Today's Topics:
Critical Mass at The Chicago Car Show -- Think Different
GreenYes Digest V98 #29
Looking for a buy recycled bill
Precautionary Principle and Zero Waste
Recycling Coke cans vs. Reusing Glass Bottles
Recycling Coke cans vs. Reusing Glass Bottles -Reply
Recycling Ventures Selected for SE Investment Forum
unfortunate news
Vinyl Containing Products
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.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Loop-Detect: GreenYes:98/30
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 6 Feb 1998 17:04:28 +0900
From: Jim.Redd@infores.com (Jim Redd) (by way of oldxeye@crisscross.com (Hop))
Subject: Critical Mass at The Chicago Car Show -- Think Different
The auto industry brings it's annual show to McCormick Place in
Chicago during the week of February 7 to the 15th. All the latest
models and associated "options" will be displayed to convince you, the
consumer, that the newest models, as always, are sexier, flashier, and
more powerful or efficient than the car you currently own.
DON'T BUY IT!
What the industry doesn't point out is that cars kill over 40,000
people every year, and maim many more, causing personal grief and
agony to thousands of families.
They don't mention the health hazards associated with vehicle
emissions, nor do they mention the billions in taxpayer dollars for
car industry subsidies, repair of damage, maintenance of the
automobile infrastructure, and protection of oil supplies.
They won't mention that most of your time driving will be stuck in
traffic, not on those pristine mountain roads you see in TV
commercials. They hope that their seductive displays at this show and
their glossy, expensive ads will detract you from looking around, at
your own neighborhoods, and seeing the environmental degradation and
blight caused by the production, use, and disposal of their throwaway
products.
They won't tell you that it was their industry that bought up trains,
trolleys and busses in order to promote sales of their cars. Nor will
they tell you that they continue to lobby against even small portions
of tax funds being used to subsidize public transportation rather than
their industry.
By any measure, our industry-imposed dependence on private automobiles
is the most destructive, least efficient, and most dangerous means of
personal transportation conceivable.
SAY NO TO THE AUTO SHOW!
[There will be a Chicago Critical Mass ride to McCormick Place on
opening day of the car show. Meet at Daley Plaza, Saturday Feb. 7 at
11 AM. More info and flyers at www.tezcat.com/~jredd/chicm.html]
PLEASE FORWARD.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 5 Feb 1998 11:38:21 -0600
From: Kris Hageman <KHAGEMAN@ci.plymouth.mn.us>
Subject: GreenYes Digest V98 #29
Hi, I am replying to Susan Snow re: procurement of post-consumer
recycled content goods by state agencies. The Recycling Association of
Minnesota is pushing very hard at this moment for inclusion of specific
post-consumer RC language in a new procurement reform package being
reviewed at our legislature at this time. Included in the language is a
new "environmentally responsible" definition for purchasing as well as
the "post-consumer" recycled content for goods vs. just recycled content
which was in the original language.
There is also a section that allows state agencies to ask for disclosure
of all inert ingredients and they may also request the vendor take back
a product at the end of its useful life or include disposal and
liability costs in the bid. Needless to say this last section has
received a lot of heat. We, RAM are pushing for the inlcusion of the
post consumer language as well as reporting requirements and the
E.R.definition.
This will live or die in the next week. I will try to keep you posted.
Kris Hagemen, City of Plymouth, MN Solid Waste Coordinator
KHageman@ci.plymouth.mn.us
>----------
>From: GreenYes Mailing List and Newsgroup[SMTP:greenyes@ucsd.edu]
>Sent: Thursday, February 05, 1998 6:30 AM
>To: GreenYes@ucsd.edu
>Subject: GreenYes Digest V98 #29
>
>
>GreenYes Digest Thu, 5 Feb 98 Volume 98 : Issue 29
>
>Today's Topics:
>Bad and sham recycling proposals are killing the beneficial concept of
>recycling including saving resources and reducing pollution
> Further Note on Auto/Steel Recycling
> Looking for a buy recycled bill
>Model bill mandating government agencies buy post consumer recycled paper
> Precautionary Principle and Zero Waste
> Renewal of product stewardship plans in Manitoba
>
>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.
