[GreenYes Archives] -
[Thread Index] -
[Date Index]
[Date Prev] - [Date Next] - [Thread Prev] - [Thread Next]
|
I think that national solutions can have a big downside if the national solution preempts state and local efforts. See ILSR's preemption web page. ilsr.org. Neil Seldman greenyes-digest-help@no.address wrote: > greenyes Digest 4 Mar 2005 21:25:35 -0000 Issue 28 > > Topics (messages 273 through 282): > > Re: "Should Congress pass a national deposit law?" > 273 by: Karl Zehr > 274 by: Christine McCoy > 275 by: RicAnthony.aol.com > 276 by: Pat Franklin > 279 by: Pat Franklin > 280 by: Kendall Christiansen > 281 by: RicAnthony.aol.com > > Re: Landfill Bans and The Ineffectiveness of MSW Regulations > 277 by: Steve Bloom > > Alert 393: Giant pile of poison to be left on banks of Delaware River as a gift to future generations > 278 by: Alan Muller > > Sustainability in the Inland Northwest: Conference wraps up in Boise, Idaho > 282 by: Megan Kershner > > Administrivia: > > To subscribe to the digest, e-mail: > <greenyes-digest-subscribe@no.address> > > To unsubscribe from the digest, e-mail: > <greenyes-digest-unsubscribe@no.address> > > To post to the list, e-mail: > <greenyes@no.address> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2005 10:00:18 -0800 (PST) > To: greenyes@no.address > From: Karl Zehr <thorshammer71678@no.address> > Subject: Re: [greenyes] "Should Congress pass a national deposit law?" > Message-ID: <20050304180018.19003.qmail@no.address> > > --0-2028458116-1109959218=:16744 > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > What other strategies would there be? > > Christine McCoy <cmccoy@no.address> wrote:Jenny et al - > > Do you know what made them decide to ask the question in this manner? Seems > to me that there could have been other options allowed for polling purposes. > Aren't there other strategies that could reduce container waste? I think > it's great that they put up a poll, just not sure they are asking the right > questions. > > Comments? > > Christine McCoy > Director, Environmental Programs > Rural Community Assistance Partnership, Inc. > 1522 K Street, NW, Suite #400 > Washington, DC 20005 > Phone: 202/408-1273 ext. 104 > Toll Free: 800/321-7227 > Fax: 202/408-8165 > Email: cmccoy@no.address > Website: www.rcap.org > > For a free Subscription of the Safe Drinking Water Trust (SDWT) eBulletin, > log on to: www.watertrust.org > > SDWT is a subsidiary of RCAP, Inc. > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around > http://mail.yahoo.com > --0-2028458116-1109959218=:16744 > Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii > > <DIV>What other strategies would there be?<BR><BR><B><I>Christine McCoy <cmccoy@no.address></I></B> wrote: > <BLOCKQUOTE class=replbq style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid">Jenny et al -<BR><BR>Do you know what made them decide to ask the question in this manner? Seems<BR>to me that there could have been other options allowed for polling purposes.<BR>Aren't there other strategies that could reduce container waste? I think<BR>it's great that they put up a poll, just not sure they are asking the right<BR>questions.<BR><BR>Comments?<BR><BR>Christine McCoy<BR>Director, Environmental Programs<BR>Rural Community Assistance Partnership, Inc.<BR>1522 K Street, NW, Suite #400<BR>Washington, DC 20005<BR>Phone: 202/408-1273 ext. 104<BR>Toll Free: 800/321-7227<BR>Fax: 202/408-8165<BR>Email: cmccoy@no.address <mailto:cmccoy@no.address><BR>Website: www.rcap.org <HTTP: www.rcap.org><BR><BR>For a free Subscription of the Safe Drinking Water Trust (SDWT) eBulletin,<BR>log on to: www.watertrust.org <HTTP: www.watertrust.org /><BR><BR>SDWT is a subsidiary of RCAP, > Inc.<BR></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV></mailto:cmccoy@no.address><p>__________________________________________________<br>Do You Yahoo!?<br>Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around <br>http://mail.yahoo.com > --0-2028458116-1109959218=:16744-- > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Fri, 04 Mar 2005 13:37:14 -0500 > To: Karl Zehr <thorshammer71678@no.address>, greenyes@no.address > From: Christine McCoy <cmccoy@no.address> > Subject: RE: [greenyes] "Should Congress pass a national deposit law?" > Message-id: <ICEHLPKPHFIDNDJPBCGGGEIFEDAA.cmccoy@no.address> > > This is a multi-part message in MIME format. > > --Boundary_(ID_JTgG+wrdnVfhZiiIPlG2HQ) > Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII > Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT > > Well, someone for example said they wanted to say that curbside recycling > programs are a better way to capture containers for recycling. > > Unfortunately the way the poll was done the only other option - other than a > bottle bill - was a negative answer based on people's limited understanding > of what other options exist. > > CM > -----Original Message----- > From: Karl Zehr [mailto:thorshammer71678@no.address] > Sent: Friday, March 04, 2005 1:00 PM > To: greenyes@no.address > Subject: Re: [greenyes] "Should Congress pass a national deposit law?" > > What other strategies would there be? > > Christine McCoy <cmccoy@no.address> wrote: > Jenny et al - > > Do you know what made them decide to ask the question in this manner? > Seems > to me that there could have been other options allowed for polling > purposes. > Aren't there other strategies that could reduce container waste? I think > it's great that they put up a poll, just not sure they are asking the > right > questions. > > Comments? > > Christine McCoy > Director, Environmental Programs > Rural Community Assistance Partnership, Inc. > 1522 K Street, NW, Suite #400 > Washington, DC 20005 > Phone: 202/408-1273 ext. 104 > Toll Free: 800/321-7227 > Fax: 202/408-8165 > Email: cmccoy@no.address > Website: www.rcap.org > > For a free Subscription of the Safe Drinking Water Trust (SDWT) > eBulletin, > log on to: www.watertrust.org > > SDWT is a subsidiary of RCAP, Inc. > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around > http://mail.yahoo.com > > --Boundary_(ID_JTgG+wrdnVfhZiiIPlG2HQ) > Content-type: text/html; charset=US-ASCII > Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT > > <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> > <HTML><HEAD> > <META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii"> > <META content="MSHTML 6.00.2800.1491" name=GENERATOR></HEAD> > <BODY> > <DIV><SPAN class=789533318-04032005><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>Well, > someone for example said they wanted to say that curbside recycling programs are > a better way to capture containers for recycling. </FONT></SPAN></DIV> > <DIV><SPAN class=789533318-04032005><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff > size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV> > <DIV><SPAN class=789533318-04032005><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff > size=2>Unfortunately the way the poll was done the only other option - other > than a bottle bill - was a negative answer based on people's limited > understanding of what other options exist.</FONT></SPAN></DIV> > <DIV><SPAN class=789533318-04032005><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff > size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV> > <DIV><SPAN class=789533318-04032005><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff > size=2>CM </FONT></SPAN></DIV> > <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> > <DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader dir=ltr align=left><FONT face=Tahoma > size=2>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B> Karl Zehr > [mailto:thorshammer71678@no.address]<BR><B>Sent:</B> Friday, March 04, 2005 > 1:00 PM<BR><B>To:</B> greenyes@no.address<BR><B>Subject:</B> Re: [greenyes] > "Should Congress pass a national deposit law?"<BR><BR></FONT></DIV> > <DIV>What other strategies would there be?<BR><BR><B><I>Christine McCoy > <cmccoy@no.address></I></B> wrote: > <BLOCKQUOTE class=replbq > style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid">Jenny > et al -<BR><BR>Do you know what made them decide to ask the question in this > manner? Seems<BR>to me that there could have been other options allowed for > polling purposes.<BR>Aren't there other strategies that could reduce > container waste? I think<BR>it's great that they put up a poll, just not > sure they are asking the > right<BR>questions.<BR><BR>Comments?<BR><BR>Christine McCoy<BR>Director, > Environmental Programs<BR>Rural Community Assistance Partnership, > Inc.<BR>1522 K Street, NW, Suite #400<BR>Washington, DC 20005<BR>Phone: > 202/408-1273 ext. 104<BR>Toll Free: 800/321-7227<BR>Fax: > 202/408-8165<BR>Email: cmccoy@no.address <MAILTO:CMCCOY@no.address><BR>Website: > www.rcap.org <HTTP: www.rcap.org><BR><BR>For a free Subscription of the Safe > Drinking Water Trust (SDWT) eBulletin,<BR>log on to: www.watertrust.org > <HTTP: www.watertrust.org /><BR><BR>SDWT is a subsidiary of RCAP, > Inc.<BR></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV></MAILTO:CMCCOY@no.address> > <P>__________________________________________________<BR>Do You > Yahoo!?