Today's Topics:
"Best practices for wood waste recycling"
[Fwd: Land & Water Conservation Fund]
AB 362 - Environmental Advertising - Letters of Support
Lawless logging---Action Alert
NER's action on DPPEA
Summary CRRA Agenda for Next Millenium
Trial Grassroots Recycling Network Website
Send Replies or notes for publication to: <greenyes@UCSD.Edu>
Send subscription requests to: <greenyes-Digest-Request@UCSD.Edu>
Problems you can't solve otherwise to postmaster@ucsd.edu.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 01 Apr 1997 10:32:35 -0500
From: "Blair Pollock" <bpollock@town.ci.chapel-hill.nc.us>
Subject: "Best practices for wood waste recycling"
ReTap from Clean Washington Center is presenting this seminar in Seattle
4/14, Baltimore 4/16, Charlotte,NC 4/17 and Elmhurst IL 4/25. The brohcure says:
"One day workshop will provide you access to todays proven and effective rcy
tech's for handling wood waste. Optimize processing to meet feedstock
requirements. Increase product value. Enhance product performance. Gain
competitive advantage and improve econ. effic.
Contact Mary Lynch at Clean#Wash Center: (206) 587-4217. $100 registration
fee: amil to IRU c.o Workshop Coordinator PO Box 11017 Eugene OR 97440
(541)344-9454.
Also a couple of interesting articles on wood waste use and characteristics
in C&D Recycling Jan/Feb 97 issue for those who care about wood waste.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 02 Apr 1997 19:45:27 -0800
From: Bob Harsell <riverboy@injersey.com>
Subject: [Fwd: Land & Water Conservation Fund]
Received: from igc7.igc.org (igc7.igc.apc.org [192.82.108.35])
by nj5.injersey.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id VAA16365
for <riverboy@injersey.com>; Mon, 31 Mar 1997 21:25:25 -0500 (EST)
Received: from igc3.igc.apc.org (igc3.igc.apc.org [192.82.108.33])
by igc7.igc.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id SAA18087;
Mon, 31 Mar 1997 18:12:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ppp19.igc.org (dschvejda@ppp19.igc.org [198.94.6.19])
by igc3.igc.apc.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id SAA18612;
Mon, 31 Mar 1997 18:05:46 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <199704010205.SAA18612@igc3.igc.apc.org>
X-Old-Sender: <dschvejda@pop.igc.apc.org>
From: "Dennis W. Schvejda" <dschvejda@igc.apc.org>
Organization: Sierra Club
To: 76645.1745@CompuServe.COM, MShield@ix.netcom.com, spiewak1@soho.ios.com,
MPOLSKY@dep.state.nj.us, jonathan.goodnough@harpercollins.com,
blossomfarms@earthlink.net, dennis.winters@sierraclub.org,
llynch@vet.upenn.edu, sarahf@phoenix.princeton.edu,
riverboy@injersey.com, yasuhara@cs.rutgers.edu, katken@jersey.net,
nt800044@ix.netcom.com, eholste@igc.org, fcgw38a@prodigy.com,
gxp@november.diac.com, rvccsea@rvcc.raritanval.edu,
larrymb@gramercy.ios.com, dak3203@is3.nyu.edu,
gwaters@molbiol.princeton.edu, enelson@bdts.bd.com, jgmac@intac.com,
duffyr@rider.edu, wlane@eden.rutgers.edu, 102122.3446@CompuServe.COM,
tennjed@erols.com, marian_mosley@ccgate.sysdev.telerate.com,
cstummer@cosi.stockton.edu, BassAndVoc@aol.com, earthgoddess@juno.com,
mitch...@worldnet.att.net, FATE76@aol.com, TSchvejda@aol.com,
76145.1753@CompuServe.COM, Stu342@aol.com, SINGLECELL@msn.com,
sterlfor@magiccarpet.com
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 1997 21:03:25 +0000
Subject: Land & Water Conservation Fund
Reply-to: dschvejda@igc.apc.org
Priority: normal
X-mailer: Pegasus Mail/Windows (v1.22)
Sender: dschvejda@igc.org
X-UIDL: 6ce22770a6120328aaee7e0aeb6c6cb3
Status: U
X-Mozilla-Status: 0001
==============================
Land & Water Conservation Fund
==============================
We focused on the Land & Water Conservation Fund in the February issue of
the Sierra Activist. Following is an update...
