Showing posts with label landfill. Show all posts
Showing posts with label landfill. Show all posts
2/05/2009
7/23/2008
1/12/2008
8/16/2007
Press Conference Aug. 16, BREDL
Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League
www.BREDL.org PO Box 88 Glendale Springs, North Carolina 28629
BREDL@skybest.com (336) 982-2691 office (336) 977-0852 cell
PRESS ADVISORY, August 16, 2007
RALEIGH PRESS CONFERENCE AND RALLY
On Monday, August 20 environmental and community organizations from across North Carolina will gather in Raleigh for a press conference and rally. The groups will launch new campaigns for sound and just solid waste and energy policies. The press conference and rally will take place at the Old Capital and will begin at 11:30 AM.
Lois Gibbs, the Executive Director of the national Center for Health Environment and Justice will speak at the conference and rally. The Raleigh event will be the culmination of an 8-day barnstorming tour across piedmont and eastern counties.
PHOTO OPPORTUNITY
A 25-foot inflated duck will be the visual centerpiece of the event. The duck features a banner: “Don’t Be A Sitting Duck for Mega-dumps and Dangerous Energy.”
CONTACTS: Janet Marsh 336-982-2691; Lou Zeller 336-977-0852
www.BREDL.org PO Box 88 Glendale Springs, North Carolina 28629
BREDL@skybest.com (336) 982-2691 office (336) 977-0852 cell
PRESS ADVISORY, August 16, 2007
RALEIGH PRESS CONFERENCE AND RALLY
On Monday, August 20 environmental and community organizations from across North Carolina will gather in Raleigh for a press conference and rally. The groups will launch new campaigns for sound and just solid waste and energy policies. The press conference and rally will take place at the Old Capital and will begin at 11:30 AM.
Lois Gibbs, the Executive Director of the national Center for Health Environment and Justice will speak at the conference and rally. The Raleigh event will be the culmination of an 8-day barnstorming tour across piedmont and eastern counties.
PHOTO OPPORTUNITY
A 25-foot inflated duck will be the visual centerpiece of the event. The duck features a banner: “Don’t Be A Sitting Duck for Mega-dumps and Dangerous Energy.”
CONTACTS: Janet Marsh 336-982-2691; Lou Zeller 336-977-0852
8/15/2007
Kick the Habit!
Published on Tuesday, August 14, 2007 by The Christian Science Monitor
Kick The Bottled-Water Habit
It’s Not Just Daft, It’s Decadent. And Tap is Often Better.
by Tom Standage
In 1783, George Washington visited the natural springs of Saratoga Springs, N.Y. Along with Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, he took a keen interest in the supposed medicinal qualities of mineral water, a subject of much scientific research at the time. The following year, a friend wrote to him to describe the difficulty of bottling the strongly effervescent Saratoga water. “Several persons told us that they had corked it tight in bottles, and that the bottles broke,” wrote Washington’s friend. The birth of the United States thus coincided with the origins of bottled water.
The business of bottling water really got going in the 1790s in Switzerland, where doctors acclaimed the medicinal benefits of the artificially carbonated water sold by Nicholas Paul and Jacob Schweppe. The pair began exporting their bottled soda water in 1800, and such was its popularity in London that Benjamin Silliman, a visiting American chemistry professor, decided to set up his own soda-water venture in the US. Others soon followed suit, and bottled water became a popular health drink.
But bottled water’s mass appeal really began in the US with the marketing of Perrier, imported from France, during the 1970s. In recent years, though, sparkling water has been eclipsed by still water in popularity. Last year, sales of bottled water in the United States reached $11 billion. Globally, the figure might be as high as $100 billion annually.
Go into a restaurant or a supermarket and you will be offered water from all over the planet. Bottled water might look and taste pure enough, but the whole idea stinks. For a start, bottled water is indistinguishable from tap water. Put five bottled waters up against tap water in a blind tasting and see if you can tell the difference. Los Angeles tap water came out on top in a 2006 blind tasting, beating water from New York and Seattle, among others. One judge called L.A.’s water “exceptional. Like a bottled water.”
In many cases, bottled water is actually derived from tap water and filtered - which is why PepsiCo has just agreed to add the words “public water source” to the label of its Aquafina water. But water from glacial springs is not inherently superior. Worse, shipping it around causes unnecessary environmental damage. Refrigeration wastes even more energy. Then there are the millions of plastic bottles, many of which end up in landfills.
Surely bottled water is purer and safer? Actually, no. The regulations governing the quality of public water supplies are far stricter than those governing bottled-water plants. True, there are sometimes contamination problems with tap water, but the same is true of bottled water.
The industry responds that it is not selling water; it is selling “portable hydration.” But filling a bottle from the tap works just as well. The industry also likes to point out that bottled water is a healthy, calorie-free alternative to sugary soda drinks. The same goes for tap water.
Bottled water would appear to be the ultimate triumph of marketing. If you can get people to pay so much for something that is already available at very low cost in their own homes, doesn’t that suggest that they will buy anything? Canned air, anyone? Of course, in a free society, people should be able to spend their money on silly things, provided they are in full possession of the facts. But many people are not, judging by the persistence of the idea that there is something magically superior about bottled water.
But now a backlash against bottled water is gathering pace as people realize just how daft it is. (Actually it is worse than daft; it is decadent to shun perfectly good tap water, given that more than 1 billion people on the planet lack access to it.) Many fancy restaurants now proudly proclaim that they serve tap water to burnish their green credentials. Restaurant patrons are increasingly prepared to ask unashamedly for tap water when offered expensive bottled stuff.
Campaigns such as “Think Outside the Bottle” attack bottled water as part of a corporate conspiracy to seize control of the world’s water. Meanwhile, UNICEF’s Tap Project, launched in March, uses the power of branding to promote tap water. New York tap water has, for example, been rebranded “NY Tap” and, on World Water Day, participating restaurants in the city suggest a donation for the tap water they usually provide for free, with the proceeds going to water projects in developing countries. I’ll drink to that. Sparkling or still? Tap, please.
Tom Standage is the author of “A History of the World in Six Glasses.”
Kick The Bottled-Water Habit
It’s Not Just Daft, It’s Decadent. And Tap is Often Better.
by Tom Standage
In 1783, George Washington visited the natural springs of Saratoga Springs, N.Y. Along with Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, he took a keen interest in the supposed medicinal qualities of mineral water, a subject of much scientific research at the time. The following year, a friend wrote to him to describe the difficulty of bottling the strongly effervescent Saratoga water. “Several persons told us that they had corked it tight in bottles, and that the bottles broke,” wrote Washington’s friend. The birth of the United States thus coincided with the origins of bottled water.
The business of bottling water really got going in the 1790s in Switzerland, where doctors acclaimed the medicinal benefits of the artificially carbonated water sold by Nicholas Paul and Jacob Schweppe. The pair began exporting their bottled soda water in 1800, and such was its popularity in London that Benjamin Silliman, a visiting American chemistry professor, decided to set up his own soda-water venture in the US. Others soon followed suit, and bottled water became a popular health drink.
But bottled water’s mass appeal really began in the US with the marketing of Perrier, imported from France, during the 1970s. In recent years, though, sparkling water has been eclipsed by still water in popularity. Last year, sales of bottled water in the United States reached $11 billion. Globally, the figure might be as high as $100 billion annually.
Go into a restaurant or a supermarket and you will be offered water from all over the planet. Bottled water might look and taste pure enough, but the whole idea stinks. For a start, bottled water is indistinguishable from tap water. Put five bottled waters up against tap water in a blind tasting and see if you can tell the difference. Los Angeles tap water came out on top in a 2006 blind tasting, beating water from New York and Seattle, among others. One judge called L.A.’s water “exceptional. Like a bottled water.”
In many cases, bottled water is actually derived from tap water and filtered - which is why PepsiCo has just agreed to add the words “public water source” to the label of its Aquafina water. But water from glacial springs is not inherently superior. Worse, shipping it around causes unnecessary environmental damage. Refrigeration wastes even more energy. Then there are the millions of plastic bottles, many of which end up in landfills.
Surely bottled water is purer and safer? Actually, no. The regulations governing the quality of public water supplies are far stricter than those governing bottled-water plants. True, there are sometimes contamination problems with tap water, but the same is true of bottled water.
The industry responds that it is not selling water; it is selling “portable hydration.” But filling a bottle from the tap works just as well. The industry also likes to point out that bottled water is a healthy, calorie-free alternative to sugary soda drinks. The same goes for tap water.
Bottled water would appear to be the ultimate triumph of marketing. If you can get people to pay so much for something that is already available at very low cost in their own homes, doesn’t that suggest that they will buy anything? Canned air, anyone? Of course, in a free society, people should be able to spend their money on silly things, provided they are in full possession of the facts. But many people are not, judging by the persistence of the idea that there is something magically superior about bottled water.
But now a backlash against bottled water is gathering pace as people realize just how daft it is. (Actually it is worse than daft; it is decadent to shun perfectly good tap water, given that more than 1 billion people on the planet lack access to it.) Many fancy restaurants now proudly proclaim that they serve tap water to burnish their green credentials. Restaurant patrons are increasingly prepared to ask unashamedly for tap water when offered expensive bottled stuff.