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>--
>Loop-Detect: GreenYes:98/29
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Date: Wed, 04 Feb 1998 13:18:05 -0600
>From: Susan Snow <sksnow@1stnet.com>
>Subject: Bad and sham recycling proposals are killing the beneficial concept
>of recycling including saving resources and reducing pollution
>
>This is an example is bad recycling that despite EPA's rhetoric of
>wanting to clean up toxic waste sites, has the potential to endanger
>more people than if the waste site were left alone, or better still,
>prevented in the first place.
>
>However, in the United States, our government regulates by the premise
>of first, do harm; second, prove harm; third, use cost benefit analysis
>to write regulations so that the economy will increase and public health
>as a whole will decrease. Apparently, this premise has trinkled down to
>the states.
>
>Hence, conventional agriculture is using fertilizers made in part from
>the recycling of hazardous wastes which is spread onto farms by
>unknowledable farmers. Then, manmade toxic chemicals are sprayed to
>kill insects, weed, fungi and other life forms --these should be called
>biocides becaue they kill life. And, alas, people are told their food is
>safe. Sure, it is :-(
>
>Susan Snow
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>**Deer Trail, Colo.: Superfund-site wastes to be recycled?
>
>Farmers here say they are unconvinced of the safety of a plan to send
>liquid waste from a Superfund site through sewage treatment and apply it
>on a 50,000-acre, government-owned wheat farm.
>
>Lowry Landfill is one of the worst Superfund sites in the country, with
>a brew of industrial solvents, petroleum oils, pesticides and
>radioactive material.
>
>The EPA is considering the novel disposal plan in a ruling that may set
>a precedent for new ways to clean up Superfund sites. A public comment
>period ended June 30.
>
>One EPA official said the agency will be sure the landfill water will be
>neither radioactive nor hazardous. Another questioned the idea.
>
>The wheat field is owned by Denver's Metro sewage agency, which would
>mix the waste with sewage sludge. **
>
>Source: The Seattle Times, Today's News: Throughout the country, example
>and example of hazardous wastes being turned into fertilizer, by Duff
>Wilson
>http://www.seattletimes.com/todaysnews/browse/html97/natl_070497.html#deertra
>il
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Wed, 4 Feb 1998 10:11:33 -0500
>From: "Ferrer, Geraldo" <ferrerg@icarus.bschool.unc.edu>
>Subject: Further Note on Auto/Steel Recycling
>
>Mostly everywhere, automobile recycling technology has not changed for
>several decades. Prior to the oil shocks and the massive introduction
>of plastics in the cars, a typical car made in the US had roughly 90% of
>its weight made of carbon steel or wrought iron. That prompted the
>development of a recycling operation that required little more than a
>shredder and a magnetic separator.
>Would you still consider this process efficient if the iron and steel
>content dropped significantly? Actually, cars today contain less than
>70% of steel, and this percentage keeps falling.
>The good news is that car recycling generates 10 million tons of scrap
>steel per year in the US (back of envelope estimate). If the recycler
>does some pre-shredding separation, some lead and copper is also
>recovered. The bad news is that 3-5 million tons of post-shredder waste
>is generated each year by the auto recycling industry, not considering
>the scrap from truck, bus and other equipment treated by these plants.
>The market for scrap steel has also deteriorated. I've been told that
>the increased variety of alloys is generating some problems at the steel
>mills that use them. Different automakers select different alloys for
>different parts of the car. Consequently, the ingredient that enriches
>the steel for one brand of cars becomes the contaminant that spoils the
>operation at the steel recycling mill. Hence, some steel mills have
>lost interest in steel scrap, with effects on price.
>The solution lies in the adoption of more comprehensive separation
>processes of end-of-life vehicles (ELV). That would require the
>adoption of new recycling technologies and the development of new
>markets for raw materials and components in the car, other than the
>steel. A short list would include glass, tires, cables, upholstery,
>batteries, fluids... It is not a small task but it has been done.
>The Dutch government established the incentives for improving the level
>of ELV recycling. All cars licensed in the Netherlands are required to
>be disposed through that process. That operation has been subsidized by
>a $100 fee charged from every new vehicle at the time of the first
>license. That fee has been reduced once, and it is expected to reduce
>again as the technology develops and becomes profitable. Meanwhile, the
>system has raised the recycling level from the typical 75% found
>elsewhere in the world (US included) to more than 85%, and it keeps
>going up.
>
>That is amazing!
