[GreenYes Archives] -
[Thread Index] -
[Date Index]
[Date Prev] - [Date Next] - [Thread Prev] - [Thread Next]
[GreenYes] Fwd: CIWMB Zero Waste Proposal Under Attack
- Subject: [GreenYes] Fwd: CIWMB Zero Waste Proposal Under Attack
- From: Gary Liss <gary@garyliss.com>
- Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2001 18:38:42 -0800
Apologies for Cross-Postings
>>Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2001 16:37:06 -0800
>>From: Mark Murray <murray@cawrecycles.org>
>>Subject: CIWMB Zero Waste Proposal Under Attack
>>
>>Your letters and testimony in support of a California 'Zero Waste' goal
>>needed by Wednesday, November 7, at 9 am.
>>
>>>As the attached cover letter and comments indicate, a coalition of
>>>manufacturing interests led by the American Plastics Council is
>>>attacking provisions of the California Integrated Waste Management
>>>Board's proposed 'Strategy Plan'. Foremost among their demands is the
>>>exclusion of any language refering to the goal of 'zero waste'.
>>
>>The Board will be hearing comments on their Strategic Plan at the Board
>>Agenda Briefing on Wednesday, November 7, starting at 9:30 in the 2nd
>>Floor, Coastal Hearing Room of the CalEPA Building, 1001 I Street, Sacramento.
>>
>>If you believe that California should be at least 'aiming' for the goal
>>of 'Zero' waste, then this is your opportunity to have your voice heard.
>>
>>If you can not attend Wednesday's hearing in person, I urge you to Fax or
>>Email a brief letter in support of the inclusion of Zero Waste in the
>>strategic plan to members of the CIWMB prior to the hearing.
>>
>>Keep in mind, the CIWMB has already included 'Zero Waste' in their
>>proposed plan. The plastics industry and others are proposing that it be
>>removed.
>>
>>Also attached is CIWMB Contact info.
>>
>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>From: Leary, Mark
>>>Sent: Monday, November 05, 2001 9:12 AM
>>>To: (BRD) Board Staff; Barnes, Deborah
>>>Subject: FW: CIWMB Strategic Plan - Comments
>>>
>>>The following note is provided to keep you current on the efforts of the
>>>" the Thursday Group" to affect our proposed Strategic Plan. Thanks
>>>
>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>From: Tim_Shestek@plastics.org
>>>[<<mailto:Tim_Shestek@plastics.org>mailto:Tim_Shestek@plastics.org>mailto
>>>:Tim_Shestek@plastics.org]
>>>Sent: Friday, November 02, 2001 3:53 PM
>>>To: Leary, Mark; Packard, Rubia
>>>Subject: CIWMB Strategic Plan - Comments
>>>
>>>Mr. Leary, Ms. Packard:
>>>
>>>On behalf of the Thursday Group, I am forwarding a cover letter that
>>>outlines our comments, as well as a "mock-up" version of our suggested
>>>language changes and additions. We appreciate the opportunity to submit
>>>these comments and look forward to continuing our dialogue.
>>>
>>>Tim Shestek
>>>Manager, State & Local Public Affairs
>>>American Plastics Council
>>>1121 L St., Suite 910
>>>Sacramento, CA 95814
>>>916-448-2581 (phone)
>>>916-442-2449 (fax)
>>>916-838-0713 (cellular)
THURSDAY GROUP LETTER
>November 2, 2001
>
>Mr. Mark Leary
>Executive Director
>California Integrated Waste Management Board
>1001 I Street
>Sacramento, California 95812
>
>Dear Mr. Leary:
>
>The Thursday Group would like to express its appreciation to you and your
>staff, Mr. Michael Paparian, and Mr. Jose Medina for meeting with us to
>discuss the California Integrated Waste Management Board's (CIWMB) 2001
>Strategic Plan. As you requested, this letter serves to provide the Board
>with more information about our concerns and comments. We have also taken
>the liberty of including our latest "mock-up" version that reflects our
>constructive dialogue on October 31, 2001.
>
>Our concerns and comments can be outlined in the following
>categories: (1) the process by which the business community is afforded
>the opportunity to participate in the implementation of this plan; (2)
>concern over the term "zero-waste"; (3) the need for further development
>of the terms "sustainability" and "product stewardship"; (4) technical and
>clarifying language changes in the area of environmental justice,
>environmentally preferable purchasing and conversion technology; and (5)
>concern over the Board's role in regulating household chemical products.
>
>PROCESS
>
>In an attempt to ensure the business community is afforded every
>opportunity to participate in the implementation of the strategic plan,
>its objectives and strategies, we propose the addition of language on page
>1 specifying that all affected stakeholder groups will be included in the
>formation of strategic teams and that the Board will make every feasible
>effort to ensure that decisions and actions associated with the
>implementation of the plan be subject to public review and
>comment. Additional references to help ensure business community
>participation are also contained in our mock-up version. We would also
>suggest that periodic workshops or briefing sessions be held to review the
>implementation of the strategic plan and solicit further public
>comment. We recommend that the Board include a description of that
>process and clearly outline in the strategic plan opportunities for
>continued public input.
>
>ZERO-WASTE
>
>The term "zero-waste" is defined in the original strategic plan to mean,
>"where the public, industry, and government strive to reduce, reuse, or
>recycle all municipal solid waste materials back into nature or the
>marketplace in a manner that protects human health and the environment and
>honors the principles of California's Integrated Waste Management Act."
