RAIN Journal of AppropricJte Techl'lology November 1978 Vol. V, No. 2 $1.50- No Advertising
Page 2 RAIN November 1978 RAIN access POLITICS Public Policies for the '80s, edited by Lee Webb, 1978, 256 pp., $9.95, $14.95 ins ti tu tions, from: Conference on Alternative State & Local Policies 1901 Q Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20009 Taking Rainbook a few steps further, this is an excellent tool and resource for public policy innovation and change in state and local government. Done in three parts: 1) models of innovative legislation in energy, economic development, farm land and food, state and local tax reform; 2) bibliographies prepar~d for 30 critical issues facing state and local policy makers including jobs and energy, public banks, plant closings, linked deposits, state and local tax reform, utility rate reform, urban homesteading, preservation of farm land, support for family farm, aging, housing cooperatives, etc. Bibliographies include organizations and publications for ongoing informational support; 3) resources in a "how to contact" format listing networks of organizations such as national labor unions, Senate committees, House committees, national public interest groups. Indispensible ! -LS RECYCLING Repairs, Reuse, Recycling-First Steps Toward a Sustainable Society, Worldwatch Paper 2 3, Denis Hayes, 1978, $2 from: Worldwatch Institute 1776 Massachusetts Ave., N.W. Washington, DC 20036 If recycling became the organizing principle of the entire economy, the U.S. could reduce its waste flow by at least two-thirds, avoiding the heavy costs of remaining a throwaway society. According to this overview, three complementary strategies (waste reduction, separation and recovery) can make that economy possible-by setting sound priorities (materials recovery should follow waste reduction and separation) and pushing for progressive public pol- . icies (like the standardized bottles and refundable deposits on new automobiles used in Scandinavia). In the long stretch, what makes it all possible is building public commitment to-you guessed it-those simple and basic changes in our lifestyles. A good introduction to the issues at hand. -SA
Anyone want to do some research? Or have some information to help put together·some research? We've seen enough sticking out from under the rug of food franchises recently to feel that a good solid investigation of them would be really useful for local communities concerned about their own biological and economic health. Some pieces of the puzzle-: • _ -:-we'ye mentioned several times the Institute for Local Self-Reliance study• which showed that a MacDonald's Hamburger franchise resulted in removal of up to 60 percent of its cash flow from the local community through franchise costs, profits and requirements !iUCh as purchases of food. and equipment from the corporation rather than locally (Rainbook, p. 46). A check on the other end of the line would probably show that the actual food producers are as strongly squeezed by _ the economic power of franchise chains, with most of the profit being siphoned • off in the middle. Any info on.that? • Two visitors to the Rainhouse within one week passed qn personal experiences working in the food service business. One told about a chemical sprayed on salads to keep them "crisp" November 1978 RAIN Page 3 • • • • • • • • • ••• (BALL &JCHAIN STORES • • • • • • • • • • • • • • when unrefrigerated. With it you could • Yesterday morning someone told keep a lettuce salad "fresh" for three us about Carmel, California, where days, but if you sprayed on too much, they've long had a ban on franchise everything would instantly turn brown food stores and even on serving of preand curl up. The other mentioned a pared "formula," foods. Anyo11e know disinfectant now being used widely more about'that? How it's worked and instead of soap and hot water to clean its effect on the community? glasses and dishes in bars and restau- · rants. It left a coating on the glasses which, according to the report, was far from-healthful. • Our review of Michael Jacobson's Eater's Digest (Aug-Sept 1978, p. 22) described some of the fearf'-111 deceptions sold as hot dogs. Other reports indicate that the stabili"zers, extenders, texturizers, flavors and preservatives that actually make up our pre-pared foods are about as far from footl as you can get. And we recently saw in a report of a Truth in Menu bill about a food chain being sued by a city for (among other things) selling '·'orange drink" as "fresh sgueezed orange juice." If people knew what they are re"ally getting, a lot more would opt for bans on such foodstuffs. •.Finally, what about case studies of some good and individualistic eateries that still exist in nooks and crannies and can serve as good examples of creative alternatives to standardized fast food joints? We've seen·crop up recently in Portl;md a number of good and inexpensive fast food places-one serving,quiches, one with souvlakis, one with good pizza, several with their own creative sandwich combinations-all delightful and welcome alternatives! And .then there's my favorite-the Hot _ Wok Chinese fast lunch joint. Someone want to dig out the details and put together the picture on why and how to change from fake to fantastic fooderies? -TB ENVIRONMENT 1 Maryland Environmen'tal Directory, Maryland Con~ervation Cquncil and The Maryland Environmental Trust, 1978, 100 pp., $4.00 from: ' / William G. Wilson, Editor 2574 Riva Rd., lSA Annapolis, MD 21401 The directory was compiled from questionnaires returned by 125 organizations concerned with the environment. The sections on organizational .purpose and publications will be of particular value to present or would-be citizen activists. -PC f\ftetfhe coal seams havce been removed, the op• ~ratbi' ts te.qUtfed, t(1_ put the s.po:i! material b~)(k in p~qe artd grade tht area to its approximate orlg!n.il ¢-qr~t()ur, with all highwalls. spot! pile;'.! , and depras. stbbi enm!nated [Sec,. 