GreenYes Archives

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


[GreenYes] Re: 5 new messages in 2 topics - digest


Title: [GreenYes] Re: 5 new messages in 2 topics - digest

Good luck in Vancouver indeed. As I have seen elsewhere, Annie and 
Paul will be great. But the deciders will want to know what is the 
alternative. A resource management plan is a big help as we have seen 
in various jurisdictions that have recently backed down from 
incineration. EPR is a key part. I hope EPR ideology does not become 
a barrier instead of an important tool.

Neil Seldman, ILSR

On Jun 21, 2008, at 4:02 AM, GreenYes group wrote:

>
> GreenYes
> http://groups.google.com/group/GreenYes?hl=en
>
> GreenYes@no.address
>
> Today's topics:
>
> * Recycle Offset Credits? - 2 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/GreenYes/browse_thread/thread/
> d20cb8bfa48262ac?hl=en
> * Connett and Leonard to stir things up in Vancouver next week - 3 
> messages, 3
> authors
http://groups.google.com/group/GreenYes/browse_thread/thread/
> 9e138097c868c004?hl=en
>
> ======================================================================
> ========
> TOPIC: Recycle Offset Credits?
> http://groups.google.com/group/GreenYes/browse_thread/thread/
> d20cb8bfa48262ac?hl=en
> ======================================================================
> ========
>
> == 1 of 2 ==
> Date: Thurs, Jun 19 2008 8:58 pm
> From: Curt McNamara
>
>
> I continue to be puzzled by this line of thinking.
>
> Background: I teach sustainability. My lifestyle is pretty low carbon
> -- bike, eat low on the food chain, limited travel, buy used, live 
> in 
> shared housing. Still I (and my students) can't get to one earth on
> the footprint calculators.
>
> What to do? I make voluntary contributions to a non-profit
> organization that invests the money in projects to capture carbon.
> Mine are all third party certified.
>
> The line I heard: do everything you can, then offset the rest.
>
> Another way of looking at this comes from worldchanging.com (Alex
> Steffen). "We can't consume our way out of this mess." Translation:
> make better decisions on daily actions (like zero waste) but also take
> action to restore.
>
> Since this is a class theme, I am very interested in what all you
> folks are doing to restore.
>
>                                                                                                       Curt
>
> http://www.worldchanging.com/
> http://www.mcad.edu/showPage.php?status=1&pageID=1311
>
>
> On Jun 19, 2008, at 6:03 PM, Neil Tangri wrote:
>
>>
>> Rightfully so, in my opinion. I'm not sure where they are planning on
>> selling these carbon credits, but in effect, carbon credits mean that
>> when you avoid emissions through recycling, someone else buys the
>> credit
>> and increases their emissions by the same amount...so the net
>> benefit to
>> the climate is zero. And while Urban Ore's emissions avoidance might
>> be
>> real, many others are scams -- which means that the carbon trading
>> program simply becomes a way of buying one's way out of carbon caps.
>>
>> The environmental justice groups have come out quite strongly against
>> carbon trading. There's a great book on the topic, very
>> conversationally
>> written, available free on PDF here:
>>
>> http://www.thecornerhouse.org.uk/summary.shtml?x=544225
>>
>> cheers,
>>
>> Neil
>>
>>
>> Mary Lou Van Deventer wrote:
>>> At Urban Ore, one of our managers is investigating this carbon-
>>> offset
>>> idea for our company.  Our attorney just asked me if the manager is
>>> head of the Greenwashing Department.  We're kind of ambivalent
>>> about it.
>>>
>>>
>>> Mary Lou Van Deventer
>>> Urban Ore
>>> 900 Murray St.
>>> Berkeley, CA 94710
>>> marylouvan@no.address
>>>
>>>
>>> On Jun 19, 2008, at 12:00 PM, Jewell, Rebecca wrote:
>>>
>>>> http://www.foxbusiness.com/story/markets/industries/technology/
>>>> recyclenet-rocs-recycling-offset-credits/-2010196893
>>>>
>>>> SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH, Jun 19, 2008 (MARKET WIRE via COMTEX) ----
>>>> Paul
>>>> Roszel, Chairman of RecycleNet Corporation (OTCBB: GARM)is pleased
>>>> to introduce the Recycling Offset Credit (ROCs) program. This
>>>> program provides a certified measurement system to recognize and
>>>> reward companies for their recycling efforts. RecycleNet will 
>>>> issue/
>>>> award Recycling Offset Credits (ROCs) for each ton of material
>>>> recycled by participants.