Campaigns such as “Think Outside the Bottle” attack bottled water as part of a corporate conspiracy to seize control of the world’s water. Meanwhile, UNICEF’s Tap Project, launched in March, uses the power of branding to promote tap water. New York tap water has, for example, been rebranded “NY Tap” and, on World Water Day, participating restaurants in the city suggest a donation for the tap water they usually provide for free, with the proceeds going to water projects in developing countries. I’ll drink to that. Sparkling or still? Tap, please.
Tom Standage is the author of “A History of the World in Six Glasses.”
7/25/2007
Restrict Mega-landfills, Call Reps
The Solid Waste Management Act of 2007 has been considerably watered down in the Senate by industry influence. One of the major changes from the original landfill bill relates to the maximum size of a landfill. The original bill has been changed from a maximum landfill footprint of 150 acres to 350 acres. Landfill size has major consequences. Ask Representatives to keep out mega-landfills - restrict size to 150 acres.
Early this week the bill goes to the House Environment and Natural Resources Committee. There is precious little time to remove the harmful provisions. Please contact your own Representatives, and members of the House Environment and Natural Resources Committee to request a return of the bill to its original intent.
Environment and Natural Resources House Standing Committee Members
Chairman Rep. Allen
Vice Chairman Rep. Gillespie
Vice Chairman Rep. J. Harrell
Vice Chairman Rep. Harrison
Vice Chairman Rep. Justice
Vice Chairman Rep. Tarleton
Vice Chairman Rep. Underhill
Members Rep. Blackwood, Rep. Brisson, Rep. Dollar, Rep. Gibson , Rep. Haire, Rep. Insko, Rep. Killian, Rep. Kiser, Rep. Luebke , Rep. Martin, Rep. McComas, Rep. McElraft, Rep. Owens, Rep. Samuelson , Rep. Stiller, Rep. Tucker, Rep. Weiss, Rep. West, Rep. Womble
Early this week the bill goes to the House Environment and Natural Resources Committee. There is precious little time to remove the harmful provisions. Please contact your own Representatives, and members of the House Environment and Natural Resources Committee to request a return of the bill to its original intent.
Environment and Natural Resources House Standing Committee Members
Chairman Rep. Allen
Vice Chairman Rep. Gillespie
Vice Chairman Rep. J. Harrell
Vice Chairman Rep. Harrison
Vice Chairman Rep. Justice
Vice Chairman Rep. Tarleton
Vice Chairman Rep. Underhill
Members Rep. Blackwood, Rep. Brisson, Rep. Dollar, Rep. Gibson , Rep. Haire, Rep. Insko, Rep. Killian, Rep. Kiser, Rep. Luebke , Rep. Martin, Rep. McComas, Rep. McElraft, Rep. Owens, Rep. Samuelson , Rep. Stiller, Rep. Tucker, Rep. Weiss, Rep. West, Rep. Womble
7/15/2007
Call Your Legislators
"Please see the two items below from FOGS (Friends of the Green Swamp). As negotiations on the landfill bill reach some sort of conclusion, trash companies-in this case Waste Management-are trying to exempt their existing projects. Let your reps know about this last minute maneuver.
We are still waiting for details on the next version of the bill which is supposed to be heard on Tuesday.
FRIENDS OF THE GREEN SWAMP
P. O. Box 2249
Whiteville, NC 28472-7249
July 13, 2007
LEGISLATIVE ACTION ALERT!!!
Your immediate action is required!
Dear Friend of the Green Swamp:
We have learned that Senator Clark Jenkins intends to introduce legislation that will amend Senate Bill 1492 that contains new environmental regulations for solid waste landfills in North Carolina. This would exempt the proposed solid regional landfill proposed by Riegel Ridge LLC in the Green Swamp.
There is no clear rationale for this move.
It is speculated that it may be because Riegel Ridge had advanced further in the process prior to the moratorium than any other proposed landfill. It is felt that this is pure politics and there is no real basis for such an exemption.
It is imperative that you contact our local legislative delegation immediately and ask them to vehemently oppose such an exemption. Your request to them is as follows:
"You are requested to oppose an exemption of Riegel Ridge LLC's application for a proposed regional solid waste landfill in the Green Swamp from Senate Bill 1492."
Please contact our local legislative delegation by phone or email as follows:
Senator R. C. Soles, Jr.
Tabor City Law Office Phone: 910-653-2015
Home Phone: 910-653-3948
(After Monday, since he is at legislative office only on Tuesdays through Thursdays)
Legislative Office Phone: 919-733-5963
Legislative Email: rcsoles@ncleg.net
Representative Dewey Hill
Work Phone: 910-642-6044
Home Phone: 910-646-4297
(After Monday, since he is at legislative office only on Tuesdays through Thursdays)
Legislative Office Phone: 919-733-5830
Legislative Email: deweyh@ncleg.net
It would also be helpful to contact any other legislators to request their opposition to this proposed amendment. To email ALL members: internete-mail@ncleg.net (readable by all Legislators)
If you receive any significant feedback from your contact, I would appreciate your notifying me so we can keep tabs on this. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Steve Smith, Chairman
Friends of the Green Swamp
Email: stevesmith@interimec.com
Phone: 910-642-2106, ext. 226
From the Whiteville News Reporter:
Fate of Green Swamp landfill lies with state legislature
By NICOLE CARTRETTE
Staff Writer
A landfill planned for Columbus County may not have to play by new rules.
While tougher regulations for landfills are being considered in the N.C. legislature, Rep. Dewey Hill and Sen. R.C. Soles Jr. both say there is talk of a separate piece of legislation that would exempt a 107-acre regional landfill planned for the Green Swamp from some, if not all, of those rules.
Both Soles and Hill say they would be opposed to such legislation.
"I am not in favor of that and will not support that," Soles said, adding that the need for a place to dispose of trash is realized.
"Columbus County needs a landfill, but whether the Green Swamp is the right place for it or not I don't know," Hill said. "If they are going to dodge all the environmental rules, anywhere they put it would be wrong." Hill said he believes extending the moratorium would be the best thing to do.
"I certainly don't want it," Soles said of the Green Swamp landfill, but made it clear the same rules should apply to it as any other. "If it ends up in the Green Swamp it should be as secure and safe as any other in the state."
Friends of the Green Swamp is an environmental group opposed to the landfill and affiliated with the Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League.
FOGS Chairman Stephen Smith said Tuesday the group had received information that a bill to relax the laws for the proposed landfill was scheduled to be discussed in a Senate Agriculture committee Thursday.
"We don't know the particulars of it," Smith said. "Any lessening of that (the Environmental Review Commission's recommendations) we would not support."
The landfill project in Columbus County was initiated by Riegel Ridge, LLC, a subsidiary of Waste Management, in March 2000.
County records indicate that the original developers involved turned the project over completely to Waste Management a few years ago.
In March, the N.C. Division of Environment and Natural Resources, Waste Management Division made recommendations, if passed into law, that would make the permitting process for landfills more costly and environmental protections more strict.
Some of those recommended changes include putting up $3 million in case of a leak, upgraded liners, required traffic impact studies, stream buffers and full financial disclosure.
There has been no word from Columbus County officials on what effect, if any, the recommendations have had on the landfill project in the Green Swamp.
County Manager Jim Varner said in March he had "no earthly idea" if the recommendations made would affect the Riegel Ridge landfill proposal but pointed out the commissioners had given the company "the green light."
The project had not obtained a permit to construct or a permit to operate when a moratorium was imposed statewide last year. The company had jumped several other hurdles.
Prior to that, the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers issued a permit allowing developers to fill in a two-thirds acre wetland at the location southwest of N.C. 211 at Roberts Road.
Opposition from groups such as Friends of the Green Swamp emerged and the group unsuccessfully challenged a state water quality permit the developers had been issued.
With the blessings of five of seven Columbus County Commissioners and promises of $1 million in county revenue, the project continued to move forward until state legislation would bring all landfill projects in the state to a halt.
That state moratorium on landfills is set to expire Aug. 1
We are still waiting for details on the next version of the bill which is supposed to be heard on Tuesday.
FRIENDS OF THE GREEN SWAMP
P. O. Box 2249
Whiteville, NC 28472-7249
July 13, 2007
LEGISLATIVE ACTION ALERT!!!
Your immediate action is required!
Dear Friend of the Green Swamp:
We have learned that Senator Clark Jenkins intends to introduce legislation that will amend Senate Bill 1492 that contains new environmental regulations for solid waste landfills in North Carolina. This would exempt the proposed solid regional landfill proposed by Riegel Ridge LLC in the Green Swamp.
There is no clear rationale for this move.
It is speculated that it may be because Riegel Ridge had advanced further in the process prior to the moratorium than any other proposed landfill. It is felt that this is pure politics and there is no real basis for such an exemption.
