text:
About NRCM
NRCM Rising
Contact NRCM
Natural Resources Council of Maine
Protecting the Nature of Maine
Climate & Clean Energy
Global Warming Pollution & Climate Change
A Strong Climate Action Plan for Maine
Clean, Renewable Energy
Cleaner Transportation
CMP Transmission Line Proposal: A Bad Deal for Maine
Healthy Waters
Restoring the Kennebec River above Waterville
Metal Mining Pollution: A Serious Threat to Maine
Penobscot River Restoration Project
Restoring Alewives to Maine's Rivers
Edwards Dam & Kennebec River Restoration
Cleaning Up the Androscoggin River
Maine Brewshed Alliance
Forests & Wildlife
Katahdin Woods & Waters National Monument
Protecting the Moosehead Region
Land for Maine's Future Program
Maine's Public Lands & Ecological Reserves
Maine North Woods Protection
Recycling Reform for Maine
Sustainable Maine Community Toolkits
Toxic-free Living
Maine State House
Legislative Bill Tracking
Citizen Action Day
Find Your Maine State Legislators
Find Your Congressional Delegates
Federal Climate & Energy Issues
Federal Water, Land, & Wildlife Issues
Visit Action Center – Take Action on the Issues facing Maine Today!
Our Maine
Explore Maine Map
Explore Maine
Maine Sporting Camp & Guide Service Discounts
My Maine This Week
My Family and ME
NRCM Podcast
NRCM Gear
NRCM People's Choice Award
Holiday Gift Ideas & Green Tips
Middle School Grants
NRCM Publications & Maine Environment Newsletters
Katahdin Woods & Waters – Our Monument, Our Community, Voices from the Region
Damaging Maine: The Impacts of Proposed Cuts to the EPA Budget
Katahdin Woods and Waters National Monument Visitors Guide
Reduce Your Use: Tips for Reducing Your Footprint on the Environment
Clean Housekeeping: Toxic-free Solutions
School Food Recovery Handbook
Bright Ideas: Tips for Home Energy Savings
Conservation Leadership Awards
Aveda Earth Month
Polar Bear Dip & Dash
Donate to NRCM
Protect the Nature of Maine Campaign
Donate to NRCM Rising
Monthly Giving Program
Become a Katahdin Circle Donor
Corporate Matching
Donate Through Your Donor-advised Fund
How Corporate America Might Just Save Recycling
Maine Environmental News, Recycling and Product Stewardship, Sustainability
Posted on April 27, 2012 by NRCM
Amy Westervelt
Earlier in the week, this blog looked at some of the ways in which the U.S. recycling system has become dysfunctional. Today, we look at what might happen if recycling started to really work in this country, and turn to a potential solution–one that is being promoted by some of the very companies responsible for creating the country's packaging waste.
Called Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR), this legislation would essentially set requirements for companies to collect and recycle a certain percentage of the packaging waste they generate, but would leave how they go about doing it up to the companies themselves. Companies like it because it gives them some control, and environmentalists like that it could drastically improve U.S. recycling rates (while rates are decently high for paper and aluminum, for other materials–particularly plastic–they are low, and overall only 33 percent of municipal solid waste is diverted from landfills). A recent report from the Blue-Green Alliance found that increasing recycling rates in the United States to 75 percent for all municipal solid waste would create 1.5 million jobs. For consumers, who, at the end of the day, are the ones that actually pay for recycling, EPR promises a more effective, efficient system, one that delivers better value for taxpayer dollars. While the cost of EPR would be built into the cost of consumer products, the legislation would eliminate the fee consumers currently pay for city- or county-provided recycling.
All of which is not to say that EPR is without its detractors. Some municipal governments worry about handing control of recycling systems over to industry, and some industries are loathe to see any sort of government regulation of packaging, even if it's legislation that leaves implementation up to industry.