>(page 4, priority #7). The notion of recycling 100 percent of the state's
>solid waste stream is not feasible, due in large part to recycling
>economics and consumer behavior. Today, state and local governments are
>close to achieving the mandated 50 percent waste diversion goal, mainly
>because it makes environmental and economic sense to capture the
>substantive portions of our waste stream. A zero-waste policy ignores the
>law of diminishing returns by forcing the state and manufacturers to enact
>programs to capture even the smallest components of the waste stream. The
>blind pursuit of a zero "solid" waste environment would impose substantial
>costs on manufacturers, taxpayers and consumers, require inordinate energy
>expenditures and would result in increased air and water pollution. These
>trade-offs do not make economic or environmental sense. Our comments
>propose that this term be replaced with the term "sustainability."
>
>SUSTAINABILITY
>
>On page 26, we propose to define the term sustainability as a goal that
>all stakeholders should strive for and one that strikes a fair balance
>between environmental protection and continued economic growth.
>
>PRODUCT STEWARDSHIP
>
>We propose on page 26 and 27 that the strategic plan include a product
>stewardship policy statement and list of guiding principles. Reducing the
>environmental impact of a product is a laudable goal and one that makes
>good business sense. At the same time, we feel that a working definition
>is necessary to convey the Board's intention that all actors involved in
>the useful life of a product play a role in product stewardship. The
>Board's product stewardship policy statement should also reflect the need
>for flexibility, independent judgment and discretion in the application of
>this concept.
>
>ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE LANGUAGE CHANGES
>
>The suggestion to strike the first bullet (Page 2, and Pages 7, 8:
>"Commitment to Environmental Justice") is strictly editorial based on
>proposed changes to the last bullet. The Thursday Group does not object
>to this statement.
>
>Our proposed language in the last bullet is taken from California's
>statutory definition of "Environmental Justice", established by SB 115
>(Solis) in 1999. The Legislature reaffirmed this language last year in SB
>89 (Escutia) and again this year in SB 828 (Alarcon), AB 1390 (Firebaugh)
>and AB 1553 (Keeley).
>
>The current language undermines the statutory mandate to ensure the fair
>treatment of all people by drawing the conclusion that all low income and
>minority populations are disproportionately impacted by pollution, absent
>any analysis to support that conclusion. SB 89 requires the Cal-EPA
>agencies to review existing programs, policies and guidelines to identify
>shortcomings that could impede the achievement of environmental justice
>and take action to correct any problems. This language prejudges the
>outcome of that process.
>
>ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERABLE PURCHASING
>
>On page 27, we suggest that cautionary language be added that reflects the
>difficulty in designating a product or process as "environmentally
>preferable." The State should avoid specific endorsements of any product
>or service.
>
>CONVERSION TECHNOLOGY
>
>On page 3, we have added language to strengthen the role new alternative
>waste management practices can play in reaching waste diversion goals. We
>have also added language that would direct the state to support local
>government efforts to use alternative means of diverting waste, including
>but not limited to the creation of electricity and fuel.
>
>HOUSEHOLD CHEMICALS
>
>We are suggesting that the reference on page 14 pertaining to state grants
>to local governments regarding the dangers of household chemicals and
>alternatives that may be available be deleted. Household chemicals must
>adhere to applicable federal and state regulatory requirements and
>products must be thoroughly evaluated for health, safety, and
>environmental effects before they reach the marketplace. Prior attempts
>to provide grants to local governments have resulted in material promoting
>alternatives to household chemicals that actually resulted in increased
>risks to children. In well-meaning but misguided efforts, environmental
>groups and some local governments have urged consumers to formulate their
>own substitute products using various commercially available chemicals and
>materials, with possibly some very dangerous consequences. These home
>mixtures do not have labels, and there is no data on their efficacy,
>health, safety and environmental impact.
>
>We propose that the Board work with the household chemical industry to
>examine if the state can bolster existing industry education efforts.
>
>Our comments are an attempt to strengthen the Board's strategic plan in a
>manner that helps further protect the state's resources, but also
>encourage policies that foster continued economic growth. These goals
>should not be mutually exclusive. We look forward to working with the
>Board on the continued development and ultimate implementation of the 2001
>strategic plan.
>
>Sincerely,
>
>THE THURSDAY GROUP
>**************************************************
>CIWMB Board Members
>Contact Information
>
>Linda Moulton-Patterson
>Phone: 916-341-6024
>Fax: 916-319-7280
>Email: lmoulton@ciwmb.ca.gov
>
>Dan Eaton
>Phone: 916-341-6010
>Fax: 916-319-7100
>Email: deaton@ciwmb.ca.gov
>
>Steven R. Jones
>Phone: 916-341-6016
>Fax: 916-319-7445
>Email: sjones@ciwmb.ca.gov
>
>Jose Medina
>Phone: 916-341-6051
>Fax: 916-319-7216
>Email: jmedina@ciwmb.ca.gov
>
>Michael Paparian
>Phone: 916-341-6035
>Fax: 916-319-7359
>Email: paparian@ciwmb.ca.gov
>
>David A. Roberti
>Phone: 916-341-6039
>Fax: 916-319-7599
>Email: droberti@ciwmb.ca.gov
Gary Liss
916-652-7850
Fax: 916-652-0485
******************************************
To post to the greenyes list,
email to: greenyes@grrn.org
Subscription information for
this list is available here:
http://www.grrn.org/general/greenyes.html
******************************************
[GreenYes Archives] -
[Date Index] -
[Thread Index]
[Date Prev] - [Date Next] - [Thread Prev] - [Thread Next]