>
>Geraldo Ferrer
>The Kenan-Flagler Business School
>The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
>McColl Building
>Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3490
>
>(919) 962-3272 Fax: (919) 962-6949
>Geraldo_Ferrer@unc.edu <mailto:Geraldo_Ferrer@unc.edu>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jango@aol.com [SMTP:Jango@aol.com]
> Sent: Friday, January 30, 1998 1:43 PM
> To: iuf@ix.netcom.com
> Cc: rgutten@concentric.net; mclarke@shiva.hunter.cuny.edu;
>greenyes@ucsd.edu
> Subject: Further Note on Auto/Steel Recycling
>
> In general, I would say the steel recycling industry (and scrap
>dealers
> in general) point the way toward successful recycling and
>resource
> recovery. Glass too. These industries demonstrate that
>long-term,
> industrial development with market based decision making can be
>very
> successful. And the auto and steel industries continue to make
>strides
> that are phenomenal. I remember a talk by Phil Bailey (where is
>Phil
> these days anyway? he's no longer with ERG) of the Buy Recycled
>Business
> Coalition once when he pointed out that the largest export from
>the US
> (by weight) was junk steel (mostly from autos) that was being
>shipped
> across the Pacific only to come back as new cars!
>
> Amazing!
>
> David Biddle
> 7366 Rural Lane
> Philadelphia, PA 19119
> 215-247-2974 (voice and fax)
> jango@aol.com
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Wed, 04 Feb 1998 16:31:46 -0600
>From: Alicia Lyttle <alyttle@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu>
>Subject: Looking for a buy recycled bill
>
>Looking for a buy recycled bill!
>My rep, Errol "Romo" Romero, said he would sponsor a bill mandating
>>government agencies to buy recycled paper. Been looking for a model bill,
>>but so far I have come up with nothing. Does anyone have anything on hand,
>or know where i can get any help or more information on this?
>Thank you in advance!
>Mary
> mary tutwiler <mtutwiler@aisp.net>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Wed, 04 Feb 1998 13:29:16 -0600
>From: Susan Snow <sksnow@1stnet.com>
>Subject: Model bill mandating government agencies buy post consumer recycled
>paper
>
>Does anyone have a model bill mandating that government agencies buy
>recycled paper made with post consumer waste? What percentage of post
>consumer wastes are being mandated in state legislatures?
>
>Susan Snow
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Wed, 4 Feb 1998 23:26:40 -0500
>From: "Bill Sheehan" <bill_sheehan@mindspring.com>
>Subject: Precautionary Principle and Zero Waste
>
>Zero Wasters,
>
>The Precautionary Principle provides a philosophical rationale for Zero
>Waste.
>The news release below includes a statement from a recent gathering.
>
>-- Bill S.
>
>=================
>
>For Immediate Release
>
>
>New Principle to Protect Human Health and the Environment
>
>When it comes to activities that affect human health and the
>environment, "better safe than sorry" and "look before you leap" should
>be the guiding principles, say environmental leaders who met in Racine,
>Wisconsin, in late January.
>
>At the conclusion of a three-day conference at Wingspread, headquarters
>of the Johnson Foundation, the diverse group issued a statement calling
>for government, corporations, communities and scientists to implement
>the "precautionary principle" in making decisions.
>
>According to their statement, "When an activity raises threats of harm
>to the environment or human health, precautionary measures should be
>taken even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully
>established scientifically."
>
>The 32 participants included treaty negotiators, activists, scholars and
>scientists from the United States, Canada and Europe. The conference was
>called to define and discuss implementing the precautionary principle,
>which has been used as the basis for a growing number of international
>agreements.
>
>The idea of precaution underpins some U.S. policy, such as the
>requirement for environmental impact statements before major projects
>are launched using federal funds. But most existing laws and regulations
>focus on cleaning up and controlling damage rather than preventing it.
>The group concluded that these policies do not sufficiently protect
>people and the natural world.
>
>Participants expressed alarm about growing problems such as learning
>deficiencies, cancer, and asthma as well as global climate change,
>species extinction and ozone depletion, which are often difficult to
>link with precise causes and predictable outcomes.
>
>"The precautionary principle is common sense. We need to prevent
>questionable practices rather than simply dealing with their bad
>effects," said Ken Geiser of the University of Massachusetts, Lowell.
>"We often don't know for sure what harm there will be until people have
>suffered or the damage is irreparable. Scientists don't want to say what
>will happen before they know for sure. By then, the damage is done."
