It is the market, filling vacuums. One of the greatest frustration an
economist has about today's environmental movements is that they tend to
ignore the market at their peril. While condemning the inequality of
result, advocates of environmental reform never seem to grasp the
positive good the market can bring to there goals.
Consider the idea of subsidizing recycling versus real-cost accounting
for disposal. Under the subsidiziation prgram, you create the incentive
to bureacratize the economy, as the subsidized programs must be supported
by some sort of an administrative support structure. This also takes away
the copnsumer's choice. Since this
structure is publicly owned, it must be assumed that to fund the agency,
taxes either have to be raised or shifted from other programs. Under
real cost-disposal, the state creates a disincentive to dispose by
including everything under the sun in the disposal fee and then gets out
of the way, allowing individuals to make choice. Some will choose to be
wasteful, but most will not.
Finally, consider the regressivity of the subisidization programs.
Beacuse subisidization requires administration, taxes are raised on all
households regardless of ability to pay, taking a greater percentage of
poorer people's incomes.
In short, I think if the GRN is really wanting to work towards more
recycling, you are going to have to figure out a very pro-market
approach. You may not like what the capitalist system created, but look
at how clean our, the USA's, environment is relative to any other
country. Indeed, the countries that tried the opposite of capitalism
are now perhaps the most polluted regions in the globe. Capitalism, in
short, must become part of the envrionemntal movement if the movement is
to survive long term.
Its nice to think that all of recycling's problems were created by mostly
white men sitting in a darkened room drinking hard liquor and smoking
cigars, but it ain't so.
Bill McGowan
UCSB
Rincon Recycling
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 97 08:01:43 -0800
From: David Orr <johnmuir@igc.org>
Subject: GRN CAMPAIGNS?
Hi folks,
For those of you who don't know me, let me introduce myself: I'm a Sierra
Club and Earth Island Institute activist who works primarily on forest
conservation, but I have worked as waste prevention and recycling
director at a university campus. I'm currently a member of the club's
new No Commercial Logging on Public Lands task force. I am interested in
the Grassroots Recycling Network that will be meeting in Atlanta in
April. While I don't know that I could attend, I want to be involved in
some way in the development of the campaign.
I want to float the idea of connecting-up the forest activist movement
with the recycling/waste reduction movement. As the GRN gets going, it
will be important to make clear in the minds of the public we're trying
to communicate to, that one of the reasons we're advocating the zero
waste strategy is to protect wild places like forests. And of course,
forest activists need info on the effects that our failure to conserve
fiber materials has on the rate of logging.
I believe we need to pursue a strategy of reducing wood product usage in
much the same way that energy conservation policy was pushed in the 70s.
If we make the argument that forests can be saved by reducing consumption
and managing demand, rather than meeting "peak" fiber demand, then we can
make progress...
I propose that the GRN formally invite advocates for alternative fibers,
like ReThink Paper (project of Earth Island Institute), as well as forest
activists, to participate in campaign planning.
The Sierra Club's new campaign to end logging on public lands will need
lots of input from the GRN, since our work depends on the economic
arguments of reducing waste, increasing efficiency, and saving money (in
addition to the usual ecological arguments against continuing the timber
program).
I hope to hear from others who agree that a coordinated, unified
coalition among diverse groups will be a key element of the zero waste
strategy. Please feel free to email me at <davidorr@aol.com>
Thanks!
David Orr
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 22:04:50 -0700
From: cdchase@qualcomm.com (Carolyn Chase)
Subject: GRN CAMPAIGNS?
>I want to float the idea of connecting-up the forest activist movement
>with the recycling/waste reduction movement. As the GRN gets going, it
>will be important to make clear in the minds of the public we're trying
>to communicate to, that one of the reasons we're advocating the zero
>waste strategy is to protect wild places like forests. And of course,
>forest activists need info on the effects that our failure to conserve
>fiber materials has on the rate of logging.
++ I have been brain-deep - or something like that learning and thinking
about these connections for the last two weeks...having finished "Why Do
We Recycle" by Frank Ackerman (Island Press) and am now midway through an
amazing upcoming book by MIT Press called "The U.S. Paper Industry and
Sustainable Production, An Argument for Restructuring" by Maureen Smith,
being published on March 9th.
This book is chock full of the bare facts about the mature and dominating
timber-to-paper industry and global summary of forests, issues about
consumption, alternative fibers etc. sustainability, increases in
consumpation and demand, etc etc etc.