EPR programs have been implemented throughout Europe for years, starting in Germany in the 1990s, and have been hugely successful at both increasing recycling and improving access to quality recycled materials. Canada has also adopted successful EPR programs. In the United States, recycling systems are largely a local government affair, wherein programs in neighboring cities can differ dramatically. Perhaps surprisingly, Nestlé Waters North America has been spearheading the drive toward EPR legislation for packaging in the United States. The company's director of sustainability, Michael Washburn, says part of the reason is that the company wants to use more recycled PET plastic in its bottles, but it is currently expensive because supply of the stuff is low and demand is high. If they could collect and recycle a larger proportion of their bottles, that problem would be solved.
"We have found that packaging is the largest part of our environmental footprint, so from a sustainability perspective, we have an incentive to increase our use of rPET [recycled PET], but can't because of the limited supply and high cost," Washburn says.
He adds that purely as a resource management issue, it makes sense for the company to reuse its packaging materials. "The idea that we're taking valuable material out of production by putting it in the ground or burning it should concern all of us," he says. "We also think this [EPR] could help take some volatility out of the markets and out of our supply chain – remember plastic is an oil-based product."
Some early coverage of EPR proposals has pitted EPR laws against container deposit laws (also called "bottle bills"), which are currently active in 10 states. Bottle bills have been extremely effective at increasing recycling rates, but Washburn points out that they only deal with bottles, whereas EPR gets at the broader issue: packaging writ large. Paul Gardner, executive director of Recycling Reinvented, and a former Minnesota legislator with some experience dealing with EPR legislation, echoes that statement. "Beverage containers actually make up a small part of the waste we have; with EPR, vs. bottle bills, we would get at five or six times more material than just bottles," Gardner says. "Let's think bigger."
EPR isn't entirely new in the United States, it just hasn't been applied to packaging yet. EPR laws are on the books in various states for paint and batteries. In 2006, Natural Resources Council of Maine teamed up with Hewlett Packard to pass the first EPR electronics recycling law, and since then 23 other states have followed suit. "It's one of the most effective policy tools out there for addressing waste and pollution of various kinds," says Matt Prindiville, associate director of the Product Policy Institute and co-founder of the Cradle2 Coalition, a coalition of organizations and businesses pushing for EPR recycling laws of various kinds. Prindiville was involved in the passage of the Maine EPR electronics recycling law, and has been working on bringing EPR to the United States since 2003.
There have been a variety of EPR laws passed throughout the country, governing everything from paint to batteries to specific toxic ingredients like mercury," Prindiville says. "But what we're realizing is that EPR shouldn't just be applied to one particular type of product. It needs to be applied to the entire waste stream."
Applying EPR to packaging is a slightly different animal, Gardner points out, because packaging materials are commodities. "These recyclables are a commodity whereas other types of waste that have been governed by EPR legislation are a liability, both environmentally and financially," he says. "Packaging and paper are traded on the global commodities markets, people have invested money and taken risks to handle these materials. For them, EPR transforms the financing component; it ideally raises recycling rates and acts as a rising tide that lifts all boats."
Because EPR is not prescriptive about implementation, it provides incentives for businesses to voluntarily reduce packaging and get innovative with materials and design. At the outset, however, some companies are balking at the idea of any sort of regulation on packaging, particularly companies that attract less attention than the Nestlés and Coca Colas of the world for their packaging. "As far as we can tell publicly, if you're Procter & Gamble or General Mills you love living in a world where the beverage industry guys take it on the chin and nothing is asked of you if you make a tuna can or a cereal box or a laundry bottle," Washburn says. "All of these materials have value and costs associated with collecting them at scale, all on the back of taxpayers."
And in fact the Grocery Manufacturers Association, a trade group that represents a variety of grocery manufacturers, including Kellogg, Procter & Gamble, and PepsiCo, has come out in opposition to EPR for packaging, as has a new group called the Product Management Alliance (a coalition of trade groups, including the American Forest and Paper Association, Toy Industry Association and Carpet and Rug Institute), which is arguing instead for what it calls a "voluntary" form of EPR. According to proponents of EPR, however, without the initial government requirement as a lever, voluntary programs are unlikely to succeed.
Every voluntary program tried in this country is expensive if you bring it down to cost per container," Washburn says. "You end up with the bigger players running the program, paying the freight and so on, and then you get the free riders. If we're going to have an efficient system, everyone needs to be in, no free riders, and if you spread it across all waste streams then everyone's burden is smaller.