<BR>Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around > <BR>http://mail.yahoo.com </P></BLOCKQUOTE> > <P></P></BODY></HTML> > > --Boundary_(ID_JTgG+wrdnVfhZiiIPlG2HQ)-- > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2005 13:51:25 EST > To: greenyes@no.address > From: RicAnthony@no.address > Subject: Re: [greenyes] "Should Congress pass a national deposit law?" > Message-ID: <105.5c00e405.2f5a082d@no.address> > > -------------------------------1109962285 > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > In a message dated 3/4/2005 10:39:50 AM Pacific Standard Time, > cmccoy@no.address writes:Well, someone for example said they wanted to say that curbside > recycling programs are a better way to capture containers for recycling. > > Probably true and in California the deposit on the containers make the > capturing of these containers at the curb profitable. The deposit also makes it > more cost effective to collect containers away from home. > > The current salvage prices do not represent the actual cost to recover, > although history, time and population growth seems to be changing that as well. > Ricanthony@no.address > RichardAnthonyAssociates.com > San Diego, California > > -------------------------------1109962285 > Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" > Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > > <HTML><HEAD> > <META charset=3DUS-ASCII http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; cha= > rset=3DUS-ASCII"> > <META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2900.2604" name=3DGENERATOR></HEAD> > <BODY style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; BACKGROUND-COLOR: #fffff= > f"> > <DIV> > <DIV>In a message dated 3/4/2005 10:39:50 AM Pacific Standard Time, cmccoy@no.address= > cap.org writes:<SPAN class=3D789533318-04032005><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#= > 0000ff size=3D2>Well, someone for example said they wanted to say that curbs= > ide recycling programs are a better way to capture containers for recycling.= > </FONT></SPAN></DIV></DIV> > <DIV> </DIV> > <DIV> > <DIV><SPAN class=3D789533318-04032005><FONT color=3D#0000ff><FONT color=3D#0= > 00000 size=3D3>Probably true and in California the deposit on the containers= > make the capturing of these containers at the curb profitable. T= > he deposit also makes it more cost effective to collect containers away from= > home. </FONT></FONT></SPAN></DIV> > <DIV><SPAN class=3D789533318-04032005><FONT color=3D#0000ff><FONT color=3D#0= > 00000 size=3D3></FONT></FONT></SPAN> </DIV> > <DIV><SPAN class=3D789533318-04032005><FONT color=3D#0000ff><FONT color=3D#0= > 00000 size=3D3>The current salvage prices do not represent the actual c= > ost to recover, although history, time and population growth seem= > s to be changing that as well</FONT>.</FONT></SPAN></DIV> > <DIV><FONT lang=3D0 face=3DArial color=3D#004000 size=3D2 FAMILY=3D"SANSSERI= > F" PTSIZE=3D"10"><B><A href=3D"mailto:Ricanthony@no.address";>Ricanthony@no.address= > </A><BR>RichardAnthonyAssociates.com<BR>San Diego, California<BR></B></FONT>= > </DIV></DIV></BODY></HTML> > > -------------------------------1109962285-- > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2005 13:59:10 -0500 > To: <RicAnthony@no.address>, > "Green Yes" <greenyes@no.address> > From: "Pat Franklin" <pfranklin@no.address> > Subject: RE: [greenyes] "Should Congress pass a national deposit law?" > Message-ID: <NFBBILMKILHOHCBHKMOPIEHLHNAA.pfranklin@no.address> > > This is a multi-part message in MIME format. > > ------=_NextPart_000_007B_01C520C2.56C34830 > Content-Type: text/plain; > charset="us-ascii" > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > Capturing beverage cans and bottles through a curbside program is one > vehicle, but only if you have curbside. About 40% of the US population does > NOT have access to curbside program. I don't know what the estimate is for > the percent of folks who have access to curbside and take advantage of it, > but it's probably under 80% on average. But even in cities, counties and > towns where the public does have access to curbside recycling, a large > percentage of beverage containers are being drained away from home, where > collection programs are few and far between. > > -----Original Message----- > From: RicAnthony@no.address [mailto:RicAnthony@no.address] > Sent: Friday, March 04, 2005 1:51 PM > To: greenyes@no.address > Subject: Re: [greenyes] "Should Congress pass a national deposit law?" > > In a message dated 3/4/2005 10:39:50 AM Pacific Standard Time, > cmccoy@no.address writes:Well, someone for example said they wanted to say > that curbside recycling programs are a better way to capture containers for > recycling. > > Probably true and in California the deposit on the containers make the > capturing of these containers at the curb profitable. The deposit also > makes it more cost effective to collect containers away from home. > > The current salvage prices do not represent the actual cost to recover, > although history, time and population growth seems to be changing that as > well. > Ricanthony@no.address > RichardAnthonyAssociates.com > San Diego, California > > ------=_NextPart_000_007B_01C520C2.56C34830 > Content-Type: text/html; > charset="us-ascii" > Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > > <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> > <HTML><HEAD> > <META charset=3DUS-ASCII http-equiv=3DContent-Type=20 > content=3D"text/html; charset=3DUS-ASCII"> > <META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2900.2604" name=3DGENERATOR></HEAD> > <BODY style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; BACKGROUND-COLOR: = > #ffffff"> > <DIV><SPAN class=3D423515318-04032005>Capturing beverage cans and = > bottles through=20 > a curbside program is one vehicle, but only if you have curbside. = > About=20 > 40% of the US population does NOT have access to curbside program. = > I don't=20 > know what the estimate is for the percent of folks who have access to = > curbside=20 > and take advantage of it, but it's probably under 80% on average. = > But even=20 > in cities, counties and towns where the public does have access to = > curbside=20 > recycling, a large percentage of beverage containers are being drained = > away from=20 > home, where collection programs are few and far between.</SPAN></DIV> > <DIV><SPAN class=3D423515318-04032005></SPAN> </DIV> > <DIV><SPAN class=3D423515318-04032005></SPAN> </DIV> > <BLOCKQUOTE dir=3Dltr style=3D"MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> > <DIV class=3DOutlookMessageHeader dir=3Dltr align=3Dleft><FONT=20 > face=3DTahoma>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B> = > RicAnthony@no.address=20 > [mailto:RicAnthony@no.address]<BR><B>Sent:</B> Friday, March 04, 2005 = > 1:51=20 > PM<BR><B>To:</B> greenyes@no.address<BR><B>Subject:</B> Re: [greenyes] = > "Should=20 > Congress pass a national deposit law?"<BR><BR></FONT></DIV> > <DIV> > <DIV>In a message dated 3/4/2005 10:39:50 AM Pacific Standard Time,=20 > cmccoy@no.address writes:<SPAN class=3D789533318-04032005><FONT = > face=3DArial=20 > color=3D#0000ff>Well, someone for example said they wanted to say that = > curbside=20 > recycling programs are a better way to capture containers for = > recycling.=20 > </FONT></SPAN></DIV></DIV> > <DIV> </DIV> > <DIV> > <DIV><SPAN class=3D789533318-04032005><FONT color=3D#0000ff><FONT = > color=3D#000000=20 > size=3D3>Probably true and in California the deposit on the containers = > make the=20 > capturing of these containers at the curb profitable. The = > deposit=20 > also makes it more cost effective to collect containers away from = > home. =20 > </FONT></FONT></SPAN></DIV> > <DIV><SPAN class=3D789533318-04032005><FONT color=3D#0000ff><FONT = > color=3D#000000=20 > size=3D3></FONT></FONT></SPAN> </DIV> > <DIV><SPAN class=3D789533318-04032005><FONT color=3D#0000ff><FONT = > color=3D#000000=20 > size=3D3>The current salvage prices do not represent the actual = > cost =20 > to recover, although history, time and population growth seems to = > be=20 > changing that as well</FONT>.</FONT></SPAN></DIV> > <DIV><FONT lang=3D0 face=3DArial color=3D#004000 size=3D2 = > PTSIZE=3D"10"=20 > FAMILY=3D"SANSSERIF"><B><A=20 > = > href=3D"mailto:Ricanthony@no.address";>Ricanthony@no.address</A><BR>RichardAntho= > nyAssociates.com<BR>San=20 > Diego, = > California<BR></B></FONT></DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML> > > ------=_NextPart_000_007B_01C520C2.56C34830-- > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2005 14:14:26 -0500 > To: "Kendall Christiansen" <KChristiansen@no.address>, > "Green Yes" <greenyes@no.address> > From: "Pat Franklin" <pfranklin@no.address> > Subject: RE: [greenyes] "Should Congress pass a national deposit law?" > Message-ID: <NFBBILMKILHOHCBHKMOPIEHMHNAA.pfranklin@no.address> > > This is a multi-part message in MIME format. > > ------=_NextPart_000_0085_01C520C4.79116870 > Content-Type: text/plain; > charset="iso-8859-1" > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > Is there something wrong with street people benefiting from a system that > rewards the redeemer of a deposit container. If the value of deposits on > one-way containers had increased with inflation, as the refillable beer and > soda bottles did (they started at a penny and by the time refillable soda > bottles were taken off the market the deposit had increased to a dime) > consumers would be returning the cans and bottles themselves. Legislators > have failed to amend the laws to increase the deposit value so fewer and > fewer consumers are incentivized to take their containers back. But the > beauty of the deposit system is that there will always be someone for whom a > nickel (or 4 cents in the case of CA) is enough of an incentive to pick the > container up and take it back for the redemption value. > > Both systems have value and are not mutually exclusive. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Kendall Christiansen [mailto:KChristiansen@no.address] > Sent: Friday, March 04, 2005 2:06 PM > To: Pat Franklin; RicAnthony@no.address > Subject: RE: [greenyes] "Should Congress pass a national deposit law?" > > all of which means a cookie-cutter/one size fits all concept/system needs > local tailoring....conceptual dilemma is that curbside and redemption > programs/systems were layered on top of or parallel to each other, and not > effectively integrated/rationalized....so public messages get confused, > unintended consequences magnified (including it turning into an underground > jobs program for street-people), and systems aren't optimized....much of the > "rebuttal" arguments with respect to redemption vs. curbside are themselves > rebuttable opinions....one of these years maybe it'll be time for less > posturing and more constructive thinking... > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > -- > > From: Pat Franklin [mailto:pfranklin@no.address] > Sent: Friday, March 04, 2005 1:59 PM > To: RicAnthony@no.address; Green Yes > Subject: RE: [greenyes] "Should Congress pass a national deposit law?" > > Capturing beverage cans and bottles through a curbside program is one > vehicle, but only if you have curbside. About 40% of the US population does > NOT have access to curbside program. I don't know what the estimate is for > the percent of folks who have access to curbside and take advantage of it, > but it's probably under 80% on average. But even in cities, counties and > towns where the public does have access to curbside recycling, a large > percentage of beverage containers are being drained away from home, where > collection programs are few and far between. > > -----Original Message----- > From: RicAnthony@no.address [mailto:RicAnthony@no.address] > Sent: Friday, March 04, 2005 1:51 PM > To: greenyes@no.address > Subject: Re: [greenyes] "Should Congress pass a national deposit law?" > > In a message dated 3/4/2005 10:39:50 AM Pacific Standard Time, > cmccoy@no.address writes:Well, someone for example said they wanted to say > that curbside recycling programs are a better way to capture containers for > recycling. > > Probably true and in California the deposit on the containers make the > capturing of these containers at the curb profitable. The deposit also > makes it more cost effective to collect containers away from home. > > The current salvage prices do not represent the actual cost to recover, > although history, time and population growth seems to be changing that as > well. > Ricanthony@no.address > RichardAnthonyAssociates.com > San Diego, California > > ------=_NextPart_000_0085_01C520C4.79116870 > Content-Type: text/html; > charset="iso-8859-1" > Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > > <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> > <HTML><HEAD> > <META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; = > charset=3Diso-8859-1"> > <META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2900.2604" name=3DGENERATOR></HEAD> > <BODY style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; BACKGROUND-COLOR: = > #ffffff"> > <DIV><SPAN class=3D077280719-04032005>Is there something wrong with = > street people=20 > benefiting from a system that rewards the redeemer of a deposit = > container. =20 > If the value of deposits on one-way containers had increased with = > inflation, as=20 > the refillable beer and soda bottles did (they started at a penny and by = > the=20 > time refillable soda bottles were taken off the market the deposit had = > increased=20 > to a dime) consumers would be returning the cans and bottles = > themselves. =20 > Legislators have failed to amend the laws to increase the deposit=20 > value so fewer and fewer consumers are incentivized to take = > their=20 > containers back. But the beauty of the deposit system is that = > there will=20 > always be someone for whom a nickel (or 4 cents in the case of CA) is = > enough of=20 > an incentive to pick the container up and take it back for the = > redemption=20 > value.</SPAN></DIV> > <DIV><SPAN class=3D077280719-04032005></SPAN> </DIV> > <DIV><SPAN class=3D077280719-04032005>Both systems have value and are = > not mutually=20 > exclusive.</SPAN></DIV> > <DIV> </DIV> > <BLOCKQUOTE dir=3Dltr style=3D"MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> > <DIV class=3DOutlookMessageHeader dir=3Dltr align=3Dleft><FONT=20 > face=3DTahoma>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B> Kendall = > Christiansen=20 > [mailto:KChristiansen@no.address]<BR><B>Sent:</B> Friday, March = > 04, 2005=20 > 2:06 PM<BR><B>To:</B> Pat Franklin; = > RicAnthony@no.address<BR><B>Subject:</B> RE:=20 > [greenyes] "Should Congress pass a national deposit = > law?"<BR><BR></FONT></DIV> > <DIV dir=3Dltr align=3Dleft><EM><FONT color=3D#0000ff size=3D3><SPAN=20 > class=3D047280119-04032005>all of which means a cookie-cutter/one size = > fits all=20 > concept/system needs local tailoring....conceptual dilemma is that = > curbside=20 > and redemption programs/systems were layered on top of or parallel to = > each=20 > other, and not effectively integrated/rationalized....so public = > messages get=20 > confused, unintended consequences magnified (including it turning into = > an=20 > underground jobs program for street-people), and systems aren't=20 > optimized....much of the "rebuttal" arguments with respect to = > redemption vs.=20 > curbside are themselves rebuttable opinions....one of these years = > maybe it'll=20 > be time for less posturing and more constructive=20 > thinking...</SPAN></FONT></EM></DIV> > <DIV dir=3Dltr align=3Dleft><EM><FONT color=3D#0000ff size=3D3><SPAN=20 > class=3D047280119-04032005></SPAN></FONT></EM> </DIV><BR> > <DIV class=3DOutlookMessageHeader lang=3Den-us dir=3Dltr align=3Dleft> > <HR tabIndex=3D-1> > </DIV><FONT face=3DTahoma size=3D2><B>From:</B> Pat Franklin=20 > [mailto:pfranklin@no.address] <BR><B>Sent:</B> Friday, = > March 04,=20 > 2005 1:59 PM<BR><B>To:</B> RicAnthony@no.address; Green = > Yes<BR><B>Subject:</B>=20 > RE: [greenyes] "Should Congress pass a national deposit = > law?"<BR></FONT><BR> > <DIV></DIV> > <DIV><SPAN class=3D423515318-04032005>Capturing beverage cans and = > bottles=20 > through a curbside program is one vehicle, but only if you have=20 > curbside. About 40% of the US population does NOT have access to = > > curbside program. I don't know what the estimate is for the = > percent of=20 > folks who have access to curbside and take advantage of it, but it's = > probably=20 > under 80% on average. But even in cities, counties and towns = > where the=20 > public does have access to curbside recycling, a large percentage of = > beverage=20 > containers are being drained away from home, where collection programs = > are few=20 > and far between.</SPAN></DIV> > <DIV><SPAN class=3D423515318-04032005></SPAN> </DIV> > <DIV><SPAN class=3D423515318-04032005></SPAN> </DIV> > <BLOCKQUOTE dir=3Dltr style=3D"MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> > <DIV class=3DOutlookMessageHeader dir=3Dltr align=3Dleft><FONT=20 > face=3DTahoma>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B> = > RicAnthony@no.address=20 > [mailto:RicAnthony@no.address]<BR><B>Sent:</B> Friday, March 04, 2005 = > 1:51=20 > PM<BR><B>To:</B> greenyes@no.address<BR><B>Subject:</B> Re: [greenyes] = > "Should=20 > Congress pass a national deposit law?"<BR><BR></FONT></DIV> > <DIV> > <DIV>In a message dated 3/4/2005 10:39:50 AM Pacific Standard Time,=20 > cmccoy@no.address writes:<SPAN class=3D789533318-04032005><FONT = > face=3DArial=20 > color=3D#0000ff>Well, someone for example said they wanted to say = > that=20 > curbside recycling programs are a better way to capture containers = > for=20 > recycling. </FONT></SPAN></DIV></DIV> > <DIV> </DIV> > <DIV> > <DIV><SPAN class=3D789533318-04032005><FONT color=3D#0000ff><FONT = > color=3D#000000=20 > size=3D3>Probably true and in California the deposit on the = > containers make=20 > the capturing of these containers at the curb = > profitable. The=20 > deposit also makes it more cost effective to collect containers away = > from=20 > home. </FONT></FONT></SPAN></DIV> > <DIV><SPAN class=3D789533318-04032005><FONT color=3D#0000ff><FONT = > color=3D#000000=20 > size=3D3></FONT></FONT></SPAN> </DIV> > <DIV><SPAN class=3D789533318-04032005><FONT color=3D#0000ff><FONT = > color=3D#000000=20 > size=3D3>The current salvage prices do not represent the actual = > > cost to recover, although history, time and population = > growth=20 > seems to be changing that as well</FONT>.