There is no question in my mind that linking the forest activism with waste
reduction, recycling and resource recovery issues is paramount to progress,
both political and on the ground.
I even started to float the idea myself in conjunction with the Bay Area
Action Earth Day Coalition "Forests for the Future" Earth Day '97 campaign
which integrates a "3-point paper pledge", Building Green with Good wood
certification programs...and a number of other great public outreach ideas.
One example:
They are building a "Phone Book Forest" .... an origami activity where
students, teachers and groups around the bay are folding origami animal
/nature shapes to call for the end of old-growth paper use for phonebooks
and newspapers. This information and the accompanying schools curriculum
will also be available on their Earth Day Web Page starting March 1.
So I sent a note suggesting to further connect this with the waste
management issues and the need to have phone comapnies get familiar with
the idea of producer responsibility. This is all part of "closing the loop"
or cradle-to-grave responsibility. Major phonebook makers basically do
phone book recycling only for the pr and are refusing to even pay for the
recycling costs. At the same time the say they are required by law to
deliver one-book-per-phone as per PUC regulations. In California where a
large percentage of phonelines are data lines, internet or fax, these
phonebooks are instant waste. One option would be to work for an ADF....but
i digress....
At a fundamental level, stopping waste is the same goal as stopping the
senseless killing of forests...it's making connections between our behavior
(demands) and the impacts on the world around us
(consequences)....relentlessly teaching people to _consider the source_ of
where things come from and where they end up....
all for now
--cdc
Carolyn Chase, Editor, San Diego Earth Times, http://www.sdearthtimes.com
Please visit ;-)
Tel: (619)272-7423 (SDET)
FAX: (619)272-2933
email: earthday@qualcomm.com
P.O. Box 9827 / San Diego CA 92169
'You've got to conserve what you can't replace'
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Please send contributions to: C-QUAL
Californians for Quality of Life, Citizen's Political Action Committee
P.O. Box 9212, San Diego CA 92169
"Every American citizen is involved in politics; it's just that some people
do politics, some have it done to them."
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 12:23:58 EST
From: "BETH GRAVES" <Beth_Graves@owr.ehnr.state.nc.us>
Subject: junk mail reduction
To GreenYesers,
In response to some of the discussion about junk mail, I thought I
would weigh in on some of the efforts being undertaken in North
Carolina.
DPPEA, the Division of Pollution Prevention and Environmental
Assistance, has licensed the "Junk Mail Terminator" kit from Orange
County, NC. The kit consists of 15 pre-printed postcards to the
largest direct mailers. An instruction sheet is also included with
tips on how to try and keep you name off marketing lists. DPPEA
licensed the kit for $25/year and printed 25,000 to distribute for
free to any city or county requesting them for distribution to citizens.
We have given some to cooperative extension agencies and businesses who gave
them to employees. We figured if people had the postcards in hand
already, they would be more likely to actually request that their
name be removed from lists.
The kits cost us $0.16 each to print plus the cost of envelopes
(6 x 9). The whole campaign has likely cost less than $5,000. The
campaign has been very popular among local governments and has
resulted in MANY newspaper articles across the state. To date, we
have distributed 21,500 kits.
One reporter I worked with for the High Point Enterprise conducted
some additional research and uncovered some information I was unaware
of and thought may be of interest to this group. The article
appeared on Jan. 12, 1997 and was written by Robert Warren.
The following is an excerpt:
"For junk mail that bypasses every effort, the US Supreme Court
provides a solution: US Postal Service Form 2150. In 1970, several
direct marketers appealed to the US Supreme Court a law they said
'impoverished' them. The law, created in 1968, allowed citizens to
stop any mail they felt was 'erotically arousing or sexually
provocative.' Instead of overturning the law, the Supreme Court
slapped the direct marketers 'upside the head.'
'Every man's mail today is made up overwhelmingly of material he did not
seek from persons he does not know. And all too often it is matter he
finds offensive,' Chief Justice Warren Burger wrote for the majority.
Offensive can be a dry goods catalog, according to the Supreme Court,
simply because the householder objects to the contents or text
touting the merchandise.
Form 2150 is free and only requires your name and address and the
sender's. If the mailing doesn't stop, it is the postmaster's
responsibility to send a certified letter to the sender and enforce
the law."