Congressmen Mica (R-FL) and Farr (D-CA) are circulating a "Dear Colleague"
letter to help get more money for land acquisition from the Land and Water
Conservation Fund.
I will be contacting the NJ Congressional delegation, asking them to sign
on to this letter.
I need your help. I need YOU to add your voice to mine by calling/faxing/
e-mailing your Representative, and asking them to sign this letter.
The deadline for this letter is April 8, 1997.
Remember, NJ received $0 from the stateside program last year. Unless we act,
that's what we'll get this year. Nothing.
Here's the letter_
*******************************
Mica-Farr Dear Colleague Letter
*******************************
The Honorable Ralph Regula
Subcommittee on Interior Appropriations
B 308 Rayburn HOB
Washington, DC 20515
The Honorable Sidney R. Yates
Subcommittee on Interior Appropriations
1016 Longworth HOB
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Chairman Regula and Mr. Yates,
We are writing today to urge your support for the earmarking of
land acquisition funds in the FY 1998 Interior and Related Agencies
Appropriations Bill. We thank you, too, for your support for the many
projects you funded through the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF)
in the FY 1997 Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Bill.
We appreciate the success that your subcommittee has achieved
over the years in funding important land acquisition projects through
the LWCF. Your efforts have helped ensure the conservation of millions
of acres of environmentally sensitive lands throughout our nation. The
preservation of these natural resources will provide our constituents
and future generations enormous benefits which include the protection
of wildlife habitat and the expansion of outdoor recreational
activities. We know that your work demands difficult choices and that
you have always given conservation needs the highest consideration.
It is our view that the traditional process of earmarking
projects in the Interior Appropriations bill is the best means of
achieving land conservation goals we all share. It is critical that
specific decisions on land acquisition be included in the conference
report which is approved by Congress rather than through an ambiguous
and bureaucratic decision-making process which may take place after
Congress has adjourned.
We strongly urge you to support the earmarking of land
acquisition funds in the Interior Appropriations Bill. We are
confident that, working together under your leadership, we can continue
preserving natural resource lands for generations.
Sincerely,
Sam Farr
Member of Congress
John Mica
Member of Congress
*Your House Member as well!*
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Fact Sheet on LWCF
THE LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND
A Simple Idea
In 1965, Congress created the Land and Water Conservation Fund to
preserve habitat and assure that all Americans have access to quality
outdoor recreation to strengthen the health and vitality of the
citizens of the United States. It was a simple idea: "pay as you go"
program using revenues from resource use to support the creation of
parks, forests, clean water, and open spaces and to guarantee outdoor
opportunities and a clean environment for all Americans.
How LWCF Actually Works
The Land and Water Conservation Fund receives $900 million each year,
primarily from fees paid by companies drilling off-shore for oil and
gas. Congress intended for this money to be used in two ways.
1. Fund federal purchase of land and water areas for recreation and
conservation and development of recreational resources open to
all Americans.
2. Provide federal funds to states to assist in planning,
acquisition, and development of needed land and water areas and
recreation facilities.
At least 40 percent of LWCF dollars must be used for the federal
purchases in a given year.
Federal Program
Moneys appropriated from the fund for federal purposes are used for the
following:
* Public acquisition of land and water by the National Parks System,
or are authorized by the Secretary of the Interior for outdoor
recreation purposes;
* Public purchase of private holdings within national forests and
wilderness areas;
* Public acquisition of areas for the preservation of species of
fish or wildlife that are threatened with extinction;
* Other acquisitions as authorized by law. (e.g. In 1996, Congress
authorized and appropriated $9 million to the Palisades Interstate
Park Commission for the public purchase of Sterling Forest.)