</FONT></SPAN></DIV> > <DIV><FONT lang=3D0 face=3DArial color=3D#004000 size=3D2 = > PTSIZE=3D"10"=20 > FAMILY=3D"SANSSERIF"><B><A=20 > = > href=3D"mailto:Ricanthony@no.address";>Ricanthony@no.address</A><BR>RichardAntho= > nyAssociates.com<BR>San=20 > Diego,=20 > California<BR></B></FONT></DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></H= > TML> > > ------=_NextPart_000_0085_01C520C4.79116870-- > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2005 14:26:13 -0500 > To: "Pat Franklin" <pfranklin@no.address>, > "Green Yes" <greenyes@no.address> > From: "Kendall Christiansen" <KChristiansen@no.address> > Subject: RE: [greenyes] "Should Congress pass a national deposit law?" > Message-ID: <61A07AAF33FF4D4B96093C4B19194B762D2AA6@no.address> > > This is a multi-part message in MIME format. > > ------_=_NextPart_001_01C520F0.07C24B02 > Content-Type: text/plain; > charset="iso-8859-1" > Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > > i didn't suggest "wrong"; i suggested "unintended consequences" -- i = > wasn't aware that bottle-bill planners had that in mind when redemption = > systems were created... > =20 > and, as i suggested, both systems do have value, but so do localized = > approaches.... > =20 > as i hear it, the beauty of the deposit system -- as originally intended = > -- was for litter prevention, and while it still serves that purpose, = > it's also enabled many municipalities to forego recycling systems that = > include public space recycling.... > =20 > =20 > ________________________________ > > From: Pat Franklin [mailto:pfranklin@no.address]=20 > Sent: Friday, March 04, 2005 2:14 PM > To: Kendall Christiansen; Green Yes > Subject: RE: [greenyes] "Should Congress pass a national deposit law?" > > Is there something wrong with street people benefiting from a system = > that rewards the redeemer of a deposit container. If the value of = > deposits on one-way containers had increased with inflation, as the = > refillable beer and soda bottles did (they started at a penny and by the = > time refillable soda bottles were taken off the market the deposit had = > increased to a dime) consumers would be returning the cans and bottles = > themselves. Legislators have failed to amend the laws to increase the = > deposit value so fewer and fewer consumers are incentivized to take = > their containers back. But the beauty of the deposit system is that = > there will always be someone for whom a nickel (or 4 cents in the case = > of CA) is enough of an incentive to pick the container up and take it = > back for the redemption value. > =20 > Both systems have value and are not mutually exclusive. > =20 > > -----Original Message----- > From: Kendall Christiansen [mailto:KChristiansen@no.address] > Sent: Friday, March 04, 2005 2:06 PM > To: Pat Franklin; RicAnthony@no.address > Subject: RE: [greenyes] "Should Congress pass a national deposit law?" > =09 > =09 > all of which means a cookie-cutter/one size fits all concept/system = > needs local tailoring....conceptual dilemma is that curbside and = > redemption programs/systems were layered on top of or parallel to each = > other, and not effectively integrated/rationalized....so public messages = > get confused, unintended consequences magnified (including it turning = > into an underground jobs program for street-people), and systems aren't = > optimized....much of the "rebuttal" arguments with respect to redemption = > vs. curbside are themselves rebuttable opinions....one of these years = > maybe it'll be time for less posturing and more constructive thinking... > =20 > > ________________________________ > > From: Pat Franklin [mailto:pfranklin@no.address]=20 > Sent: Friday, March 04, 2005 1:59 PM > To: RicAnthony@no.address; Green Yes > Subject: RE: [greenyes] "Should Congress pass a national deposit law?" > =09 > =09 > Capturing beverage cans and bottles through a curbside program is one = > vehicle, but only if you have curbside. About 40% of the US population = > does NOT have access to curbside program. I don't know what the = > estimate is for the percent of folks who have access to curbside and = > take advantage of it, but it's probably under 80% on average. But even = > in cities, counties and towns where the public does have access to = > curbside recycling, a large percentage of beverage containers are being = > drained away from home, where collection programs are few and far = > between. > =20 > =20 > > -----Original Message----- > From: RicAnthony@no.address [mailto:RicAnthony@no.address] > Sent: Friday, March 04, 2005 1:51 PM > To: greenyes@no.address > Subject: Re: [greenyes] "Should Congress pass a national deposit law?" > =09 > =09 > In a message dated 3/4/2005 10:39:50 AM Pacific Standard Time, = > cmccoy@no.address writes:Well, someone for example said they wanted to say = > that curbside recycling programs are a better way to capture containers = > for recycling.=20 > =20 > Probably true and in California the deposit on the containers make the = > capturing of these containers at the curb profitable. The deposit also = > makes it more cost effective to collect containers away from home. =20 > =20 > The current salvage prices do not represent the actual cost to = > recover, although history, time and population growth seems to be = > changing that as well. > Ricanthony@no.address > RichardAnthonyAssociates.com > San Diego, California > =09 > > ------_=_NextPart_001_01C520F0.07C24B02 > Content-Type: text/html; > charset="iso-8859-1" > Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > > <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> > <HTML><HEAD> > <META content=3D"text/html; charset=3Diso-8859-1" = > http-equiv=3DContent-Type> > <META content=3D"MSHTML 5.00.3700.6699" name=3DGENERATOR></HEAD> > <BODY style=3D"BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; FONT-SIZE: = > 10pt"> > <DIV align=3Dleft dir=3Dltr><EM><FONT color=3D#0000ff size=3D3><SPAN=20 > class=3D765212219-04032005>i didn't suggest "wrong"; i suggested = > "unintended=20 > consequences" -- i wasn't aware that bottle-bill planners had that in = > mind when=20 > redemption systems were created...</SPAN></FONT></EM></DIV> > <DIV align=3Dleft dir=3Dltr><EM><FONT color=3D#0000ff size=3D3><SPAN=20 > class=3D765212219-04032005></SPAN></FONT></EM> </DIV> > <DIV align=3Dleft dir=3Dltr><EM><FONT size=3D3><FONT = > color=3D#0000ff><SPAN=20 > class=3D765212219-04032005>and, as i suggested, both systems do have = > value, but so=20 > do localized approaches....</SPAN></FONT></FONT></EM></DIV> > <DIV align=3Dleft dir=3Dltr><EM><FONT size=3D3><FONT = > color=3D#0000ff><SPAN=20 > class=3D765212219-04032005></SPAN></FONT></FONT></EM> </DIV> > <DIV align=3Dleft dir=3Dltr><EM><FONT size=3D3><FONT = > color=3D#0000ff><SPAN=20 > class=3D765212219-04032005>as i hear it, the beauty of the deposit = > system --=20 > as originally intended -- was for litter prevention, and while it = > still=20 > serves that purpose, it's also enabled many municipalities to forego = > recycling=20 > systems that include public space = > recycling....</SPAN></FONT></FONT></EM></DIV> > <DIV align=3Dleft dir=3Dltr><EM><FONT size=3D3><FONT = > color=3D#0000ff><SPAN=20 > class=3D765212219-04032005></SPAN></FONT></FONT></EM> </DIV> > <DIV align=3Dleft dir=3Dltr><EM><FONT size=3D3><FONT = > color=3D#0000ff><SPAN=20 > class=3D765212219-04032005> </SPAN></FONT></FONT></EM></DIV> > <DIV align=3Dleft dir=3Dltr> > <HR tabIndex=3D-1> > </DIV><FONT face=3DTahoma size=3D2><B>From:</B> Pat Franklin=20 > [mailto:pfranklin@no.address] <BR><B>Sent:</B> Friday, = > March 04,=20 > 2005 2:14 PM<BR><B>To:</B> Kendall Christiansen; Green = > Yes<BR><B>Subject:</B>=20 > RE: [greenyes] "Should Congress pass a national deposit = > law?"<BR></FONT><BR> > <DIV></DIV> > <DIV><SPAN class=3D077280719-04032005>Is there something wrong with = > street people=20 > benefiting from a system that rewards the redeemer of a deposit = > container. =20 > If the value of deposits on one-way containers had increased with = > inflation, as=20 > the refillable beer and soda bottles did (they started at a penny and by = > the=20 > time refillable soda bottles were taken off the market the deposit had = > increased=20 > to a dime) consumers would be returning the cans and bottles = > themselves. =20 > Legislators have failed to amend the laws to increase the deposit=20 > value so fewer and fewer consumers are incentivized to take = > their=20 > containers back. But the beauty of the deposit system is that = > there will=20 > always be someone for whom a nickel (or 4 cents in the case of CA) is = > enough of=20 > an incentive to pick the container up and take it back for the = > redemption=20 > value.</SPAN></DIV> > <DIV><SPAN class=3D077280719-04032005></SPAN> </DIV> > <DIV><SPAN class=3D077280719-04032005>Both systems have value and are = > not mutually=20 > exclusive.</SPAN></DIV> > <DIV> </DIV> > <BLOCKQUOTE dir=3Dltr style=3D"MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> > <DIV align=3Dleft class=3DOutlookMessageHeader dir=3Dltr><FONT=20 > face=3DTahoma>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B> Kendall = > Christiansen=20 > [mailto:KChristiansen@no.address]<BR><B>Sent:</B> Friday, March = > 04, 2005=20 > 2:06 PM<BR><B>To:</B> Pat Franklin; = > RicAnthony@no.address<BR><B>Subject:</B> RE:=20 > [greenyes] "Should Congress pass a national deposit = > law?"