Today's Topics:
Add Greenyes
Fwd: New Heavy element....;-)
greenyes
GRN CAMPAIGNS
GRN CAMPAIGNS: The real market solution (3 msgs)
Need copy of article: "World in Bad Shape"
Solid Waste program funding mechanisms
Subscribe/Unsubscribe Requests
Zero Waste Ver 2.0 -Feedback
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: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 10:05:03 -0600
From: Bill Carter <WCARTER@tnrcc.state.tx.us>
Subject: Add Greenyes
Please add me to the Greenyes listserve. Regards to Rick Anthony.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 04:23:30 -0500 (EST)
From: EarthGB@aol.com
Subject: Fwd: New Heavy element....;-)
Dear Greenyessers,
The following from Carolyn Chase at San Diego Earth Day is too good not to
pass on.
Gretchen Brewer
---------------------
Forwarded message:
From: cdchase@qualcomm.com (Carolyn Chase)
To: earthday@qualcomm.com
Date: 97-02-18 10:37:32 EST
The heaviest element known to science was recently discovered by
physicists. The element, tentatively named Administratum, has no protons or
electrons and thus has an atomic number of 0. However it does have:
1 neutron.
125 assistant neutrons
75 vice-neutrons
111 assistant vice-neutrons
This gives it an atomic mass of 312. The 312 particles are held together
by a force that involves the continuous exchange of meson-like particles
called morons.
Since it has no electrons, Administratum is inert. However, it can be
detected chemically as it impedes every action with which it comes in
contact. According to the discoverers, a minute amount of Administratum
causes one reaction to take four days to complete when it would have
normally occurred in less than one second.
Administratum has a normal half-life of approximately three years, at
which time it does not actually decay but instead undergoes a
reorganization in which assistant neutrons, vice neutrons, and assistant
vice-neutrons exchange places. Some studies have shown that atomic mass
actually
increases after each reorganization. Research at other laboratories
indicates that Administratum occurs naturally in the atmosphere. It tends
to concentrate
at certain points such as government agencies, large corporations, and
universities, and can usually be found in the newest, best appointed, and
best maintained buildings.
Scientists point out that Administratum is known to be toxic at any
level of concentration and can easily destroy any productive reaction where
it
is allowed to accumulate. Attempts are being made to determine how.
Administratum can be controlled to prevent irreversible damage, but
results to date are not promising.
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: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 09:56:48 -0600
From: Laura Yates <Laura_Yates@co.st-louis.mo.us>
Subject: greenyes
subscribe greenyes
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 97 22:29:33 PST
From: jennie.alvernaz@sfsierra.sierraclub.org
Subject: GRN CAMPAIGNS
[FORWARDED FROM ANN SCHNEIDER aschneid@cats.ucsc.edu]
I like the idea of linking with the forest protection groups. If this is
a path that GRN takes then I'd like to suggest the strong links with
deconstruction and the reuse of building materials. I've just started
developing a relationship with a local activist group, Bay Area Action
who is coordinating a combined Earth Day 1997 message on "Forests for the
Future". Their 3 campaigns are:
1. Adopt a local old growth forest
2. Reduce paper consumption/buy recycled and alternate fiber paper
3. A campaign to tarket phone books for their use of virgin forests to
produce the books. They will ask kids to fold pages of phone books into
creatures found in the forest and then send them to Pac Bell (our local
baby bell) to tell them to stop cutting down trees. This is built on the
orogami Thousand Crane story.
While not a formally adopted activity the group is interested in
spreading the word about deconstruction, reuse of building materials and
getting the public to buy used /antique lumber and building materials.
[MSG #2 FROM ANN SCHNEIDER]
Back in 1990, one of the big media issues was paper vs. plastic and
disposbles vs reusables. It was kicked off by a WSJ article about
styrofoam (polystyrene) cups vs, ceramic vs paper (polycoated paper). It
kicked of the Life Cycle Analysis arguments. It generated oodles of
calls and studies.
That was then, now 7 years later, we have local governments thinking of
funding collection and composting of disposable diapers along with MSW
composting.