State Program
Roughly 40 percent of funds for the state program are divided equally
among the states. The National Park Service then takes into account
other factors in distributing the rest of the state-side money,
including total population of the state and total population of the
state living in urban areas.
State-side LWCF funds can generally be used to acquire land, build or
repair recreation or park facilities, provide riding and hiking trails,
enhance recreational access, and provide wildlife and hunting areas.
The LWCF state grant program matches up to 50 percent of the cost of
the project, with the balance of project funds paid by states or
localities. Fund recipients are limited to state agencies and
municipalities.
An Investment With Results
The Land and Water Conservation Fund has been an investment with
results that touch all Americans. In the 30 years since its creation,
LWCF has been responsible for the acquisition of nearly seven million
acres of parkland and open space and the development of more than
37,000 parks and recreation projects. From playgrounds and ball fields
to national historical sites, scenic trails, and nature reserves, LWCF
has been the key to providing places for all Americans to recreate,
relax, and get outdoors.
A Broken Promise
Congress has broken its promise with the American people by misusing
the Land and Water Conservation Fund. LWCF receives $900 million each
year, and every year, as much as 85 percent of the Fund is diverted for
purposes other than conservation and recreation. In fact, since
Congress originally made its commitment to conserve the American
outdoors in 1964, it has diverted $11 billion of LWCF to other uses.
In recent years, Congress has not funded the state program at all.
Every year, we lose countless opportunities to conserve precious
resources and open space for all Americans to enjoy.
**What You Can Do
Contact your Representative. Ask them to sign the Mica/Farr
"Dear Colleague" letter. Ask them to work toward full funding
of the Land and Water Conservation Fund to renew their commitment
to investing in America's natural heritage and providing recreation
opportunities for all Americans.
*********************************************
*Call Congress Toll Free! 800-972-3524
*********************************************
Contact Info...
Robert Franks (R)
E-Mail: FRANKSNJ@HR.HOUSE.GOV
Rodney Frelinghuysen (R)
E-Mail: NJELEVEN@HR.HOUSE.GOV
Frank LoBiondo (R)
E-Mail: LOBIONDO@HR.HOUSE.GOV
Michael Pappas (R)
Fax: 202-225-6025
Marge Roukema (R)
Fax 202-225-9048
James Saxton (R)
Fax: 202-225-0778
Chris Smith (R)
Fax: 202-225-7768
Robert Andrews (D)
E-Mail: RANDREWS@HR.HOUSE.GOV
Robert Menendez (D)
Fax 202-226-0792
Frank Pallone (D)
Fax: 202-225-9665
William Pascrell, Jr. (D)
Fax: 202-225-5782
Donald Payne (D)
Fax: 202-225-4160
Steve Rothman (D)
Fax: 202-225-5061
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 02 Apr 1997 12:32:45 -0800
From: Rick Best <rgbest@ix.netcom.com>
Subject: AB 362 - Environmental Advertising - Letters of Support
** ACTION ALERT **
TO: Interested Parties
FR: Rick Best
DT: March 27, 1997
RE: AB 362 (Bowen) - Truth in Environmental Advertising - SUPPORT
Assembly Bill 362 has been introduced by Assembly Member Debra Bowen. The
bill reintroduces the Truth in Environmental Advertising Law, AB 3994
(Sher), that was signed into law in 1990, but was repealed by SB 426
(Leslie) in 1995.
AB 362 establishes clear standards for the use of certain environmental
marketing terms, including "recycled," "biodegradable," photodegradable,"
and "ozone friendly." The bill currently does not include "recyclable," a
term that was contained in the original 1990 law, but was thrown out by the
courts as being unconsitutionally vague. We hope that the author will
include "recyclable" in the bill once a suitable definition can be written.
Background. Soon after the introduction of the original law, industry
groups sought to have the law nulified by the courts, challenging the law
as violating the First Amendment protections for free speech. The State of
California, along with Californians Against Waste and the Environmental
Defense Fund who joined in the State's defense, successfully argued that
the law was an appopriate regulation of commerical speech. The industry's
appeal of the appeals court decision was denied by the U.S. Supreme Court
on October 2, 1992, thus upholding the constitutionality of the law.