It is imperative that you contact our local legislative delegation immediately and ask them to vehemently oppose such an exemption. Your request to them is as follows:
"You are requested to oppose an exemption of Riegel Ridge LLC's application for a proposed regional solid waste landfill in the Green Swamp from Senate Bill 1492."
Please contact our local legislative delegation by phone or email as follows:
Senator R. C. Soles, Jr.
Tabor City Law Office Phone: 910-653-2015
Home Phone: 910-653-3948
(After Monday, since he is at legislative office only on Tuesdays through Thursdays)
Legislative Office Phone: 919-733-5963
Legislative Email: rcsoles@ncleg.net
Representative Dewey Hill
Work Phone: 910-642-6044
Home Phone: 910-646-4297
(After Monday, since he is at legislative office only on Tuesdays through Thursdays)
Legislative Office Phone: 919-733-5830
Legislative Email: deweyh@ncleg.net
It would also be helpful to contact any other legislators to request their opposition to this proposed amendment. To email ALL members: internete-mail@ncleg.net (readable by all Legislators)
If you receive any significant feedback from your contact, I would appreciate your notifying me so we can keep tabs on this. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Steve Smith, Chairman
Friends of the Green Swamp
Email: stevesmith@interimec.com
Phone: 910-642-2106, ext. 226
From the Whiteville News Reporter:
Fate of Green Swamp landfill lies with state legislature
By NICOLE CARTRETTE
Staff Writer
A landfill planned for Columbus County may not have to play by new rules.
While tougher regulations for landfills are being considered in the N.C. legislature, Rep. Dewey Hill and Sen. R.C. Soles Jr. both say there is talk of a separate piece of legislation that would exempt a 107-acre regional landfill planned for the Green Swamp from some, if not all, of those rules.
Both Soles and Hill say they would be opposed to such legislation.
"I am not in favor of that and will not support that," Soles said, adding that the need for a place to dispose of trash is realized.
"Columbus County needs a landfill, but whether the Green Swamp is the right place for it or not I don't know," Hill said. "If they are going to dodge all the environmental rules, anywhere they put it would be wrong." Hill said he believes extending the moratorium would be the best thing to do.
"I certainly don't want it," Soles said of the Green Swamp landfill, but made it clear the same rules should apply to it as any other. "If it ends up in the Green Swamp it should be as secure and safe as any other in the state."
Friends of the Green Swamp is an environmental group opposed to the landfill and affiliated with the Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League.
FOGS Chairman Stephen Smith said Tuesday the group had received information that a bill to relax the laws for the proposed landfill was scheduled to be discussed in a Senate Agriculture committee Thursday.
"We don't know the particulars of it," Smith said. "Any lessening of that (the Environmental Review Commission's recommendations) we would not support."
The landfill project in Columbus County was initiated by Riegel Ridge, LLC, a subsidiary of Waste Management, in March 2000.
County records indicate that the original developers involved turned the project over completely to Waste Management a few years ago.
In March, the N.C. Division of Environment and Natural Resources, Waste Management Division made recommendations, if passed into law, that would make the permitting process for landfills more costly and environmental protections more strict.
Some of those recommended changes include putting up $3 million in case of a leak, upgraded liners, required traffic impact studies, stream buffers and full financial disclosure.
There has been no word from Columbus County officials on what effect, if any, the recommendations have had on the landfill project in the Green Swamp.
County Manager Jim Varner said in March he had "no earthly idea" if the recommendations made would affect the Riegel Ridge landfill proposal but pointed out the commissioners had given the company "the green light."
The project had not obtained a permit to construct or a permit to operate when a moratorium was imposed statewide last year. The company had jumped several other hurdles.
Prior to that, the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers issued a permit allowing developers to fill in a two-thirds acre wetland at the location southwest of N.C. 211 at Roberts Road.
Opposition from groups such as Friends of the Green Swamp emerged and the group unsuccessfully challenged a state water quality permit the developers had been issued.
With the blessings of five of seven Columbus County Commissioners and promises of $1 million in county revenue, the project continued to move forward until state legislation would bring all landfill projects in the state to a halt.
That state moratorium on landfills is set to expire Aug. 1
7/14/2007
Conservation Insider Bulletin, July 13
Conservation Insider Bulletin
Published weekly for the Conservation Council of North Carolina
Conservation News to Peruse & Use
Editor: Dan Besse, earthvote@ccnccpac.org
July 13, 2007
Legislative Watch: Clock Ticking on Landfill Moratorium
In one of last session's big environmental victories, the General Assembly slammed a permitting moratorium on large landfills, and kicked off a major study of policy action needs in the arena of solid waste management. An extensive "stakeholder" study process ensued, ultimately resulting in a broadly hailed comprehensive legislative proposal: SB 1492, "Responsible Waste Management". The sponsors of the bill are influential State Senators Daniel Clodfelter (D-Mecklenburg) and Charles Albertson (D-Duplin).
Unfortunately, although SB 1492 was on March 27 referred to the Senate Agriculture/Environment/Natural Resources Committee (chaired by Albertson), it has not yet emerged. Meanwhile, time is running out for the moratorium, which expires August 1.
A review of SB 1492 was the lead item in this week's legislative issues bulletin, Hot List, from CCNC lobbyist Mike Nelson. Regarding the need for immediate action on this issue, Mike said, "The moratorium stopped development for a year, but the issues with waste management in the state still exist. The waste industry has proposed six huge mega-dumps be constructed in North Carolina, all located in economically depressed areas in the eastern part of the state. Three of these proposed mega-dumps would build up trash higher than the Cape Hatteras lighthouse, creating huge mountains of waste over the state's famous coastal plain. Unregulated expansion of the waste management industry would clearly be an environmental disaster for the state's most depressed regions.
"However, the moratorium passed last session expires in just a few weeks, on August 1. If the moratorium is allowed to sunset, then it would signal a return to almost unrestricted landfill development in North Carolina. While waste management is essential to the state, North Carolina cannot become a dumping ground for the rest of the country's waste, as would inevitably happen if all the proposed landfills are built. The General Assembly needs to act in this session to ensure responsible waste management continues in this state."
As described by Mike, key provisions of SB 1492 include the following:
Promotes recycling in North Carolina by diverting a portion of tip fees to support local recycling programs. A seemingly small amount -- just a dollar per ton of garbage disposed of -- will generate millions of dollars in revenue for local recycling.
Creates a new environmental safety review process for private-sector landfills, and makes public landfills subject to state-level environmental review for the first time.
Provides funding to clean up over 600 non-compliant or abandoned landfills, a clear benefit to the environment around these pre-existing sites, many of which were built before liners were required.
Places size restrictions on new landfills, requiring them to be no higher than 200 feet and ensuring that needed development will not create "mountains of garbage" and hurt the landscape.
Washington Watch: Ex-Bush Surgeon General Details Political Interference; Administration Politics Endangers More Species
Ex-Bush Surgeon General Details Political Interference: George Bush's former Surgeon General, Richard H. Carmona, told a Congressional committee this week that Bush Administration officials persistently suppressed public health reports that ran counter to their political policies. Among a list of policy areas which he said were impacted, he included global warming, as well as health-related issues like secondhand smoke, emergency contraception, sex education, and health care in the prison system. Current Bush officials went scrambling, once again, to try to deny or diminish the revelations of another ex-colleague airing the dirty laundry of an Administration plainly dedicated to trumping science with politics.
Administration Politics Endangers More Species: In a thematically related story, the Los Angeles Times this week reported on strife and disarray within the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service's efforts to implement the laws protecting endangered species. According to the paper's research, the Bush Administration's political commitment to halt the expansion of endangered species protections has resulted in a waiting list of 279 candidate species for protection—species near extinction now, but lacking federal designation and protection as such. Further, about 200 of the 1,326 species currently on the endangered list are close to gone, in part because funding for their recovery has been cut. The Service has a 30 percent vacancy rate in the endangered species program's staff, and the agency's top position has been left unfilled for over a year. More program funding cuts are proposed. In sum, it's a portrait of a program in deep trouble. Perhaps the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service should be considered a candidate for endangered listing.
Campaign Watch: Lockie Bids for Local Office
The filing period for local government elections this year still has another week to run, but one of the interesting contests with potential environmental implications is shaping up in Durham. That's because an ex-leader (very recently ex-, as in last week) of one of the Art Pope organizations is running for mayor.
Thomas Stith, currently a Durham City Council Member, resigned last Friday as vice president of the John William Pope Civitas Institute in preparation for his campaign for Durham mayor. Stith will run against incumbent Durham Mayor Bill Bell.
The Civitas Institute is one of the Pope network of conservative advocacy groups, which also include the better-known John Locke Foundation. According to the Durham Herald-Sun, almost 98 percent of the Civitas funding of $1.8 million in fiscal year 2005-2006 came from a Pope family foundation. The paper also notes that a polling firm with ties to Civitas conducted a survey last year on the potential for a challenge to Bell.
As a matter of standard philosophy, the Lockies are aggressively hostile to nearly all meaningful environmental regulation, so we can probably look to this race as a testing ground for their attacks on local involvement in anti-sprawl efforts, stormwater management, renewable energy initiatives, and the like. CIB will plan to follow the details of the contest for environmentally relevant themes and developments.