>>>>
>>>> As a result of the increased awareness of climate change and global
>>>> warming, more and more people have become concerned about 
>>>> greenhouse
>>>> gas emissions and are developing strategies to reduce their carbon
>>>> footprint. Many companies, individuals and institutions have
>>>> implemented carbon neutral goals.
>>>>
>>>> The Recycling Offset Credits (ROCs) program is an effort to provide
>>>> a universally recognized standard to measure and certify recycling
>>>> efforts and to demonstrate the economic impact of the recycling
>>>> industry. Recycling Offset Credits (ROCs) may be used to calculate
>>>> an equivalent offset of your carbon footprint.
>>>>
>>>> RecycleNet Corporation invites any company, institution or
>>>> organization to participate in the voluntary ROCs program by
>>>> reporting materials recycled. There is no fee to participate and 
>>>> the
>>>> program is open and applicable to anyone in all stages of the
>>>> recycling/reverse distribution supply chain.
>>>>
>>>> For more information and to participate in the Recycling Offset
>>>> Credits program please visit www.recycle.net/offsetcredits.
>>>>
>>>> About RecycleNet
>>>>
>>>> RecycleNet operates The Online Secondary Commodities Exchange.
>>>> Founded in 1995, RecycleNet created a powerful platform to
>>>> facilitate the international trade of secondary commodities.
>>>> RecycleNet Corporation enables trade on a local, national and
>>>> international basis with customized sites locating markets around
>>>> the world in many different commodities. On any given day, there 
>>>> are
>>>> in excess of $200 million in new items listed within our exchanges.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Rebecca Jewell
>>>> Recycling Programs Manager
>>>> Davis Street Station for Material Recycling & Transfer
>>>> A Waste Management company
>>>> 510-563-4214
>>>>
>>>> Fun Fact: Waste Management recycled more than 5 million tons of
>>>> commodities last year; preventing the release of more than 3.4
>>>> million metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
> == 2 of 2 ==
> Date: Fri, Jun 20 2008 4:41 am
> From: Alan Muller
>
>
> At 12:08 PM 6/19/2008 -0700, Mary Lou Van Deventer wrote:
>
>> At Urban Ore, one of our managers is investigating this carbon-offset
>> idea for our company.  Our attorney just asked me if the manager is
>> head of the Greenwashing Department.  We're kind of ambivalent 
>> about it.
>
> It's not too much of a stretch to imagine a situation in which every
> image-sensitive corporation and agency in the world is claiming to be
> "carbon neutral" but nothing has really changed at all....
>
> Alan Muller
> Green Delaware
>
>
>
>> Mary Lou Van Deventer
>> Urban Ore
>> 900 Murray St.
>> Berkeley, CA 94710
>> marylouvan@no.address
>>
>>
>> On Jun 19, 2008, at 12:00 PM, Jewell, Rebecca wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>> http://www.foxbusiness.com/story/markets/industries/technology/
>> recyclenet-rocs-recycling-offset-credits/-2010196893
>>>
>>> SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH, Jun 19, 2008 (MARKET WIRE via COMTEX) ----Paul
>>> Roszel, Chairman of RecycleNet Corporation (OTCBB: GARM)is pleased
>>> to introduce the Recycling Offset Credit (ROCs) program. This
>>> program provides a certified measurement system to recognize and
>>> reward companies for their recycling efforts. RecycleNet will issue/
>>> award Recycling Offset Credits (ROCs) for each ton of material
>>> recycled by participants.
>>>
>>> As a result of the increased awareness of climate change and global
>>> warming, more and more people have become concerned about greenhouse
>>> gas emissions and are developing strategies to reduce their carbon
>>> footprint. Many companies, individuals and institutions have
>>> implemented carbon neutral goals.
>>>
>>> The Recycling Offset Credits (ROCs) program is an effort to provide
>>> a universally recognized standard to measure and certify recycling
>>> efforts and to demonstrate the economic impact of the recycling
>>> industry. Recycling Offset Credits (ROCs) may be used to calculate
>>> an equivalent offset of your carbon footprint.
>>>
>>> RecycleNet Corporation invites any company, institution or
>>> organization to participate in the voluntary ROCs program by
>>> reporting materials recycled. There is no fee to participate and the
>>> program is open and applicable to anyone in all stages of the
>>> recycling/reverse distribution supply chain.