>
>"Most people think we already have the precautionary principle," said
>Diane Takvorian, a community organizer with the Environmental Health
>Coalition in San Diego, California. "Then something poisons their food
>or water or makes them ill and they are surprised. They are outraged
>that democracy doesn't seem to apply to their own health."
>
>"Precaution is natural in our lives," said Gordon Durnil, a lawyer from
>Indianapolis, Indiana. "From my perspective as a conservative
>Republican, this is a conservative principle."
>
>Durnil, who served during the Bush administration on a commission
>established to resolve problems between the United States and Canada,
>said, "I found a system that used scientific uncertainty as proof that
>no harm was possible. Many policy makers and many in the public believe
>that if you can't prove it is true, then it is not true."
>
>Durnil said the commission learned that governments were stocking fish
>in the Great Lakes and then were warning people not to eat those fish.
>But when commissioners asked scientists what they knew about the effects
>of pollutants on public health and wildlife, scientists were reluctant
>to answer.
>
>"Then we stopped asking scientists what they knew and started asking
>them what they believed," Durnil said. "That's when we began getting at
>the truth.
>
>Carolyn Raffensperger, coordinator of a network that links scientists
>with environmental groups and issues, said the precautionary principle
>"has the potential to change how we make decisions about public health
>and the environment. This principle challenges business and government
>to think and act in a different way." Joel Tickner, also with the
>network, elaborated by saying "the challenge is to act on a suspicion of
>harm and be creative about those actions. Precautionary action may
>include pursuing safer alternatives, restricting or phasing out
>practices or substances, developing new "clean" technologies, or doing
>nothing at all."
>
>Participants noted that current policies such as risk assessment and
>cost-benefit analysis give the benefit of the doubt to new products and
>technologies, which may later prove harmful. And when damage occurs,
>victims and their advocates have the difficult task of proving that a
>product or activity was responsible.
>
>The precautionary principle shifts the burden of proof, insisting that
>those responsible for an activity must vouch for its harmlessness and be
>held responsible if damage occurs.
>
>"The process of applying the precautionary principle must be open,
>informed and democratic and must include potentially affected parties,"
>the group's statement concluded.
>
>Raffensperger added, "The role of science is essential. But the public
>must be fully involved. Informed consent is just as essential."
>
>The conference was convened by the Science and Environmental Health
>Network, an organization that links science with the public interest,
>and by the Johnson Foundation, the W. Alton Jones Foundation, the C.S.
>Fund and the Lowell Center for Sustainable Production at the University
>of Massachusetts-Lowell.
>________________________________________
>Wingspread Statement on the Precautionary Principle
>
>The release and use of toxic substances, the exploitation of resources,
>and physical alterations of the environment have had substantial
>unintended consequences affecting human health and the environment.
>Some of these concerns are high rates of learning deficiencies, asthma,
>cancer, birth defects and species extinctions; along with global climate
>change, stratospheric ozone depletion and worldwide contamination with
>toxic substances and nuclear materials.
>
>We believe existing environmental regulations and other decisions,
>particularly those based on risk assessment, have failed to protect
>adequately human health and the environment - the larger system of which
>humans are but a part.
>
>We believe there is compelling evidence that damage to humans and the
>worldwide environment is of such magnitude and seriousness that new
>principles for conducting human activities are necessary.
>
>While we realize that human activities may involve hazards, people must
>proceed more carefully than has been the case in recent history.
>Corporations, government entities, organizations, communities,
>scientists and other individuals must adopt a precautionary approach to
>all human endeavors.
>
>Therefore, it is necessary to implement the Precautionary Principle:
>When an activity raises threats of harm to human health or the
>environment, precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause
>and effect relationships are not fully established scientifically.
>
>In this context the proponent of an activity, rather than the public,
>should bear the burden of proof.
>
>The process of applying the Precautionary Principle must be open,
>informed and democratic and must include potentially affected parties.
>It must also involve an examination of the full range of alternatives,
>including no action.
>
> ###
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Wed, 4 Feb 1998 15:19:56 -0600 (CST)
>From: Rod McCormick <Rod_McCormick@environment.gov.mb.ca>
>Subject: Renewal of product stewardship plans in Manitoba
>
>As required by regulation, the business plans for Manitoba's
>Multi-Material Stewardship Program and for the Tire Stewardship program
>are up for review. The proposed plans each cover the years 1998 to 2001
>and are available through Manitoba Environment's public registry system
>and on through the following link:
>
><http://www.gov.mb.ca/environ/wrap.html>
>
>Comments are invited until March 2, 1998.