Published weekly for the Conservation Council of North Carolina
Conservation News to Peruse & Use
Editor: Dan Besse, earthvote@ccnccpac.org
July 13, 2007
Legislative Watch: Clock Ticking on Landfill Moratorium
In one of last session's big environmental victories, the General Assembly slammed a permitting moratorium on large landfills, and kicked off a major study of policy action needs in the arena of solid waste management. An extensive "stakeholder" study process ensued, ultimately resulting in a broadly hailed comprehensive legislative proposal: SB 1492, "Responsible Waste Management". The sponsors of the bill are influential State Senators Daniel Clodfelter (D-Mecklenburg) and Charles Albertson (D-Duplin).
Unfortunately, although SB 1492 was on March 27 referred to the Senate Agriculture/Environment/Natural Resources Committee (chaired by Albertson), it has not yet emerged. Meanwhile, time is running out for the moratorium, which expires August 1.
A review of SB 1492 was the lead item in this week's legislative issues bulletin, Hot List, from CCNC lobbyist Mike Nelson. Regarding the need for immediate action on this issue, Mike said, "The moratorium stopped development for a year, but the issues with waste management in the state still exist. The waste industry has proposed six huge mega-dumps be constructed in North Carolina, all located in economically depressed areas in the eastern part of the state. Three of these proposed mega-dumps would build up trash higher than the Cape Hatteras lighthouse, creating huge mountains of waste over the state's famous coastal plain. Unregulated expansion of the waste management industry would clearly be an environmental disaster for the state's most depressed regions.
"However, the moratorium passed last session expires in just a few weeks, on August 1. If the moratorium is allowed to sunset, then it would signal a return to almost unrestricted landfill development in North Carolina. While waste management is essential to the state, North Carolina cannot become a dumping ground for the rest of the country's waste, as would inevitably happen if all the proposed landfills are built. The General Assembly needs to act in this session to ensure responsible waste management continues in this state."
As described by Mike, key provisions of SB 1492 include the following:
Promotes recycling in North Carolina by diverting a portion of tip fees to support local recycling programs. A seemingly small amount -- just a dollar per ton of garbage disposed of -- will generate millions of dollars in revenue for local recycling.
Creates a new environmental safety review process for private-sector landfills, and makes public landfills subject to state-level environmental review for the first time.
Provides funding to clean up over 600 non-compliant or abandoned landfills, a clear benefit to the environment around these pre-existing sites, many of which were built before liners were required.
Places size restrictions on new landfills, requiring them to be no higher than 200 feet and ensuring that needed development will not create "mountains of garbage" and hurt the landscape.
Washington Watch: Ex-Bush Surgeon General Details Political Interference; Administration Politics Endangers More Species
Ex-Bush Surgeon General Details Political Interference: George Bush's former Surgeon General, Richard H. Carmona, told a Congressional committee this week that Bush Administration officials persistently suppressed public health reports that ran counter to their political policies. Among a list of policy areas which he said were impacted, he included global warming, as well as health-related issues like secondhand smoke, emergency contraception, sex education, and health care in the prison system. Current Bush officials went scrambling, once again, to try to deny or diminish the revelations of another ex-colleague airing the dirty laundry of an Administration plainly dedicated to trumping science with politics.
Administration Politics Endangers More Species: In a thematically related story, the Los Angeles Times this week reported on strife and disarray within the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service's efforts to implement the laws protecting endangered species. According to the paper's research, the Bush Administration's political commitment to halt the expansion of endangered species protections has resulted in a waiting list of 279 candidate species for protection—species near extinction now, but lacking federal designation and protection as such. Further, about 200 of the 1,326 species currently on the endangered list are close to gone, in part because funding for their recovery has been cut. The Service has a 30 percent vacancy rate in the endangered species program's staff, and the agency's top position has been left unfilled for over a year. More program funding cuts are proposed. In sum, it's a portrait of a program in deep trouble. Perhaps the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service should be considered a candidate for endangered listing.
Campaign Watch: Lockie Bids for Local Office
The filing period for local government elections this year still has another week to run, but one of the interesting contests with potential environmental implications is shaping up in Durham. That's because an ex-leader (very recently ex-, as in last week) of one of the Art Pope organizations is running for mayor.
Thomas Stith, currently a Durham City Council Member, resigned last Friday as vice president of the John William Pope Civitas Institute in preparation for his campaign for Durham mayor. Stith will run against incumbent Durham Mayor Bill Bell.
The Civitas Institute is one of the Pope network of conservative advocacy groups, which also include the better-known John Locke Foundation. According to the Durham Herald-Sun, almost 98 percent of the Civitas funding of $1.8 million in fiscal year 2005-2006 came from a Pope family foundation. The paper also notes that a polling firm with ties to Civitas conducted a survey last year on the potential for a challenge to Bell.
As a matter of standard philosophy, the Lockies are aggressively hostile to nearly all meaningful environmental regulation, so we can probably look to this race as a testing ground for their attacks on local involvement in anti-sprawl efforts, stormwater management, renewable energy initiatives, and the like. CIB will plan to follow the details of the contest for environmentally relevant themes and developments.
6/08/2007
Getting Smarter in Fayetteville
[from Sustainable Sandhills]
Last night the Fayetteville City Council approved a motion to implement a residential curbside recycling program on July 1, 2008. The program will be operated as an enterprise fund, and be funded by a fee to city residents that will not exceed $39/year/household. That motion passed unanimously, 9-0!
http://www.fayobserver.com/article?id=264463
The early target for the program is annual recovery of 6,000-7,000 tons of this increasingly valuable (and job-generating) resource.
Last night the Fayetteville City Council approved a motion to implement a residential curbside recycling program on July 1, 2008. The program will be operated as an enterprise fund, and be funded by a fee to city residents that will not exceed $39/year/household. That motion passed unanimously, 9-0!
http://www.fayobserver.com/article?id=264463
The early target for the program is annual recovery of 6,000-7,000 tons of this increasingly valuable (and job-generating) resource.
5/27/2007
4/27/2007
Speaking of Throwaways
[from a well-travelled blog reader]
"Did you know that in Ireland one of the plastic grocery bags that we treat like confetti costs 25 cents Euro? At current exchange rates that is around 32 cents U.S."
"Did you know that in Ireland one of the plastic grocery bags that we treat like confetti costs 25 cents Euro? At current exchange rates that is around 32 cents U.S."
4/18/2007
Contact Your Legislator
One Person's Trash...Another Person's Energy
One person's trash can be another person's treasure-literally. In Orange County last week, the Board of County Commissioners initiated an innovative program to generate energy from the landfill. They're looking at siphoning off landfill gas to create electricity and heat.
Robeson County, earlier this year, began a public-private partnership to harness their landfill gas for use at a proposed ethanol plant.
These are great opportunities to turn something bad into something good.
Here's how it works: Landfills, stuffed to the rim with rotting garbage, give off methane and other gases. In most communities, of course, these gases are allowed to simply escape into the atmosphere, thus contributing to global warming. Methane is most worrisome because it's one of the worst greenhouse gases; it's many times more potent than car exhaust, for example.
The plan is to capture the landfill gas, pump it to a small energy generation facility, and create electricity. In addition, the process that creates electricity also creates excess heat, which can be used to heat nearby buildings. So, the community can get two bangs for our one buck.
These 'garbage-to-energy' projects, like the ones in Orange and Robeson Counties, represent the tip of the iceberg --or the tip of the trashheap--in terms of what we could be doing here in North Carolina. North Carolina is poised to become the first state in the southeast to seriously address climate change. Passage of some of the bills before the legislature will create a climate of opportunity for addressing global warming.
Creating energy from a waste product--like landfill gas--saves money and reduces the emission of greenhouse gases. By looking at climate change as an opportunity rather than an obstacle, we can accomplish several goals at once: reducing air pollution, addressing global warming, exploiting economic opportunity in a new sector, and saving money.
One person's trash really can be another person's treasure.
One person's trash can be another person's treasure-literally. In Orange County last week, the Board of County Commissioners initiated an innovative program to generate energy from the landfill. They're looking at siphoning off landfill gas to create electricity and heat.
Robeson County, earlier this year, began a public-private partnership to harness their landfill gas for use at a proposed ethanol plant.
These are great opportunities to turn something bad into something good.
Here's how it works: Landfills, stuffed to the rim with rotting garbage, give off methane and other gases. In most communities, of course, these gases are allowed to simply escape into the atmosphere, thus contributing to global warming. Methane is most worrisome because it's one of the worst greenhouse gases; it's many times more potent than car exhaust, for example.
The plan is to capture the landfill gas, pump it to a small energy generation facility, and create electricity. In addition, the process that creates electricity also creates excess heat, which can be used to heat nearby buildings. So, the community can get two bangs for our one buck.
These 'garbage-to-energy' projects, like the ones in Orange and Robeson Counties, represent the tip of the iceberg --or the tip of the trashheap--in terms of what we could be doing here in North Carolina. North Carolina is poised to become the first state in the southeast to seriously address climate change. Passage of some of the bills before the legislature will create a climate of opportunity for addressing global warming.