That's where Prindiville and company come in. "One of the things I'm trying to do is help corporate America see that [EPR] is not as scary as it sounds," Prindiville says. "This is not a tax on your products, it's about figuring out how to get stuff back and do something with it, and you figure out the financing yourself. It is a market-based system."
Plenty of businesses do see Prindiville's point. In addition to Nestlé Waters, Gardner says manufacturers who use recycled material have "literally been begging the public sector to increase recycling, but local governments are not really equipped to get supply to meet demand."
Packaging manufacturers that use a lot of recycled content – plastic and glass in particular – are saying we will support anything that will get us new supply right now," Gardner adds. "Glass plants are cheaper to run with recycled glass because it takes less heat to work with recycled glass than virgin materials. The same is true for plastic, and really all of the commodity recyclables–it requires less energy, fewer chemicals, and less water to make stuff out of recycled materials. Those plants are saying we'll support anything that gets us more material at a price that's reasonable.
Currently, organizations like the Cradle2 Coalition and Recycling Reinvented are focusing on outreach and education, talking to companies about the nuts and bolts of EPR and encouraging them to weigh in on what U.S. EPR legislation could and should look like. Gardner says the earliest we're likely to see legislation proposed is 2013, and it's still unclear which state will be the guinea pig, although it won't be a bottle-bill state since EPR proponents want to steer clear of anything that would pit bottle bills against EPR.
"Coca Cola a couple years ago wanted to introduce EPR-like legislation in Vermont, a bottle bill state, and passage of that legislation would have required getting rid of the state's bottle bill," Prindiville says. "It wasn't really the best way to go about things because it made the discussion combattive, and it made it seem like the only interest beverage companies have in this is getting rid of bottle bills. Actually, container deposits and producer responsibility are not mutually exclusive, you could easily have both."
What we definitely won't see is a national EPR proposal. Gardner explains that dealing with waste issues at the federal level has historically been problematic. Instead the strategy is to roll EPR out in a few states, fine tune those programs so that other states have a model, and then watch the legislation spread, as it has in the case of other products.
"We're targeting states that have robust curbside recycling in their cities now, and reasonable distribution in rural areas (Minnesota and Maryland for example)," says Washburn. "So we're not starting from zero. The idea is to first get it [EPR] into a handful of states. What happens then? Companies whine about there being different system in Minnesota than Wisconsin and so forth, so we need to unify. Great, that's when we take it national. But we don't want to start with national."
Filed Under: Maine Environmental News, Recycling and Product Stewardship, Sustainability Tagged With: electronic waste, paint stewardship, product stewardship, recycling, sustainability
The Natural Resources Council of Maine is a nonprofit membership organization protecting, restoring, and conserving Maine's environment, now and for future generations. Join NRCM today!
3 Wade Street, Augusta, Maine 04330
Phone: (207) 622-3101 Toll Free: (800) 287-2345
NRCM Careers & Internships
Sign up for our monthly enews
© 2021 Copyright · Natural Resources Council of Maine · All Rights Reserved · Website Design by Seaside Web Design, LLC ·


text:
Tag: Rand Paul
Obama's Gift to Trump: Monarchic War Powers
Posted on September 16, 2017 September 19, 2017 by Laurie Calhoun in Death & Politics, Death & Taxes, Lethal Creep, Political Analysis, Questions, Tyrants are as Tyrants do
Senator Rand Paul is to be commended for forcing his colleagues to address the endless wars in the Middle East and proposing that they sunset the 2001 and 2002 AUMF (Authorization for Use of Military Force). This past week, Senator Paul incisively observed in multiple addresses before the Senate body that lawmakers have not debated the topic of war for fifteen years, despite the fact the US constitution vests the war powers of the United States of America not in the president but in the US Congress, the legislative, not the executive branch of government. The Congress may have granted the president permission to take the nation to war in the cases of Afghanistan and Iraq, but they never explicitly authorized five of the seven wars currently underway.
