[GreenYes] Re: baseline impacts of what WE are doing.

["Reindl, John" <Reindl@no.address>]

Hi Rick ~

 

I don't think that there is any "baseline". All alternatives ought to have their total costs included -- both financial costs (including subsidies) and their environmental costs, a la Pigou, who we have discussed on this list in the past.

 

Jeffrey Morris has some very interesting work on his site ( http://www.zerowaste.com/default.htm) that shows how this can be done, and I have given examples and links to European studies in the past. In addition, the Wisconsin Governor's Task Force on Waste Materials Recovery and Disposal has done a similar study; see Appendix D of its final report at http://wasteresources.wisconsin.gov/section.asp?linkid=549&locid=83

 

Best wishes,

 

John

-----Original Message-----
From: GreenYes@no.address [mailto:GreenYes@no.address]On Behalf Of RicAnthony@no.address
Sent: Friday, October 26, 2007 5:09 PM
To: GreenYes@no.address
Subject: [GreenYes] baseline impacts of what WE are doing.

In a message dated 10/26/2007 6:21:59 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, Reindl@no.address writes:We in the waste reduction and recovery field often criticize people and businesses in other fields for not looking at the impacts of what they are doing. Why do we exempt ourselves from that same requirement to take a broad and comprehensive view?

 

 

HI John:

 

I agree with you that, the environmental impacts of mixed waste collection, transfer and land filling and /or incineration should be the base line comparison of all other schemes. 

 

We need to include resource availability in the analysis as well as energy and water pollution  impacts. 

 

Is pollution acceptable when it is the least costly alternative?

 

Rick

 

 

Ricanthony@no.address
RichardAnthonyAssociates.com
San Diego, California

---

See what's new at AOL.com and Make AOL Your Homepage.