Sorry for the length. Prior to his article, I had been unaware of
this form. One more tool to fight junk mail!!
By the way, anyone wanting to license the kit may call Michelle
Minstrell, Chapel Hill, NC, 919-968-2788. They charge $1.00 for the
kit if you live outside Orange County. If you are thinking of
licensing the kit and want to preview one,
I would be willing to send one to you at no charge. Send me your name and
mailing address.
Beth Graves
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 10:40:41 -0600
From: George Dreckmann <GDRECKMANN@ci.madison.wi.us>
To: WGETZ@fre.fsu.umd.edu, jennie.alvernaz@sfsierra.sierraclub.org
Cc: GreenYes@ucsd.edu
Subject: Re: GRN Campaign Ideas -Reply
If we are going to target Junk Mail then we need something that people
can do as direct action that cuts into the profitability of the business, both
for the USPS and the mailers because, despite the reduced rates, Junk
Mail is not corporate welfare, it is a major profit center for the USPS.
What we have to do is get people to return all postage paid mailers,
stuffing envelopes with all the stuff that was send to them in the mailing.
When i suggested this locally, a USPS employee said that stuffing these
envelops full would jam their high tech machines. To which I responded,
excatly!
When junk mail lacks a postage paid return mailer then we tell folks to
remove their address label and take the junk to the big blue recycling box
on the corner and let the USPS handle it. Afterall, they boast of having
the nations largest paper recycling program. Let's make a good thing
even better.
As we call for these actions, we tell folks that junk mail is bascially
worhtless to your local recycling program so the best way to get it
recycled is to give it back.
This type of action puts the stuff back where it came from and calling for
this type of guerrilla warfare on junk mail would generate lots of publicity
and would outrage the USPS and junk mailers. Who could ask for more.
Calling for legislation on stuff like this just sets us up to lose to the Gucci
loafer crowd. Lets hit them where it hurts and fight legislative battles on
the larger issues like forest subsidies, minimum content etc.
"Oh Atlanta, got to get back to you."
Lowell George
Pax,
George Dreckmann
Recycling Coordinator
City of Madison, WI
Beth Graves
Waste Management Analyst
NC Division of Pollution Prevention and Environmental Assistance (DPPEA)
919-715-6506 or 800-763-0136
Beth_Graves@owr.ehnr.state.nc.us
web site: http://www.owr.state.nc.us/
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 18:55:35, -0500
From: david_reynolds@prodigy.com ( DAVID B REYNOLDS)
Subject: Peter Grogan
Some recent posts on this list were critical of Peter Grogan's latest
editorial piece in BioCycle. Letting opinions be known and engaging
in healthy debate is good. However, as the posts evolved, there was
a change in the content, shifting to more of an attack on Peter and
Weyerhaeuser. This disturbed me. In so many words, Peter was
portrayed as a "sell-out" for going to work for Weyerhaeuser. Come
on, the father of curbside recycling and someone who has been
consistent on his recycling vision for so many years selling out? I
think part of the problem has to do with some individuals painting
the same picture for all big corporations, without bothering to
evaluate any given corporation's business units and strategies.
Since big corporations are here and are going to take us into the
future, we should support the ones that have a healthy vision and are
doing something to become players within a sustainable economy.
Weyerhaeuser is one such company. MAXXAM, on the other hand, is a
good example of the other extreme. After MAXXAM's 1985 bargain
takeover of Pacific Lumber and its timber assets, it quickly began
liquidating majestic redwoods to service debt. It continues to rape
in the name of near term profit, and it has absolutely no
appreciation (geeze, it is not even cognizant) for the concept of
sustainable development. To place Weyerhaeuser and MAXXAM in the
same corporate category would be obscene.
Weyerhaeuser is a wood fiber company, not just a virgin timber-
holding company. Defining itself as such, it needs to understand
what the opportunities and threats are for wood fiber in the economy
both now and the future. I personally believe that Weyerhaeuser has
responded with a good strategy, and it is a strategy that recognizes
sustainable practices. Weyerhaeuser has formed alliances and opened
up its large distribution network to products with recovered
materials. Without this, these products would find it difficult or
impossible to find their way into the marketplace. Also, within its
pulp and paper division, Weyerhaeuser forms alliances with recyclers
to recover high quality waste paper. It takes its experience and
huge resource base to assist collection programs. It is willing to
work with small and large recyclers alike. The focus is quality.