>>>
>>> For more information and to participate in the Recycling Offset
>>> Credits program please visit www.recycle.net/offsetcredits.
>>>
>>> About RecycleNet
>>>
>>> RecycleNet operates The Online Secondary Commodities Exchange.
>>> Founded in 1995, RecycleNet created a powerful platform to
>>> facilitate the international trade of secondary commodities.
>>> RecycleNet Corporation enables trade on a local, national and
>>> international basis with customized sites locating markets around
>>> the world in many different commodities. On any given day, there are
>>> in excess of $200 million in new items listed within our exchanges.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Rebecca Jewell
>>> Recycling Programs Manager
>>> Davis Street Station for Material Recycling & Transfer
>>> A Waste Management company
>>> 510-563-4214
>>>
>>> Fun Fact: Waste Management recycled more than 5 million tons of
>>> commodities last year; preventing the release of more than 3.4
>>> million metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions.
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
> ======================================================================
> ========
> TOPIC: Connett and Leonard to stir things up in Vancouver next week
> http://groups.google.com/group/GreenYes/browse_thread/thread/
> 9e138097c868c004?hl=en
> ======================================================================
> ========
>
> == 1 of 3 ==
> Date: Fri, Jun 20 2008 12:43 pm
> From: Dan Knapp
>
>
> Thanks for the announcement, Helen:
>
> Congratulations!  This will be a wonderful test of the Product Policy
> Institute's overall theory of how to get to Zero Waste.  Good luck to
> you as you try to slay the incinerator dragon(s) using EPR as your
> sword.
>
> We recyclers beat our incinerator in 1982 by going to the voters with
> an initiative and the slogan "Give Recycling a Chance!"  I know from
> Australian and New Zealand experience that parliamentary systems have
> nothing comparable to the voter initiative.  Probably Canada is
> similar.  It's too bad, because you can use the voter initiative to
> bypass elected officials and make law directly.  We do it all the
> time here in California.
>
> Even the threat of an initiative can make law.  That's how Berkeley's
> zero waste ordinance was passed.  A Zero Waste Initiative had been
> written and was getting ready for launch, but the Mayor and Council
> heard about it and passed it on the consent calendar at a regular
> City Council meeting.
>
> On the other hand, you can pitch the issue as resource conservation
> versus resource destruction.  We did that to great effect here, as
> our slogan implies, and we helped the public defeat at least 8 more
> incinerators in the Bay Area during the 1980's.  Materials recovery
> enterprises led the fight against the incinerator in Berkeley; we
> said it was unfair competition for the discard supply that we wanted
> access to in order to grow our businesses.  We said the huge upfront
> capital cost would force limits on us, and might even compel
> government to put us out of business so they could keep the
> incinerator going to pay off the financing.
>
> Sure enough, when the voters said no to the incinerator option, all
> sorts of recycling businesses grew and proliferated and
> differentiated into an interlocking industry of niche operators that
> is currently very powerful and a major employer.
>
> The Product Policy Institute's view of recycling as a subtle way to
> enable wasting might get you in logical trouble here.
>
> In my humble opinion, after Annie and Paul depart you need to ask
> some experienced large-volume hands-on recyclers to come in and make
> the case that clean reuse, recycling, and composting is the
> conservative course for Vancouver to follow, not wasting by burning.
>
> Dan Knapp
> Urban Ore, Inc., a reuse and recycling business since 1980
>
>
> On Jun 19, 2008, at 4:17 PM, Helen Spiegelman wrote:
>
>> For months, metro Vancouver has been quietly putting the pieces in
>> place to build as many as six shiny new incinerators here.... but
>> help is at hand.
>>
>> The stars have aligned to bring both Annie Leonard and Paul Connett
>> to our town next week. We are looking forward to a keynote address
>> by Annie at the Recycling Council of BC's annual conference and no
>> less than three public appearances by the tireless Connett, one
>> downwind, one in a host community, and one right in downtown
>> Vancouver.
>>
>> Helen Spiegelman
>> Zero Waste Vancouver
>>
>>
>>>
>
>
>
>
>
> == 2 of 3 ==
> Date: Fri, Jun 20 2008 3:31 pm
> From: Helen Spiegelman
>
>
> Hi Dan ~
>
> I have the sense that we're closing a circle.