Unfortunately, Governor Wilson signed SB 426 four days later, repealing the
entire law.
Existing statutes now refer to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC)
guidelines which are unenforceable and provide only general guidance for
the use of environmental marketing claims. Furthermore, the guidelines do
not contain any specific standards such as those contained in the original
California law. For example, a product or package may be labeled as
"recycled" under the FTC guidelines even if it has no postconsumer content;
the original California law required at least 10% postconsumer content to
label a product as "recycled."
The bill is scheduled to be heard in Assembly Consumer Protection Committee
on Tuesday, April 8th. Letters in support of the bill are needed. Please
address your letter to the author at:
Assembly Member Debra Bowen (916) 445-8528
California State Assembly (916) 327-2201fax
State Capitol, Room 4112
Sacramento, CA 95814
In your letter, please highlight why you believe it is important to have a
Truth in Environmental Advertising Law here in California. In particular,
please highlight how the public can be mislead through the use of the terms
"recycled" and "recyclable" and why clear standards are necessary to
prevent public confusion. You might highlight how the members of the
public react when they take items labeled as "recyclable" to a recycling
center or put them in their curbside bin, but are then told that the items
cannot be "recycled."
Please be sure to fax a copy of your letter to CAW at (916) 443-3912. For
a copy of the bill or for more information, please give Rick Best a call at
(916) 443-5422.
** CAW Letter **
April 1, 1997
Assembly Member Susan Davis
Chair, Assembly Consumer Protection Committee
State Capitol
Sacramento, CA 95814
RE: AB 362 (Bowen) - Environmental Advertising - SUPPORT
Dear Assembly Member Davis:
Californians Against Waste urges your support of Assembly Bill 362 by
Assembly Member Debra Bowen. AB 362 reintroduces the California Truth in
Environmental Advertising Law which was passed into law in 1990 by AB 3994
(Sher), but was repealed in 1995 by SB 426 (Leslie).
AB 362 establishes clear standards for the use of environmental marketing
claims, including the use of the terms "recycled," "photodegradable,"
"biodegradable" and "ozone friendly." Establishing these clear standards
ensures that consumers will be provided with meaningful claims on products
and packages and provides manufacturers with certainty regarding what is a
permissible environmental marketing claim. It also provides clear
standards by which to take action when false or misleading advertising
claims are made.
The Truth in Environmental Advertising Law was first passed in 1990 by
Assembly Member Byron Sher. The bill passed in response to a flood of
environmental marketing claims made during the late 1980's. At the time
manufacturers were trying to take advantage of the "green" movement and
identify their product as environmentally friendly even when there were no
environmental attributes or features which could distinguish the product.
The law succeeded in curbing the misuse of several specific terms as well
as the blatant use of false environmental claims by product makers and
advertisers.
Unfortunately, the law was repealed in 1995 with the false understanding
that the State would be moving towards a national standard for
environmental marketing claims. The legislation which repealed the law, SB
426, made reference to the Federal Trade Commission Guidelines for the Use
of Environmental Marketing Claims ("FTC Guides"). Unfortunately, the FTC
guides contain only general guidelines and examples for marketing claims
and cannot be enforced. All of the actions taken by the FTC against
companies making environmental claims have been made under the FTC's
general authority to regulate marketing claims. Both AB 362 and the
original law have a provision which invalidate the California's
requirements if the products meet the defintions contained in any trade
rules adopted by the Federal Trade Commission. Such uniform national
standards have never been adopted.
The repeal of the Truth in Environmental Advertising Law was orchestrated
by manufacturers after their unsuccessful attempt to strike down the law in
the courts. In 1992, a coalition of ten industry groups, including the
Association of National Advertisers, the Society for the Plastics Industry,
and the California Chamber of Commerce, filed suit against the law charging
that it violated their First Amendment rights to free speech. Throughout a
lengthy court battle including an appeal to the United States Supreme
Court, the courts upheld the law finding that it was a proper regulation of
commercial speech.