>
>Rod McCormick
>Pollution Prevention
>Manitoba Environment
>
>------------------------------
>
>End of GreenYes Digest V98 #29
>******************************
>
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 05 Feb 1998 15:29:24 -0600
From: Bill Carter <WCARTER@tnrcc.state.tx.us>
Subject: Looking for a buy recycled bill
Following is the statutory reference and text for the Texas requirement
for state agency purchases of recycled, remanufactured, and/or
"environmentally sensitive" products. It is comprehensive, not limited to
paper. The rules and guidance manual implementing this provision were
developed by the Texas General Services Commission. One possible
contact there is Paul Schlimper (512-475-2458). The bill was sponsored
by Sen. Carl Parker, who is no longer a senator.
Senate Bill 1051 (1993)
SECTION 1.02. Article 3, State Purchasing and General
3-2 Services Act (Article 601b, Vernon's Texas Civil Statutes), is
3-3 amended by adding Section 3.33 to read as follows:
3-4 Sec. 3.33. STATE AGENCY EXPENDITURES FOR RECYCLED
MATERIALS.
3-5 A state agency shall expend a minimum of five percent of its
3-6 consumable procurement budget in fiscal year 1994 and eight
percent
3-7 of its consumable procurement budget for each fiscal year
3-8 thereafter for materials, supplies, and equipment that have
3-9 recycled material content or are remanufactured or
environmentally
3-10 sensitive, as those terms are defined by the commission. A
report
3-11 of the total expenditures in these areas and the amount
expended in
3-12 each category for the previous fiscal year shall be delivered to
3-13 the governor, the Legislative Budget Board, the lieutenant
3-14 governor, and the speaker of the house of representatives not
later
3-15 than January 1 of each year.
The Recycling Coalition of Texas released a "report card" on state
agency compliance with this requirement in 1996, based on the agencies'
own self-reporting. There were some impressive reports from some
agencies, but some were well below the target 8% and quite a few
failed to report to GSC at all.
Bill Carter, Program Specialist
Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission
Recycling Section, Office of Pollution Prevention & Recycling
MC114 P.O. Box 13087, Austin, TX 78711-3087 USA
(512) 239-6771
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 05 Feb 1998 22:37:32 -0500
From: Cindy/Mike Shea <mcshea1@gte.net>
Subject: Precautionary Principle and Zero Waste
Bill,
Thanks for forwarding the precautionary principle message and the one
from Liberty Tree, written by Donella Meadows. As you may know, the
precautionary principle has been used by German policymakers for about a
decade, but is just gaining credence in the US. Now, more than ever,
I'm interested in getting some universal principles to share with
readers of our newly created website http://sustainable.state.fl.us
Please keep the great leads coming.
Cindy Pollock Shea
Promoting Sustainable Development
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 5 Feb 1998 10:13:30 -0600
From: "John Reindl" <reindl@co.dane.wi.us>
Subject: Recycling Coke cans vs. Reusing Glass Bottles
Hi Jamby -
Thanks for your note. Many years ago (20 or so?), EPA put out a
document on a resource and environmental profile analysis of
beverage container alternatives. This showed a comparison of energy
and resource use for a number of alternative packages. I suspect,
however, that the data are badly out of date.
Unfortunately, I have not been able to keep up with the literature
and more recent studies. By copy of this note to several email
lists, I am asking anyone who might have more recent information to
please respond to you at your email address of jamby@juno.com
Good luck on your project! Wish I could be of more help.
John
> To: reindl@co.dane.wi.us
> Date: Wed, 4 Feb 1998 18:56:06 -0600
> Subject: Recycling Coke cans vs. Reusing Glass Bottles
> From: jamby@juno.com (Jamby M Taylor)
> John,
>
> I'm doin research on cost/energy efficiency of various soft drink
> containers. Weather it would be cheaper to sanitize glass bottles, or
> recycle aluminum. I was told that glass is cheaper/better/more energy
> efficient, but I have no sources to site. I saw two of your news group
> messages on the subject, and seeing that you are knowladgeable about the
> subject I figured I'd ask for your help. Where should I be looking?
> Books, or articles, any info would be great.