The 2002 AUMF, which passed in October 2002 and opened the way to a war waged on the false pretense of non-existent WMD (weapons of mass destruction) and an equally nonexistent connection between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein, specifically granted the US president the liberty to take the United States to war in Iraq. Being country specific, the 2002 AUMF cannot be reasonably interpreted to provide authorization for the ongoing US military missions in Afghanistan, Libya, Yemen, Syria, Somalia, and Pakistan. (Not to mention Nigeria or Cameroon, where US drones hover and Special Forces "advise" as well.)
One might with good reason wonder whether any AUMF should not be specific to the president to whom it was granted, but President Barack Obama repeatedly insisted that the 2001 AUMF provided him with all the authorization he needed to lob missiles where and when he pleased. It was in fact the primary basis for his expansion of the war on terror to include the use of lethal drones, or unmanned combat aerial vehicles (UCAVs), to kill persons suspected of terrorism anywhere on the planet. Here is the text of the 2001 AUMF resolution:
The President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.
This Authorization of Military Force grants the executive the power to pursue anyone associated in any way with the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. It does not, however, authorize the killing of persons who were small children or, in some cases, not even born at that time. Nonetheless, given how they have been used, the two AUMFs have proven to be tantamount to the relinquishment by lawmakers of any responsibility or duty to decide when and whether the United States should take the extreme measure of warfare, perpetrating acts of state homicide against persons located abroad. Throughout the Obama presidency, from 2009 through 2016, the 2001 AUMF was repeatedly invoked by the administration in defense of its expansion of the war on terror to include the virtually nonstop bombing of several countries and the erection of drone bases in support of a full-fledged drone killing machine used to eliminate thousands of suspects throughout the Middle East and Africa.
The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were of course started by the Bush administration, but Obama, despite having campaigned on the promise to end the "stupid" war in Iraq, presumed the validity of the AUMF granted to his predecessor as he stepped up the killing of terrorist suspects in Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia, and carried out mass bombing in both Libya and Syria. Obama's use of military force in Libya in 2011—which he remarkably claimed was not an act of war and therefore did not require congressional approval—effected a regime change no less than had Bush's invasion of Iraq.
It has been obvious for some time that Obama's primary legacy would be his ill-fated decision to normalize assassination by drone—rebranding it as an act of war, even outside areas of active hostilities—and opting to kill nearly all terrorist suspects identified as such in the Middle East, rather than throw them into Guantánamo Bay prison, which he promised to close but never did. The practices at GITMO and other prisons (including Abu Ghraib and Bagram) involved atrocious violations of human rights against the mostly innocent suspects, who found themselves in a Kafkaesque, justice-less labyrinth, but surely summary execution by drone of innocent men such as Shaker Aamer would have been even worse. Forty-one of the early GITMO detainees remain locked up without charges today, despite having been cleared for release years ago in some cases. Declining to add further detainees to the tally, Barack Obama opted instead to execute thousands of suspects never indicted or tried with any crimes and identified as suspects using the very same tools used to round up the detainees under Bush: HUMINT, or human intelligence (provided by bribed informants), and SIGINT, or signals intelligence (video footage from drones and metadata derived from cellphone and SIM card analysis).
How are we now, in 2017, to understand what has transmogrified into the perpetual motion US war machine, encompassing not only recognizable acts of war against armed combatants but also acts of assassination against persons outside areas of active hostilities who are not armed and therefore not threatening anyone with harm at the time of their incineration by missile in their own civil societies? Something did change since September 11, 2001, but something even more dramatic took place with the election of Barack Obama in 2008.
For Obama was granted an unprecedented amount of interpretive charity by leftists, who wished for various reasons to give him the benefit of the doubt. At the same time, Obama managed to avoid criticism also from many on the right, perhaps because he surprised them with his willingness to kill rather than capture Osama bin Laden in 2011 and proved to be much friendlier toward the military industrial complex (MIC) than anyone might ever have imagined from the eloquent antiwar rhetoric of his 2008 election campaign.
It seems fair to say that Obama's normalization of assassination by drone was a gift to everyone involved in the killing machine, including the firms privately contracted to produce the analysis used to construct kill lists, such as The Analysis Corporation, whose former president and CEO was none other than John Brennan himself, whom Obama promoted to be the director of the CIA in 2013. Of course the companies who produce the drones and the missiles launched from them against suspects have also been enriched enormously by Obama's embracement of the drone as a primary counterterrorism tool.