One major environmental marketing claim which AB 362 will address is the
use of the term "recycled." AB 362 requires any product labeled as
"recycled" to contain at least 10% postconsumer material. Under the
current FTC guidelines, a product can be labeled as "recycled" even if the
product has no postconsumer material. Consequently, products which contain
only scraps from the manufacturing floor and contain none of the material
collected in local residential and business recycling programs can still be
labeled as "recycled." But when the consumer goes to the store, they
expect that the product is made from the paper, glass, metals and other
materials that they recycle at home or work. AB 362 will ensure that those
products contain at least 10% postconsumer material.
Another major claim which has frequently been abused is the use of the term
"recyclable." Manufacturers continue to label a variety of products as
recyclable, even though few if any facilities in California will accept
them for recycling. Consumers want to know when a product can be recycled
in their community, not simply if it is technically recyclable but no
facilities exist to recycle it.
We believe AB 362 should be expanded to include a definition for the term
"recyclable." A definition for "recyclable" was included in the original
law, but it was understood the definition needed refinement. Unfortunately,
manufacturing representatives pulled out of negotiations when cleanup
legislation was proposed in 1992 (AB 144) and the original definition was
subsequently struck down by the courts. Manufacturers should sit down with
consumer and environmental groups and come up with a definition that will
work for both consumers and manufacturers.
We urge you to support AB 362 in committee next Tuesday. AB 362 will
provide clear, enforceable standards for environmental marketing claims and
ensure that consumers are provided accurate information about the products
which truly benefit the environment.
Sincerely,
Rick Best
Policy Director
cc: Members, Assembly Consumer Protection Committee
Assembly Member Debra Bowen
Senator Byron Sher
** Text of Bill **
BILL NUMBER: AB 362 INTRODUCED 02/19/97
INTRODUCED BY Assembly Member Bowen
(Coauthor: Senator Sher)
FEBRUARY 19, 1997
An act to amend Section 17580 of, to add Section 17508.5 to, and to repeal
Section 17580.5 of,
the Business and Professions Code, and to repeal Section 1 of Chapter 642
of the Statutes of 1995,
relating to environmental advertising.
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
AB 362, as introduced, Bowen. Environmental advertising.
(1) Existing law provides that it is a misdemeanor for a person to make any
untruthful, deceptive, or
misleading environmental marketing claim, whether explicit or implied, and
defines "environmental
marketing claim" to include any claim contained in the "Guides for the Use
of Environmental
Marketing Claims" published by the Federal Trade Commission. Existing law
also provides that it is a
defense to a suit or complaint brought under these provisions if a person's
environmental marketing
claims conform to the Federal Trade Commission standards, as specified.
This bill would repeal these and related provisions and instead would make
it unlawful for a person to
represent that a consumer good, as defined, which it manufactures or
distributes, is "ozone friendly,"
"biodegradable," "photodegradable," or "recycled," unless that article
meets specified definitions or
meets definitions established in trade rules adopted by the Federal Trade
Commission. Since
violation of these provisions would be a misdemeanor, the bill would create
a new crime, thereby
imposing a state-mandated local program.
(2) The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local
agencies and school districts for
certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish
procedures for making that
reimbursement.
This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a
specified reason.
Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes. State-mandated
local program: yes.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Section 17508.5 is added to the Business and Professions Code,
to read:
17508.5. It is unlawful for any person to represent that any consumer good
that it manufactures or
distributes is "ozone friendly," or any like term that connotes that
stratospheric ozone is not being
depleted, "biodegradable," "photodegradable," or "recycled" unless that
consumer good meets the
definitions contained in this section, or meets definitions established in
trade rules adopted by the
Federal Trade Commission. For the purposes of this section, the following
words have the following
meanings:
(a) "Ozone friendly," or any like term that connotes that stratospheric
ozone is not being depleted,
means that any chemical or material released into the environment as a
result of the use or production
of a product will not migrate to the stratosphere and cause unnatural and
accelerated deterioration of
ozone.