Creating energy from a waste product--like landfill gas--saves money and reduces the emission of greenhouse gases. By looking at climate change as an opportunity rather than an obstacle, we can accomplish several goals at once: reducing air pollution, addressing global warming, exploiting economic opportunity in a new sector, and saving money.
One person's trash really can be another person's treasure.
4/07/2007
Solid Waste in NC,
[contact YOUR legislator]
HOT LIST
A PUBLICATION OF THE CONSERVATION COUNCIL OF NORTH CAROLINA
April 5, 2007
Dear Legislator:
This week's HotList examines solid waste in North Carolina.
In response to proposals to place up to 4 mega-landfills in North Carolina, landfills that could receive garbage from up and down the eastern seaboard, the state legislature passed a 12 month moratorium on the siting of new landfills in North Carolina last year. The idea behind the moratorium was to give the state time to craft new regulations to govern landfill operations in our state.
The state worked diligently and new recommendations recently came out of the Division on Solid Waste. The "Solid Waste Management Act of 2007" (SB1492/HB1233) will put these recommendations into effect, and we encourage you to support this legislation.
Passage will give the state the additional tools to manage solid waste as our state grows.
Mike NelsonDirector of Government Relations Conservation Council of NC 919-839-0020
Solid Waste Management Act of 2007
Legislation that was introduced this year, "Solid Waste Management Act of 2007," (SB 1492 / HB 1233) is a good bill that addresses many of the concerns with landfill operations. But what steps can the state take to minimize the necessity of landfilling waste?
Land fills are expensive to build; they are politically unpopular; and they often raise concerns about environmental justice. There is a lot we can do to minimize the need for new landfills, and in the process create jobs and business opportunities right here in North Carolina.
NC is home to a growing number of recycling companies--companies that employ our workers and make money from taking refuse and recycling it into useable products. By diverting waste from landfills and redirecting it to business interests, we can create a win-win-win situation that benefits government, business, and the environment.
Here are a few key points about recycling.
Recycling saves energy. It's usually takes less energy to manufacture goods from recycled material than from virgin products, therefore recycling saves money for the business community. DENR reports that if we were to increase the recycling rate in the US from the current 30.6% recovery scenario to 35% by 2008, energy savings would be the equivalent of 13.7 billion gallons of gas.
Recycling saves landfill space. Each pound of waste that it is recycled rather than going into a landfill extends the lifespan of existing landfill operations. Siting new landfills is expensive and burdensome for local governments, and often negatively impacts surrounding communities. Extending the lifecycle of existing landfills will save local governments money and time.
North Carolina's 'recycling economy' is one of the fastest growing job engines in the state. Companies across North Carolina are recycling things like plastic bottles, wood waste, and cardboard, and creating new products which they sell for a profit. The complaint heard most often from recycling businesses is that they can't get enough supply. For example, recyclers often struggle to compete against relatively low tipping fees to get materials.
With a greater supply of recyclables, these businesses could expand, thus hiring more employees and expanding our state's tax base. The state can help by adopting policies that drive materials out of the waste stream and into the hands of recyclers.
The NC Division of Pollution Prevention and Environmental Assistance recently conducted a survey to track recycling's impact on jobs and North Carolina's economy.
Some of the findings include:
Recycling companies now occupy old textile factories and other industrial plants abandoned by some of the state's more traditional industries.
Recycling companies in North Carolina range from Fortune 500 manufacturers to single proprietary, family owned businesses, handling hundreds of different types of materials and products.
Recycling employs approximately 14,000 people across the state.
Recycling employs more people than the bio-tech and agricultural livestock industries in North Carolina.
In 1994, recycling employed 8,700 people, rising 60% in 10 years to its current level.
Recycling jobs as a percentage of the state's total employment has increased 40% in 10 years, from 0.25% of the total labor force in 1994 to 0.35% in 2004.
Fifty-four percent of the businesses surveyed forecast creating more recycling-related positions in the next two years.
The number of companies listed in the state's recycling markets directory increased from 306 in 1994 to 532 in 2004, a 74% increase.
Legislative Summaries
H36 Hazardous Materials Task Force Recommendations This legislation improves the oversight of hazardous waste facilities, as recommended by the Governor's Hazardous Materials Task Force. It requires commercial hazardous waste facilities to provide financial assurance for clean-up measures, and off-site screening for potential leakage of hazardous substances into the environment. It requires applicants for permits for hazardous waste facilities to consult with local government and emergency response agencies. Support.
H49 Remove Vegetation From Billboards This legislation would change the Department of Transportation outdoor advertising selective vegetation removal policy to authorize a five-hundred foot removal zone, as recommended by the Joint Legislative Transportation Oversight Committee. Oppose.
H77 Promote Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency This legislation promotes the development of renewable energy and energy efficiency in North Carolina, implementing a 20% renewable energy and energy efficiency portfolio standard. Support.
H332 Preservation of Farmland This legislation would appropriate funds, $10 million, for the aquisition of agricultural conservation easements, or for farmland preservation. Support.
H449 Funds for Sylvan Heights Water Fowl Park This legislation would provide funds ($150,000) for the construction of Phase II of the Sylvan Heights Water Fowl and Eco-center in Scotland Neck. Support.
H463 Conservation Tax Credit Modifications This legislation would give tax credit to any corporation that invests in real property located in North Carolina, such as public beach access use, public access to public waters or trails, or fish and wildlife conservation. Support.
H557 NC GREEEN Act This legislation would work towards a renewable and energy efficient economy in North Carolina by establishing a green business fund, to be administered by the state energy office, that would provide seed grants to encourage the development of NC's green economy. Support.
H838 Ban Incandescent Light Bulbs This legislation would prohibit the sale of general service incandescent light bulbs in the state. Support.
H839 State Energy Office Funds This legislation would give a total of $15,000,000 over two years from the General Fund to the Department of Administration to the State Energy Office to be used for energy related programs and purposes. Support.
H1115 Swine Farm Env. Performance Standards/Funds This legislation would make permanent the swine farm animal waste management system performance standards that the General Assembly enacted in 1998, and assist farmers with the early adoption of innovative swine waste management systems. The bill would also rename the Emergency Drinking Water Fund as the Bernard Allen Clean Well Water Fund and establish a reporting requirement under this fund. Support.
H1134 Cleanup of Abandoned Manufactured Homes This legislation would protect public health and the environment by encouraging counties to develop plans for deconstructing abandoned manufactured homes and removing reusable or recyclable components. The legislation would impose an environmental remediation tax on the sale of new and used manufactured homes to fund the deconstruction of abandoned manufactured homes. Support.
H1154 Oak Island/Erosion Setback Line This legislation, which applies to the Town of Oak Island, alters setback rules in cases of beaches that have undergone renourishment programs. Altering the setback rules undermines sound planning principles and prudent coastal management rules that have been in place for some time. Oppose.
H859 / S603 Extend the Sunset for Nutrient Runoff This legislation would extend the sunset on the law that sets the per pound factor used by the Environmental Management Commission to calculate nutrient off-set payments, and requires that the nutrient off-set payment for nitrogen be calculated as it was prior to certain rule amendments. Oppose.
H990 / S1522 Land & Water Conservation Bond Act of 2007 This legislation authorizes the issuance of general obligation bonds of the state, subject to a vote of the qualified voters of the state, to address statewide needs regarding land conservation, water quality protection, historic preservation, and job creation. Support.
H1073 / S927 Green School Construction Loan Fund/Program This legislation would create the green school construction revolving loan fund to be used for no interest loans to local boards of education for certain energy related construction, commissioning, and installation projects. It would also establish the green school construction program, a voluntary program for the construction or major renovation of high performance school buildings. Support.
H1233 / S1492 Solid Waste Management Act of 2007 The "Solid Waste Management Act of 2007" includes a number of substantive changes to the state's laws that govern solid waste. This act would clarify the circumstances under which an application for solid waste management could be denied; increase penalties on solid waste violations; clarify that parent/affiliate companies are financially responsible; require environmental impact and traffic studies by all applicants; provide for state-level review of proposed multi-jurisdictional facilities; and establish a disposal fee and a transfer fee to for remediation funds. Support.
S3 Promote Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency This legislation promotes the development of renewable energy and energy efficiency in North Carolina, implementing a 10% renewable energy and energy efficiency portfolio standard. Support.
S150 Remove Vegetation From Billboards This legislation would change the Department of Transportation outdoor advertising selective vegetation removal policy to authorize a five-hundred foot removal zone, as recommended by the Joint Legislative Transportation Oversight Committee. Oppose.
S215 Litter Reduction This legislation would reduce roadside and other littering, as well as encouraging recycling by requiring a deposit on beverage containers and requiring redemption centers to accept returned beverage containers and refund the deposits. Support.
S241 Conservation Tax Credit Modifications This legislation would give tax credit to any corporation that invests in real property located in North Carolina, such as public beach access use, public access to public waters or trails, or fish and wildlife conservation. Support.