My suggestion would be to do a campaing on diapers and how to start our
children off for a sustainable future. Should we be usine single serve
products, even if they can be composted, when we have reusable options.
The diaper/linen businesses have been battling the huge disposable diaper
companies for market share and are losing. They could use the help of a
national campaign.
Of course, we the professionals will have to take a stand on how we feel
about single serve products when reusable products are available.
I have a number of California contacts for you if this progresses anywhere.
Ann Schneider
aschneid@cats.ucsc.edu
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 09:21:55 -0800
From: Robin Salsburg <robin@mrwmd.org>
Subject: GRN CAMPAIGNS: The real market solution
Robin Salsburg responds:
Thank you Helen for sharing the innovative programs going on in British =
Columbia. That is EXACTLY what we need to start doing in the United =
States. Manufacturers MUST be responsible for the entire life of their =
product-- from creation, packaging, use, and proper disposal. I work =
for a local government agency, and we are paying the very high costs of =
treating solid and hazardous waste "at the end of the pipe" rather than =
having the manufacture share the burden of creating products and =
packaging which can be reduced, reused, or recycled. =20
We need to get more examples from around the world highlighting programs =
that create product stewardship. From that information, we target one =
multi-national corporation (or one industry) that is meeting those =
requirements in other countries, and then we demand that the same =
actions be taken here in the United States. What do you think?
Robin Salsburg
Local Conference Chair for the Zero Waste Conference in California
----------
From: Helen Spiegelman[SMTP:helens@axionet.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 1997 5:46 PM
To: David Assmann
Cc: greenyes@UCSD.Edu
Subject: Re: GRN CAMPAIGNS: The real market solution
>William McGowan said, in part:
>
>
>>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.
>
David Assman responded:
>A pro-market approach is certainly one potential solution, but it is by =
no
>means the only one. Look at Germany, for example. They've reduced
>ALL packaging used in the country by more than 10% in less than a five =
year
>period (a reduction of more than 1 million tonnes) through their laws
>making producers responsible for waste. They say that their system =
would
>not be possible if it relied on voluntary efforts.
>
In fact, the German solution, which is being applied enthusiastically in
Canada, is the *true* market solution. WHen producers are responsible =
for
collecting and disposing (through destruction or recycling) their =
products
and packaging, then and only then do they have an economic incentive to =
seek
"zero waste". =20
Here in British Columbia we have implemented a German-style regulation
requiring paint producers to provide take-back services for old paint -- =
at
no cost to the taxpayer. Millions of litres of paint are being emptied =
from
basements and garages, and it's costing the paint industry a bundle. The
paint industry has added a 50 cent / gallon "eco fee" to the price of a =
can
of paint to cover program costs.=20
The inexorable logic of the market will now drive paint producers to =
send
their chemical engineers back to the drawing table to formulate paints =
so
they are more easily re-blended to create "recycled" paint, avoiding =
costly
toxic waste disposal. Producers will also move away from the "volume
discount" which encourages consumers to buy more paint than they need. =
It
seems that it will also drive improvements to the design of paint =
packaging:
the paint industry is finding that metal recyclers don't welcome steel =
paint
cans that have been crushed in an augur to remove the contents.=20
Paint was the first product subject to Product Stewardship regulation
(actually, the second: used oil was regulated two years earlier, in =
1992,
with little fanfare). The regulation has been written to extend the
principle to solvents, pesticides and fuels. A take-back program for
pharmaceuticals is already in effect.=20
If you are interested in more information about BC's "Product =
Stewardship"
policies and regulations, let me know. I love to share this good news.
Helen Spiegelman
Recycling Council of British Columbia (CANADA)
--------------------------------
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 12:28:19 -0600 (CST) From: jwalk@mail.utexas.edu Subject: GRN CAMPAIGNS: The real market solution
Robin Salsburg responds:
Thank you Helen for sharing the innovative programs going on in British Columbia. That is EXACTLY what we need to start doing in the United States. Manufacturers MUST be responsible for the entire life of their product-- from creation, packaging, use, and proper disposal. I work for a local government agency, and we are paying the very high costs of treating solid and hazardous waste "at the end of the pipe" rather than having the manufacture share the burden of creating products and packaging which can be reduced, reused, or recycled.