714.14 l RAIN's·office is at 2270 N.W. Irving, Portland, OR ·?7210. Ph: (503) 227-5110. RAIN STAFF: Phil Conti Steven Ames Linda Sawaya Lane deMoll Lee Johnson Tom Bender Copyright© 1978 RAIN U~brella Inc. Repri_n_t by permission only Typesetting: Irish Setter Printfog: 'Times Litho The Strip Mine Handbook, 1978, 108 pp., $2.30 (includes 1st class postage) • or $2.11 (book rate) from: Center for Law & Social Policy Environmental Policy Institute 317 Pennsylvania Ave., S.E. Washington, DC 2000.3 Strip Mining has finally come under federal regulation in 1977, and apparent~ ly there is a strong need for citizen partidpation in enforcement of this law. This handbook very clearly shows how citizens can participate by explaining: the law, monitoring, initiating inspections, and formal proceedings. Citizen rights and employee protection for workers who are intimately aware of violations and wish to see en(orcement are explained. A valuable citizens' tool. -LS
Page 4 RAIN November 1978 From Solid Waste to Resource Recovery: Now You See It, Now You Don't Several years ago, a bond issue was promoted and passed in_ Lane County, Oregon, which made possible the extension of credit to capitalize a centralized facility for materials recovery from garbage. Over the strenuous objectiC?ns of experienced recyclers, the technology that was chosen was capital-, machine-and energy-intensive. As designed by Allis-Chalmers Corporation, the system consists of two shredders, an assortme'nt of belts and shaker screens, an air classifier for separating out light-density material for burning, and a magnetic separator for ferrous materials, plus an assortment of bins, tubes, augurs and gates. Preceding this mechanized recovery apparatus is a transfer pit for receiving the garbage, plus machinery to movB the garbage from where it lands down to chutes at the end, where it can either be fed into the garbage processor or hauled directly to the landfill 8 miles away: County residents, through the good offices of county government, assumed a debt of $ 3.5 million to purchase and install the system. As a concession to recyclers, a small cov- • ered shed was built at a cost of about-$25,000 to give workers from three local recycling organizations a place to work and store recovered items out of the weather. ' It did not escape the notice of recyclers that the mo!ley being spent on the mechanized end of resource recovery was almost 200 times that applied to the handsorting systems. Some complained, but they were reminded by solid waste officials that recycling coi,ildn't survive if it weren't for the depressed_wages and cash subsidies they got, and that they should be grateful for the covered shed; since they just had a wide spot on a dirt road before. And so the contracts were signed (1975), the 1 tran_sfer pit constructed (1976), and the resource recovery machinery installed (1977). I i I Ii/ ; iii ' I I I j i I 1; I ' I . i i ! I : Tom Brandt Mechanized Resource Recovery: A Faulty Technology Operating and maintenance costs increased dramatically even before the resource reco_very system was in place: for example, five huge trucks were now required to run the garbage out.to a new landfill. But the real escalator was to be the mechanical processing system. Assuming the machinery performed exactly according_to specifications, the company running the plant was to be paid $1,600 per day, or about $425,000 over.the course of a year, for the garbage they processed. A special company was brought in from Seattle to operate the equipment, which didn't do much to relieve Lane County's chl'onically high unemployment rate. But the garbage grinder was designed to employ only 6 people anyway, so it wouldn't have made much differenc·e • . Lane County·Solid Waste Division officials speculated that the facility might begin to break even in the fourth year, but •that capital costs would never be recovered. This would be offset, though, by the volume reduction caused by shredding, which would increase the useful life of the landfill. The system was supposed to begin operation in October, 1977, but it wasn't ready. This was extended to the end of 1977, then early 1978, then October, 1978. Meanwhile, it ran in fits and starts, while shakers brok~, dust leaked, motors· burned out, and the entire structure was reinforced to keep it from comi11g apart. Now, more than a year after it was supposed to be operational, the machine still hasn't worked well •enough to begin the shakedown required by the contract. The county money is spent already, but more money is coming from someplace to keep trying to get it to work. . Meanwhile, the landfill is growing more rapidly than expected with material the machinery was supposed to be recovering. And the bulk of the money coming in from resource recovery in Lane County is still that derived from handsorting.