>
> Oh, although glass isn't used much in the U.S. for cokes and such, in
> Mexico, where I frequently travel, the drinks in glass containers are
> considerably cheaper, due mostly to the fact (I assume) that they
> sanitize the glass bottles, reducing the energy required for the
> production of the beverage container. So I'm lookin for support or
> evidence refuting my therory
>
> Thank you,
> Jamby Taylor
>
> P.S.
> Just saw another message stating that your email doesn't always get
> through.
> My other email address is <icandunk@tamu.edu>
> Phone #: (409) 847-4379, call collect.
>
> _____________________________________________________________________
> You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
> Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
> Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
>
>
reindl@co.dane.wi.us
(608)267-1533 - fax
(608)267-8815 - phone
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 05 Feb 1998 14:56:11 -0500
From: Pete Pasterz <Pete.Pasterz@USDWP.MSU.EDU>
Subject: Recycling Coke cans vs. Reusing Glass Bottles -Reply
Jamby--
contact the Container Recycling Institute, cri@igc.org or www.igc.apc.org/cri/
Pete Pasterz
Michigan State Univ.
pasterz@pilot.msu.edu
>>> "John Reindl" <reindl@co.dane.wi.us> 02/05/98 11:13am >>>
Hi Jamby -
Thanks for your note. Many years ago (20 or so?), EPA put out a
document on a resource and environmental profile analysis of
beverage container alternatives. This showed a comparison of energy
and resource use for a number of alternative packages. I suspect,
however, that the data are badly out of date.
Unfortunately, I have not been able to keep up with the literature
and more recent studies. By copy of this note to several email
lists, I am asking anyone who might have more recent information to
please respond to you at your email address of jamby@juno.com
Good luck on your project! Wish I could be of more help.
John
> To: reindl@co.dane.wi.us
> Date: Wed, 4 Feb 1998 18:56:06 -0600
> Subject: Recycling Coke cans vs. Reusing Glass Bottles
> From: jamby@juno.com (Jamby M Taylor)
> John,
>
> I'm doin research on cost/energy efficiency of various soft drink
> containers. Weather it would be cheaper to sanitize glass bottles, or
> recycle aluminum. I was told that glass is cheaper/better/more energy
> efficient, but I have no sources to site. I saw two of your news group
> messages on the subject, and seeing that you are knowladgeable about the
> subject I figured I'd ask for your help. Where should I be looking?
> Books, or articles, any info would be great.
>
> Oh, although glass isn't used much in the U.S. for cokes and such, in
> Mexico, where I frequently travel, the drinks in glass containers are
> considerably cheaper, due mostly to the fact (I assume) that they
> sanitize the glass bottles, reducing the energy required for the
> production of the beverage container. So I'm lookin for support or
> evidence refuting my therory
>
> Thank you,
> Jamby Taylor
>
> P.S.
> Just saw another message stating that your email doesn't always get
> through.
> My other email address is <icandunk@tamu.edu>
> Phone #: (409) 847-4379, call collect.
>
> _____________________________________________________________________
> You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
> Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
> Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
>
>
reindl@co.dane.wi.us
(608)267-1533 - fax
(608)267-8815 - phone
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 5 Feb 1998 16:47:58 -0800 (PST)
From: "David A. Kirkpatrick" <david@kirkworks.com>
Subject: Recycling Ventures Selected for SE Investment Forum
RECYCLING VENTURES SELECTED FOR SOUTHEASTERN INVESTMENT FORUM
COLUMBIA, SC - The Southeastern Recycling Investment Forum announced today
the selection of 16 ventures whose business plans will be unveiled at the
Forum on Monday, February 23 in Charleston, South Carolina at the Francis
Marion Hotel. The 3rd Annual Southeastern Recycling Investment Forum
introduces promising recycling businesses to prospective investors.
"We are pleased that this year's presenting companies will be primarily
seeking expansion equity financing -- many are already reaching
multi-million dollar annual sales," said Ted Campbell, manager of the S.C.
Recycling Market Development Advisory Council (SCRMDAC) which hosts the
Forum for the Southeast region.
"We have screened business plans and selected the best candidates from an
investment perspective, then reviewed and critiqued their business
presentations to prepare them for making the best of this opportunity,"
noted Elyn Dortch, Senior Vice President of NationsBanc SBIC, a member of
the Forum Selection Committee along with other investors and financiers.