We need to get more examples from around the world highlighting programs that create product stewardship. From that information, we target one multi-national corporation (or one industry) that is meeting those requirements in other countries, and then we demand that the same actions be taken here in the United States. What do you think?
Robin Salsburg Local Conference Chair for the Zero Waste Conference in California
---------- From: Helen Spiegelman[SMTP:helens@axionet.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 1997 5:46 PM To: David Assmann Cc: greenyes@UCSD.Edu Subject: Re: GRN CAMPAIGNS: The real market solution
>William McGowan said, in part: > > >>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. > David Assman responded:
>A pro-market approach is certainly one potential solution, but it is by no >means the only one. Look at Germany, for example. They've reduced >ALL packaging used in the country by more than 10% in less than a five year >period (a reduction of more than 1 million tonnes) through their laws >making producers responsible for waste. They say that their system would >not be possible if it relied on voluntary efforts. >
In fact, the German solution, which is being applied enthusiastically in Canada, is the *true* market solution. WHen producers are responsible for collecting and disposing (through destruction or recycling) their products and packaging, then and only then do they have an economic incentive to seek "zero waste".
Here in British Columbia we have implemented a German-style regulation requiring paint producers to provide take-back services for old paint -- at no cost to the taxpayer. Millions of litres of paint are being emptied from basements and garages, and it's costing the paint industry a bundle. The paint industry has added a 50 cent / gallon "eco fee" to the price of a can of paint to cover program costs.
The inexorable logic of the market will now drive paint producers to send their chemical engineers back to the drawing table to formulate paints so they are more easily re-blended to create "recycled" paint, avoiding costly toxic waste disposal. Producers will also move away from the "volume discount" which encourages consumers to buy more paint than they need. It seems that it will also drive improvements to the design of paint packaging: the paint industry is finding that metal recyclers don't welcome steel paint cans that have been crushed in an augur to remove the contents.
Paint was the first product subject to Product Stewardship regulation (actually, the second: used oil was regulated two years earlier, in 1992, with little fanfare). The regulation has been written to extend the principle to solvents, pesticides and fuels. A take-back program for pharmaceuticals is already in effect.
If you are interested in more information about BC's "Product Stewardship" policies and regulations, let me know. I love to share this good news.
Helen Spiegelman Recycling Council of British Columbia (CANADA)
--------------------------------
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 17:31:46 -0800 From: helens@axionet.com (Helen Spiegelman) Subject: GRN CAMPAIGNS: The real market solution
>Robin Salsburg suggested: > > >We need to get more examples from around the world highlighting programs that create product stewardship. From that information, we target one multi-national corporation (or one industry) that is meeting those requirements in other countries, and then we demand that the same actions be taken here in the United States. What do you think? >
I like it.
It would be important to identify an industry sector that won't be all tooled up to resist (like the soft drink companies vis a vis the bottle bills).
Paint might be a good place to start. It was frankly puzzling to us how little resistance the paint manufacturers had to the stewardship concept. In fact, the Canadian Paint and Coatings Association was working on a stewardship plan even before the BC government called them to sit down and help draft the regulation. (Maybe the VOC regulations, mercury mildewcide restrictions, PCB bans, and lead bans softened them up!) (When I heard about it I invited the President to our annual conference, and he said publicly that the paint industry really would just as soon do the jobs themselves, rather than have government involved.)
I must emphasize what a powerful force local governments can be in supporting these initiatives: it is their constituents' pockets that must be dipped into to provide the current subsidy to the industries. Here in BC, we have had municipal and regional governments pressing the province to act. Local communities that serve as the repositories of the global economy's detritus deserve some sympathy!
Another dimension of the project is market development. As the old paint is flushed out of people's basements and garages, we will see a cleaner stream of paint coming back (fresh leftovers, rather than the backlog that has accumulated during the pre-stewardship era). These fresh leftovers will provide the paint companies with feedstock for reblended (recycled) product. However, it will be important to get reblend paint certified by painters guilds and other certificating authorities...