l' IIINE 't1l1E · 'l'llllSII (~1\NS November 1978 RAIN Page 5 The authors of the following article are members of Oregon Appropriate Technology, a small a.t. research and.consulting group that grew out of the Lane County Office ofAppropriatf Technology. The level on which they are focusing heredrawing together the straightforward facts on the economies and options in solid waste recovery-may feel,a little new to some ofyou. But its pragmatic, community -scaled approach is extremely important. What pans out is,that there are genuine alternatives to more high-tech, low-job government scams, in which our new values and tools not o·nly improve the community, but are cost-effective as well. Just read on. (Oregon Appropriate Technology can be reached at P. 0. Box 1525, Eugene, OR 97440.) - SA NC)'I' 'l'IIE I.1\NI) by Dan Knapp, Tom Brandt and Don Corson Other Examples Tell the Same Story Another mechanized facility, in La Grande, Oregon, was scheduled to begin operation at about the same time. Unlike Lane County's system, the La Grande plant worked. Bu~ the refuse-derived fuel (RDF) was full of rags and plastic scraps that clogged the feed screws serving Boise-Cascade Corporation's bo~lers, and there were also metal fragments that activated protective shut-down devices. And so La Grande's fuel was rejected by the only market within economical shipping distance. A load of the shredded ferrous material was rejected by the closest detinning facility-in S,eat~le-for the same reason: , too dirty,·plus the additional objection that the cans were wadded up instead of opened, making detinning impossib.le even if the material was clean. As unmarketable materials piled up around the new resource recovery facility, a large citizen's committee was convened to study the situation. Their recommendations: close the plant, reopen the landfills, sue the manufacturer to recover the county's costs,'investigate·the consultants who provided the estimates of how much material and income the plant would recover. . . In San Francisco at about the same time, a large mechanized ferrous recovery facility operated by Los Angeles Byproducts- one of the first plants of its kind- was abandoned due to the collapse of its market after four years of operation. And down in San Diego, an even more high-tech plant costing around $14 million is experiencing similar problems, with an added twist. Besides the usual recovered fractions, this plant is designed to make what its backers call "pyrofuel," which is a very low-grade fuel oil made by burning garbage in an oxygen-starved atmosphere. The pr.oblem is that this "garboil" is highly corrosive; it corrodes the pipes and pumps it passes through, the containers it is stored in, and, if it is ever manufactured and burned in quantity, it will also corrode the boilers where it is fired. Interestingly, the plant has a futuristic "linear induction motor" to recover aluminum, copper and brass (it uses electricity, but acts like a magnet in reverse). But the nonferrous material doesn't make its pass by the linear induction motor until after it is shredded into bits and pieces. This mixes the aluminum, brass and copper so that it can't be ~old as aluminum, brass or copper ($600, $700, and $900 per ton) but instead must be sold as mixed nonferrous at $27. Still, the plant op·erators have determined that it is cost-effective'to put the ~ixed nonferrous product through one final process to restore its value: handsorting. Disappearing Markets , -Until recently, county solid waste officials maintained a mood of steadfast optimism that markets for the fuel and ferrous fractions would be found. But developments like these have dampened things considerably. - Since the major materials recovered arr unmarketable so far, it is hard to estimate the prices they would bring if they were •marketable. Top price for clean, flattened and delabeled cans is only in the $20-25 range, but the shredded ferrous is too contaminated to be sold on this market. Refuse-derived fuel prices guessed at in solid waste circles seem to be in the $2-3 per ton area, well below the price paid for recycled paper and cardboard. And so the conclusion is inescapable: even if markets can •be found for mechanically recovered materials like RDF or ferrous, their price per ton will still be far below that for handsorted materials. Right now their price is zero. Meanwhile, the high value metals like aluminum, copper and brass are shredded and/or buried as usual. continued+
Page 6 RAIN November 1978 The Hidden Cost of Toxic and Hq,zardous Materials There is another disecpnomy of such recovery that has not· even been taken into account-one that is being externalited on the public-at-large: . All dumps or transfer stations receive a steady stream of toxic and hazardous materials, which with minimal legal enforcement and on-site controls, become thoroughly mixed in with other forms of waste, particularly when shredders and air classifiers are used. A short list of these materials known to make regular appearances in the solid waste stream include cadmium, lead, acids in batteries, radioactive elements from smoke detectors, zinc oxide in photocopy paper~ esticide and herbicide residues in discarded containers, exotjc metal oxides in paints, chlorides in plastics, petroleum distillates, PCBs in fluorescent light fixtures, glues, resins, raw sewage in disposable diapers, dynamite and other explosiv~ substances. No one knows how many different contaminants for sure, Nor do they know how they combine with each· other or with other materials, how they will affect the mostly anaerobic life processes that work beneath the surface of the landfill, whether and by what channels they will migrate into contact w·ith aerobic life forms, or what they will do wh~n they are burned. Test programs typically gather data only on a few items. Testing is expensive and complicate~; hundreds of items go untested. In varying concentrations, all these and more toxic and hazl!,rdous materials are distrib~ted throughout the moving waste stream. The more thoroughly processed, the more th0roughly the substances are mixed. The Highgrading Concept _Such .conc'erns were part of the context in which La11;e Counny Office of Appropriate Technology was formed in August of 1977. The majority of the staff hired during the first year were CETA employees brought in u9der a proposal to do a resource recovery program for the county. ~AT