S273 Funds for Sylvan Heights Water Fowl Park This legislation would provide funds ($150,000) for the construction of Phase II of the Sylvan Heights Water Fowl and Eco-center in Scotland Neck. Support.
S505 Income Tax Credit for Energy Efficient Homes This legislation would provide an Income Tax credit for the building or improvement of energy efficient homes. Support.
S539 Chapel Hill Energy Efficiency Incentives This legislation would amend the Charter of the Town of Chapel Hill, allowing the town to provide development incentives in return for reduction in energy consumption. Support.
S569 Wildlife Conservation Property Tax Relief This legislation would provide property tax relief from qualified wildlife conservtion land. Support.
S634 NC GREEN Act This legislation would work towards a renewable and energy efficient economy in North Carolina (GREEEN= to Grow a Renewable and Energy Efficient Economy in NC) by establishing a green business fund, to be administered by the state energy office, that would provide seed grants to encourage the development of NC's green economy. Support.
S668 Energy Conservation in State Buildings This legislation would promote energy and water conservation in state, university and community college buildings. Support.
S670 Energy Devices that use Renewable Resources This legislation would ensure that city ordinances, county ordinances, and deed restrictions, covenants, and other similar agreements cannot prohibit the installation of devices that use renewable sources of energy. Support.
S679 Consolidation of Commissions This legislation would would do away with all the existing environmental regulatory commissions and create a new consolidated full-time “Environmental Management Commission.” The bill would eliminate the following commissions: existing Environmental Management Commission, Coastal Resources, Marine Fisheries, Mining, Radiation Protection, Sedimentation Control, Soil and Water Conservation, Water Pollution Control System Operators, Water Treatment Facility Operators, Well Contractors Certification. It would transfer responsibility for rulemaking on solid waste management, drinking water, and wastewater from the Commission on Health Services to the new mega-commission. Oppose.
S853 Disapprove Animal & Vermin Control Rule Last year, the NC Commission on Health Services adopted a rule to protrect pre-schoolers from arsenic treated wood on playgrounds. This bill would disapprove that rule. Oppose.
S939 State Energy Office Funds This legislation would give a total of $15,000,000 over two years from the General Fund to the Department of Administration to the State Energy Office to be used for energy related programs and purposes. Support.
S1553 Recyling Discarded Computer Equipment This legislation would the establish the North Carolina Producer Responsibility Program for the recycling of discarded computer equipment. Support.
HOT LIST
A PUBLICATION OF THE CONSERVATION COUNCIL OF NORTH CAROLINA
April 5, 2007
Dear Legislator:
This week's HotList examines solid waste in North Carolina.
In response to proposals to place up to 4 mega-landfills in North Carolina, landfills that could receive garbage from up and down the eastern seaboard, the state legislature passed a 12 month moratorium on the siting of new landfills in North Carolina last year. The idea behind the moratorium was to give the state time to craft new regulations to govern landfill operations in our state.
The state worked diligently and new recommendations recently came out of the Division on Solid Waste. The "Solid Waste Management Act of 2007" (SB1492/HB1233) will put these recommendations into effect, and we encourage you to support this legislation.
Passage will give the state the additional tools to manage solid waste as our state grows.
Mike NelsonDirector of Government Relations Conservation Council of NC 919-839-0020
Solid Waste Management Act of 2007
Legislation that was introduced this year, "Solid Waste Management Act of 2007," (SB 1492 / HB 1233) is a good bill that addresses many of the concerns with landfill operations. But what steps can the state take to minimize the necessity of landfilling waste?
Land fills are expensive to build; they are politically unpopular; and they often raise concerns about environmental justice. There is a lot we can do to minimize the need for new landfills, and in the process create jobs and business opportunities right here in North Carolina.
NC is home to a growing number of recycling companies--companies that employ our workers and make money from taking refuse and recycling it into useable products. By diverting waste from landfills and redirecting it to business interests, we can create a win-win-win situation that benefits government, business, and the environment.
Here are a few key points about recycling.
Recycling saves energy. It's usually takes less energy to manufacture goods from recycled material than from virgin products, therefore recycling saves money for the business community. DENR reports that if we were to increase the recycling rate in the US from the current 30.6% recovery scenario to 35% by 2008, energy savings would be the equivalent of 13.7 billion gallons of gas.
Recycling saves landfill space. Each pound of waste that it is recycled rather than going into a landfill extends the lifespan of existing landfill operations. Siting new landfills is expensive and burdensome for local governments, and often negatively impacts surrounding communities. Extending the lifecycle of existing landfills will save local governments money and time.
North Carolina's 'recycling economy' is one of the fastest growing job engines in the state. Companies across North Carolina are recycling things like plastic bottles, wood waste, and cardboard, and creating new products which they sell for a profit. The complaint heard most often from recycling businesses is that they can't get enough supply. For example, recyclers often struggle to compete against relatively low tipping fees to get materials.
With a greater supply of recyclables, these businesses could expand, thus hiring more employees and expanding our state's tax base. The state can help by adopting policies that drive materials out of the waste stream and into the hands of recyclers.
The NC Division of Pollution Prevention and Environmental Assistance recently conducted a survey to track recycling's impact on jobs and North Carolina's economy.
Some of the findings include:
Recycling companies now occupy old textile factories and other industrial plants abandoned by some of the state's more traditional industries.
Recycling companies in North Carolina range from Fortune 500 manufacturers to single proprietary, family owned businesses, handling hundreds of different types of materials and products.
Recycling employs approximately 14,000 people across the state.
Recycling employs more people than the bio-tech and agricultural livestock industries in North Carolina.
In 1994, recycling employed 8,700 people, rising 60% in 10 years to its current level.
Recycling jobs as a percentage of the state's total employment has increased 40% in 10 years, from 0.25% of the total labor force in 1994 to 0.35% in 2004.
Fifty-four percent of the businesses surveyed forecast creating more recycling-related positions in the next two years.
The number of companies listed in the state's recycling markets directory increased from 306 in 1994 to 532 in 2004, a 74% increase.
Legislative Summaries
H36 Hazardous Materials Task Force Recommendations This legislation improves the oversight of hazardous waste facilities, as recommended by the Governor's Hazardous Materials Task Force. It requires commercial hazardous waste facilities to provide financial assurance for clean-up measures, and off-site screening for potential leakage of hazardous substances into the environment. It requires applicants for permits for hazardous waste facilities to consult with local government and emergency response agencies. Support.
H49 Remove Vegetation From Billboards This legislation would change the Department of Transportation outdoor advertising selective vegetation removal policy to authorize a five-hundred foot removal zone, as recommended by the Joint Legislative Transportation Oversight Committee. Oppose.
H77 Promote Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency This legislation promotes the development of renewable energy and energy efficiency in North Carolina, implementing a 20% renewable energy and energy efficiency portfolio standard. Support.
H332 Preservation of Farmland This legislation would appropriate funds, $10 million, for the aquisition of agricultural conservation easements, or for farmland preservation. Support.
H449 Funds for Sylvan Heights Water Fowl Park This legislation would provide funds ($150,000) for the construction of Phase II of the Sylvan Heights Water Fowl and Eco-center in Scotland Neck. Support.
H463 Conservation Tax Credit Modifications This legislation would give tax credit to any corporation that invests in real property located in North Carolina, such as public beach access use, public access to public waters or trails, or fish and wildlife conservation. Support.
H557 NC GREEEN Act This legislation would work towards a renewable and energy efficient economy in North Carolina by establishing a green business fund, to be administered by the state energy office, that would provide seed grants to encourage the development of NC's green economy. Support.
H838 Ban Incandescent Light Bulbs This legislation would prohibit the sale of general service incandescent light bulbs in the state. Support.
H839 State Energy Office Funds This legislation would give a total of $15,000,000 over two years from the General Fund to the Department of Administration to the State Energy Office to be used for energy related programs and purposes. Support.
H1115 Swine Farm Env. Performance Standards/Funds This legislation would make permanent the swine farm animal waste management system performance standards that the General Assembly enacted in 1998, and assist farmers with the early adoption of innovative swine waste management systems. The bill would also rename the Emergency Drinking Water Fund as the Bernard Allen Clean Well Water Fund and establish a reporting requirement under this fund. Support.
H1134 Cleanup of Abandoned Manufactured Homes This legislation would protect public health and the environment by encouraging counties to develop plans for deconstructing abandoned manufactured homes and removing reusable or recyclable components. The legislation would impose an environmental remediation tax on the sale of new and used manufactured homes to fund the deconstruction of abandoned manufactured homes. Support.
H1154 Oak Island/Erosion Setback Line This legislation, which applies to the Town of Oak Island, alters setback rules in cases of beaches that have undergone renourishment programs. Altering the setback rules undermines sound planning principles and prudent coastal management rules that have been in place for some time. Oppose.
H859 / S603 Extend the Sunset for Nutrient Runoff This legislation would extend the sunset on the law that sets the per pound factor used by the Environmental Management Commission to calculate nutrient off-set payments, and requires that the nutrient off-set payment for nitrogen be calculated as it was prior to certain rule amendments. Oppose.