Weyerhaeuser has no intent of getting into the waste business and
vertically integrating. So here again, we see the advantages of a
big company doing a good thing, helping the system along. From what
I have read, the pulp and paper division is like a family, and all of
the family members have a strong recycling ethic. I am sure that Mr.
Grogan evaluated all of this before going to work with Weyerhaeuser,
and saw an opportunity to further his vision, not "sell-out."
I hope that our discussions can have a little more sensitivity to
these important details and realities.
Sincerely,
Dave Reynolds
Enviro-nomics
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 09:38:52 -0800 (PST)
From: Dave Wade <dmwade@cats.ucsc.edu>
Subject: Peter Grogan
Well said!
Reasonable people may differ about the best policies to pursue. there's
no need to attack the messenger for saying something we disagree with.
-----------------------------
Dave Wade
Recycling Coordinator
UC Santa Cruz
email: dmwade@cats.ucsc.edu
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 22:07:07 -0700
From: cdchase@qualcomm.com (Carolyn Chase)
Subject: POPULATION VOTE- EVERY CALL COUNTS
POPULATION VOTE- EVERY CALL COUNTS
----------------------------------------------------------------------
CALL TO ACTION: PLEASE get as many calls as you can to your
representative today urging :
* SUPPORT THE ARMEY-GEPHARDT RESOLUTION (H.J.Res. 36) to release
international population funds on March 1, and
* OPPOSE THE SMITH BILL (H.R. 581), which would reduce the ability of
family planning providers to effectively meet the needs of people
around the world.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
POPULATION VOTE TODAY - EVERY CALL COUNTS
Take Action: Please call your Representative and urge them to support
the Armey-Gepardt Resolution and oppose the Smith/Oberstar rule and
bill.
US Capitol Switchboard - 202-224-3121
Background:
Over 100 volunteers from the Sierra Club, NWF and ZPG have spent the
last three days visiting and REvisiting every member of congress and
educating members about the need for international family planning.
Your calls, faxes, letters and visits have combined with those
volunteer efforts on the Hill to make this as VERY close vote. The
debate on the resolution will begin on the House floor tomorrow
morning about 10:30 am with the vote to follow in the early afternoon.
Every minute counts and every contact counts - so please
continue your great work calling and faxing through the afternoon.
With the vote count on the Armey-Gephardt Resolution expected to be
close, we are encouraged by the support of a number of
Representatives who we expected to oppose the Resolution. Their
commitments appear firm as many have voiced their intention to support
the Resolution to other Members of Congress and high-level
Administration officials.
The new Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright, sent a very strong
letter to the House this morning, reiterating the Administration's
commitment to the critical importance of the international family
planning program and its continued "adamant" opposition to the so
called "Mexico City" policy. The "Mexico City" policy is a bill
being offered by Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ) -- which would prohibit U.S.
funding to any family planning provider that provides abortion
services or advocates on abortion-related issues *with their own
money* in a foreign country. Current law prohibits U.S. funds from
being used for abortion and there is no evidence that the prohibition
has *ever* been violated.
Attached are talking points on the Mexico City Policy. As this bill
has been made extremely controversial, we must not take anyone's
support for granted. Please call your Representative to urge them to
oppose Chris Smith's bill - HR 581.
- The "fungibility" argument is phony. According to the Peter Bell,
President of CARE: "I do think it is interesting, however, that people
focus on the presumed fungibility of funds between family planning and
abortion. And, of course, the same could be said with regard to other
kinds of health care services as well. That is childhood
immunization. If the U.S. government supports childhood immunizations
for a health center, could that same health center be saving funds it
could then transfer for abortions? This is never ending. And I don't
know why family planning is singled out here. It must be because
family planning is in fact the target."
- The Mexico City Policy didn't reduce abortion; family planning DOES.
During the years it was in effect, there us no evidence that the
policy - motivated solely by opposition to abortion - caused any
reduction in abortion rates. Rather, its impact was to disrupt the
delivery of family planning services.
- The Mexico City policy is the ultimate in cultural imperialism. The
policy would ride roughshod over the rule of law in sovereign
countries that, just as this country, have arrived at a policy that
permits the performance of abortion beyond cases involving threats to
the woman's life, rape or incest. For instance, India, Bolivia,
Jordan, South Africa all receive U.S. Family planning aid, but in each
case their law provides for legal abortion. NGOs in these countries
and many others would be disqualified from eligibility for U.S. Family
planning aid merely for complying with their own countries law on
abortion.