hired five experienced recyclers, each with a wealth of specialized knowledge. As the projects developed, Tom Brandt and others in OAT worked out the details of a highgrading system for recovering valuable metals and finished goods. The overall strategy, developed through the hard experien·ce of learning to survive financially off the solid waste stream, was based on a simple idea: metals are the most valuable items in solid waste, and metals recovered·in an organized form are worth-more money. Therefore, the highgrading project was organized so as to maintain and restore organization in the solid waste stream for the metals fraction. Workers in the project, which lasted 10 weeks, selected desirable metals, ,such as aluminum, copper, brass, cast iron and heavy steel, and processed them to meet market require,- ments. The public performed the initial selection function; they were informed of the new recycling option by a spotter who also gave them a card explaining the types of materials the project was looking for. Many people were eager to help, to the,point of separating the metals out of mixed loads and taking the extra time to drop them off at the metals recovery . area. The degree of public cooperation is perhaps best measured by th~ consistent, 30-ton-per-month jump in metals recovery after the project started. While one person spotted loads and distributed cards, the other received materials, sorted and cleaned them, and maintained the integrity of the collection system. Eventually, the •materials were marketeH and records kept of revenues, hours, etc. The energy require~ents for processing materials using the Mechanized Resource Recovery approach was more than 50,000 BTU_s per ton, and with the Highgraµing approach it _ was only 12,000 BTUs per ton. Much more impressive was the requirement for capital costs to employ people: With Mechani'zed Resource Recovery costs were more than $350,000.per person, while using the Highgrading concept.it was less than $500.00 per person. This one full-time person enabled Lane County's Metals Recovery Demonstration Project to more than double the volume of mixed metals recove~ed, therefore doubling revenues. -MA.T~ Rf(OV[R'( l)(roN:i1W\110N · PROJKT Offl{.E 0~ AM'RO~\Jlio.TE. ~c::.MHO\.OG.Y ,TATt.\~ lt.EfO~. ' IS JIA"'E l"\"11?> ljO !IO IP EXPE.<TEP VOU\ME. e:H;ED ON TEN MONTH INEIVAE (2?.-, '2»4~ /t"-o) MET~ .. VOlllME CTON~) JUNE 1-14• _., ~-AATS> EXPEct\:.t> • VOLUME : 47°/4 CF 2~-1 • 1'2. TON~ Surface Mining for Elemental Metals and Alloys While mining and manufacturing industries are going greater distances to retrieve poorer grade ores from an increasingly degraded resource base, consuming more energy, producing negativ€ environmental impacts and pushing inflation, the QAT metals highgrading demonstration_project seems to have·made a major metals "strike"-right in the middle of the solid waste stream. Viewed as a production_system rather than as a materials handling system, the project generated some impressive tonnages, especially when they are annualized. High Grade Metals_Production* Metals Aluminum (all grades) Copper (all grades) Brass (all .grades) Cast Iron & Steel Actual Output, 10 Weeks 6,747 lb. 220 505 21,670 29,142 lb. Annualized Output 33,735 lb. 1,100 - 2,525 108,350 145,710 lb. *With 2 people working an average total of 48 hours per week, including education and spotting; program affected less than 20 percent of the total solid waste stream for a .Metropolitan area of about 250,000. I .
These figures point to a fundamental absurdity in the present system of production and pricing ofmetals. Whatever the produc'tivity of a worker in the mines these days, there aren't many mining operations which, with two workers and almost no capital or energy investment, could generate a first-year production of 73 tons of four kinds of elemental and alloy metals that are so centrally important to so many industrial processes. It is•the kind of thing that can only happen at the dump. And yet, such is the artificially depressed price of on<;:eused metals compared to new that it is somehow more profitable to continue mining and refining n·ew elementals from oxid~s, meanwhile burying the once-used (but s~ill new, for metals last a long time) at public expense in the-landfills. Thus the difference between the scrap and new price of metals functions as a baseline indicator of the indirect, hidden subsidy extended to mining and refining operations under existing arrangements. Add to that the subsidy to bury, mix, and generally lose the great majority qLmetals in the waste stream which are not recycled because there is no design or' investment to see that recovery can happen, .and you have the beginnings of an assessment of the true costs of this peculiar method of producing and disposing of surplus production. · ' And beyond this are the environmental costs, and the costs in lost production potential, lost employ1!1ent, lost resources. Knowing the cpsts is only part of,becoming fully conscious of our situation; we also need to know much more about what ' actually could be done with volumes of high grade materials like these. • • With this in mind, we at Oregon Appropriate Technology would like .fr> ask the international appropriate technology network, through Rain, some questions, beginning with: ■ Suppose for the moment that we make a decision to use these materials locally instead of shipping them ·back to the prime producers at bargain basement prices, what end-uses are there for an annual production of, say, .16 tons ofa(uminum in a city like Eugene, Oregon? What could be done with a ton of copper? How about 54'tons of high-grade iron and steql? ■ Are there local, small-scale craft or in,dustrial proceSS§S that could use or refabricate these materials? Assuming that there are, what could be made? ■ What kinds ofmarketing or exchange mechanisms can we develop to distribute the production and volumes possible under highgrading? What arrangements could we make for the organization of labor to accomplish the ,necessary work? • A Vision ofExtending Materials Recovery Through Highgrading The people involved in the highgrading project-really just an extension of traditional recycling efforts into a new segment of the solid waste stream-have ideas about how the approach could be expanded and made more efficient. Elements in the des.ign process _involve new muting systems for cars and trucks, new