H990 / S1522 Land & Water Conservation Bond Act of 2007 This legislation authorizes the issuance of general obligation bonds of the state, subject to a vote of the qualified voters of the state, to address statewide needs regarding land conservation, water quality protection, historic preservation, and job creation. Support.
H1073 / S927 Green School Construction Loan Fund/Program This legislation would create the green school construction revolving loan fund to be used for no interest loans to local boards of education for certain energy related construction, commissioning, and installation projects. It would also establish the green school construction program, a voluntary program for the construction or major renovation of high performance school buildings. Support.
H1233 / S1492 Solid Waste Management Act of 2007 The "Solid Waste Management Act of 2007" includes a number of substantive changes to the state's laws that govern solid waste. This act would clarify the circumstances under which an application for solid waste management could be denied; increase penalties on solid waste violations; clarify that parent/affiliate companies are financially responsible; require environmental impact and traffic studies by all applicants; provide for state-level review of proposed multi-jurisdictional facilities; and establish a disposal fee and a transfer fee to for remediation funds. Support.
S3 Promote Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency This legislation promotes the development of renewable energy and energy efficiency in North Carolina, implementing a 10% renewable energy and energy efficiency portfolio standard. Support.
S150 Remove Vegetation From Billboards This legislation would change the Department of Transportation outdoor advertising selective vegetation removal policy to authorize a five-hundred foot removal zone, as recommended by the Joint Legislative Transportation Oversight Committee. Oppose.
S215 Litter Reduction This legislation would reduce roadside and other littering, as well as encouraging recycling by requiring a deposit on beverage containers and requiring redemption centers to accept returned beverage containers and refund the deposits. Support.
S241 Conservation Tax Credit Modifications This legislation would give tax credit to any corporation that invests in real property located in North Carolina, such as public beach access use, public access to public waters or trails, or fish and wildlife conservation. Support.
S273 Funds for Sylvan Heights Water Fowl Park This legislation would provide funds ($150,000) for the construction of Phase II of the Sylvan Heights Water Fowl and Eco-center in Scotland Neck. Support.
S505 Income Tax Credit for Energy Efficient Homes This legislation would provide an Income Tax credit for the building or improvement of energy efficient homes. Support.
S539 Chapel Hill Energy Efficiency Incentives This legislation would amend the Charter of the Town of Chapel Hill, allowing the town to provide development incentives in return for reduction in energy consumption. Support.
S569 Wildlife Conservation Property Tax Relief This legislation would provide property tax relief from qualified wildlife conservtion land. Support.
S634 NC GREEN Act This legislation would work towards a renewable and energy efficient economy in North Carolina (GREEEN= to Grow a Renewable and Energy Efficient Economy in NC) by establishing a green business fund, to be administered by the state energy office, that would provide seed grants to encourage the development of NC's green economy. Support.
S668 Energy Conservation in State Buildings This legislation would promote energy and water conservation in state, university and community college buildings. Support.
S670 Energy Devices that use Renewable Resources This legislation would ensure that city ordinances, county ordinances, and deed restrictions, covenants, and other similar agreements cannot prohibit the installation of devices that use renewable sources of energy. Support.
S679 Consolidation of Commissions This legislation would would do away with all the existing environmental regulatory commissions and create a new consolidated full-time “Environmental Management Commission.” The bill would eliminate the following commissions: existing Environmental Management Commission, Coastal Resources, Marine Fisheries, Mining, Radiation Protection, Sedimentation Control, Soil and Water Conservation, Water Pollution Control System Operators, Water Treatment Facility Operators, Well Contractors Certification. It would transfer responsibility for rulemaking on solid waste management, drinking water, and wastewater from the Commission on Health Services to the new mega-commission. Oppose.
S853 Disapprove Animal & Vermin Control Rule Last year, the NC Commission on Health Services adopted a rule to protrect pre-schoolers from arsenic treated wood on playgrounds. This bill would disapprove that rule. Oppose.
S939 State Energy Office Funds This legislation would give a total of $15,000,000 over two years from the General Fund to the Department of Administration to the State Energy Office to be used for energy related programs and purposes. Support.
S1553 Recyling Discarded Computer Equipment This legislation would the establish the North Carolina Producer Responsibility Program for the recycling of discarded computer equipment. Support.
Mega-Landfill Legislation, NC
Legislative Watch: Landfill Bills Advance, and Hugo Neu Hits the Road
Since last year's General Assembly adopted a temporary moratorium on the permitting of new mega-landfills, the watch has been on. What would the legislature do this year with this issue over the longer term, and how would the companies proposing to site huge new dumps in our state react?
This past week, the first of those hanging footpieces fell. The Hugo Neu corporation announced that it was pulling out of plans to site a regional "auto fluff" landfill near the small town of Navassa in Brunswick County. The corporation's decision followed forward progress of two bills in N.C. House committees last week. Both bills (sponsored by Rep. Bonner Stiller, R-Brunswick) would have the effect of giving control of the proposed landfill site back to the county, which opposes the landfill. Hugo Neu felt the cold breeze blowing and bowed out of the fight.
In the longer run, important legislation to provide a more systematic regulatory framework for dealing with such issues has been prepared and introduced. CCNC lobbyist Mike Nelson says that, during the past months of "moratorium" time, "The state worked diligently and new recommendations recently came out of the Division on Solid Waste. The 'Solid Waste Management Act of 2007' (SB1492/HB1233) will put these recommendations into effect, and we encourage [legislators] to support this legislation. Passage will give the state the additional tools to manage solid waste as our state grows."
The "Solid Waste Management Act of 2007" would clarify the grounds for denying an application for a solid waste management permit; increase penalties on solid waste law violations; clarify that parent/affiliate companies are financially responsible for violations by their subsidiaries; require environmental impact and traffic studies by all applicants; provide for state-level review of proposed multi-jurisdictional facilities; and establish a disposal fee and a transfer fee to cover costs of remediation.
Since last year's General Assembly adopted a temporary moratorium on the permitting of new mega-landfills, the watch has been on. What would the legislature do this year with this issue over the longer term, and how would the companies proposing to site huge new dumps in our state react?
This past week, the first of those hanging footpieces fell. The Hugo Neu corporation announced that it was pulling out of plans to site a regional "auto fluff" landfill near the small town of Navassa in Brunswick County. The corporation's decision followed forward progress of two bills in N.C. House committees last week. Both bills (sponsored by Rep. Bonner Stiller, R-Brunswick) would have the effect of giving control of the proposed landfill site back to the county, which opposes the landfill. Hugo Neu felt the cold breeze blowing and bowed out of the fight.
In the longer run, important legislation to provide a more systematic regulatory framework for dealing with such issues has been prepared and introduced. CCNC lobbyist Mike Nelson says that, during the past months of "moratorium" time, "The state worked diligently and new recommendations recently came out of the Division on Solid Waste. The 'Solid Waste Management Act of 2007' (SB1492/HB1233) will put these recommendations into effect, and we encourage [legislators] to support this legislation. Passage will give the state the additional tools to manage solid waste as our state grows."
The "Solid Waste Management Act of 2007" would clarify the grounds for denying an application for a solid waste management permit; increase penalties on solid waste law violations; clarify that parent/affiliate companies are financially responsible for violations by their subsidiaries; require environmental impact and traffic studies by all applicants; provide for state-level review of proposed multi-jurisdictional facilities; and establish a disposal fee and a transfer fee to cover costs of remediation.
4/04/2007
Hot Activism In The Sandhills
Scotland County Of Tomorrow (SCOT) planned a Rally to be held before the Public Hearing which was to be April 2 nd at the regular April Board of Commissioner's meeting. Although the Public Hearing has been cancelled, communications from County Manager John Crumpton and Board Chair J. D. Willis indicate that, although negotiations are on hold, the Waste Management application remains on file, and Waste Management has been invited to reconsider the application at any time.
_______________________________
From the Fayetteville Observer on 4/3:
Tempers flair over landfill
By Allison Williams Correspondent
LAURINBURG — With a bagpiper leading the way, people protesting a regional landfill marched to the monthly meeting of Scotland County commissioners Monday night.
But when they got there, Chairman J.D. Willis would not allow any of the protesters — who had registered in advance — to address the board during its public forum. Protesters booed and Willis threatened to call police.
"Throw them out," one member of the audience called out, referring to county commissioners.
"If you don't get out, we're going to call police to come get you out," Willis replied, banging his gavel as protesters shook homemade signs and printed banners that said, "No Megadump."
Willis said that protesters would be allowed to speak when a public hearing on a proposed landfill is scheduled. The hearing had been set for Monday night, but when a state committee proposed more stringent landfill requirements, the county put the hearing on hold. Many people thought that the landfill was dead.
Waste Management Inc., said the new requirements would make a regional landfill in Scotland County too expensive to build. But protesters say Willis' comments that the public hearing will be rescheduled proves that it isn't over yet.
Protesters began the evening at a parking lot across the street from the county government building. They held a rally about an hour before the commissioners' meeting began.