--------------------------------
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 12:22:11 -0800 From: "rtnc@sonic.net" <rtnc@sonic.net> Subject: Need copy of article: "World in Bad Shape"
------------744F3E3F4FBB0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Hello: Would anybody out there have kept a copy of an article forwarded to the GreenYes list back in January? I am looking for "WorldWatch: World in Bad Shape" which was written by David Briscoe AP.
Would appreciate a forwarded e-mail. Thanks Holly Harris
-- Internet Resale Directory http://www.secondhand.com
------------744F3E3F4FBB0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 09:28:42 -0600 (CST) From: s_hammer@ix.netcom.com Subject: Solid Waste program funding mechanisms
[My apologies to those receiving multiple postings.]
New York City is currently undergoing a rather wide-ranging review of its solid waste management system as part of the planned closure of the Fresh Kills landfill at the end of 2001.
Each of the five boroughs (Bronx, Manhattan, etc.) have been asked to develop a borough-specific plan that will be submitted to the Mayor's office at the end of April. The City will then take each of these plans, and supposedly develop a new solid waste management plan that incorporates these ideas.
I'm involved in the planning process for the Bronx, and one of the committees I belong to wants to investigate alternative funding sources for recycling and waste prevention programs. A number of ideas have already been cited: a small tax on each ton of material landfilled in the region; unclaimed bottle bill money; pay per throw fees, etc.
Does anyone have any thoughts on which type of system is preferable? I'm most interested in learning about the disposal tax idea or unclaimed bottle deposits. We already have lots of information about pay-per-throw.
Referrals to contact people at agencies financed by these funding mechanisms would also be appreciated. Thanks for your feedback.
Steve Hammer Hammer Environmental Consulting 5294 Sycamore Ave. Bronx, NY 10471 (718) 548-5285 s_hammer@ix.netcom.com
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 15:09:14, -0500 From: david_reynolds@prodigy.com ( DAVID B REYNOLDS) Subject: Subscribe/Unsubscribe Requests
I have been answering many requests on how to subscribe or unsubscribe to the GreenYes listserve. Although I am glad to help (I received a "vitual boquet" from one kind sole thanking me for my help), there ought to be a more efficient way to get the word out. On one of the other listserves that I subscribe to, I notice that a tag line is automatically placed at the end of messages, informing folks on how to unsubscribe.
If present subscribers do not have the subscribe/unsubscribe information handy, here it is:
To subscribe, do the following:
Address your message to: <listserv@ucsd.edu> (DO NOT address to greenyes@ucsd.edu>) Leave the subject line blank; In the message area, type: add greenyes
To unsubscribe, do the following:
Address your message to: <listserv@ucsd.edu> (or <greenyes- request@ucsd.edu>) Leave the subject line blank; In the message area, type: unsub <your email address> greenyes ------------------------------ Dave Reynolds Enviro-nomics
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 97 22:49:38 PST From: jennie.alvernaz@sfsierra.sierraclub.org Subject: Zero Waste Ver 2.0 -Feedback
[FORWARDED FROM ROGER DIEDRICH, SIERRACLUB, VA]
I think this is a great document for us to rally around. It is both inspiring and practical. My only question is the statement in there saying something to the effect that "forest products from public lands should be sold at full market value...." and the possible conflict of our recent policy adoption to oppose logging on all public lands. Now the forest folks don't expect to be there tommorrow any more than we do on ZW, but - do we need a caveat there? It might be a simple tag saying "and in some cases eliminataed"
[FORWARDED FROM JACK MANEY, SIERRACLUB, FL]
The Zero Waste Paper is great & we need to support this approach. I would like to see human and animal wastes included with composting, and see composted materials being recycled back into our food and material supplies.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 11:27:49 -0800 (PST) From: Eric A Cardenas <ucarde00@mcl.ucsb.edu>
unsubscribe greenyes
------------------------------
End of GreenYes Digest V97 #32 ******************************