GreenYes Digest V98 #17

GreenYes Mailing List and Newsgroup (greenyes@ucsd.edu)
Fri, 22 Jan 1999 17:34:36 -0500


GreenYes Digest Thu, 22 Jan 98 Volume 98 : Issue 17

Today's Topics:
chasing arrow symbol history
FW: PA EPA SEEKS PUBLIC COMMENT ON DRAFT BROCHURE
Which Virgin Subsidies Affect Recycling? (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.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Loop-Detect: GreenYes:98/17
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 21 Jan 1998 15:33:43 EST
From: CRRA <CRRA@aol.com>
Subject: chasing arrow symbol history

The chasing arrows were promoted by the American Paper Institute (now American
Forest & Paper Assn., NY) in the 1970s to provide a more consistent message
about recycled paper post-Earth Day 1970.

Gary Liss
CA Resource Recovery Assn.

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 21 Jan 1998 07:51:48 -0600
From: "Rogers, John" <john_r@deq.state.la.us>
Subject: FW: PA EPA SEEKS PUBLIC COMMENT ON DRAFT BROCHURE

> ----------
> From: GROUP PRESS 202-260-4355[SMTP:PRESS@epamail.epa.gov]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 1998 2:53 PM
> To: Multiple recipients of list
> Subject: PA EPA SEEKS PUBLIC COMMENT ON DRAFT BROCHURE
>
>
> !PA/EPA SEEKS PUBLIC COMMENT ON DRAFT BROCHURE/SCROLL
> FOR RELEASE: JANUARY 16, 1998
>
>
>
> EPA SEEKS PUBLIC COMMENT ON DRAFT BROCHURE
> TO INFORM CONSUMERS ABOUT PESTICIDE RESIDUES IN FOOD
>
>
>
> EPA is seeking public comment on a draft consumer brochure to increase
>
> the public's right to know about pesticides and food. This initial
> draft will be subject to change before becoming final based on
> comments received from both the public and the Agency. When
> completed, the brochure, which is required by the new Food Quality
> Protection Act, will be distributed in grocery stores and updated
> annually. EPA is developing this document in consultation with the
> public, the Food and Drug Administration, and the Department of
> Agriculture. Those who want to comment on the draft should, within 45
>
> days, write to: Public Response and Program Resources Branch (7502C);
>
> Office of Pesticide Programs; EPA; 401 M Street, S.W.; Washington,
> D.C. 20460, or make a request electronically to:
> oppdocket@epamail.epa.gov. The draft brochure also is available on
> the Internet at: "Laws and Regulations" http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr
> or www.epa.gov/pesticides/CB/CSB_page/brochure.
>
> R-4 ###
>

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 21 Jan 1998 07:10:16 EST
From: RonRecycle <RonRecycle@aol.com>
Subject: Which Virgin Subsidies Affect Recycling?

Hello Bill ! !

It is really great to see you, greenyes, and GRRN pushing NRC to act on virgin
subsidies. I will take a crack at some priorities when I get to work
tomorrow (it is 3:00 am now).

Coincidently, there was a great editorial today's local paper (authored by
Philip Gailey, columnist for the St. Petersburg Florida Times), regarding Dale
Bumpers failed crusade to get enough votes to pass anything. I am afraid
that with the loss of Bumpers this year, and the troubles facing Interior
Secretary Babbitt, we are losing some really great allies.

Politically, it would be great to find a Senator (ideally) or a Representative
to take up the cause, and then publish the votes in the NRC publications
whenever critical political hoops must be jumped through, to embarass those
not voting environmentally.

Bill, you may have already been subjected to my soapbox diatribe regarding the
"multiplier effect" of early subsidies, but I will give a condensed repeat:
There is a multiplier effect on many (all) economic entities when a stimulus
occurs (for example a new auto plant stimulates business for restaurants,
retailers, homebuilders, car dealers, banks, etc.) This same effect occurs
when free (or too cheap) water is given to pulp mills, underpriced electricity
to aluminum smelters (Tenessee Valley and Pac. Northwest), free logging roads
and favorable tax treatment to cut down trees, etc. This leads to staggering
investments by the "incentivized" industry to create an efficient
infrastructure to do what the stimulus "told them to do". The CEO of one of
the big forest-products companies (I think Inter. Paper) said he agreed that
these stimuli were wrong, but that his company has been told "by the tax code"
to go cut trees, and now the public wants him to stop. His point was that 150
years of stimulus has led to some pretty big investments by companies like
his.

Without going on and on, the point I want to make is that even with hard,
quantifiable numbers for direct subsidies and incentives, this would just be
the tip of the iceberg and would not nearly show the "multiplied effect" of
huge private investment to take advantage of them.

Which is why we may even need (or want) some of these companies as allies, if
at all possible. I do not think they could really argue against a 10% per
year phaseout of incentives. They would still get 90% of the benefits the
second year, 80% the third, etc. with a total phaseout by end of 2008 (if
started in 1999). If this is deemed too quick (and some could argue that
after 150 + years of "pushing", 10 years of "pulling" is pretty quick) we
could fall back to a 5% per year phaseout over 20 years.

The stopping of direct incentives, while hugely significant, to me is
secondary to the much bigger and longer term much more damaging multiplied
private investment -- by sending a clear signal that the incentives are going
to stop, the companies actually doing "the damage" will make the slow, but
massive, changes we are seeking.

My ultimate point is that whatever number anyone claims for virgin materials
incentives, it will be far, far, FAR too small, given this "multiplier
effect".

Having said all this, I will try and summarize my "wish list" of priorities
for you. In California, we have the renewal of the Bottle Bill up this year.
This, plus raising two (very) little kids on my own (even if it is 1/2 the
time) is pretty consuming.

I am very, very happy to see what you are doing -- good work and good luck ! !
!

RON

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 20 Jan 98 23:35:36 PST
From: roger.diedrich@sfsierra.sierraclub.org
Subject: Which Virgin Subsidies Affect Recycling?

Dear Folks concerned about virgin material subsidies:

WHICH virgin material subsidies affect recycling and should be eliminated?

The policy working group of the National Recycling Coalition is looking at
this issue, in response from a mandate from its membership. There is some
discussion that we lack sufficient data to make informed decisions, and that
the issue needs in-depth study before proceeding. The author of the 1990 EPA
study on the subject (released in 1994; Doug Koplow) concurs.

Does anyone out there have SPECIFIC, DETAILED information on subsides for
virgin materials, how they affect recycling, how much, together with sources
and references? Are there subsidies whose elimination can be justified on the
basis of existing information and without extensive, further studies? Which
should be top priorities?

Even if more study is needed, such information could help the working group
develop a prioritized list.

Thanks in advance for helping the work of the policy working group.

Bill S.

Bill,
I think there are some studies on energy subsidies that could be recast to
show one aspect of what you need. That would take some effort though. What
do we have the most of, time or money?
Roger Diedrich

------------------------------

End of GreenYes Digest V98 #17
******************************