Today's Topics:
car travel from NC to NRC at Orlando.
car travel to NRC
Deposit-Refund Systems should become 2nd Nature (2 msgs)
Don't DELETE, Vote for Pete- NRC elections
Heavy Metals (2 msgs)
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, 02 Sep 1997 12:34:08 -0400
From: "Blair Pollock" <bpollock@town.ci.chapel-hill.nc.us>
Subject: car travel from NC to NRC at Orlando.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
---------
Is anyone from the NC Triangle or Triad area interested in carpooling to NRC
in Orlando ~12 hours drive from Raleigh area), I have auto available and am
considering driving if I get two rider/drivers. Planning to depart 9/20 in
the am and return leaving either evening of 9/24 or super early 9/25.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 02 Sep 1997 10:31:02 -0400
From: "Blair Pollock" <bpollock@town.ci.chapel-hill.nc.us>
Subject: car travel to NRC
Is anyone from the NC Triangle or Triad area interested in carpooling to NRC
in Orlando ~12 hours drive from Raleigh area), I have auto available and am
considering driving if I get two rider/drivers. Planning to depart 9/20 in
the am and return leaving either evening of 9/24 or super early 9/25.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 2 Sep 1997 14:41:21 +0900
From: oldxeye@crisscross.com (Hop)
Subject: Deposit-Refund Systems should become 2nd Nature
While sorting through my files I found the following - a newsletter article
I'd recently written on request to link the issues of Zero Waste and
Deposit Systems - and thought it may be of interest to GreenYes readers.
Deposit-Refund Systems should become 2nd Nature
By Peter Hopper, Waste Crisis Network
Zero Waste is nothing new. Nature does it all the time. Always has. Always
will.
Belying the incomprehensible complexity of relationships in nature is the
simple outcome ..... "no waste".
Humanity, however, is an exception to this rule (basically we've been
giving Nature the forks for some time). By having detached ourselves from
nature and having abandoned so many of our natural relationships we humans
have moved far from living a 'natural' life.
Instead of relationships based on exchanges for the sake of mutual survival
and sustainability, we're mostly caught up in relationships based on the
exchange of money for 'goods', in a society based on economics, with
governments and industries invariably promoting increasing levels of
material consumption as a panacea for the symptoms which stem from our
ill-considered movement away from nature.
Individually we have to work damn hard simply to satisfy the complicated
requirements of conformity within such a society - whether we like it or
not. We have to work even harder if we choose to go against the flow and
move closer to nature. And we have to work even harder again if we wish to
try to influence the rest of society to move with us. Basically, whichever
way you look at it, life is hard work. Any wonder we create waste.
Now nobody is saying that living sustainably is easy. It's certainly not
for the ant, the bee, or the earthworm. But by virtue of the fact that it
will require us to be more material and energy efficient, it shouldn't be
any harder.
In terms of dealing with the waste we currently generate (while we work
towards a zero-waste society), deposit-refund systems have a lot to offer.
The main waste-creating problem with our unnatural way of doing things is
that we don't "close the loop". Our consumption-driven society is linear at
its peril. From the moment of extraction of finite raw materials, through
the production, distribution, and consumption stages of a products' life,
to the 'final' disposal of used products and packaging waste into scarce
holes in the ground, too little thought is given to the return of materials
to whence they came.
Only when we close the loop and begin returning products and packaging to
their originators - those most capable of reusing and recycling them, or
modifying their design to do so - will we be conducting our
consumption-related activities in a more sustainable way. A sensible way of
doing this is to ensure they have a value at the end of their
consumer-usable life. Even a value as little as 20 cents for an empty Coke
bottle ensures nearly all are returned to the manufacturer for re-use and
recycling.