labor-intensive collection and processing· techniques, new business "software" systems based on worker self-management-, and above all the incorporation of more • workers into the system. Prime candidates.for highgrading in the future are firewood, dimensional lµmber, topsoil and organics. Substantial volume reductions seem possible under highgrading, especially when November 1978 RAIN Page 7 combined with expanded and upgraded traditional recycling efforts. Universal source separation and collection combined • with source elimination or reduction of residuals could literally ·do away with the concept, and reality, of garbage. Some . jobs-would be lost, but many mot.:e would be g_ained than lost, and resources could be made available to stimulate secondary employment and production. The economics are certainly there to justify expansion of labor-intensive forms of resource recovery: at just the level of the OAT project, with only two people'working, the metals highgrading project couU:l have made about the same income as projected for the mechanized system for the first year of its operation, and all without undue risk or debt for the country . .Improvements in marketing such as selling for reuse rather than· recycling, could greatly incre<!,Se return per unit volume processed. This is because reuse markets typically pay 5-10 times scrap market value. For instance, brass and copp·er could probably be marketed for a higher price to artists and craftspeople who could then increase its value still more; or a retail store could be set up to sell reusable goods. Some Objections, and Some Answers' • . One possible objection to this line of thinking is that mechanized and labor-intensive resource recovery methods are not really comparable. The mechanized plant is designed for a 400-ton-per-day throughput; labor-intensive approaches could never keep pace with this requirement. Recycling is for idealistic college students, women and the handicapped; industrial volumes require industrial processing equipment. Labor is . unreliable and hard to train; machinery is the bottom line when it comes to the "baseline alternative." In answe~, we observe the following: 1) Mechanized systems have a lon:g, uphill struggle to prove themselves worth of our attention, given their performance so far; 2) It is labor-intensive recycling that pays, and pays consistently; 3) Highgrading systems could be designed to recover other high-density materials such as wood, agricultural wastes, topsoil and even rocks and concrete. Exclusion of these materials would cut down substantially on tonnages going through the machinery, prolo~ging the system's usefulness and,reducing maintenance and opera:ting cost~; 4) The metals recovery demonstration discussed earlier affected only a fifth or less of the total flow 'available, and still recovery volumes were significant, as was the productivity of labor. More labor, more tools, and better collection and storage could raise volumes, and revenue, considerably; 5) Reorganization and redesign of the traffic feed system could set things up so1traffic moved through the facility much faster. The addition of more people power under better working conditions could make the recycling operation faster and more pleasant than dumping. People would be encouraged to separate more and more of their , "garbage" into recyclable categories as the system became established, known and trus;ted in the community; 6) It is expected that improvements in small-scale recycle technology at the central transfer facility would soon pave the way to setting up s_mall.collection and'processing,facilities throughout the city, which would feed directly into the existing marketing channels. This would further reduce volume and trips to the central processing system, providing employment out in the neighborhood_s; and 7) As stubborn residuals became iden"tifiable through progressive elimination of good materials from the solid waste stream, action could be taken to either find markets for the residuals, or reduce or eliminate their use: Eventually, it should be possible t? have zero residuals. All tax monies, saved along the way could be diverted to other areas of need, or not collected. Income from recycling continued•
Page 8 RAIN November 1978 :s 400 300 200 CAPITAL ~'-''R£0 ib CREA-re ONE. M.lLL • TiME. Joe o~-------.........--~-- MIGir!G#>.DIM& l'\ECltAAIZt'.O RUOURIA UC.OVERY EN~RCa'}' REQw~0 To ~~ 0KE TON Of" M,-.TUt~ • lo ZD 10 0----,--~----~--~--- Ml~Ga .:.:..,... c--- C: ~ - ... 0 u C: 0 Q projects cou_ld be earmarked for capitalizing impro\:ements in recycling techniques and ,tools, thus easing the chronic credit shortage 'in t hat sector and further accelerating growth in the materials recovery sector. • • Contracts and Conservatism Those of us who want to change the dominant technologies must realize that this kind of analysis can only go so far, for ultimately the practical symbiosis between capital and government is a matter of contractual obligation. The siz~, design complexity and time dimensions of these relationships are all very imposing, and this helps to structure in an unwillingness to change even when reason, research and logic dictate otherwise. The result is that appropriate technology people who venture into local government with questions about,how and why things are done, or with suggestions for better ways, are confronted again and again with the same sort of argument that appeared during the middle phases of the war in Vietnam: It's too late to stop or even to look things over carefully before we get to the next step; the design is too far along; we've already got too much invested to get out now; Phase I require~ Phase II, and if we don't build Phase III the whole system will be useless. The General Pattern in Other Sectors Is Much the Same Similar stories could be told in the case of a number of other high-tech public works projects underway in our locality. For example, a much larger bond issue for a mechanized sewage treatment plant was passed last year with little informed citizen input. Here, composting toilets, land disposal systems and experimentally promising aquaculture systems provide the counterpoint. Or consider the economics of passive solar _ heating and cooling, or ev~n active solar air-heating systems with native rock storage, as against remote generntion of · electricity by nuclear or coal-fired generating plants to pro- / vide resistance heating and air conditioning in housipg-a necessary back-up to the continued expansion of the "allelectric home" industry. • Again and again, we see the same pattern of continued credit expansion and large-scale subsidy of uneconomic and inefficient, albeit technically "sophisticated" and "advanced" machine systems while systems nhat take their energy from people or from cheaper, less environmentally disruptive sources are delay~d, resisted, underfunded and undercapitalized. 1 Whether this pattern can long persist is dou-btful, given the very real eeonomic advantage now enjoyed by small-scale, labor-intensive systems and the financial and technical difficulties of 'the larger systems. It seems certain, though, that continuing along the current path of error will increase costsand deb_ts that must be retired or forgiven eventually, somehow-when the large-scale capital and energy intensive systems are finally abandoned or their use curtailed. On Governments l:md.Corporations •After subsidizing loser technologies like these mechanized garbage processors for so many years, why does the EPA continue to inJist on lining the pockets of the big corporations even more? We are not so bothered with the many millions of dollars that have already gone ·into the experiment; these plants have a certain value in that they tell us what we ought_ not to do. But the continued support by the EPA a,nd (soon) by the Department of Energy, for schemes where still-more • of our bonding capacity a_nd future tax dollars are skimmed off to support these unprofitable (unless you build one of them), environmentally unsound garbage machines has many people upset-to say the least. It is not hard to see why the corporations are moving aggressively in this field: garbage is one of the top categories in local government spending, profit margins in a subsidized field like this can be la,rge, and the whole thing is legitimate and legal and even morally right. After all, who can be opposed to "resource recovery," "enetgy from waste," "cleaning up the.environment"? . But the fact remains that local communities will be asked to pay the economic and environmental costs that these plants bring with them. And remember that there are no federal subsidies for-. operating and maint'enance expenses, and if the ' facility has to be abandoned, as some already have, the locality will still be asked to pay. ,,: We therefore call upon the EPA to reexamine their motivations and their practice. In the ·area of resource retovery, we need studies of alternatives based on diversity of approach rather than either/or., one-best-option logic. Labor-intensive approaches based on labor-saving materials handling and • storage systems should receive the, same care and loving attention to detail as is now lavished on the mechanized, centralized systems. A program for control of toxic; and hazardous wastes is urgently necessary now. There should be funding available to capitalize.efficient, state-of-the-art highgrad}ng systems, integrating them, with traditional recycling systems. Credit should be made available to set up production facilities based on reused materials. Mechanized processing systems should be regarded as experihi.ental rather than operational. The emphasis should shift to efficient sorting and handling methods, decentralized processing systems, exchange of surpluses rather than mere dumping or burning. □
SEWAGE Composting Toilets, edited by Joyce Theios, 1978, free frpm: Lane County Office of Appropriate Technology .125 East 8th Ave. Eugene, OR 97401 A handbook for Lane County Residents who wish to explore alternatives to flush toilets. Gives regulations and permit information for that county in addition to general information about types of toilets, problems, costs, health aspects, resources. A good model for other communities wishing to encourage im-_ plementation of a.t. -LS IH~ ~~ November 1978 RAIN Page 9 ENERGY Citizens' Energy Directory, Jan Simpson, 1978, 152 pp., $7.50 from: Ci~izens' En\ergy Project 1413 K Street, 8th Floor Washington, DC 20005 Residential Energy Uses, Current Housing Reports, Series H-123, Housing Division, Bureau of the Census, 1978, Stock Number 003-024-01554-4, from: • Superintendent of Documents U.S. Government Printing Office Washi!lgton, DC 20402 Here's a·large, state-by-state directory of organizations that are involved in energy issues, from citizen action, conservation, a. t. and anti-nuclear groups to small industries, architects, and consultants, to government offices, educational and research-institutes. Each organization's ac_tivities, publications and contact persons are noted, and all groups are cross-indexed in the directory's several appendices. A useful resourc.~ for energy activists and networkers. -SA Groups Involved in the Anti-Nuclear Movement, 1978, 6 pp., $1.00 including postage from: To look back on the U.S. energy-use trajectory of the past few decades can be a d1zzying experience. This simple _ 8-page fold-out lays out a piece of that picture in depicting changing patterns of energy use by Ainerican households from 1940 on. Three ·color,U.S. maps documenting Primary Home Heating Fuels by CQunty (1950-60-70) are particularly revealing of the shifts in regional energy use-from the remarkable decline of wood-heating in the Southeast to the increased dependence on electricity in the Northwest and Sunspark Press Box 389 Santa Cruz, CA 95061 -Tennessee Valley. Until the positiv~ trends afoot become retrievable data this visual aid makes it clear how ' much we have to change. -SA ' Granny-Flats and Duplex-Pensions The July-August '78 Ways and Means had a report on a program in Victoria, Australia, to build "Granny-Flatsn-small, efficient living units for elderly residents on the property of the older citizen's children. A great idea in itself, but even more it points out the social impacts of our restrictive singlefamily-residence-only zoning prac_tices. Many of our multibedroom, two-bath residences can be built (or converted) to divide up into a smaller house and an attached apartmentallowing a less expensive home for small families, ability to expand as a family grows, and then to later rent out unused space as children grow up and move away. It would make possible for older families and individuals to get rental income, have other people close by, and younger people around to shovel snow and make repairs. Duplex houses used to be. (and should be) a common and wise kind of pension fund. (A California study-Rainbook, p. 48-showed that p-µblic pension funds could obtain better returns by investing in housing than.in corporate stocks. Better yet, cut out the middleman and make it 'possible for people to do so directly themselves!) Duplexes provide a more secure income source for re.tiremerit t~_an many pension funds and also provide a better kind of rental housing than most apartment houses. Having the owner living in the other half of a duplex always seems to ensure better maintenance and upkeep for the renter, and better treatment of the rentaJ unit for the owner. Granny flats and duplexes are socially good housing patterns, wise investment;, and a good. way to convert oyersized housing to better use pattern~ ~sour energy glut _bottoms out. All that is required_i's a zoning change to allow owner-occupied .twofamily housing in prese_nt R:1 zoning areas. -TB • J