But Obama's war-friendly policies did not stop with the drone killing machine. Instead, the assassination industry proved to be his first step onto a rather slippery slope, leading ultimately to the mass bombing of seven different countries simultaneously, only two of which, Afghanistan and Iraq, were wars instigated by George W. Bush. Under Obama's authority (again, he presumed with no effective protest from Congress the validity of the AUMF), more than 23K US bombs were dropped on the Middle East in 2015, and more than 26K in 2016.
In 2012, Obama exported record numbers of weapons to the government of Saudi Arabia, which proceeded to prosecute a horrific war in Yemen, still underway to this day, and has been further aided and abetted by the United States through refuelling and help with analysis. The tons of US weapons furnished to the Saudis have been used to devastate large swaths of Yemen, directly causing a humanitarian crisis including both mass starvation and a cholera epidemic. Interestingly enough, in early 2017, some leftists finally began to complain about US weapons exports when they saw that Trump was selling billions of dollars of weapons to the Saudis. Yet the deals he oversaw had been in the works under Obama and likely would have received little criticism from Democrats, had they been completed during his presidency.
This brings us, at last, to a vexing question:
Why did 13 Democratic Senators just grant Donald J. Trump Monarchic War Powers?
Predictably enough, the Senators called to vote on the possibility of debate over the AUMFs rallied to keep the perpetual motion war machine up and running with no pause for reflection about such questions as:
Is the war in Afghanistan winnable? What would victory look like?
Why are US soldiers still being killed in Iraq? Isn't it time to let Iraq determine its own destiny?
Why is the US government aiding and abetting a vicious civil war in Yemen? What is our national interest in that conflict supposed to be?
Should we not reflect upon and learn from the consequences of disastrous intervention in Libya in 2011? Does it make any sense to repeat the same mistake in Syria?
Why are there more radical jihadist terrorists, including the ISIS franchise in both Syria and Iraq, than there were in 2001?
In fact, the list of debate questions could go on and on. But instead of addressing these pressing matters of national security, the Senate once again kicked the can down the road, evading responsibility for whatever the president may do by letting him do whatever he wants. I am puzzled, however, as should anyone who has been watching the news since November 2016. I still cannot help wondering what in the world could motivate a group of Democratic senators, who claim vehemently to oppose the Trump agenda, to grant him unlimited, essentially monarchic, war powers.
Perhaps the senators who voted to table Senator Rand's resolution are on the take. Some Democratic senators, like many of their Republican colleagues, may receive hefty campaign funding from one or more of the many tentacles of the MIC, which in the 21st century has become the military-industrial-congressional-media-academic-pharmaceutical-logistics complex. Many parties today stand to profit from US government-inflicted homicide abroad, so the answer to my question may be as simple as that. In states whose economic well-being derives from companies with military contracts and subcontracts, senators may also fear that they will be electorally ousted if they do not unequivocally support war at every turn.
There is another possibility. Perhaps by acknowledging that the AUMFs of 2001 and 2002 do not provide the needed authorization for five of the seven wars currently underway, the Democratic senators fear that they would be admitting, too, that Barack Obama prosecuted illegal wars and assassinated suspects in violation, not only of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the UN Charter, but also the US Constitution. Perhaps the decision to side with most Republicans against Senator Paul and in favor of the assumption of monarchic war powers on the part of the president was their latest unfortunate effort to give Barack Obama the benefit of the doubt. For to deny that Trump has the right and authority to bomb Yemen, Syria, Libya, Pakistan, and Somalia, would be to assert that Obama also lacked that right and authority. Would such an admission not immediately open Obama to charges of having committed war crimes?
Whether any of these ideas surfaced to consciousness as the thirteen Democratic senators cast their vote, it cannot be denied that Barack Obama has ended up bestowing upon President Trump the gift that keeps on giving: unlimited, endless, monarchic war powers. Bravo.