>
> Brenda Platt asked a really insightful question at a meeting ten 
> years ago
> or so. She asked what could be done to prevent EPR taking the form of
> vertical-integration. You can see the potential: producers set up 
> captive
> companies to control the supply of their discards. We saw it with 
> Lexmark
> in US. We see it today with Encorp Pacific here in BC.
>
> A Canadian analyst in Ontario, Usman Valiante, has written about 
> how EPR is
> giving rise to monopolistic/monopsonistic companies, which is 
> arguably less
> healthy than the free market competition for discards. If you 
> haven't read
> Usmans's stuff on used oil, tires, etc. I'll try to find weblinks.
>
> What we're starting to work on here in BC, now that we have EPR 
> legislation
> in place, is to find tools that local governments and others can 
> use to
> encourage the emergence of companies in local communities that can 
> provide
> creative responses to the opportunity offered by EPR. There's going 
> to be
> an interesting session at the Recycling Council's conference next 
> week on
> this topic. I'll be attending with Paul and I'll report back.
>
> That's why it's so heart-breaking when elected officials listen to 
> their
> staff, who are vested in wasting, rather than listening to local 
> businesses
> who could grow the tax base by offering alternatives.
>
> H.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> At 12:43 PM 6/20/2008, Dan Knapp wrote:
>> Thanks for the announcement, Helen:
>>
>> Congratulations!  This will be a wonderful test of the Product Policy
>> Institute's overall theory of how to get to Zero Waste.  Good luck 
>> to you
>> as you try to slay the incinerator dragon(s) using EPR as your sword.
>>
>> We recyclers beat our incinerator in 1982 by going to the voters 
>> with an
>> initiative and the slogan "Give Recycling a Chance!"  I know from
>> Australian and New Zealand experience that parliamentary systems have
>> nothing comparable to the voter initiative.  Probably Canada is
>> similar.  It's too bad, because you can use the voter initiative 
>> to bypass
>> elected officials and make law directly.  We do it all the time 
>> here in
>> California.
>>
>> Even the threat of an initiative can make law.  That's how 
>> Berkeley's zero
>> waste ordinance was passed.  A Zero Waste Initiative had been 
>> written and
>> was getting ready for launch, but the Mayor and Council heard 
>> about it and
>> passed it on the consent calendar at a regular City Council meeting.
>>
>> On the other hand, you can pitch the issue as resource 
>> conservation versus
>> resource destruction.  We did that to great effect here, as our 
>> slogan
>> implies, and we helped the public defeat at least 8 more 
>> incinerators in
>> the Bay Area during the 1980's.  Materials recovery enterprises 
>> led the
>> fight against the incinerator in Berkeley; we said it was unfair
>> competition for the discard supply that we wanted access to in 
>> order to
>> grow our businesses.  We said the huge upfront capital cost would 
>> force
>> limits on us, and might even compel government to put us out of 
>> business
>> so they could keep the incinerator going to pay off the financing.
>>
>> Sure enough, when the voters said no to the incinerator option, 
>> all sorts
>> of recycling businesses grew and proliferated and differentiated 
>> into an
>> interlocking industry of niche operators that is currently very 
>> powerful
>> and a major employer.
>>
>> The Product Policy Institute's view of recycling as a subtle way 
>> to enable
>> wasting might get you in logical trouble here.
>>
>> In my humble opinion, after Annie and Paul depart you need to ask 
>> some
>> experienced large-volume hands-on recyclers to come in and make 
>> the case
>> that clean reuse, recycling, and composting is the conservative 
>> course for
>> Vancouver to follow, not wasting by burning.
>>
>> Dan Knapp
>> Urban Ore, Inc., a reuse and recycling business since 1980
>>
>>
>> On Jun 19, 2008, at 4:17 PM, Helen Spiegelman wrote:
>>
>>> For months, metro Vancouver has been quietly putting the pieces 
>>> in place
>>> to build as many as six shiny new incinerators here.... but help 
>>> is at hand.
>>>
>>> The stars have aligned to bring both Annie Leonard and Paul 
>>> Connett to
>>> our town next week. We are looking forward to a keynote address 
>>> by Annie
>>> at the Recycling Council of BC's annual conference and no less 
>>> than three
>>> public appearances by the tireless Connett, one downwind, one in 
>>> a host
>>> community, and one right in downtown Vancouver.