<BR><BR></FONT></DIV> > <DIV align=3Dleft dir=3Dltr><EM><FONT color=3D#0000ff size=3D3><SPAN=20 > class=3D047280119-04032005>all of which means a cookie-cutter/one size = > fits all=20 > concept/system needs local tailoring....conceptual dilemma is that = > curbside=20 > and redemption programs/systems were layered on top of or parallel to = > each=20 > other, and not effectively integrated/rationalized....so public = > messages get=20 > confused, unintended consequences magnified (including it turning into = > an=20 > underground jobs program for street-people), and systems aren't=20 > optimized....much of the "rebuttal" arguments with respect to = > redemption vs.=20 > curbside are themselves rebuttable opinions....one of these years = > maybe it'll=20 > be time for less posturing and more constructive=20 > thinking...</SPAN></FONT></EM></DIV> > <DIV align=3Dleft dir=3Dltr><EM><FONT color=3D#0000ff size=3D3><SPAN=20 > class=3D047280119-04032005></SPAN></FONT></EM> </DIV><BR> > <DIV align=3Dleft class=3DOutlookMessageHeader dir=3Dltr lang=3Den-us> > <HR tabIndex=3D-1> > </DIV><FONT face=3DTahoma size=3D2><B>From:</B> Pat Franklin=20 > [mailto:pfranklin@no.address] <BR><B>Sent:</B> Friday, = > March 04,=20 > 2005 1:59 PM<BR><B>To:</B> RicAnthony@no.address; Green = > Yes<BR><B>Subject:</B>=20 > RE: [greenyes] "Should Congress pass a national deposit = > law?"<BR></FONT><BR> > <DIV></DIV> > <DIV><SPAN class=3D423515318-04032005>Capturing beverage cans and = > bottles=20 > through a curbside program is one vehicle, but only if you have=20 > curbside. About 40% of the US population does NOT have access to = > > curbside program. I don't know what the estimate is for the = > percent of=20 > folks who have access to curbside and take advantage of it, but it's = > probably=20 > under 80% on average. But even in cities, counties and towns = > where the=20 > public does have access to curbside recycling, a large percentage of = > beverage=20 > containers are being drained away from home, where collection programs = > are few=20 > and far between.</SPAN></DIV> > <DIV><SPAN class=3D423515318-04032005></SPAN> </DIV> > <DIV><SPAN class=3D423515318-04032005></SPAN> </DIV> > <BLOCKQUOTE dir=3Dltr style=3D"MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> > <DIV align=3Dleft class=3DOutlookMessageHeader dir=3Dltr><FONT=20 > face=3DTahoma>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B> = > RicAnthony@no.address=20 > [mailto:RicAnthony@no.address]<BR><B>Sent:</B> Friday, March 04, 2005 = > 1:51=20 > PM<BR><B>To:</B> greenyes@no.address<BR><B>Subject:</B> Re: [greenyes] = > "Should=20 > Congress pass a national deposit law?"<BR><BR></FONT></DIV> > <DIV> > <DIV>In a message dated 3/4/2005 10:39:50 AM Pacific Standard Time,=20 > cmccoy@no.address writes:<SPAN class=3D789533318-04032005><FONT = > color=3D#0000ff=20 > face=3DArial>Well, someone for example said they wanted to say that = > curbside=20 > recycling programs are a better way to capture containers for = > recycling.=20 > </FONT></SPAN></DIV></DIV> > <DIV> </DIV> > <DIV> > <DIV><SPAN class=3D789533318-04032005><FONT color=3D#0000ff><FONT = > color=3D#000000=20 > size=3D3>Probably true and in California the deposit on the = > containers make=20 > the capturing of these containers at the curb = > profitable. The=20 > deposit also makes it more cost effective to collect containers away = > from=20 > home. </FONT></FONT></SPAN></DIV> > <DIV><SPAN class=3D789533318-04032005><FONT color=3D#0000ff><FONT = > color=3D#000000=20 > size=3D3></FONT></FONT></SPAN> </DIV> > <DIV><SPAN class=3D789533318-04032005><FONT color=3D#0000ff><FONT = > color=3D#000000=20 > size=3D3>The current salvage prices do not represent the actual = > > cost to recover, although history, time and population = > growth=20 > seems to be changing that as well</FONT>.</FONT></SPAN></DIV> > <DIV><FONT color=3D#004000 face=3DArial lang=3D0 size=3D2 = > FAMILY=3D"SANSSERIF"=20 > PTSIZE=3D"10"><B><A=20 > = > href=3D"mailto:Ricanthony@no.address";>Ricanthony@no.address</A><BR>RichardAntho= > nyAssociates.com<BR>San=20 > Diego,=20 > California<BR></B></FONT></DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></H= > TML> > > ------_=_NextPart_001_01C520F0.07C24B02-- > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2005 14:40:46 EST > To: greenyes@no.address > From: RicAnthony@no.address > Subject: "Should Congress pass a national deposit law?" > Message-ID: <12e.58f1ab93.2f5a13be@no.address> > > -------------------------------1109965246 > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > .....(or 4 cents in the case of CA) is enough of an incentive to pick the > container up and take it back for the redemption value. > > ....one of these years maybe it'll be time for less posturing and more > constructive thinking... > > In a rational (perfect, natural) system, it is a full circle. > > If economics drives the decision the cost impacts of wasting has to be part > of the calculation, otherwise we are back to faith again. > > What we have here in the USA is public funded wasting, competing with the > recovery of recyclable materials. The law is the great equalizer. > > It is an American value as individuals that everyone is responsible for their > actions. We believe in charity (love), hard work and democracy. Why is it > posturing to ask for a reexamination of the rules? > > Both systems have value and are not mutually exclusive. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Kendall Christiansen [mailto:KChristiansen@no.address] > Sent: Friday, March 04, 2005 2:06 PM > To: Pat Franklin; RicAnthony@no.address > Subject: RE: [greenyes] "Should Congress pass a national deposit law?" > > all of which means a cookie-cutter/one size fits all concept/system needs > local tailoring....conceptual dilemma is that curbside and redemption > programs/systems were layered on top of or parallel to each other, and not effectively > integrated/rationalized....so public messages get confused, unintended > consequences magnified (including it turning into an underground jobs program for > street-people), and systems aren't optimized....much of the "rebuttal" arguments > with respect to redemption vs. curbside are themselves rebuttable > opinions....one of these years maybe it'll be time for less posturing and more constructive > thinking... > > From: Pat Franklin [mailto:pfranklin@no.address] > Sent: Friday, March 04, 2005 1:59 PM > To: RicAnthony@no.address; Green Yes > Subject: RE: [greenyes] "Should Congress pass a national deposit law?" > > Capturing beverage cans and bottles through a curbside program is one > vehicle, but only if you have curbside. About 40% of the US population does NOT have > access to curbside program. I don't know what the estimate is for the > percent of folks who have access to curbside and take advantage of it, but it's > probably under 80% on average. But even in cities, counties and towns where the > public does have access to curbside recycling, a large percentage of beverage > containers are being drained away from home, where collection programs are few > and far between. > > -----Original Message----- > From: RicAnthony@no.address [mailto:RicAnthony@no.address] > Sent: Friday, March 04, 2005 1:51 PM > To: greenyes@no.address > Subject: Re: [greenyes] "Should Congress pass a national deposit law?" > > In a message dated 3/4/2005 10:39:50 AM Pacific Standard Time, > cmccoy@no.address writes:Well, someone for example said they wanted to say that curbside > recycling programs are a better way to capture containers for recycling. > > Probably true and in California the deposit on the containers make the > capturing of these containers at the curb profitable. The deposit also makes it > more cost effective to collect containers away from home. > > The current salvage prices do not represent the actual cost to recover, > although history, time and population growth seems to be changing that as well. > Ricanthony@no.address > RichardAnthonyAssociates.com > San Diego, California > > -------------------------------1109965246 > Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" > Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > > <HTML><HEAD> > <META charset=3DUS-ASCII http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; cha= > rset=3DUS-ASCII"> > <META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2900.2604" name=3DGENERATOR></HEAD> > <BODY style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; BACKGROUND-COLOR: #fffff= > f"> > <DIV><SPAN class=3D077280719-04032005>.....(or 4 cents in the case of CA) is= > enough of an incentive to pick the container up and take it back for the re= > demption value.</DIV> > <DIV><EM><FONT color=3D#0000ff></FONT></EM> </DIV> > <DIV><EM><FONT color=3D#0000ff>....one of these years maybe it'll be time fo= > r less posturing and more constructive thinking...</FONT></EM></DIV> > <DIV> </DIV> > <DIV><FONT size=3D3><STRONG>In a rational (perfect, natural) system, it= > is a full circle. </STRONG></FONT></DIV> > <DIV><FONT size=3D3><STRONG></STRONG></FONT> </DIV> > <DIV><FONT size=3D3><STRONG>If economics drives the decision the cost impact= > s of wasting has to be part of the calculation, otherwise we are b= > ack to faith again. </STRONG></FONT></DIV> > <DIV><FONT size=3D3><STRONG></STRONG></FONT> </DIV> > <DIV><FONT size=3D3><STRONG>What we have here in the USA is public fund= > ed wasting, competing with the recovery of recyclable materials.