This year, the selected companies include AMERICAN TIRE RECYCLERS and
ENVIROTIRE RECYCLING that produce value-added rubber products. Three
organics companies to be featured include COMPOSTWORKS which is starting a
major metropolitan food residuals processing operation, VERMICYCLE ORGANICS
which uses earthworms to convert hog waste into organic fertilizer, and
SUNSET TURF whose nurseries produce winning specialty turf using yard debris
compost. ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS, ADVANCED CELLULOSE ENGINEERED PRODUCTS
and POLYMER RECLAIM & EXCHANGE each have developed unique methods for
reclaiming and manufacturing from paper and plastic by-products. AUTOSTAR
is building its major parts remanufacturing business, RECYCLING SCIENCES is
expanding markets for its patented solvent recovery systems and QUALITY
RECYCLING EQUIPMENT is capitalizing a major metals recovery opportunity at
federal facilities. NATIONAL LANDFILL MANAGEMENT has discovered a process
to regenerate landfills while producing saleable products and VORTEX
COMBUSTION COMPANY has developed an efficient technology for energy
recovery. CTI SPACEBOARD, AQUA SHED and SUPERIOR AUTO RECYCLING are all
introducing new technologies to the recycling industry.
In addition to seeing these exclusive business presentations and exhibits,
the investors and economic developers attending the forum will hear from two
keynote speakers who are leaders in the recycling and finance fields. Paul
Garrett, CEO of FCR, Inc, will share lessons he has learned in building a
diversified recycling company with $100 million in sales and venture capital
financing. Gerald Benjamin, Senior Managing Partner of International Capital
Resources, will detail capital-raising strategies from his new book, Finding
Your Wings: How to Locate Private Investors to Fund Your Venture.
As an added bonus, on Tuesday morning Forum participants have the option of
touring Nucor Steel's $530 million flat rolled sheet mill in the Charleston
area. Nucor is the largest volume steel scrap recycling company in the US.
The Southeastern Recycling Investment Forum is being organized by SC RMDAC
and KirkWorks with primary sponsorship by the U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency. For further information, call Ted Campbell, SC RMDAC at 803/737-0477.
###
SOUTHEAST RECYCLING INVESTMENT FORUM 2/23/98, Charleston, SC
Ted Campbell, SC Recycling Market Development Advisory Council, 803-737-0477
Website: http://www.state.sc.us/commerce/recycle/Srifmenu.htm
Email: TCAMPBEL@commerce.state.sc.us
MIDWEST RECYCLING INVESTMENT FORUM 3/23/98, Omaha, NE
Pat Langan, Nebraska Department of Economic Development, 402-471-3766
Website: http://reda.ded.state.ne.us, Email: langan@ded1.ded.state.ne.us
NORTHEAST RECYCLING INVESTMENT FORUM 5/5/98, Philadelphia, PA
Mary Ann Remolador, Northeast Recycling Council, 802-254-3636
Website: http://www.nerc.org, Email: mremolad@sover.net
**Business applications due February 16, 1998.**
========================================
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 5 Feb 1998 11:36:16 EST
From: Dimeanor@aol.com
Subject: unfortunate news
NEWS *** NEWS *** NEWS *** NEWS *** NEWS *** NEWS
For Immediate Release Contact: Resa A. Dimino
February 3, 1998 (718) 731-3931
Bronx 2000tm and Big City Foresttm Begin Liquidation
Bronx, NY: On January 20, 1998, the Board of Directors of the South Bronx 2000
Local Development Corporation (Bronx 2000) voted to begin liquidation of the
corporation and its subsidiary companies, including Big City Forest, Inc. The
move came after several months of intensive, yet unsuccessful, attempts to
restructure the finances of the fledgling companies. The companies will
continue operations and continue to search for a solution to their financial
woes until the end of February, 1998.
"There seems to be a reservoir of good will surrounding our work and there is
a real appreciation for what we've accomplished in the last twenty years,"
says David M. Muchnick, President & CEO of Bronx 2000 and Chairman of Big City
Forest, "yet, we haven't been able to find a 'white knight' to help us out of
this financial crisis."
In its nearly 20 year history, Bronx 2000 saved the East Tremont commercial
strip, organized and assisted local tenants to preserve the neighborhood's
housing stock, and brought new jobs and revenues into the community by
establishing recycling-based businesses that integrate the South Bronx
neighborhood into national and international markets. In the last year alone,
Bronx 2000 made significant progress in its housing programs, and in
developing community-based enterprises that use recyclable materials to create
jobs, develop the local economy, and conserve and sustain natural resources.