>>>
>>> Helen Spiegelman
>>> <http://blog.zerowastevancouver.org/>Zero Waste Vancouver
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> == 3 of 3 ==
> Date: Fri, Jun 20 2008 10:02 pm
> From: David Jaber
>
>
> Helen,
>
> EPR-as-vertical integration means to me that a company sets up a
> system for their specific product at end-of-life (e.g. HP reclaims
> it's own toner cartridges for reuse).  That doesn't sound like a bad
> thing, and I'm not seeing how it's a monopoly.  Could you explain?
>
> On Jun 20, 2008, at 3:31 PM, Helen Spiegelman wrote:
>
>> Hi Dan ~
>>
>> I have the sense that we're closing a circle.
>>
>> Brenda Platt asked a really insightful question at a meeting ten
>> years ago or so. She asked what could be done to prevent EPR taking
>> the form of vertical-integration. You can see the potential:
>> producers set up captive companies to control the supply of their
>> discards. We saw it with Lexmark in US. We see it today with Encorp
>> Pacific here in BC.
>>
>> A Canadian analyst in Ontario, Usman Valiante, has written about
>> how EPR is giving rise to monopolistic/monopsonistic companies,
>> which is arguably less healthy than the free market competition for
>> discards. If you haven't read Usmans's stuff on used oil, tires,
>> etc. I'll try to find weblinks.
>>
>> What we're starting to work on here in BC, now that we have EPR
>> legislation in place, is to find tools that local governments and
>> others can use to encourage the emergence of companies in local
>> communities that can provide creative responses to the opportunity
>> offered by EPR. There's going to be an interesting session at the
>> Recycling Council's conference next week on this topic. I'll be
>> attending with Paul and I'll report back.
>>
>> That's why it's so heart-breaking when elected officials listen to
>> their staff, who are vested in wasting, rather than listening to
>> local businesses who could grow the tax base by offering 
>> alternatives.
>>
>> H.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> At 12:43 PM 6/20/2008, Dan Knapp wrote:
>>> Thanks for the announcement, Helen:
>>>
>>> Congratulations!  This will be a wonderful test of the Product
>>> Policy Institute's overall theory of how to get to Zero Waste.
>>> Good luck to you as you try to slay the incinerator dragon(s)
>>> using EPR as your sword.
>>>
>>> We recyclers beat our incinerator in 1982 by going to the voters
>>> with an initiative and the slogan "Give Recycling a Chance!"  I
>>> know from Australian and New Zealand experience that parliamentary
>>> systems have nothing comparable to the voter initiative.  Probably
>>> Canada is similar.  It's too bad, because you can use the voter
>>> initiative to bypass elected officials and make law directly.  We
>>> do it all the time here in California.
>>>
>>> Even the threat of an initiative can make law.  That's how
>>> Berkeley's zero waste ordinance was passed.  A Zero Waste
>>> Initiative had been written and was getting ready for launch, but
>>> the Mayor and Council heard about it and passed it on the consent
>>> calendar at a regular City Council meeting.
>>>
>>> On the other hand, you can pitch the issue as resource
>>> conservation versus resource destruction.  We did that to great
>>> effect here, as our slogan implies, and we helped the public
>>> defeat at least 8 more incinerators in the Bay Area during the
>>> 1980's.  Materials recovery enterprises led the fight against the
>>> incinerator in Berkeley; we said it was unfair competition for the
>>> discard supply that we wanted access to in order to grow our
>>> businesses.  We said the huge upfront capital cost would force
>>> limits on us, and might even compel government to put us out of
>>> business so they could keep the incinerator going to pay off the
>>> financing.
>>>
>>> Sure enough, when the voters said no to the incinerator option,
>>> all sorts of recycling businesses grew and proliferated and
>>> differentiated into an interlocking industry of niche operators
>>> that is currently very powerful and a major employer.
>>>
>>> The Product Policy Institute's view of recycling as a subtle way
>>> to enable wasting might get you in logical trouble here.
>>>
>>> In my humble opinion, after Annie and Paul depart you need to ask
>>> some experienced large-volume hands-on recyclers to come in and
>>> make the case that clean reuse, recycling, and composting is the
>>> conservative course for Vancouver to follow, not wasting by burning.
>>>
>>> Dan Knapp
>>> Urban Ore, Inc., a reuse and recycling business since 1980
>>>
>
> David Jaber
> LEED AP
> Natural Logic
> 510-248-4941
> djaber@no.address
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> http://www.natlogic.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ======================================================================
> ========
>
> 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]