(b) "Biodegradable" means that a material has the proven capability to
decompose in the most
common environment where the material is disposed within one year through
natural biological
processes into nontoxic carbonaceous soil, water, or carbon dioxide.
(c) "Photodegradable" means that a material has the proven capability to
decompose in the most
common environment where the material is disposed within one year through
physical processes,
such as exposure to heat and light, into nontoxic carbonaceous soil, water,
or carbon dioxide.
(d) "Recycled" means that an article's contents contain at least 10
percent, by weight, postconsumer
material, as defined in subdivision (b) of Section 12200 of the Public
Contract Code.
(e) "Consumer good" means any article that is used or bought for use
primarily for personal, family,
or household purposes.
(f) For the purposes of this section, a wholesaler or retailer who does not
initiate a representation by
advertising or by placing the representation on a package shall not be
deemed to have made the
representation.
SEC. 2. Section 17580 of the Business and Professions Code is amended to
read:
17580. (a) Any person who represents in advertising or on the label or
container of a consumer
good that the consumer good that it manufactures or distributes is not
harmful to, or is beneficial to,
the natural environment, through the use of such terms as "environmental
choice," "ecologically
friendly," "earth friendly," "environmentally friendly," "ecologically
sound," "environmentally sound,"
"environmentally safe," "ecologically safe," "environmentally lite," "green
product," or any other like
term, shall maintain in written form in its records the following
information and documentation
supporting the validity of the representation:
(1) The reasons why the person believes the representation to be true.
(2) Any significant adverse environmental impacts directly associated with
the production,
distribution, use, and disposal of the consumer good.
(3) Any measures that are taken by the person to reduce the environmental
impacts directly
associated with the production, distribution, and disposal of the consumer
good.
(4) Violations of any federal, state, or local permits directly associated
with the production or
distribution of the consumer good.
(5) Whether or not, if applicable, the consumer good conforms with the
uniform standards
contained in the Federal Trade Commission Guidelines for Environmental
Marketing Claims for the use of the terms meets the definitions of "recycled,"
"recyclable," "biodegradable," "photodegradable," or "ozone friendly."
friendly," as
defined in Section 17508.5.
(b) Information and documentation maintained pursuant to this section shall
be furnished to any
member of the public upon request.
(c) For the purposes of this section, a wholesaler or retailer who does not
initiate a representation by
advertising or by placing the representation on a package shall not be
deemed to have made the
representation.
(d) It is the intent of the Legislature that the information and
documentation supporting the validity of
the representation maintained under this section shall be fully disclosed
to the public, within the limits
of all applicable laws.
SEC. 3. Section 17580.5 of the Business and Professions Code is repealed.
17580.5. (a) It is unlawful for any person to make any untruthful,
deceptive, or misleading environmental marketing claim, whether explicit or
implied. For the purpose of this section, "environmental marketing claim"
shall include any claim contained in the "Guides for the Use of
Environmental Marketing Claims" published by the Federal Trade Commission.
(b) It shall be a defense to any suit or complaint brought under this
section that the person's environmental marketing claims conform to the
standards or are consistent with the examples contained in the "Guides for
the Use of Environmental Marketing Claims" published by the Federal Trade
Commission.
SEC. 4. Section 1 of Chapter 642 of the Statutes of 1995 is repealed.
SECTION 1. The Legislature finds and declares that it is the public policy
of the state that environmental marketing claims, whether explicit or
implied, must be substantiated by competent and reliable evidence to
prevent deceiving or misleading consumers about the environmental impact of
products and packages. Accurate and useful information about the
environmental impact of products and packages will not be available to
consumers unless uniform standards for environmental marketing claims, such
as the Federal Trade Commission Guidelines for Environmental Marketing
Claims, are adopted by the various states.
SEC. 5. No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to Section 6 of
Article XIIIB of the
California Constitution because the only costs that may be incurred by a
local agency or school
district will be incurred because this act creates a new crime or
infraction, eliminates a crime or
infraction, or changes the penalty for a crime or infraction, within the
meaning of Section 17556 of
the Government Code, or changes the definition of a crime within the
meaning of Section 6 of Article
XIIIB of the California Constitution.
