 Pearl St.

Boulder, CO. 80301



Vote for Eco-Cycle, Help us win $5,000

To celebrate their new store opening in Boulder and continue their tradition of environmental activism, Patagonia will donate $5,000 to the local environmental organization that gets the most votes in their Voice Your Choice contest. Cast your vote online for Eco-Cycle before March 29!



-----Original Message-----
From: zwia@no.address [mailto:zwia@no.address] On Behalf Of Helen Spiegelman
Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2008 10:24 AM
To: ricanthony@no.address; zerowaste_sd@no.address; zwia@no.address; gaia-zero-waste@no.address;GreenYes@no.address; crra_members@no.address
Subject: [ZWIA] Re: LA Zero Waste pans


There is a dragon coiled in these paragraphs.

Our metro politicians made a momentous decision this week to cancel a huge landfill project. The political buy-in was achieved through the promise that we can build a suite of 3 - 6 waste-to-energy plants here in the region to manage "what cannot be further recycled or composted..." Our regional staff have even hijacked the "Zero Waste Challenge" issued by our politicians and are saying that WTE is a component of ZW.

Citizens in our region are getting organized to challenge this. We all know that an incinerator ~ or any facility that turns waste to any kind of "fuel" ~ is a tapeworm that will suck more and more resources that are needed to build a healthy economy (or needed to stay right where they are in nature...)

Activities that facilitate the transformation of material to energy is what is driving climate change.

Please assure me and the citizens of LA that your Zero Waste plan doesn't have a waste-to-"fuel" provision.


At 08:44 AM 1/24/2008, ricanthony@no.address wrote:

Whatever cannot be further recycled or composted from the department's 750,000 weekly customers could beturned into alternative

such as biodiesel or electricity to power our grid, said Alex Helou, assistant director for the city's Bureau of Sanitation.

"Instead of just burying it in the ground and creating greenhouse gases, we could use it as a resource to recycle, reuse and convert into a resource that could create clean energy," said Helou.

It's too early to say how much money the city could make from these alternative fuels, but there is definite potential to generate revenue, Pereira said.

Already Long Beach converts garbage into electricity for its residents. And it uses about 100 tons of trash from Los Angeles a day to do it and also charges $42.50 a ton to take our garbage, said Helou.

But by using Los Angeles garbage to create energy for our city, we can also reduce our costs instead of subsidizing Long Beach, Helou said.





_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

This email is intended for the addressee(s) named and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. 
If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender and then delete it immediately.
Any views expressed in this email are those of the individual sender except where the sender expressly 
and with authority states them to be the views of the Department of Environment and Climate Change (NSW).



_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

This email is intended for the addressee(s) named and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. 
If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender and then delete it immediately.
Any views expressed in this email are those of the individual sender except where the sender expressly 
and with authority states them to be the views of the Department of Environment and Climate Change (NSW).

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