Page 10 RAIN November 1978 I Peter Sardagna, vice president of San Diego Federal Savings . & Loan Associatfon, recently propo_sed a method for financing retrofit solar systems in California. He believes this "EnergySaver" plan "is the financial key to large scale commercialization of solar energy in California." "The importance of such·a program is that it can be put into motion immediately," he says. "It taps the expertise and resources of the existing financial institutions a·nd does not rely on the creation of new, UI?tried and probably inefficient and ultimately more expensive lending sources, such as utility companies or taxpayer subsidized ~state solar banks.' " Essentially Sardagna's plan boils down ·to an extension of the house mortgage. Wilson Clark, Jerry Brown's energy advisor, is keeri for the idea, which expands on the energy conservation loan program he helped to start in Sea~tle. The . federal Department of Energy gave Sardagna a sympathetic hearing this summer, and the federal Home Loan Bank Board promises to push the idea with savings and loan associations. The scheme is new and,the bankhas had little experience in administering i~ so far. Sardagna himself is g_lum about· short-term prospects since the_state is experiencing_a slump with solar firms going out of business. Low gas prices are blamed for the decline. But over the long term, the San Diego Federal official is hopeful. Below we are publishing Sardagna's own description of the plan, along with an example, which he also prepared, of how it would work in detail: I. Home Buyers-This program can be used where the home buyer wishes to install energy saving devices at the time of his purchase: 4.. The buyer provides a cost breakd9wn and contract showing the improvements to be made. B. The appraisal will be completed utifizing this additional cost as value added to the property and the loan to, value will then be based on the total appraised vahfe. C. If the .funds required for conservation devices are less , •than two percent of-the purchase price, these funds will be released to the buyer at close of escrow. D. If the funds required for conservation devices are in excess of two percent, but less than ten percent, the funds will be placed in a non-interest-bearing, Loansin-Process account until the work is complete. Upon completion, the borrower will request in writing these monies and an inspection:will be made before the funds are released. r . E. A maximum ~f 10 percent of the house sale price will be provided for the energy conservation devices. F. Only 80 percent loans will bdncluded in this program. G. It is important for _the loan officer to use.discretion in determining the increased value to the home after considering_the feasibility and workability of the system and materials chosen. II. Home Owners-This program will help existing SDF borrower:s convert to lower cost, alternative solar energy sources, mainly for hot water heating. , A. Maximum loan amount of $4,000,' or 10 percent of house market value, whichever is less. B. A ,flat $200 fee will be charged to cover the cost of, title policy, appraisal, processing, credit reports, recording fees, etc. If additional costs are incurred, due to the subordination,of junior liens·, these fees will be added to the basic fee. The paleolithic ba_nking system ·is finally discovering that the sun exists and that it can be a wiser investment than business as usual. Here ar.e details on one program. Converting banking investment to good things like this is commendable, and wiser than giving more power to utilities, but praising their belated awakening shouldn't obscure the ,value and need to experiment with new processes such as state solar banks. Innovation is survival. Thanks to Jim Ridgeway for permission to reprint this article from The Elements ($15/year individuals, $25/year imjtitutions,. 1747 Connecticut Ave., N. W., Washington, DC 20009).• -TB I C. San Diego Federal must receive evidence that the solar system qualifies for the California 55 percent tax credit. This is necessary since the state requires the system to meet certain specifications and we want all systems financed by San Diego Federal to meet the state's minimum requirements. • D. Funds will be disbursed when installation has been completed and the system is operating properly. This fact will be verified by letter from the applicant. E. The amount of the additional advance will be at current residential prime rate. The existing-loan will not be raised. Therefore, the rafe stated in the Modification Agreement will be a weighted average of the existing rate and the current rate. The new rate will be rounded up to the nearest .01 percent. The automatic document printer has·the capacity of calculating the monthly payment and daily interest factor. . F. The mortgage will be recast up to 30 years, if necessary, ' in order to keep the payment as close to the.original amount as possible. G. If additional funds are required to pay off existing junior deeds of trust, the borrower will not·qualify _under the program. A standard refinance will be conducted utilizing San Diego Federal's current outstanding policies. • . H. The i;naximum loan amount permitted will be 90 percent loan to value. I. The customer should be urged to open a San Diego Federal savings account. It is hoped that the customer will place all savings from this alternative energy source in this account. By doing so, this program becomes selfperpetua ting.