Notwithstanding Section 17580 of the Government Code, unless otherwise
specified, the provisions
of this act shall become operative on the same date that the act takes
effect pursuant to the California
Constitution.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 2 Apr 1997 13:48:45 -0500 (EST)
From: EcoMarty@aol.com
Subject: Lawless logging---Action Alert
Please take the opportunity to help end destructive forestry practices in
California by calling these CA Assemblymembers. The more calls tallied in
support of Assembly Bill 1313 (read below for more info.), the more likely
the bill will succeed as it winds through the legislative process. Thank you
for your time and effort.
Marty Kirkwood
*****************************************************************
The following ACTION ALERT comes to you from the Environmental Protection
Information Center. It invloves Lawless Logging on private lands in
California and could help protect Headwaters Forest from a ruthless
"salvage logging" exemptions. Write a letter today to help protect the last
remaining privately owned old growth redwood forest!
ACTION ALERT
>
> There are several important bills working their way through the
>California state legislature right now. The most timely bill is AB
>1313, introduced by Ted Lempert of Palo Alto. AB 1313 would end the
>practice of allowing "exemptions" from environmental review for salvage
>logging operations in old-growth redwood forests. Despite constant
>pressure from EPIC and Sierra Club, among others, the California Board
>of Forestry has repeatedly failed to close this massive and destructive
>loophole. We're taking our campaign directly to the legislature, but
>the politicians really need to hear from the grassroots--we're the only
>source of political will in situations that pit the health of the forest
>against the profits of huge corporations!
>
>* * * A C T I O N A L E R T O F T H E W E E K * * *
> AB 1313 will be heard in the Assembly Natural Resources Committee on
>April 14. There are three critical swing votes on that committee that
>will either make or break this bill. Contact the following Assembly
>members, especially if they're in your district, and urge them to
>support AB 1313!
>
>Tony Cardenas
>9140 Van Nuys Blvd., Suite 109
>Panorama City, CA 91402
>(818) 894-3671 * fax (818) 894-4672
>
>Brooks Firestone
>101 W. Anaparnu St, Suite A
>Santa Barbara, CA 93101
>(805) 965-1994 * fax (805) 965-2046
>
>Kerry Mazzoni
>Marin City Civic Center
>3501 Civic Center Drive, Room 335
>San Rafael, CA 94903
>(415) 479-4920 * fax (415) 479-2123
>
>
############################################
# #
# California Wilderness Coalition #
# 2655 Portage Bay East, Suite 5 #
# Davis, California 95616 #
# (916) 758-0380 #
# (916) 758-0382 (fax) #
# cwc@wheel.dcn.davis.ca.us #
# #
############################################
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 1997 11:33:26 -0500
From: "Blair Pollock" <bpollock@town.ci.chapel-hill.nc.us>
Subject: NER's action on DPPEA
>
>The Joint Committee on Natural and Economic Resources (NER) has flagged
>DPPEA for possible cutting or elimination. DPPEA was the only environmental
>division flagged.
>
>Senator Martin (D-Pitt), one of NER's co-chairs, appears to be
>giving tacit approval if not direct encouragement to some of the Republican
>members (eg, Betsy Cochrane, Senator, R-Davie) to lead this attack. It is not
>a new attack - DPPEA in its old form, OWR, has been likewise targeted in the
>past, just as the funding of the RBAC was almost stopped by Martin last year.
>
>Supporters may want to be alerted to this issue and take the
>opportunity to express support of DPPEA to NER
>members, as well as to the leadership (Rep. Brubaker, Senator
>Basnight) and to key members such as Senator Odom. NER is expected
>to make its final recommendations as early as Friday, March 14th.
>
>
>
>
>
>
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 2 Apr 1997 12:37:22 -0800 (PST)
From: Tedd Ward <ncol0043@telis.org>
Subject: Summary CRRA Agenda for Next Millenium
Hi Brenda!
