RE: [greenyes] An explanation

["Susan Hubbard" <susanh@no.address>]

Bill,

I agree that recyclers are fighting subsidies. I also find it interesting
that SWANA thinks that subsidies for virgin materials are unfair and create
barriers to increased recycling and composting and at the same time SWANA
believes that subsidies for burning or landfilling trash (in the form of
renewable energy credits) are good and do not compete with recycling or
composting. To me this is speaking or of both sides of your mouth...... when
it is full.

Susan Hubbard
CEO
Eureka Recycling
2828 Kennedy St., NE
Minneapolis, MN 55413

(651)222-7678
(612)623-3277
www.eurekarecycling.org

Waste is Preventable Not Inevitable


-----Original Message-----
From: William Ramcheck [mailto:bramcheck@no.address] 
Sent: Friday, September 10, 2004 1:04 PM
To: Reindl, John; Jerry Powell; greenyes@no.address
Subject: RE: [greenyes] An explanation


Hi John, Jerry, and others in this virgin subsidy discussion:

I tend to agree with John's points as previously stated, and would
answer his question below specifically by referencing that recyclers ARE
fighting to get rid of the subsidies, or at least to modify them.  Go to
SWANA's position paper on "Pushing the Envelope on Waste Reduction and
Recovery" at
http://www.swana.org/pdf/swana_pdf_48.pdf and go to page 10 to find
their statements regarding this.  Keep in mind that is a working
document and will likely be revised at the upcoming WASTECON.  Perhaps
the points you're all raising should be relayed to the group working on
that revision effort, and other national groups join in that effort.

Bill Tarman-Ramcheck
Public Works Programs Analyst
City of Wauwatosa Public Works

-----Original Message-----
From: Reindl, John [mailto:Reindl@no.address] 
Sent: Friday, September 10, 2004 1:06 PM
To: 'Jerry Powell'; greenyes@no.address
Subject: RE: [greenyes] An explanation

Hi Jerry ~

The question should really be "why don't recyclers fight to get rid of
the
subsidies". Instead, I see them asking for subsidies for their programs.


I wouldn't expect the integrated producers to want any of their
subsidies to
be reduced. But even conservative and libertarian groups want these
subsidies eliminated.

And worse, why don't recyclers want to go to an environmental valuation
fee
system like that used in other countries? This would "internalize the
externalities".

John 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jerry Powell [mailto:jpowell@no.address]
> Sent: Friday, September 10, 2004 11:35 AM
> To: greenyes@no.address
> Subject: [greenyes] An explanation
> 
> 
> John and Richard:  One reason why the removal of virgin tax 
> subsidies does not receive wide support among consumers of 
> secondary materials is that more than half of the recyclables 
> collected in the U.S. are consumed by integrated producers 
> (those who use both virgin and secondary materials).  In 
> newspaper recycling, the two largest users of ONP are Abitibi 
> Consolidated and Weyerhaueser, both integrated producers.  In 
> aluminum cans, it's Alcoa and Alcan.  In fact, only a fairly 
> small portion of secondary materrials is used to make 
> all-recycled-content products.  There's no 100-percent 
> recycled glass bottle, there's no all-recycled corrugated box, etc.   
> _______
> Jerry Powell, Editor and Publisher
> Resource Recycling Magazine
> E-Scrap News
> Plastics Recycling Update
> 
> P.O. Box 42270
> Portland, OR 97242-0270
> (503) 233-1305 office                                         
>               ; 
> (503) 233-1356 fax
> (503) 781-2183 cell
> jpowell@no.address
> www.resource-recycling.com
> www.e-scrapnews.com
>