Re-establishing our natural relationships, and our proper and respectful
place in nature, is a long term goal we may, or may not, realise. In this
context deposit-refund systems shouldn't be seen as an end point. But they
are a useful mechanism for dealing with the situation we currently (and for
the foreseeable future) find ourselves in. It's a bit like swimming
diagonally when you're caught in a current, rather than fighting the tide
.... and drowning in the process.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 02 Sep 1997 11:19:01 -0400
From: Cindy/Mike Shea <mcshea1@gte.net>
Subject: Deposit-Refund Systems should become 2nd Nature
Thanks Hop. Interesting article. I believe the concept of returning
products to their manufacturer has even wider applicability. If you're
interested in the concept of continuous product ownership, you may want
to check out my article on Interface in the November/December '97 issue
of Tomorrow magazine. I describe their Evergreen Leasing program for
carpets and mention a few other take back programs currently in effect.
Germany is certainly the world leader at this point, but Bill McDonough
, Micheal Braungart, and Paul Hawken are working hard to bring the
concept and practice stateside.
Best,
Cindy Pollock Shea
Promoting Sustainable Development
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 02 Sep 1997 14:12:17 -0700
From: Krista Henkels <khenkels@ucsd.edu>
Subject: Don't DELETE, Vote for Pete- NRC elections
Attention Grass Roots Recyclers:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
One of our own, Pete Pasterz, is a candidate for the Board of Directors of
the National Recycling Coalition. If you're an NRC member, you should
have already received your ballot (if not, please check your status with NRC).
I urge you to vote for PETE.
He's been active in community based non-profit solutions to waste for over
15 years, and is a member of and past Co-Chair of the Non-profit Recyclers
Council, and currently serves as Co-Chair of the College and University
Recycling Council. Pete attended the GRN in Atlanta this year and has
embraced the Zero Waste philosophy.
Pete will strengthen the represenation of the Grassroots perspective and
Non-Profit Council
Remember, though there are 10 vacancies to fill, you need NOT vote for 10
candidates. A vote for someone you're not sure of only weakens your vote
for your preferred candidate(s).
If you're mailing your ballot, it must be postmarked by 9/10. If you're
going to the Annual Congress in Orlando, you may submit it in person--or
send a proxy. The on-site voting ends Tuesday, 9/23 at 3 pm.
Thanks for reading this, and remember to rock the vote!!!
Krista Henkels
UCSD Recycling
khenkels@ucsd.edu
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 2 Sep 1997 10:18:15 -0800
From: dassmann@sirius.com (David Assmann)
Subject: Heavy Metals
The use of heavy metals in inks on packaging cannot have been banned, since
there are no alternatives for copper (used for certain blue and green color
configurations), zinc (used for white) or barium (used for many red inks).
Legislation was introduced several years ago to restrict (but not ban!) the
use of lead, cadmium, mercury and chromium. I do not know if this
legislation passed, although a number of states have adopted this
legislation.
David Assmann
Public Outreach Coordinator
San Francisco Recycling Program
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 2 Sep 1997 12:40:04 -0500 (CDT)
From: eddy <nimmanni@cae.wisc.edu>
Subject: Heavy Metals
Dear listmembers,
Do u know how to "unsubsribe" from this list?
thanks,
Eddy
On Tue, 2 Sep 1997, David Assmann wrote:
> Date: Tue, 2 Sep 1997 10:18:15 -0800
> From: David Assmann <dassmann@sirius.com>
> To: GreenYes@ucsd.edu
> Subject: Re: Heavy Metals
>
> The use of heavy metals in inks on packaging cannot have been banned, since
> there are no alternatives for copper (used for certain blue and green color
> configurations), zinc (used for white) or barium (used for many red inks).
> Legislation was introduced several years ago to restrict (but not ban!) the
> use of lead, cadmium, mercury and chromium. I do not know if this
> legislation passed, although a number of states have adopted this
> legislation.
>
> David Assmann
> Public Outreach Coordinator
> San Francisco Recycling Program
>
>
>
*********************************************************************
Akapop Nimmannit
HOME ADDRESS : 409 EAU CLAIRE AVE. #310,
MADISON ,WISCONSIN 53705,
USA
TEL. : 608-278-1208
EMAIL : nimmanni@cae.wisc.edu
*********************************************************************
------------------------------
End of GreenYes Digest V97 #212
******************************