MEDIA Copyright Primer for Film and Video, by Joseph B. Sparkman, 1978, 22 pp., $1.00 to members, $2.00 non-members from: NW Media Project P.O. Box 4093 Portland, OR 97208 New copyright laws in January 1978 inspired this study guide, which is best used simultaneously with the text of the law (Public Law 94-553, available free from: Copyright Office, Library of Congress, Washington, DC 20559). Access: Film & Video Equipment: A Directory, edited by Nancy Legge, 1978, 122 pp., $2.00 from: The American Film Institute The John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts Washington, DC 20566 A directory of 54 compiled from responses to a questionnaire sent to 72 organizations in 23 states. Hence the listing isn't complete, but the information given about each center is thorough and a look at the findings sheds light on some problems and provides an overview of video access activity. -LS APPROPRIATE TECHNOLOGY Women in Solar & A. T.: A Conference December 2 & 3, sponsored by: Ecotope Group 2332 East Madison Seattle, WA 98112 206/322-3753 I've long dreamed of the possibility of a conference such as this-both to attract new women to the field and to be able to share perspectives with the "old hands." It looks like Elizabeth Coppinger and Liz Stewart at Ecotope are finally bringing us together. Workshops include Community Technology, Solar Design and Construction (hands-on), Strategies for Change, Alternatives in the Food System, Biomass Energy, Setting up Businesses, and The Impact of A.T. on women in the home, and discussions of professionalism for women. Gigi Coe from California OAT, Kye Cochran from AERO, Beth Sachs from NCAT and Harriet Barlow from the Institute for Local Self-Reliance are some of the resource people who will be there. Registration is $20. : Housing and childcare will be available. - LdeM April 1978, Surigao City, Philippines After an exchange of letters about three yea~s ago, you asked for a photo of these "_tricycles"- Philippine village and city transportation. I didn't have a photo at the time, but recently went back over and took this for your interest and amusement. As transport they're colorful and efficient, but noisy. Footpower alone, though, wouldn't propel this vehicle fully loaded (i.e. 6-10 people). -John Schlosser, Seattle, WA Oregon Self-Reliance c/o RAIN 2270 NW Irving Portland, OR 97210 Almost a year ago we wrote about a group of Oregon a.t. people who got together to discuss the problems, needs and possibilities for'a statewide coalition of some sort. Well, a core of 10-12 people have continued meeting on an almost monthly basis and as of this summer have incorporated as Oregon Self-Reliance. Involved at this point are people from Cascadian Regional Library, RAIN, the State Department of Energy, Lane County OAT, the Eastern Oregon Community Development Council, and SUNERGY, not to mention individuals from Bend, Eugene and the coast. Our initial project will be to work towards appropriate legislation in the upcoming session. Other goals are to foster communication among groups and projects, provide assistance to small towns and neighborhoods, and perhaps to take on some research projects. We're still in the early stages of organization, so things are pretty wide open- no money, no staff, but a good deal of energy and enthusiasm. We're welcoming new members- $10 for individuals and $25 for organizations brings you invitations to meetings, sometimes a newsletter, and a chance to work on a statewide network of self-reliance projects. -LdeM LEARNING The Free U Manual, A National Guide to Operations of a Free University, First Edition, edited by Bill Draves and Cathy MacRunnels, 1978, 422 pp., $15.00 from: University for Man 1221 Thurston Manhattan, KS 66502 The Free U Manual is an open communications and idea exchange with articles from over 50 contributors nationwide, designed to assist communities in setting up and operating a free U. Based on a "mutation" of the Dewey Decimal System and available in a loose-leaf binder, this hefty manual will expand and replace its contents with new articles and yearly updates. The first edition contains lots of how-to information on organization, class sessions and public relations. Future editions will add materials on legal matters, learning networks and small communities. - SA
Page 12 RAIN November 1978 candle snuffers ----- l l l L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L by Fred Lorish I have a concern. The past few years I have seen that amorphous thing called appropriate technology come of age. It was seen, not that long ago, as a collection of solar hardware, wind generators, methane digesters and compost toilets. It has suddenly become much more. The soft side of a. t. has begun to affect many aspects of our collective lives. Decentralization, deschooling, equity, stewardship, labor-intensive- these are terms that we find rolling off our tongues often. J\nd there is much that can easily be seen that indicates that the values, the words and the theorizing have all attained a currency that can be seen and touched. In short, a sizable portion of the population has embraced a vision, and the long-term ramifications are exciting to behold. Hut I still carry a concern that gnaws at me daily: what about the kids? I'm a school teacher, and so I sec kids day in and day out. It scares me- not the kids, but the powers that affect these kids, whether it is TV, standardized texts, basal readers, corporate advertising or whatever. Kids arrive at school at six still children. J\nd their childhood, for the most part, has been a time of enthusiasm and involvement in the wholeness around them. It has been a time of learning (done without formal teachers and schools), of openness, of what George Dennison called "joyous intelligence." Part of my concern is simply that children, once they enter school, give up much that makes them and their childhood so unique. I have the sense that children, more so than any other age group, have an intuitive feel for the processes that make up their world. Sure, they can't categorize it. They can't verbalize in any clear way what they naturally feel so that adults can understand it. They simply know how to be a part of the processes; they flow with them with case, and this is one of the more beautiful gifts the gods have given children. J\nd when at six the child takes those first halting steps through a classroom door, much of the natural learning process comes screeching to a halt. And in the course of years, the love of learning, the involvement in the wholeness of life, the openness, the enthusiasm of just being alive seem to slowly but inexorably get pruned away. All of which sounds like the kind of philosophical jargon that educators begin spouting when they are waxing poetic. But in an age when schools have put such a premium on performance indicators, behavioral goals, scope and sequences, accountability, et al., I can't help but want to go back and look at what those first learning processes are. Childhood is a period of time when IQ tests, multi-phasic inventories, achievement tests, or whatever quantitative measuring device is used completely miss the mark ... and miss it so widely that the public gets caught up in assuming that kids aren't learning at all since the results can't be quantified. The quality of learning is forgotten. There isn't very much quality in the public schools. But the public schools are where the kids are. The public schools are also where the corporations are. Textbooks are produced by publishing companies that are part of a much larger corporate umbrella. Standard Oil has its free energy_ curriculum materials, not to mention a host of other special interest industrial groups. Walt Disney produces comics with Goofy talking up nuclear power. Products are packaged with the mark of Madison /\venue; the Marlboro Man is transformed into a textbook character pushing rampant consumerism. Everyone gets caught up in it. The kids do, too. It goes far beyond this. School districts and state departments of education set up guidelines that insure that kids must read commercially produced texts. School districts must buy certain texts; teachers must use them. That kids can produce their own books, their own equipment, their own environments, is conveniently forgotten. School districts are placed in the position of buying amazing amounts of texts and equipment, much of which is not used, or if it is used, ends
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy NTc4NTAz