&n= > bsp; The law is the great equalizer. </STRONG></FONT></DIV> > <DIV><FONT size=3D3><STRONG></STRONG></FONT> </DIV> > <DIV><FONT size=3D3><STRONG>It is an American value as individuals that = > ;everyone is responsible for their actions. We believe in charity (lov= > e), hard work and democracy. Why is it posturing to ask for a reexamin= > ation of the rules?</STRONG></FONT></SPAN></DIV> > <BLOCKQUOTE style=3D"PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: blue=20= > 2px solid"> > <DIV><SPAN class=3D077280719-04032005></SPAN> </DIV> > <DIV><SPAN class=3D077280719-04032005>Both systems have value and are not mu= > tually exclusive.</SPAN></DIV> > <DIV> </DIV> > <BLOCKQUOTE dir=3Dltr style=3D"MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> > <DIV class=3DOutlookMessageHeader dir=3Dltr align=3Dleft><FONT face=3DTahoma= > >-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B> Kendall Christiansen [mailto:KCh= > ristiansen@no.address]<BR><B>Sent:</B> Friday, March 04, 2005 2:06 PM<B= > R><B>To:</B> Pat Franklin; RicAnthony@no.address<BR><B>Subject:</B> RE: [greeny= > es] "Should Congress pass a national deposit law?"<BR><BR></FONT></DIV> > <DIV dir=3Dltr align=3Dleft><EM><FONT color=3D#0000ff size=3D3><SPAN class= > =3D047280119-04032005>all of which means a cookie-cutter/one size fits all c= > oncept/system needs local tailoring....conceptual dilemma is that curbside a= > nd redemption programs/systems were layered on top of or parallel to each ot= > her, and not effectively integrated/rationalized....so public messages get c= > onfused, unintended consequences magnified (including it turning into an und= > erground jobs program for street-people), and systems aren't optimized....mu= > ch of the "rebuttal" arguments with respect to redemption vs. curbside are t= > hemselves rebuttable opinions....one of these years maybe it'll be time for=20= > less posturing and more constructive thinking...</SPAN></FONT></EM></DIV> > <DIV dir=3Dltr align=3Dleft><EM><FONT color=3D#0000ff size=3D3><SPAN class= > =3D047280119-04032005></SPAN></FONT></EM> </DIV><EM><FONT color=3D#0000= > ff size=3D3></FONT></EM><BR> > <DIV class=3DOutlookMessageHeader lang=3Den-us dir=3Dltr align=3Dleft> > <HR tabIndex=3D-1> > </DIV><FONT face=3DTahoma size=3D2><B>From:</B> Pat Franklin [mailto:pfrankl= > in@no.address] <BR><B>Sent:</B> Friday, March 04, 2005 1:59 PM<= > BR><B>To:</B> RicAnthony@no.address; Green Yes<BR><B>Subject:</B> RE: [greenyes= > ] "Should Congress pass a national deposit law?"<BR></FONT><BR> > <DIV></DIV> > <DIV><SPAN class=3D423515318-04032005>Capturing beverage cans and bottles th= > rough a curbside program is one vehicle, but only if you have curbside. = > ; About 40% of the US population does NOT have access to curbside program.&n= > bsp; I don't know what the estimate is for the percent of folks who have acc= > ess to curbside and take advantage of it, but it's probably under 80% on ave= > rage. But even in cities, counties and towns where the public does hav= > e access to curbside recycling, a large percentage of beverage containers ar= > e being drained away from home, where collection programs are few and far be= > tween.</SPAN></DIV> > <DIV><SPAN class=3D423515318-04032005></SPAN> </DIV> > <DIV><SPAN class=3D423515318-04032005></SPAN> </DIV> > <BLOCKQUOTE dir=3Dltr style=3D"MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> > <DIV class=3DOutlookMessageHeader dir=3Dltr align=3Dleft><FONT face=3DTahoma= > >-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B> RicAnthony@no.address [mailto:RicAn= > thony@no.address]<BR><B>Sent:</B> Friday, March 04, 2005 1:51 PM<BR><B>To:</B>=20= > greenyes@no.address<BR><B>Subject:</B> Re: [greenyes] "Should Congress pass a=20= > national deposit law?"<BR><BR></FONT></DIV> > <DIV> > <DIV>In a message dated 3/4/2005 10:39:50 AM Pacific Standard Time, cmccoy@no.address= > cap.org writes:<SPAN class=3D789533318-04032005><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#= > 0000ff>Well, someone for example said they wanted to say that curbside recyc= > ling programs are a better way to capture containers for recycling. </FONT><= > /SPAN></DIV></DIV> > <DIV> </DIV> > <DIV> > <DIV><SPAN class=3D789533318-04032005><FONT color=3D#0000ff><FONT color=3D#0= > 00000 size=3D3>Probably true and in California the deposit on the containers= > make the capturing of these containers at the curb profitable. T= > he deposit also makes it more cost effective to collect containers away from= > home. </FONT></FONT></SPAN></DIV> > <DIV><SPAN class=3D789533318-04032005><FONT color=3D#0000ff><FONT color=3D#0= > 00000 size=3D3></FONT></FONT></SPAN> </DIV> > <DIV><SPAN class=3D789533318-04032005><FONT color=3D#0000ff><FONT color=3D#0= > 00000 size=3D3>The current salvage prices do not represent the actual c= > ost to recover, although history, time and population growth seem= > s to be changing that as well</FONT>.</FONT></SPAN></DIV> > <DIV><FONT lang=3D0 face=3DArial color=3D#004000 size=3D2 PTSIZE=3D"10" FAMI= > LY=3D"SANSSERIF"><B><A title=3Dmailto:Ricanthony@no.address href=3D"mailto:Rica= > nthony@no.address">Ricanthony@no.address</A><BR>RichardAnthonyAssociates.com<BR>Sa= > n Diego, California</B></FONT></DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQ= > UOTE> > <DIV></DIV></BODY></HTML> > > -------------------------------1109965246-- > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2005 11:04:03 -0800 > To: "Green Yes" <greenyes@no.address> > From: "Steve Bloom" <spbloom@no.address> > Subject: RE: [greenyes] Landfill Bans and The Ineffectiveness of MSW Regulations > Message-ID: <KDEOKEHKPNJAGALHEHDJCEOBJBAA.spbloom@no.address> > > I haven't looked at the article, but my suspicion is that what was mostly involved were > regulations without adequate independent enforcement. In any case we're talking about > data that's 25 years out of date. > -- Steve Bloom > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Wolbert, Brad [mailto:Brad.Wolbert@no.address] > > Sent: Friday, March 04, 2005 7:25 AM > > To: sp@no.address; Green Yes > > Subject: RE: [greenyes] Landfill Bans and The Ineffectiveness of MSW > > Regulations > > > > > > For those of us without ready access to a law library, perhaps you'd be willing > > to relate the gist of the argument that MSW regulations are ineffective? I > > know that as a regulator from a state with landfill bans that are considered to > > be extremely successful in achieving their purpose, I'd be curious. > > > > Brad Wolbert > > Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Stephan Pollard [mailto:sp@no.address] > > Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2005 11:09 PM > > To: Green Yes > > Subject: [greenyes] Landfill Bans and The Ineffectiveness of MSW > > Regulations > > > > > > For an instructive piece of literature on the ineffectiveness of MSW > > regulations from a historical legal standpoint see: > > > > Lanza, D. R. Municipal solid waste regulations: An ineffective solution > > to a national problem. Fordham Urban Law Journal 1981-1982, 10(1), 215-245. > > > > Regards, > > > > Stephan Pollard > > > > -- > > Stephan Pollard > > Environmental Dynamics Doctoral Program > > University of Arkansas > > Rm 113 Ozark Hall > > Fayetteville, AR 72701 > > Tel: (479) 575-6603 > > http://www.cast.uark.edu/~sp > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Fri, 04 Mar 2005 14:03:18 -0500 > To: <greenyes@no.address> > From: Alan Muller <amuller@no.address> > Subject: Alert 393: Giant pile of poison to be left on banks of > Delaware River as a gift to future generations > Message-Id: <6.0.1.1.0.20050304140259.06458788@no.address> > > --=====================_529567703==.ALT > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed > > Green Delaware Alert #393 > (please post/forward) > > Public hearings on DuPont's Edge Moor dioxin factory: > March 1 and 2, 2005. > > DuPont admits dioxin-laced wastes were used to treat Wilmington drinking > water... > > Giant pile of poison to be left on banks of Delaware River as a gift to > future generations > > Community Meeting planned for March 16, 2005 > > March 2, 2005 This Alert tries to summarize, very briefly, much > information collected over a period of years. Recently, folk from Green > Delaware and Common Cause have spent many hours reviewing files. Please > try to plow through this summary and take action. > > One of the great scandals of Delaware is the Edge Moor plant of E.I. duPont > de Nemours & Company. In the 1950s this plant became the world's first > plant to manufacture titanium dioxide (a white pigment) by what DuPont > calls the "chloride-illmanite" process. > > This plant is the largest reported source in the United States of dioxin, a > family of chemical compounds of unequaled toxicity. Dioxins cause cancer, > birth defects, and other health problems in parts per trillion concentrations. > > In fact, the DuPont plant reports releasing more than one-half of all the > dioxins reported released in the entire United States. Amounts have been > increasing. (DuPont claims to have plans to reduce dioxin output but has > refused to provide any details to Green Delaware.) Reported releases in > recent years have been as much as 169 pounds. This is about 770 thousand > times the minimum "reportable quantity" of 0.1 grams. > > The dioxin output of Edge Moor is a story generally blacked out by > Delaware's media, probably under pressure from DuPont. Green Delaware has > reported on it at least three times: > > Alert 104--DuPont and Dioxin, Monday, July 2, 2001 > http//www.greendel.org/item.xhtml?name=alert_0104 > > DUPONT DOSES DELAWARE WITH DIOXIN, MOST TOXIC KNOWN CHEMICAL, Thursday, May > 23, 2002 http//www.greendel.org/item.xhtml?name=release_dioxin1 > > Alert 242--52% of total US dioxin emissions are from Delaware--Up from 38% > in 2000, Wednesday, July 2, 2003 > http//www.greendel.org/item.xhtml?name=alert_0242 > > DuPont presumably began belching dioxin when the "chloride" process started > up around 1956. But, DuPont doesn't admit to knowing about the dioxin > releases until the 1990s, and only then as a result of investigations by > the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. > > Before 1997 the wastes were handled without any special precautions, and > sometimes promoted as valuable products to be sold. They were used as road > base, landfill cover, for treating drinking water and wastewater and for > other purposes. > > Beginning in 1997 and continuing until 2001 wastes (containing much but not > all of Edge Moor's dioxin) were piled up in an unpermitted dump on the West > bank of the Delaware River next to Shellpot Creek. DuPont has reluctantly > admitted to Green Delaware that "Although the mass is > not relevant, the mass of dioxins in the iron-rich pile on a totals basis > is estimated to be between 294 and 363 pounds..." > > DuPont's Edge Moor wastes also contain radioactive uranium and thorium, > arsenic, lead, hexachlorobenzene, PCBs and many other poisonous and > cancer-causing chemicals. In fact, DNREC and DuPont claim that the dioxin > is not really a problem because it is below the state action levels. (This > is similar to the arsenic levels scandal we reported on in Alert 392, > "Toxic backyards for Delaware kids?," > <http:///>http://www.greendel.org/item.xhtml<http:///>?name=alert_0392) > > Now, these wastes are being sent to a garbage dump near Bishopville, South > Carolina, in impoverished, rural Lee County. Green Delaware has been told > by the landfill manager and South Carolina officials that they don't know > there is dioxin in the DuPont wastes from Delaware. (Why are the wastes > going to South Carolina rather than to the Delaware Solid Waste Authority > garbage dump right next to DuPont? Interesting question.....) > > Why are these wastes not being handled as the "hazardous wastes" they so > obviously are? Minner administration officials claim the wastes are exempt > due to a loophole called the "Bevill Amendment." But, at the same time, > they claim the SAME wastes in the big pile are not exempt and therefore are > too expensive to get rid of. Therefore this pile of five hundred thousand > tons of dangerous wastes should be left on the bank of the Delaware River, > next to Shellpot Creek, as a gift to the community and to future generations. > > A hearing was held on March 1, 2005, about a Coastal Zone Act permit for > Edge Moor to make a different flavor of product. The Minner administration > likes the idea and intends to give the permit without any real > consideration of what DuPont is already doing to the area and to the > Delaware River. > > Informed people at the hearing expressed a different opinion. Former > DuPont chemist and engineer Glenn R. Evers worked at the plant for many > years. He testified that the dioxin put out by Edge Moor is the "Darth > Vader of toxins," causing all sorts of cancers and other health > problems. He said, and DuPont officials confirmed, that Edge Moor waste > ferric chloride waste containing dioxins is sold for treating drinking > water. Wilmington uses this "product." > > Alan Muller of Green Delaware said we were "very disappointed in DNREC's > performance in this matter." He said that DNREC has been giving out > permits "like peanuts" and offered a bag of peanuts as a final > exhibit. Hearing officer Robert Haynes refused to accept the peanuts. > > A hearing is scheduled for five o'clock p.m. on March 2nd at the Edge Moor > Community Center. (Why does the hearing begin at 5:00. dinner time? Good > question....) > > WHAT YOU CAN DO NOW: > > Contact Governor Ruth Ann Minner. Ask (1) the giant waste pile not be left > on the banks of the Delaware River, but handled properly , and (2) that > DuPont's Edge Moor plant NOT receive a coastal zone permit to make > different products until it starts making it's present products safely. > > Governor's office: 1.800.929.9570, leeann.walling@no.address, FAX: 577.3118 > > Come to the March 2nd hearing. > > Green Delaware and other organizations are planning a community meeting on > March 16, 2005 (6:30 p.m.) to provide more information on DuPont's Edge > Moor Plant and an opportunity to discuss what might be done about it. Put > this on your calendar! More details will follow. > > Green Delaware is a community based organization working on environment and > public health issues. We try to provide information you can use. Please > use it. Do you want to continue receiving information from Green > Delaware? Please consider contributing or volunteering. Reach us at > 302.834.3466, greendel@no.address, www.greendel.org, Box 69, Port Penn, DE, > USA, 19731-0069 > > --=====================_529567703==.ALT > Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" > > <html> > <body> > <div align="center"><font face="Times New Roman TUR, Times" size=5 color="#008000"><b>Green > Delaware Alert #393<br> > </b></font><font face="Times New Roman TUR, Times" size=4 color="#008000"> > (please post/forward)<br><br> > </font><font face="Times New Roman TUR, Times" size=4 color="#FF0000"><b>Public > hearings on DuPont's Edge Moor dioxin factory:<br> > March 1 and 2, 2005.<br><br> > DuPont admits dioxin-laced wastes were used to treat Wilmington drinking > water...<br><br> > Giant pile of poison to be left on banks of Delaware River as a gift to > future generations<br><br> > Community Meeting planned for March 16, 2005<br><br> > <br> > </b></font></div> > <font face="Times New Roman TUR, Times" size=4>March 2, 2005 This > Alert tries to summarize, very briefly, much information collected over a > period of years. Recently, folk from Green Delaware and Common > Cause have spent many hours reviewing files. Please try to plow > through this summary and take action.<br><br> > </font><font face="Times New Roman TUR, Times" size=4 color="#FF0000">One > of the great scandals of > Delaware</font><font face="Times New Roman TUR, Times" size=4> is the > Edge Moor plant of E.I. duPont de Nemours & Company. In the > 1950s this plant became the world's first plant to manufacture titanium > dioxide (a white pigment) by what DuPont calls the > "chloride-illmanite" process.<br><br> > </font><font face="Times New Roman TUR, Times" size=4 color="#FF0000">This > plant is the largest reported source in the United States of > dioxin</font><font face="Times New Roman TUR, Times" size=4>, a family of > chemical compounds of unequaled toxicity. Dioxins cause cancer, > birth defects, and other health problems in parts per trillion > concentrations.<br><br> > In fact, the DuPont plant reports releasing more than one-half of all the > dioxins reported released in the entire United States. Amounts have > been increasing. (DuPont claims to have plans to reduce > dioxin output but has refused to provide any details to Green > Delaware.) Reported releases in recent years have been as much as > 169 pounds. This is about 770 thousand times the minimum > "reportable quantity" of 0.1 grams.<br><br> > The dioxin output of Edge Moor is a story generally blacked out by > Delaware's media, probably under pressure from DuPont. Green > Delaware has reported on it at least three times:<br><br> > Alert 104--DuPont and Dioxin, Monday, July 2, 2001 <br> > http//www.greendel.org/item.xhtml?name=alert_0104<br><br> > DUPONT DOSES DELAWARE WITH DIOXIN, MOST TOXIC KNOWN CHEMICAL, Thursday, > May 23, 2002 > http//www.greendel.org/item.xhtml?name=release_dioxin1<br><br> > Alert 242--52% of total US dioxin emissions are from Delaware--Up from > 38% in 2000, Wednesday, July 2, 2003 > http//www.greendel.org/item.xhtml?name=alert_0242<br><br> > DuPont presumably began belching dioxin when the "chloride" > process started up around 1956. But, DuPont doesn't admit to > knowing about the dioxin releases until the 1990s, and only then as a > result of investigations by the U.S. Environmental Protection > Agency. <br><br> > Before 1997 the wastes were handled without any special precautions, and > sometimes promoted as valuable products to be sold. They were used > as road base, landfill cover, for treating drinking water and wastewater > and for other purposes.<br><br> > Beginning in 1997 and continuing until 2001 wastes (containing much but > not all of Edge Moor's dioxin) were piled up in an unpermitted dump on > the West bank of the Delaware River next to Shellpot Creek. DuPont > has reluctantly admitted to Green Delaware that <i>"Although the > mass is <br> > not relevant, > </font><font face="Times New Roman TUR, Times" size=4 color="#FF0000">the > mass of dioxins in the iron-rich pile on a totals basis is estimated to > be between 294 and 363 pounds..."<br><br> > </i></font><font face="Times New Roman TUR, Times" size=4>DuPont's Edge > Moor wastes also contain radioactive uranium and thorium, arsenic, lead, > hexachlorobenzene, PCBs and many other poisonous and cancer-causing > chemicals. In fact, DNREC and DuPont claim that the dioxin is not > really a problem because it is below the state action levels. (This is > similar to the arsenic levels scandal we reported on in Alert 392, > <b>"</font><font face="Times New Roman TUR, Times" size=4 color="#FF0000">Toxic > backyards for Delaware > kids?</font><font face="Times New Roman TUR, Times" size=4>,"</b> > <a href="http:///";>http://</a>www.greendel.org/item.xhtml<a href="http:///";>?name=alert_0392</a>)<br><br> > Now, these wastes are being sent to a garbage dump near Bishopville, > South Carolina, in impoverished, rural Lee County. Green Delaware > has been told by the landfill manager and South Carolina officials that > they don't know there is dioxin in the DuPont wastes from Delaware. (Why > are the wastes going to South Carolina rather than to the Delaware Solid > Waste Authority garbage dump right next to DuPont? Interesting > question.....) <br><br> > Why are these wastes not being handled as the "hazardous > wastes" they so obviously are? Minner administration officials > claim the wastes are exempt due to a loophole called the "Bevill > Amendment." But, at the same time, they claim the SAME wastes > in the big pile are not exempt and therefore are too expensive to get rid > of. Therefore this pile of five hundred thousand tons of dangerous > wastes should be left on the bank of the Delaware River, next to Shellpot > Creek, as a gift to the community and to future generations.<br><br> > A hearing was held on March 1, 2005, about a Coastal Zone Act permit for > Edge Moor to make a different flavor of product. The Minner > administration likes the idea and intends to give the permit without any > real consideration of what DuPont is already doing to the area and to the > Delaware River. <br><br> > Informed people at the hearing expressed a different opinion. > Former DuPont chemist and engineer Glenn R. Evers worked at the plant for > many years. He testified that the dioxin put out by Edge Moor is > the "Darth Vader of toxins," causing all sorts of cancers and > other health problems. He said, and DuPont officials confirmed, > that Edge Moor waste ferric chloride waste containing dioxins is sold for > treating drinking water. Wilmington uses this > "product."<br><br> > Alan Muller of Green Delaware said we were > "</font><font face="Times New Roman TUR, Times" size=4 color="#FF0000">very > disappointed in DNREC's performance in this > matter</font><font face="Times New Roman TUR, Times" size=4>." > He said that DNREC has been giving out permits "like peanuts" > and offered a bag of peanuts as a final exhibit. Hearing officer > Robert Haynes refused to accept the peanuts.<br><br> > A hearing is scheduled for five o'clock p.m. on March 2<sup>nd</sup> at > the Edge Moor Community Center. (Why does the hearing begin at > 5:00. dinner time? Good question....)<br><br> > </font><font face="Times New Roman TUR, Times" size=4 color="#FF0000"><b>WHAT > YOU CAN DO NOW:<br><br> > Contact Governor Ruth Ann > Minner.</font><font face="Times New Roman TUR, Times" size=4> Ask > (1)</font><font face="Times New Roman TUR, Times" size=4 color="#FF0000"> > the giant waste pile not be left on the banks of the Delaware > River</font><font face="Times New Roman TUR, Times" size=4>, but handled > properly , and (2) > </font><font face="Times New Roman TUR, Times" size=4 color="#FF0000">that > DuPont's Edge Moor plant NOT receive a coastal zone permit to make > different products until it starts making it's present products > safely.<br><br> > </font><font face="Times New Roman TUR, Times" size=4>Governor's > office: 1.800.929.9570, leeann.walling@no.address, FAX: > 577.3118<br><br> > </b></font><font face="Times New Roman TUR, Times" size=4 color="#FF0000">Come > to the March 2nd hearing.<br><br> > Green Delaware and other organizations are planning a community meeting > on March 16, 2005</font><font face="Times New Roman TUR, Times" size=4> > (6:30 p.m.) to provide more information on DuPont's Edge Moor Plant and > an opportunity to discuss what might be done about it. Put this on > your calendar! More details will follow.<br><br> > </font><div align="center"><font face="Times New Roman TUR, Times" size=4 color="#008000"><b><i>Green > Delaware is a community based organization working on environment and > public health issues. We try to provide information you can > use. Please use it. Do you want to continue receiving > information from Green Delaware? Please consider contributing or > volunteering. Reach us at 302.834.3466, greendel@no.address, > <a href="http://www.greendel.org/"; eudora="autourl">www.greendel.org</a></i></b>,<i> > <b>Box 69, Port Penn, DE, USA, 19731-0069<br> > </font></b></i></div> > </body> > </html> > > --=====================_529567703==.ALT-- > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Fri, 04 Mar 2005 14:24:50 -0700 > To: <greenyes@no.address> > From: "Megan Kershner" <Mkershner@no.address> > Subject: Sustainability in the Inland Northwest: Conference wraps up in > Boise, Idaho > Message-Id: <s2286fc3.062@no.address> > > True 'green' shoppers are few and far between > Polls: Only 10% consistently buy 'green' products > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > The Idaho Statesman | Edition Date: 03-04-2005 > http://www.idahostatesman.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050304/NEWS02/503040338 > > Polls indicate that most Americans consider themselves > sustainability-aware, "green"-savvy consumers. In fact, a full 75 > percent of Americans place themselves in this category. > > But presenters at the last day of the two-day "Sustainability in the > Inland Northwest" conference said a discrepancy exists between the > number of consumers who refer to themselves as "green"-savvy, and those > who truly follow through on their convictions and buy environmentally > friendly products on a consistent basis. > > "There are not that many true 'green' consumers," said Shelley Zimmer, > Nike's senior manager of footwear sustainability. > > In reality, only about 10 percent of American consumers are truly > green-conscious shoppers, Zimmer said. These are the shoppers who > actively search out such products and are willing to pay more to get > them, she said. > > The remaining 65 percent are not as willing to go out of their way to > find them or pay extra for them, but are still interested in such > products, Zimmer said. "They're busy. They have lots of things going on > in their lives," she said. "They want to be able to buy them in > accessible ways." > > Zimmer's projects include improving Nike's footwear packaging, > gathering consumer insights related to sustainability and driving > sustainable design innovations. > > In recent years, she said, Nike has introduced products like athletic > shoes that are both comprised of less toxic materials and designed to be > more easily recycled. > > In Nike's case, making green products more accessible has meant moving > towards incorporating as many green characteristics into all of their > product lines as possible. > > In that way, Zimmer said, customers can more easily support > sustainability and "don't have to make those trade-offs" between > high-priced green and less expansive non-green products. > > But there are smaller businesses which are unable to benefit from > widespread advertising. For them, success in marketing green products > comes down to offering "something different," said Janie Burns, the > owner of Meadowlark Farms in Nampa. > > Burns sells organic food products like eggs, grass-fed lamb and > vegetables. Burns spoke at the same session as Nike's Zimmer. > > What differentiates her products from others, Burns said, are the > health and environmental benefits they offer to customers. > > In the move towards greener products, manufacturers are increasingly > relying on industry-specific certification programs or eco-labels to > help consumers differentiate between green and regular products. > > Matthew Buck of the Food Alliance in Portland said businesses selling > products straight to the consumer at places like farmers' markets may > not benefit from certification. Customers who shop there are the 10 > percent who actively search out green products, he said, and are > therefore more knowledgeable about the products they buy. > > It's the roughly 65 percent of consumers who consider themselves green > shoppers that may be more attracted to a product that advertises green > certification, organic certification or eco-labels, Buck said. > > "Certification is not a magic bullet," Buck said. "It will not sell > your products for you." > > Instead of just peddling what they've got to consumers, Buck said > businesses wishing to sell green products need to "market what people > need." > > About 300 people attended the two-day conference at Boise's Grove > Hotel. > > ------------------------------ > > End of greenyes Digest > *********************************** -- Neil Seldman President Institute for Local Self-Reliance 927 15th St., NW - 4th Flr. Washington, DC 20005 (202) 898-1610 ext. 210 (202) 898-1612 [fax] www.ilsr.org |
[GreenYes Archives] -
[Date Index] -
[Thread Index]
[Date Prev] - [Date Next] - [Thread Prev] - [Thread Next]