Here is the summary of CRRA's Policy Document which will also be the subject
of several sessions at the Conference in Monterey in June. I will bring
copies for all attendees of the Grassroots Recycling Network conference this
weekend, and will also bring about 50 copies of the full text. How many
people are coming?
Tedd Ward
_________
The California Resource Recovery Association's
Agenda for the Next Millennium
Summary
Although Americans comprise only 5% of the global population, we use 30% of
the world's resources. Global population doubled for the first time during
the last four decades and can be expected to double again over the next
four. We simply cannot continue our current course of increasing material
consumption per person. Unlimited growth is a more appropriate ideology
for a cancer cell than it is for a human society or a material culture.
Today we pay three times for most materials in our lives: once as consumers,
again to discard, and again in taxes to clean up the litter or leaking
landfills. There is no convenient, reliable way for our people to compare
the environmental, social and political impacts of extraction, processing,
packaging, delivery and ultimate disposal of different products. Even
worse, during the past ten years we have witnessed a dramatic growth in the
amount of deliberately misleading information produced by and for the
profiteers of the throwaway culture. As the oldest state recycling
organization in the United States, and as professionals in reuse, repair,
recycling and composting, the California Resource Recovery Association
offers our vision of how we can move towards a more sustainable resource
efficient economy. The way nutrients and materials are recycled in nature
is our model. Our goals are:
1. Zero waste. The goal is startling, audacious, and real. In a world
without waste, items which cannot be safely assimilated into the
environment simply could not be sold, but only leased. Local governments
could still collect and compost putrescibles, but the other materials would
remain the property and responsibility of those who aim to profit by their
sale. Garbage is an unfunded mandate. Until the lifecycle costs of goods
are fully incorporated into the purchase price, we must lead with a label to
inform citizens about the extraction and processing impacts of the goods we
use.
2. End welfare for wasting. We need to improve the resource efficiency of
our economy, and reduce the waste associated with resource extraction,
processing and manufacturing, packaging, distribution and sale. Although
the adverse environmental impacts of litter and even legal disposal can be
significant, reducing waste through reuse and recycling preserves the
environment mainly by reducing our need to mine and process new goods to
replace those we failed to reuse, repair or recycle. Federal and State
stewardship of public lands is undermined by outdated policies which
encourage wasting over conservation, and have often sped the unsustainable
extraction of the resources in the name short term economic development. We
must reform both the tax and campaign finance systems to improve the
resource efficiency of our economy.
3. Jumpstart jobs with design and discards. Recent research shows that
reuse, repair, composting and recycling operations generally create many
more jobs for the amount of discards processed than disposal alone, and
reuse businesses like tire retreaders or bottle washers create more local
jobs than their disposable competing products. Reuse, composting and
recycling conserves resources, creates jobs and builds communities.
To truly improve the material efficiency of our culture and economy, over
the next forty years we must change everything: how we manage our public
lands, how our elected officials finance campaigns and assess taxes, how we
design and manage our communities, how we design products and services, how
industries and government work together to improve resource and energy
efficiency, and how we define waste. We invite you to join us in helping to
achieve this vision.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 2 Apr 1997 13:57:34 -0800 (PST)
From: "David A. Kirkpatrick" <david@kirkworks.com>
Subject: Trial Grassroots Recycling Network Website
I have added a Grassroots Recycling Network section to KirkWorks website,
including our three policy papers, my zero waste local articles, and a few
other tidbits. Check it out at http://www.kirkworks.com/grn.html
and email me any suggestions on improvement or additions.
---------------------------------------
KirkWorks
good works for the good earth
=======================================
Address: Post Office Box 15062
Durham, NC 27704-0062
Voice: 919/220-8065
Fax: 919/220-9720
Email: david@kirkworks.com (NEW! Replaces dkirkwks@igc.apc.org)
Website: http://www.kirkworks.com (UPDATED AND EXPANDED 4/1/97!)
=======================================
------------------------------
End of GreenYes Digest V97 #67
******************************