- The U.S. Agency for International Development spends approximately
$15 million annually specifically for family planning in the States of
the former Soviet Union where, for many years, abortion truly has been
used as a method of birth control. Under the Smith bill NGOs in these
countries would likely be cut off from U.S. aid since all are involved
in some way with legal abortion services or with influencing
government policy on making legal abortion safe. In Russia,
contraceptive prevalence has increased from 19% to 24% from 1990 to
1994. At the same time, the abortion rate plummeted from 109/1000 to
76/1000. The annual number of abortions dropped from 3.6 million
to 2.8 million. U.S.. Family planning aid has clearly made a huge
difference here in reducing the abortion rate. But the provision of
U.S. subsidized contraceptive supplies, physician training in family
planning, and educational materials for both clients and physicians
about family planning would be at risk under the Smith bill. What is
"pro-life" about leaving Russian women once again with abortion as a
method of birth control?
Excerpted from Sierra Club Action 2/13/97
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 97 17:11:06 -0800
From: David Orr <johnmuir@igc.org>
Subject: ZeroWaste Article
I would like to register my general agreement with Steve Suess in his
reply to Peter Grogan. As one of the leaders of the Sierra Club's
campaign to end logging on public lands, I would like to add a little
perspective.
First, I would like to point out that our work is broader than stopping
just the logging of old growth forest. We are advocating that ALL forest
on public lands be protected from logging. Some forests could still be
"managed" - i.e. controlled burns - but no timber sales could be
conducted. The reason for this is quite simple: the timber program on
public lands loses money for the taxpayer, and there are far more
productive timberlands in private ownership. Why destroy our lands, the
public lands, in order to subsidize a highly profitable industry? It
just doesn't make sense. Let's end corporate welfare as we know it on
our national forests, and restore the wildness to its original grandeur.
Besides, tourists hate clearcuts...
Second, Weyerhauser has been one of the prime actors in liquidating, over
the last century, this nation's amazing forest wealth. I hope that the
company is coming to grips with its past, but much of its present
activities in forest management give me little hope that a new thinking
is taking over. It will be to Weyerhauser's economic advantage to
position itself to take advantage of new, environmentally-preferable
technologies and products, but I fear that management intends to
implement that only after all the environmentally-damaging practices have
been pursued to the point where nothing's left to protect. Of course,
the company will have no choice at that point but to do something that
makes more sense...
Third, I want to point out that Weyerhauser's claim to use "renewable
resources" is only a claim and can never be proven; it can only be
disproven at some point in the future. While it's true that in many
places where they have logged, trees have grown back, but these are tree
farms replacing forests, and there is no data to indicate how many
"rotations" a given site can continue to produce. Remember that it was
only this century that mainstream agriculture came to accept that
monocropping depleted the soil and caused crop failures after several
plantings. Well, tree farming is based on an agricultural model but they
forgot this important lesson that you can't keep planting the same crop
over and over without having a disaster down the line! Trees mature in a
century (roughly); the "science" of tree farming is less than a century
old; therefore, we haven't even seen what ONE crop looks like, much less
have any reason to believe that several plantings will work! We will
only know at some point in the future if tree farming is NOT renewable -
when nothing will grow on a given site. Of course, there are numerous
examples all over the West where industrial forestry has failed in a
matter of years, or even months, thereby giving great credence to the
notion that failures could become far more common in the years to come,
as the last remaining wild places - steep, remote and unstable - are
logged. We're waiting for Weyerhauser to take the right step and admit
its destructive practices, and become the first large timber company to
renounce clearcutting, logging on steep slopes, in critical wildlife
habitat areas, along streams, etc. It would be a demonstration of good
will, and would go a long ways toward reassuring thousands of people that
the industry really does have a conscience. Those TV commercials
depicting a "forester" on a ridge with his little daughter, telling her
how he takes care of that forest for her and all of us, forever, is just
so much PR otherwise.
Finally, I would like to suggest that environmentalists NOT advocate new
technologies for use with wood fiber. Many forest activists are working
hard to reduce the demand for logging, so while it's entirely possible
that cellulose could form the basis for a new "wonder" product, it would
help if we could avoid recommending new uses for trees. Cellulose (and
other fibers) are available from plants other than trees - e.g. kenaf -
which are in many cases less environmentally-damaging. In advocating for
alternatives, let's be careful not to leave the impression that "tree
flesh" must be exploited. People like Tom Rymsza of Vision Paper (kenaf)
have lots of good arguments why we should go tree-free.
That's all for now. Thanks again for your comments!
David Orr
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 21:06:18, -0500
From: david_reynolds@prodigy.com ( DAVID B REYNOLDS)
Subject: ZeroWaste Article
David,
In my post with subject header "Peter Grogan," I tried to put some
things in perspective. In your post referenced below, you eloquently
address a deeper perspective. I appreciate the time and thought
that you put into this response. I tried to make the point that
Weyerhaeuser is no MAXXAM, and you made the point that Weyerhaeuser
is no saint. The thing that we must understand is that we can not
simply make the past go away. Weyerhaeuser has done some positive
things, and they can do more. I mentioned how they have used their
resources and clout to bring about some positive things for recycling,
it would be nice to see them take this one step further, and define
themselves as a "fiber company," rather than a "wood (tree) fiber
company," and see kenaf as part of their long term strategy.
Thank you for your valuable comments.
Regards,
Dave Reynolds
Enviro-nomics
---------------------------------------------
From: David Orr <johnmuir@igc.org>
To: "Steve Suess" <STEVESUESS@aol.com>, <Greenyes@UCSD.EDU>,
<RicAnthony@aol.com>, <CRRANews@aol.com>,
<david_reynolds@prodigy.com>,
"Tim Hermach" <zerocut1@aol.com>, "Tom Rymsza" <kenafman@aol.
com>
Sender: johnmuir@igc.org
I would like to register my general agreement with Steve Suess in his
reply to Peter Grogan. As one of the leaders of the Sierra Club's
campaign to end logging on public lands, I would like to add a little
perspective.
First, I would like to point out that our work is broader than
stopping
just the logging of old growth forest. We are advocating that ALL
forest
on public lands be protected from logging. Some forests could still
be
"managed" - i.e. controlled burns - but no timber sales could be
conducted. The reason for this is quite simple: the timber program
on
public lands loses money for the taxpayer, and there are far more
productive timberlands in private ownership. Why destroy our lands,
the
public lands, in order to subsidize a highly profitable industry? It
just doesn't make sense. Let's end corporate welfare as we know it
on
our national forests, and restore the wildness to its original
grandeur.
Besides, tourists hate clearcuts...
Second, Weyerhauser has been one of the prime actors in liquidating,
over
the last century, this nation's amazing forest wealth. I hope that
the
company is coming to grips with its past, but much of its present
activities in forest management give me little hope that a new
thinking
is taking over. It will be to Weyerhauser's economic advantage to
position itself to take advantage of new, environmentally-preferable
technologies and products, but I fear that management intends to
implement that only after all the environmentally-damaging practices
have
been pursued to the point where nothing's left to protect. Of course,
the company will have no choice at that point but to do something
that
makes more sense...
Third, I want to point out that Weyerhauser's claim to use
"renewable
resources" is only a claim and can never be proven; it can only be
disproven at some point in the future. While it's true that in many
places where they have logged, trees have grown back, but these are
tree
farms replacing forests, and there is no data to indicate how many
"rotations" a given site can continue to produce. Remember that it
was
only this century that mainstream agriculture came to accept that
monocropping depleted the soil and caused crop failures after several
plantings. Well, tree farming is based on an agricultural model but
they
forgot this important lesson that you can't keep planting the same
crop
over and over without having a disaster down the line! Trees mature
in a
century (roughly); the "science" of tree farming is less than a
century
old; therefore, we haven't even seen what ONE crop looks like, much
less
have any reason to believe that several plantings will work! We will
only know at some point in the future if tree farming is NOT
renewable -
when nothing will grow on a given site. Of course, there are
numerous
examples all over the West where industrial forestry has failed in a
matter of years, or even months, thereby giving great credence to the
notion that failures could become far more common in the years to
come,
as the last remaining wild places - steep, remote and unstable - are
logged. We're waiting for Weyerhauser to take the right step and
admit
its destructive practices, and become the first large timber company
to
renounce clearcutting, logging on steep slopes, in critical wildlife
habitat areas, along streams, etc. It would be a demonstration of
good
will, and would go a long ways toward reassuring thousands of people
that
the industry really does have a conscience. Those TV commercials
depicting a "forester" on a ridge with his little daughter, telling
her
how he takes care of that forest for her and all of us, forever, is
just
so much PR otherwise.