Speakers came from across southeastern North Carolina, many of them from communities that are fighting or have fought landfills. A large group of women arrived in matching T-shirts that read, "Citizens for a Safe Vibrant Community," and carrying hand-lettered signs. The women fought a construction and demolition landfill in the small town of Sandyfield in Columbus County.
People came from Richmond, Duplin and Moore counties. Fred McQueen helped fight a proposed landfill in neighboring Richmond County.
He warned people in Scotland County not to be complacent because Waste Management has appeared to back away from the idea of building a landfill that would accept waste from six states and Washington. County commissioners are clearly still interested, he said.
"It's not J.D. and the county commissioners that backed down," McQueen said. "It was Waste Management that backed down."
A March letter from Chairman Willis to Waste Management says, "If and when your company is prepared to complete the negotiations over the host agreement, we would be glad to reconsider the application for the preliminary franchise at that time."
The idea of a landfill was first raised in 2005.
Proponents said the landfill would bring in much-needed revenue to a county with one of the highest tax rates in the state.
Opponents said the landfill would cause enormous environmental problems.
In July, the General Assembly passed a moratorium on building new commercial landfills. Some people thought that would mean an end to a regional landfill, but discussions continued.
Last month, the N.C. Division of Waste Management proposed guidelines that would require landfills to have two underground liners and expensive monitoring systems. Scotland County
Manager John Crumpton said the changes would mean an extra $80 million to build the proposed regional landfill.
Again, the idea of a landfill seemed to be dead.
Bob Davis is co-chairman of Scotland County of Tomorrow, one of the groups protesting the landfill.
"They called this off once before," he said, but the issue returned and he's not sure it won't happen again.
When Willis refused to let him or others speak Monday night, he said, it emphasized his point that the landfill is not dead.
Helen Livingston said protesters are celebrating some victories — the proposed guidelines for one — but won't rest until changes are signed into law and Waste Management closes up shop in Scotland County.
"It's not over," she said.
----------------------------------
The Fayetteville Observer reporter left before the Board returned from closed session. The Laurinburg Exchange article adds:
"Several citizens were allowed to address Commissioners after the Board returned from closed session but Willis had not informed them they would have the chance to speak during the meeting when he initially closed the public forum".
www.nomegadump.org
The SCOT RALLY:
THE PURPOSE OF THE SCOT RALLY IS THREEFOLD :
1) TO CELEBRATE
The new legislative landfill proposals have received thorough, detailed work. We rejoice in their filing last week, and thank legislators for their responsiveness to our requests for safer landfill regulations. Full relief from County Medicaid payments empowers low wealth counties to say no to undesirable economic development. We appreciate this step towards One North Carolina, and are grateful to legislators who understand the significance of this relief.
2) TO EDUCATE
Scotland County has turned away both a Hazardous Waste site and a Nuclear Waste site in the past. We can be proud of our role in turning away one of the top ten mega-dumps in the US.
Scotland County is one of the bright lights in the state in its recycling successes. Even though recycle pick-up has gone from every week to every other week, the volume has not dropped considerably. Our convenience centers are models for the state. We can utilize our past successes to create more progress to handle solid waste in ways that further promote reduce, reuse and recycle. The State is backing its efforts with funding to assist with the shift to the new solid waste plan.
We are fortunate that Scotland County has this opportunity to look to the future, rather than be one of the last to succumb to waste industry pressures for hosting a mega-dump … already antiquated technology.
We take this opportunity to request that Scotland County end all negations with Waste Management: Return the application on file, stop requesting that our representatives block the proposed new landfill safety regulations, and validate that immediate Medicaid relief places the county's financial outlook on a level where the risks of health and economic losses from a huge mega-dump are neither necessary, nor are they in the best interest of Scotland County
3) TO COLLABORATE :
SCOT works with other organizations around the state to insure that NC exercises a progressive, preventive approach to Solid Waste Management. Other counties supporting us today include Richmond, Moore, Duplin, Cumberland, Columbus, Brunswick and Camden. State wide environmental groups have joined forces to develop and support the new legislative bills.
_______________________________
From the Fayetteville Observer on 4/3:
Tempers flair over landfill
By Allison Williams Correspondent
LAURINBURG — With a bagpiper leading the way, people protesting a regional landfill marched to the monthly meeting of Scotland County commissioners Monday night.
But when they got there, Chairman J.D. Willis would not allow any of the protesters — who had registered in advance — to address the board during its public forum. Protesters booed and Willis threatened to call police.
"Throw them out," one member of the audience called out, referring to county commissioners.
"If you don't get out, we're going to call police to come get you out," Willis replied, banging his gavel as protesters shook homemade signs and printed banners that said, "No Megadump."
Willis said that protesters would be allowed to speak when a public hearing on a proposed landfill is scheduled. The hearing had been set for Monday night, but when a state committee proposed more stringent landfill requirements, the county put the hearing on hold. Many people thought that the landfill was dead.
Waste Management Inc., said the new requirements would make a regional landfill in Scotland County too expensive to build. But protesters say Willis' comments that the public hearing will be rescheduled proves that it isn't over yet.
Protesters began the evening at a parking lot across the street from the county government building. They held a rally about an hour before the commissioners' meeting began.
Speakers came from across southeastern North Carolina, many of them from communities that are fighting or have fought landfills. A large group of women arrived in matching T-shirts that read, "Citizens for a Safe Vibrant Community," and carrying hand-lettered signs. The women fought a construction and demolition landfill in the small town of Sandyfield in Columbus County.
People came from Richmond, Duplin and Moore counties. Fred McQueen helped fight a proposed landfill in neighboring Richmond County.
He warned people in Scotland County not to be complacent because Waste Management has appeared to back away from the idea of building a landfill that would accept waste from six states and Washington. County commissioners are clearly still interested, he said.
"It's not J.D. and the county commissioners that backed down," McQueen said. "It was Waste Management that backed down."
A March letter from Chairman Willis to Waste Management says, "If and when your company is prepared to complete the negotiations over the host agreement, we would be glad to reconsider the application for the preliminary franchise at that time."
The idea of a landfill was first raised in 2005.
Proponents said the landfill would bring in much-needed revenue to a county with one of the highest tax rates in the state.
Opponents said the landfill would cause enormous environmental problems.
In July, the General Assembly passed a moratorium on building new commercial landfills. Some people thought that would mean an end to a regional landfill, but discussions continued.
Last month, the N.C. Division of Waste Management proposed guidelines that would require landfills to have two underground liners and expensive monitoring systems. Scotland County
Manager John Crumpton said the changes would mean an extra $80 million to build the proposed regional landfill.
Again, the idea of a landfill seemed to be dead.
Bob Davis is co-chairman of Scotland County of Tomorrow, one of the groups protesting the landfill.
"They called this off once before," he said, but the issue returned and he's not sure it won't happen again.
When Willis refused to let him or others speak Monday night, he said, it emphasized his point that the landfill is not dead.
Helen Livingston said protesters are celebrating some victories — the proposed guidelines for one — but won't rest until changes are signed into law and Waste Management closes up shop in Scotland County.
"It's not over," she said.
----------------------------------
The Fayetteville Observer reporter left before the Board returned from closed session. The Laurinburg Exchange article adds:
"Several citizens were allowed to address Commissioners after the Board returned from closed session but Willis had not informed them they would have the chance to speak during the meeting when he initially closed the public forum".
www.nomegadump.org
The SCOT RALLY:
THE PURPOSE OF THE SCOT RALLY IS THREEFOLD :
1) TO CELEBRATE
The new legislative landfill proposals have received thorough, detailed work. We rejoice in their filing last week, and thank legislators for their responsiveness to our requests for safer landfill regulations. Full relief from County Medicaid payments empowers low wealth counties to say no to undesirable economic development. We appreciate this step towards One North Carolina, and are grateful to legislators who understand the significance of this relief.
2) TO EDUCATE
Scotland County has turned away both a Hazardous Waste site and a Nuclear Waste site in the past. We can be proud of our role in turning away one of the top ten mega-dumps in the US.
Scotland County is one of the bright lights in the state in its recycling successes. Even though recycle pick-up has gone from every week to every other week, the volume has not dropped considerably. Our convenience centers are models for the state. We can utilize our past successes to create more progress to handle solid waste in ways that further promote reduce, reuse and recycle. The State is backing its efforts with funding to assist with the shift to the new solid waste plan.
We are fortunate that Scotland County has this opportunity to look to the future, rather than be one of the last to succumb to waste industry pressures for hosting a mega-dump … already antiquated technology.
We take this opportunity to request that Scotland County end all negations with Waste Management: Return the application on file, stop requesting that our representatives block the proposed new landfill safety regulations, and validate that immediate Medicaid relief places the county's financial outlook on a level where the risks of health and economic losses from a huge mega-dump are neither necessary, nor are they in the best interest of Scotland County
3) TO COLLABORATE :
SCOT works with other organizations around the state to insure that NC exercises a progressive, preventive approach to Solid Waste Management. Other counties supporting us today include Richmond, Moore, Duplin, Cumberland, Columbus, Brunswick and Camden. State wide environmental groups have joined forces to develop and support the new legislative bills.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)