It has:
Improved living conditions for an estimated 45,000 low-income tenants in
13,000 apartments in 500 distressed buildings around the Bronx, protected
4,000 families from housing abandonment, advanced seven buildings with 186
families on the path to cooperative ownership, generated over $6.2 million for
building improvements, and assisted the district attorney, building owners,
tenants, and community groups to combat drug dealing in 641 buildings with
some 24,300 apartments.
Nurtured the growth of our reclaimed wood products manufacturing subsidiary,
Big City Forest, which employed between 12 and 20 production workers and
apprentices to reclaim used pallets and crates and manufacture furniture,
flooring, architectural millwork, and other value-added, solid wood products.
The company's pallet division built a regional customer base of more than 100
companies with combined sales in excess of $1 billion annually and market
demand for Big City Forest's other products exceeded its production capacity.
Established the critical, program links between job creation and economic
growth in cities and such "macro" environmental issues as sustainable forestry
and global climate change. Bronx 2000 and Big City Forest have been
recognized by the trade and mainstream media, government agencies and
conference conveners as authorities on the environmental and economic benefits
of reclaimed wood products manufacturing, including the connections between
inner-city value-added wood reclaiming and environmental conservation,
including reducing greenhouse gas emissions and wood consumption.
Forged a new public-private research and development partnership to unlock a
potential $100 million per year postconsumer materials market capable of
sustaining 3,000 entry-level, blue-collar jobs nationwide in a new recycled
material industry. Bronx 2000 had been working with the Carpet and Rug
Institute (CRI) and several carpet fiber manufacturers in an R&D effort to
pioneer a strategy to collect used carpets and rugs and prepare them for use
in new manufacturing applications.
Operated an effective job training program that serves both neighborhood
residents and the city's 8,000-job wood products manufacturing industry.
Bronx 2000's NYC Department of Employment-funded woodworking job training
program prepared individuals for entry-level jobs in the wood products
manufacturing industry. In its first two years, 96 trainees graduated from
the program and 85 have been placed in jobs.
"In the end, lack of access to capital threatened the tremendous progress
we've made in the last two decades," adds Muchnick. Despite the
organization's growth and great programmatic, research and development and
entrepreneurial successes, it has suffered severe cash flow problems and
accumulated a significant debt. "Lacking an immediate means to retire that
debt, the board had no alternative but to begin liquidation of the companies."
"We were very close to completing Big City Forest's expansion financing, which
would have given us the means to attain profitability within the year," says
Steven R. Carter, Big City Forest's Executive Vice President and Acting CEO,
"but we were unable to get commitments of private sources of capital in time
to meet our cash-flow needs."
Bronx 2000 will continue to search for the means to keep some or all of its
programs and enterprises operating in the Bronx while it undertakes the legal
liquidation process.
**** END ****
The South Bronx 2000 Local Development Corporation (Bronx 2000tm) is a
community-based development organization dedicated to affordable housing,
neighborhood economic development, community-based enterprise and
environmentalism on local, national, and global levels. Currently, its
programs focus on environmental job creation and economic development and
housing.
Big City Forest, Inc.tm, is a reclaimed wood products manufacturing company.
It reclaims the lumber in pallets, crates and other discarded wooden packaging
to make a line of high-value, solid wood products including new pallets,
furniture, flooring, architectural millwork and other building products.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 05 Feb 1998 22:53:33 -0500
From: Cindy/Mike Shea <mcshea1@gte.net>
Subject: Vinyl Containing Products
Dear Listers,
After seeing the recent Greenpeace warnings regarding vinyl in toys, and
following some of the PVC packaging debates over the years in Europe and
the US, I've begun to wonder about the safety of flexible plastic wrap
when it comes in direct contact with food. Have any of you seen studies
on migration potential and the likely health effects? I don't want to
be a chicken little, but I also don't want to be unknowingly ingesting
toxins and serving them to my kids. It occurs to me that cling wrap
commercials just show tightly covered bowls, not cheese or fruit wrapped
in plastic.
Thank you for any leads or instruction you may be able to provide.
Cindy Pollock Shea
Promoting Sustainable Development
------------------------------
End of GreenYes Digest V98 #30
******************************