Finally, I would like to suggest that environmentalists NOT advocate
new
technologies for use with wood fiber. Many forest activists are
working
hard to reduce the demand for logging, so while it's entirely
possible
that cellulose could form the basis for a new "wonder" product, it
would
help if we could avoid recommending new uses for trees. Cellulose
(and
other fibers) are available from plants other than trees - e.g. kenaf
-
which are in many cases less environmentally-damaging. In advocating
for
alternatives, let's be careful not to leave the impression that "tree
flesh" must be exploited. People like Tom Rymsza of Vision Paper
(kenaf)
have lots of good arguments why we should go tree-free.
That's all for now. Thanks again for your comments!
David Orr
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 97 19:17:05 -0800
From: David Orr <johnmuir@igc.org>
Subject: ZeroWaste Article
I appreciate the point you make that Weyerhauser is no MAXXAM, because
you rightfully address some of the more enlightened practices of this
company. I hold out great hope that the big corporations will continue
to improve their behaviors, because it's just good business to do so.
Not to do so, on the other hand, reflects poor management and failure to
plan for the future. As we know, failure to plan for the future is
tantamount to death in this fast-changing economy!
But please, let's not make Weyerhauser over quite yet. They need to be
held accountable for the extensive environmental harm they've done in so
many places.
I favor the carrot and stick approach: thank them for the good things
they do, and beat the living shit out of them for all the evil deeds they
commit. Make them pay, I say.
David Orr
John Muir Project of Earth Island Institute
300 Broadway, Suite 28; San Francisco, CA 94133
415-788-3666 ext.122 voice; 415-788-7324 fax
johnmuir@igc.org
THOUGHTFUL QUOTES FOR OUR TIMES:
"No problem can be solved from the same consciousness that created it."
"Everything has changed but our thinking."
- Albert Einstein
------------------------------
Date: 14 Feb 1997 14:57:14 PST
From: "Jeffrey Smedberg, Re" <SCRUZA.DPW179@HW1.CAHWNET.GOV>
Subject: ZeroWaste Article
To: OAS --HW1SSW1 Internet Addressee
*** Resending note of 02/14/97 11:43
FROM: Jeffrey Smedberg, Recycling Programs Coordinator
dpw179 454-2373
SUBJECT: Re: ZeroWaste Article
In response to Peter Grogan's guest editorial in Biocycle, January 97:
I was happy to see Grogan bring discussion about Zero Waste into a prominent
trade journal. I also appreciated the publicity about CRRA's Zero Waste theme
conference in June.
Grogan has extensive credentials in diverse areas of the waste management
field, and he has done good work for the cause of waste minimization.
For this reason I was surprised that his line of argument, though
optimistic, focused on the common knee-jerk reaction to the zero waste
idea and missed a really important part of the concept.
He correctly identifies various current state percentage targets as
"waste reduction goals." He then makes the assumption that those goals
are reached by and can only be surpassed through "recovery." Recovery
means recycling, or retrieving usable resources out of the stream of
discards, for which his discussion of the need for market development
is appropriate. But recovery is only one strategy, and actually relatively
far down on the waste management hierarchy scale.
Zero waste will, of course, be furthered by recycling. But recycling will
not do the trick. Personally I am a fanatic recycler, while at the same
time realizing that recycling is damage control, a frantic last-ditch
maneuver to save some minimally used resource from oblivion.
Zero waste requires full attention to reuse and repair and, of course,
the ultimate, source reduction or waste prevention. Zero waste will not be
achieved by any local government's solid waste program. It will require
a shift in thinking at all levels of society. Product concept and design.
Tax code. Consumption patterns. Development and investment. Cost, price,
and value. Politics and religion. Relationships.
Each resource -- inanimate and human alike -- is treated with respect
for its present value as well as where it came from and where it will
go. There is a future for everything, which is considered in the present.
Everything is part of a cycle. Nothing is outside of the web. Waste is
a lost concept.
Why are we making this huge shift? Because survival is in our self-interest.
>>>=========================================================<<<
Jeffrey Smedberg, County of Santa Cruz Public Works, CA USA
Internet: scruza.dpw179@hw1.cahwnet.gov
Voice (408)454-2373 Fax (408)454-2385
------------------------------
End of GreenYes Digest V97 #27
******************************