Maybe I am overthinking all of this. Perhaps the thirteen Democratic senators who voted not to sunset the 2001 and 2002 AUMFs in six months so that Congress could properly debate the seven wars underway—plus whatever wars the Trump administration may decide to add to the list—North Korea, Iran, Venezuela,… the sky is the limit!—did so for the simple reason that they do not believe the anti-Trump media. They do not believe that Trump is Hitler, as antifas have been screaming since the election. They do not believe that Trump is a Russian agent, a theory which Rachel Maddow of MSNBC appears to continue to embrace. They do not believe that Trump is unhinged and ultimately unfit to be the president of the United States. In fact, if actions betray beliefs, then these Democratic senators truly believe that, far from needing to be impeached, Trump should be King!
Whatever their contorted and possibly incoherent rationalizations may have been, the Democratic senators who voted to table Senator Paul's resolution are simple cowards who doubtless believe that they will escape blame in the event of foreign policy catastrophes authorized not by them but by the president. That certainly seems like a sound explanation for Republican Senator Marco Rubio's abstention. But if these senators' vote (or refusal to vote) was a simple matter of shirking responsibility, I am afraid that those who abstained, and the thirteen Democrats who sided with Republicans to defeat Senator Paul's resolution, are all dead wrong. Refusing to debate war, a Congressional responsibility written into the US Constitution, is the same as tacit assent. The senators who effectively agreed to leave the AUMFs in place will now be directly responsible for every dead US soldier henceforth, and for every terrorist attack instigated in retaliation to US war crimes abroad.
The Vote Breakdown on the Motion to Table Senator Rand's Amendment
YEAs —61: These senators voted to table Senator Paul's amendment, in other words, not to debate the AUMFs during a six-month period before they would expire without positive Congressional action
Alexander (R-TN)
Barrasso (R-WY)
Blunt (R-MO)
Boozman (R-AR)
Burr (R-NC)
Capito (R-WV)
Carper (D-DE)
Casey (D-PA)
Cassidy (R-LA)
Cochran (R-MS)
Collins (R-ME)
Corker (R-TN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Cortez Masto (D-NV)
Cotton (R-AR)
Crapo (R-ID)
Cruz (R-TX)
Daines (R-MT)
Donnelly (D-IN)
Enzi (R-WY)
Ernst (R-IA)
Fischer (R-NE)
Flake (R-AZ)
Gardner (R-CO)
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Hassan (D-NH)
Hatch (R-UT)
Hoeven (R-ND)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
Johnson (R-WI)
Kennedy (R-LA)
Lankford (R-OK)
Manchin (D-WV)
McCain (R-AZ)
McCaskill (D-MO)
McConnell (R-KY)
Moran (R-KS)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Perdue (R-GA)
Portman (R-OH)
Reed (D-RI)
Risch (R-ID)
Roberts (R-KS)
Rounds (R-SD)
Sasse (R-NE)
Schatz (D-HI)
Scott (R-SC)
Shaheen (D-NH)
Shelby (R-AL)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Strange (R-AL)
Sullivan (R-AK)
Thune (R-SD)
Tillis (R-NC)
Toomey (R-PA)
Warner (D-VA)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wicker (R-MS)
Young (R-IN)
NAYs —36: These senators voted with Senator Paul not to table his amendment
Baldwin (D-WI)
Bennet (D-CO)
Blumenthal (D-CT)
Booker (D-NJ)
Brown (D-OH)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Cardin (D-MD)
Coons (D-DE)
Duckworth (D-IL)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Franken (D-MN)
Gillibrand (D-NY)
Harris (D-CA)
Heinrich (D-NM)
Heitkamp (D-ND)
Heller (R-NV)
Hirono (D-HI)
Kaine (D-VA)
King (I-ME)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Leahy (D-VT)
Lee (R-UT)
Markey (D-MA)
Merkley (D-OR)
Murphy (D-CT)
Murray (D-WA)
Paul (R-KY)
Peters (D-MI)
Sanders (I-VT)
Schumer (D-NY)
Tester (D-MT)
Udall (D-NM)
Van Hollen (D-MD)
Warren (D-MA)
Wyden (D-OR)
Not Voting – 3
Menendez (D-NJ)
Nelson (D-FL)
Rubio (R-FL)
Tagged AUMF, Barack Obama, Donald Trump, Rand Paul, US Senate4 Comments

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl