[Date Prev][Date Next][Date Index]

RE: E-M:/ Deforestation, Dioxin, and No CommercialLogging!-Reply -Reply -Reply



-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Enviro-Mich message from "Harris, Craig" <Craig.Harris@ssc.msu.edu>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

i wonder if one dimension of the discussion here is the distinction between
post-consumer waste versus total paper waste . . . the latter includes the
residuals from the various stages of paper-making and paper-using before the
paper is taken home by a final consumer . . . the 50 percent figure is more
credible as a percentage of total paper waste
cheers,
craig

craig k harris
department of sociology
michigan state university
429b berkey hall
east lansing  michigan  48824-1111
tel:  517-355-5048
fax:  517-432-2856


> ----------
> From: 	DAVE MERKEL[SMTP:48MERDAV@menasha.com]
> Reply To: 	DAVE MERKEL
> Sent: 	Tuesday 6 July 1999 10:22 AM
> To: 	redwingnut@sprintmail.com
> Cc: 	enviro-mich@great-lakes.net
> Subject: 	Re: E-M:/ Deforestation, Dioxin, and No
> CommercialLogging!-Reply -Reply -Reply
> 
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Enviro-Mich message from "DAVE MERKEL" <48MERDAV@menasha.com>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Lynn,
> 
> I appreciate your scepticism, but the 50% number is true. Please contact
> your regional EPA office, Fran McPoland (Federal Environmental Office),
> the Michigan Recycling Coalition, or the American Forest Paper
> Association.  Actually, most companies these days do recycle their paper,
> at least in the form of boxes. Landfill costs have continuously risen
> while recycled paper prices have gone up, making a market for recycled
> papers very strong. Flint may not recycle, but in California for example,
> they recycle heavily, bringing the countrywide average up. I am surprised
> that Flint has no Recycling program. Even little old Otsego MI has
> Recycling! Perhaps you could push the Michigan RECYCLING Coalition to work
> with Flint to become more enlightened. Good luck.
> 
> David
> 
> >>> Lynn Livingston <redwingnut@sprintmail.com> 07/05/99 02:50pm >>>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Enviro-Mich message from Lynn Livingston <redwingnut@sprintmail.com>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Dave,
> I am only a concerned citizen, not an expert, but I find the comment that
> 50% or more of paper products are recycled back into paper extermely hard
> to believe.  Many individual families do not recycle any paper, and most
> companies do not recycle paper because waste companies simply do not have
> programs to pick up recyclable waste products from business. The city of
> Flint, for instance, does not even have a curbside recycling program.
> 
> lynn livingston
> 
> DAVE MERKEL wrote:
> 
> >
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Enviro-Mich message from "DAVE MERKEL" <48MERDAV@menasha.com>
> >
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > Rachel,
> >
> > I obviously touched a nerve here.
> > I admire and respect your love of the
> > wild places. You would be surprised
> > at how much I love those areas and
> > want to protect them as well, despite
> > the fact that I work for a papermill. I figured
> > that someone would misinterpret what
> > I tried to say in my post, so let me just
> > comment on a few points with some facts
> > to keep this alive and interesting. I am very
> > very aware that no matter what I say, there
> > will be some naysayers out there who
> > will never believe anything. That is not
> > my issue. Below are some numbers
> > and ideas to consider, and are the reason
> > why I placed my first post about the
> > incorrect information being spouted
> > on this Listserv:
> >
> > 1) 46% of Michigan forests are owned
> > by private individuals. 35% is owned
> > by the public (state and federal lands),
> > with the balance owned by corporations
> > and industry. Check the 5th Forest
> > Inventory conducted by the USDA Forest
> > Service if you want more details.
> >
> > 2) At the mill where I work for example,
> > 50 % of our wood comes from harvested
> > forests. By far and away 90% of our
> > harvested wood comes from private
> > land owners. Of the non harvested
> > wood (50% of our total), 100% of it
> > comes from sawmills as scrap wood
> > which would normally be burnt or
> > discarded. Of our total fiber furnish,
> > 70% is recycled paper, 30% is hardwood
> > timber (50% of which is recycled slabwood
> > from sawmills).
> >
> > 3) Annually in Michigan, for each
> >  thousand trees, 39 new trees grow,
> > 8 trees die from natural causes (not
> > necessarily a good reason to harvest,
> > harvest, harvest, but a fact nonetheless),
> > 12 trees are harvested, leaving a net gain
> > each 1000 trees of 19.
> >
> > 4) In the UP, 84% of the acreage is
> > forested. In the Upper LP, 66% of the
> > acreage is forested. In the Lower LP,
> > 21% of the acreage is forested. Michigan's
> > timber surplus (the amount of forests
> > growing and above and beyond what
> > is harvested) is number one in the
> > nation, above:  Washington State (#2),
> > Idaho (#3), Montana (#4) and Pennsylvania (#5).
> > The majority of America's timberland
> > actually resides east of the Mississippi R.
> >
> > 5) Michigan's timberland is the fifth
> > largest in the US, exceeded only by
> > Georgia, Oregon, Alabama, North Carolina.
> >
> > 6 Paper is one place where harvested
> > and recycled wood is used. In addition,
> > the timber goes for: lumber, utility poles,
> > firewood, plywood, furniture, strandbaord,
> > log homes, paneling, particle board,
> > shingles, flooring, cabinets, fencing,
> > Christmas trees and bridges. Other
> > non-traditional thinking uses of wood are:
> > toothpaste, soap, medicine, printing inks,
> > textiles, essential oils, yarn, jelly, cosmetics,
> > glue, tires, varnish, animal bedding, wax,
> > plywood adhesives, cereal, pallets, etc.
> >
> > 7) In 1993, there were 18.6 million
> > acres of timberland in Michigan. That
> > is 1.1 million  acres more than in 1980,
> > and increase equal to twice the size of
> > average size counties in Michigan. The
> > growing stock in Michigan increased by
> > 42% during that same time.
> >
> > 8) Since 1980, Michigans forest acreage
> > of large diameter trees (greater than 10
> > inches) has increased by 55%. Small
> > poletimber (5 - 10 inches) decreased
> > 27%, and saplings (under 5 inches)
> > remained relatively constant. Since 1935,
> > the volume of growing timber in Michigan
> > has increased 160 percent.
> >
> > 9) Current consumption of wood products
> > in Michigan are 800 million cubic feet
> > per year, making Michigan a net importer
> > of wood products.
> >
> > 10) The majority of paper products
> > absolutely do not go to landfills. This is
> > absurd and contentious. Wether
> > measured in pounds,
> > tons, truckloads, nells or farthings,
> > 50% or more is recycled directly
> > back into paper (and that number
> > is growing each year), a percentage goes
> > into other products. In the packaging
> > industry, 70% is recycled directly back
> > into the papermaking loop. As I posted
> > before, the majority of the packaging that
> > is not recycled is due to being heavily
> > contaminated with wax and other
> > materials. Other papers are not recycled
> > because either people don't care enough
> > to recycle them, or because there are no
> > good means of recycling in their areas (rural
> > for the most part). The American Forest
> > and Paper Association is working
> > extremely hard to find ways to help
> > make this happen.
> >
> > 11) With regard to cheap wood products,
> > what drives down the pricing is not
> > so much the so called "free" ride, but
> > the dumping of massive amounts of truly
> > subsidized wood products from places
> > like Canada and Mexico, which nearly
> > devastated the packaging industry a
> > few years ago. It was ugly. In addition,
> > with net importers of recyclable paper
> > such as Japan paying huge premiums
> > for our products and our scrap, there is
> > a lot of pressure to balance recycled
> > versus virgin content in order to have
> > more controllable cost and an uninterrupted
> > flow of raw materials. There is some
> > sort of perverse belief out there that
> > industry somehow has endless piles
> > of cash they are hording in secret vaults,
> > and that if they would just let some of it
> > out, we could stop any  and all impacts
> > on the environment immediately. This is
> > naive and untrue. Obtain publicly available
> > reports on companies, and learn about
> > how slim profits really can be.
> >
> > 12) I believe I stated that old growth should
> > be considered and set aside to insure
> > both species diversity etc.etc. I also have
> > my own personal reasons, but they are
> > private and spiritual.
> >
> > 13) I agree there are cataclysmic and
> > titanic forces at work on our ecosystems,
> > not the least of which is our appetite for
> > "stuff". Shutting down forests is not
> > going to stop that. Learning to work
> > together for common causes will
> > help find solutions. I do not want to
> > see the wild places go away. That would
> > be an unforgivable tragedy. There are
> > people out there, and within industry
> > spouting off trying to defame each other.
> > Making someone else look bad does
> > not make you look good. That kind of
> > schoolyard argument always fails in the
> > end, and I felt like that is the way
> > some of the numbers are positioned.
> > The media of course loves it and places
> > the arguments out as facts with glee.
> > Just throw out something bad and huge,
> > and everyone wants to believe it. I don't
> > want the environmental cause to fail any
> > more than you do, but we have to recognize
> > it will take time and cooperation. If you,  I
> > or anyone else makes war, then war is
> > what we get. It is all our own fault. Pointing
> > fingers and saying we are all ok, those
> > people over there are bad people, serves
> > no purpose. Dr. Martin Luther King and
> > Ghandi found out there are other
> > much more powerful and noble ways of
> > getting things done.
> >
> > Good luck.
> >
> > David
> >
> > ~please note these are my own ideas and
> > opinions and not necessarily those of
> > Paperboard Division, Menasha Corporation~
> >
> > >>> "Rachel Martin" <rmartin@envirolink.org> 06/30/99 02:23pm >>>
> >
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Enviro-Mich message from "Rachel Martin" <rmartin@envirolink.org>
> >
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > Hello all,
> >
> > I generally stay out of discussions on this list, but I have felt
> compelled by the banter going on here to put in my two cents.
> >
> > Firstly, I do not see any figure in Murray's post that are outrageous.
> Mr. Merkel, which fantastical figures are you referring to?  To the figure
> that 90% of Northwoods timber goes to paper production?  If you have a
> different figure, I would love to hear what it is.
> >
> > There are a few "myths" that have been repeated in these posts that I
> have heard over and over.  The first is that an end to commercial logging
> on PUBLIC lands would lead to an unfair pressure on private lands and
> third-world countries.  While this may sound like a reasonable argument,
> and, of course who wants to feel responsible for the terrible
> deforestation in other countries, the situation is really much more
> complicated.
> >
> > First of all, as David Orr touched upon, paper is too cheap.  Logging on
> public lands, particularly federal lands (National Forests, BLM lands) is
> heavily tax-payer subsidized.  In addition, often times, the way that
> timber sales are designed discourages the smaller operators to have access
> to the subsidies.  And so we see the largest corporations dominating the
> public land gravy train.  This all leads to the dumping of cheap wood
> products, which makes it far more difficult for small woodlot owners and
> others who want to "do the right thing" to compete, leading to the
> liquidation of timber on private, particularly small private, holdings.  I
> guess you could draw an analogy to Wal-Mart destroying Main Street.  (Not
> to mention wetlands, woodlands, and farmlands!)  In addition, I am
> personally not against logging.  I'm supportive of truly sustainable
> logging on private lands.  But I do not believe that logging on our public
> lands is compatible with all the other uses and values!
> !
> !
>  (!
> > !
> > !
> > I include inherent values here as well)
> >
> > Secondly, unfortunately we cannot be, not should we be, the keepers of
> the world.  Destroying our own forests simply is not going to keep the
> exploitation of Third World countries from occurring.  Reducing our
> consumption, setting a good example, and working with these countries to
> share what we've learned can help the situation.  It constantly amazes me
> to hear people bemoaning the loss of rainforests in Chile while we
> continue to mow down OUR rainforests, and convert our public lands to tree
> farms.  We have no right to point fingers at other countries until we
> practice what we preach, so to say.
> >
> > And then there's the "toilet paper argument."  (I wish I had a nickel
> for every time I've heard this one!)  Despite Dave Merkel's dire
> predictions that we will no longer have any toilet paper if we stop
> logging public lands or practice truly sustainable forestry, this is just
> simply not the case.  Hell, we EXPORT vast quantities of raw (or
> mostly-raw) logs and pulp. There's no shortage here!  And, if you want to
> talk about the jobs issue, guess why you're losing 'em?  It's not the
> tree-hugging radical anti-logger preservationist forest fairies.  Value
> added jobs are drifting down the coasts to Mexico and other points south,
> across the seas to Japan, or are being eaten by the hydro feller-bunchers,
> chip mills, fiberboard plants, and other job and earth destroying
> machinery.   It only take about eight people (including management) to run
> a chip mill and two people can clearcut 100 acres in less than a day.
> That's what we're dealing with here.
> >
> > And I would agree with Dave Merkel that some alternatives to wood
> products are worse, such as plastics.  Others, like straw bale and the
> fiber alternatives that Murray lists, hold a lot of promise.  A question
> that I would have for Mr. Merkel is, where do you get the assertion that
> alternative fibers are not viable because they don't produce enough fiber
> per acre compared to wood?  I guess that if you take a myopic view, if you
> mow down an acre of kenaf you're not going to get as much fiber as if you
> mow down an acre of ancient redwood.  Or big pines and hemlocks, or a red
> pine plantation, or even not-even-mature sugar maples.  But next year on
> that same acre if you went the kenaf route you'd have another crop of
> kenaf.  If you went any of the other routes, you'd have some twigs, and
> maybe some grass.  Indeed looking long-term, an acre of hemp will yield
> ten times the amount of fiber than an acre of trees.
> >
> > Even better, why not use agricultural wastes that are burned or
> landfilled each year?
> >
> > Better than any of this, why not have people pay the real price for
> paper, create incentives for consumption reduction, stop destructful
> subsidies like those for logging on public lands, for landfills, etc.?
> >
> > One more point I;d like to address is this old growth as wasteland
> issue.  This is absurd.  Before people came and logged the forests here, I
> am quite certain that there were deer and grouse. And a lot more--moose,
> elk, wolf, cougar.  The question I pose is how on earth did these
> creatures survive before chainsaws?  How could the forests (the dead,
> dying, decadent forests) have survived without our help??!!  The fact is
> that they did.  True, there weren't quite as many deer, but then I would
> adamantly state that that's a good thing.  Today our forests are losing
> hemlock and cedar at an alarming rate, as a result, in part, of the cycle
> of clearcutting and deer overpopulation (not to mention that these species
> do not reproduce well in a clearcut).  This wise use anthrocentric view
> that we must actively manage forests lest they self-destruct is
> scientifically unfounded, absurd, and logically skewed.
> >
> > Yes, trees are renewable.  But forests are not.  True, the forest we
> have in Michigan now is vastly different than the forest that was here a
> century ago, but with each cut it's harder to go back.  Because the
> forests have been altered does not mean we should throw up our hands and
> say "it's too late."  Our public lands provide a great opportunity for
> forest recovery.  Our public lands are the best places to start the work
> toward a functional ecosystem.   We need to look at the forests, not just
> the trees.
> >
> > For a Wild Michigan!
> > Rachel
> >
> > *********** REPLY SEPARATOR ***********
> >
> > On 6/29/99, at 7:38 AM, DAVE MERKEL wrote:
> >
> >
> >-------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >Enviro-Mich message from "DAVE MERKEL" <48MERDAV@menasha.com>
> >
> >-------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >
> > >Well the "enemy" has been monitoring these communications for some time
> (I am the director of technical and environmental departments for a paper
> company in Michigan, and I take my environmental responsibilities very
> seriously). I appreciate much of the work I see going on out there to help
> our environment. You may not be able to handle this thought, but some of
> that work is being done in the front line trenches of industry by people
> who are trying to make a difference from the inside out.  I think your
> hearts are in the right place, and I agree that more work is needed.
> Improving our environment can only be a good and right thing to do.
> Perhaps it is the least we can do. When I read the posting (reprinted
> below at bottom) however I had to draw the line and speak out. I am now on
> my bully pulpit.
> > >
> > >The frank fact is that the statistics quoted by Murray on
> "Deforestation" are pure and simple fantasy. Let me elaborate. I invite
> anyone to do the math (ecological mass balance) and find that if what
> Murray said were true, our country would be a barren wasteland now, not in
> the future, but immediately. The demand for paper products (our country is
> hungry for them, from packaging, to writing papers - I agree Murray that
> we should criminilize the ridiculous junk mailings) could never be met.
> Also, if most of the paper produced came from trees and then went into a
> landfill, production would cease for over 50% of the paper production in
> our country immediately. The next time you went to get toilet paper, buy a
> TV (shipped in a recyclable box), blow your nose or start a wood campfire
> for your kids you would not be able to get what you wanted anywhere. In
> some segments of the paper industry (specifically packaging, my part of
> the industry) - the average, yes average recycling of !
> !
> !
> pa!
> > !
> > !
> > p!
> > >!
> > >er produced is 70%. The only reason it is not higher is because that
> last thirty percent has wax, plastics and  other coatings on it which make
> it impossible to recycle. Our industry has major research going on now to
> figure out how to recycle that last thirty percent. Murray, your numbers
> are a phantasmagorical nightmare. I thank God you are wrong.
> > >
> > >Writing paper, furniture, plywood for homes, paperboard for your cars
> dash, playing cards, photographic paper, not to mention 10,000 other types
> of wood products come to us as a renewable blessing from trees. Now think
> hard about this - for example, one major alternative for paper materials
> are plastics, synthetics, etc. most of which come from oil (a decidedly
> limited and certainly not renewable resource). What do you think happens
> during that plastic manufacturing process? What are the byproducts of
> their manufacture? More energy and chemicals use. Wether it be steel,
> plastics, or anything else that is "mined" only trees are our renewable
> and truly recyclable resource. They get their energy from the sun (free
> and zero pollution), they consume carbon dioxide and produce oxygen for
> animals to breath, emit water vapor to absorb heat from the sun, shelter
> us and other animals, and are magnificently beautiful, and at the peak of
> their life cycle (contrary to many peoples belie!
> !
> !
> fs!
> > !
> > !
> > ,!
> > >!
> > > trees do not live  forever) can produce the many beautiful things such
> as furniture etc. When the product is done, the carbon returns to the
> carbon cycle (if it is done right - I too have concerns over carbon
> wasting rather than returning it to the forest beds). Plastic either sits
> in landfills for a 1000 years, or beside the road, or requires massive
> input of energy to revitalize it into another product. Plastic also has a
> life - a number of times it can be recycled - but when it's life is over,
> it cannot be returned to the earth as paper and paper byproducts can.
> Plastics are a net carbon sink. I bet you don't hear the truth about that
> out there from the plastics pushers do you?
> > >
> > >With regards to alternatives to wood, I agree there are some viable
> ones out there. We have done local studies on Kenaf for example, and if
> there were an available source in the north, we would be experimenting
> with it in our process. The facts are however that per acre, Kenaf and
> bagasse and other alternatives do not produce nearly the usable mass per
> acre as trees ( in present form), and would not be able to even remotely
> fiber our nation, especially if those harvestable cellulose alternatives
> were to replace farmland (already disappearing). In addition, some
> products can be made from the alternative cellulose sources, and many
> cannot. Like all things, the physical makeup and natural characteristics
> of the alternative fiber source is important to making the final products.
> If it works it does, if it does not, it doesn't. That cannot be forced by
> wishing it so.
> > >
> > >Now, before anyone gets all upset, I, nor my company, believes that all
> trees should be cut down because they are recyclable and renewable (really
> all of us, since I assume none of you live in bark huts, eating berries,
> drinking rain water and riding your own small generator bike to power up
> and  log on to EnviroMich) We do not have a right to deforest the world,
> nor could it be done in our nation today if our legal process works right.
> Nor do I believe that old growth forests should all be cut down to prevent
> loss of the wood mass when it dies. My training is actually in biology
> (B.S. Biology 1985 Indiana University), and I know plenty about diversity,
> and the effects logging can have. If these old growth areas are managed
> correctly (basically left alone), and the other areas are replanted or
> regenerated, and allowed to go through full life cycles, then a
> sustainable forest-industry linkage is very doable. If you want to get
> scared, look at many of the foreign third world !
> !
> !
> na!
> > !
> > !
> > t!
> > >!
> > >ions, where environmental agendas are absolutely last in line after a
> population that wants to grow and modernize. Someday they, like us, will
> see what that cost them, but only after they are living comfortably.
> > >
> > >One of the things people in this state fail to realize is that 50 - 100
> years ago, this state had mostly been logged off. We built cities, and
> cradles to hold our babies, and burnt wood to keep from freezing to death,
> and cleared to make cropland to feed hungry mouths. Wether you agree or
> disagree that it should have happened is 100% immaterial. It may be
> tragic, but the fact is it happened, and now we have to go on. Many of the
> forests that you see today in Michigan, are either regeneration of
> hardwoods (most hardwood species in Michigan regenerate after cutting on
> their own), or plantings of softwoods. I have seen pictures of the Kellog
> Forest for example showing that 100 years ago that area was a barren
> wasteland being farmed into a dust bowl, with mud runoff choking the
> waters in that area. Today that area has been reforested and is gorgeous.
> Michigan is a much better place to live today than just a lifetime ago.
> Contrary to Murrays numbers, there are 30% more trees bei!
> !
> !
> ng!
> > !
> > !
> >  !
> > >!
> > >planted each year in this country than are being cut down. The
> statistics are true for Michigan as well. Contact your forest service if
> you don't believe it. The paper industry would be slitting it's own throat
> if that were not the case. If, and the big question is if, a company and
> the citizens that consume products, are good stewards, are environmentally
> conscious, and do the right thing, and control or modify our appetites, we
> will all enjoy the majesty of forest lands forever.
> > >
> > >I know there are bad players out there, and they need to be brought to
> justice, but it is untrue that all industry are evil empire building
> cultists bent on raping and destroying a planet at all costs. After all,
> who is employed at companies? Who lives in the houses all over our
> country? Who consumes products in our world? Who works for EPA and MDEQ?
> Who posts on Enviro-Mich from their plastic computers powered by
> electricity? People of course. We all do. It is simply too easy to sit
> back and make someone nameless and faceless out there the enemy. Once they
> are depersonalized, it's easy to degrade them, to take away their dignity,
> to make money on them from the uninformed and unenlightened. I for one am
> not going to let that happen to me. Our country has pushed to have laws
> enacted that makes doing the right thing an incentive and a requirement. I
> think most people given the right information and backed by the right laws
> will make the right choices - gosh even corporate CEO!
> !
> !
> 's!
> > !
> > !
> > .!
> > >!
> > > I personally am proud of the work I have done at my company in the
> last 10 years. It is a better place environmentally by far today than it
> was before I came, and if I hire in good people, and we are smart, it will
> be even better when I am gone.
> > >
> > >I invite your questions and comments.
> > >
> > >David Merkel
> > >
> > >Technical Manager
> > >Paperboard Division
> > >Menasha Corporation
> > >
> > >~please note this is my own opinion, and does not necessarily represent
> the ideas and opinions of Menasha Corporation (I have to write that!)~
> > >
> > >
> > >>>> <Murphwild1@aol.com> 06/20/99 09:30pm >>>
> >
> >-------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >Enviro-Mich message from Murphwild1@aol.com
> >
> >-------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >
> > >Greetings,
> > >
> > >Notice (below) the increase of cosponsors of the NFPRA and especially
> the
> > >political support of U.S. Representatives from Michigan, Wisconsin and
> > >Minnesota.
> > >
> > >Ninety percent, yes 90%, of our public forests logged in the Northwoods
> go
> > >for paper products. The majority of these paper products end up in
> landfills.
> > >Species are being driven to extinction, and human quality of life
> degraded
> > >for junk mail, cardboard, and squeaky white chlorine bleached corporate
> > >letterhead, while the following non-wood fiber alternatives exist:
> > >
> > >In Production:
> > >
> > >bagasse (sugarcane residue)
> > >cereal straw (wheat, rye, rice residues)
> > >cotton linters/rags (crop residue)
> > >flax (crop residue)
> > >hemp (annual crop)
> > >kenaf (annual crop)
> > >
> > >In Development:
> > >
> > >corn stover (corn residue)
> > >elephant grass (perennial crop)
> > >red fescue (perennial crop)
> > >spartina (perennial crop)
> > >switchgrass (perennial crop)
> > >vetiver (perennial crop)
> > >
> > >Current paper manufacturing processes in the Northwoods of Michigan,
> > >Wisconsin and Minnesota produce emmissions and effluent from pulp mills
> both
> > >locally and globally. These mills are currently not required to do
> > >Environmental Impact Statements for the areas in which they are
> deforesting
> > >(sourcing areas) and converting to plantations.
> > >
> > >The use of chlorine to bleach pulp has been particularly indicted for
> its
> > >production of dioxin, an organochlorine, as a byproduct. Transported
> largely
> > >through the atmoshpere, dioxin, has in the last few decades become
> globally
> > >ubiquitous and increasingly concentrated in the food chain.
> > >
> > >In vertebrates, dioxion functions as an endocrine disrupter, playing
> havoc
> > >with the reproductive systems of species ranging from alligators to
> eagles to
> > >humans. The connection between deforestation and toxics is clear. You
> dont
> > >have one without the other.
> > >
> > >Recently, Heartland Fibers, a Minnesota based pulp manufacturer, just
> > >recieved the necessary investment capital to begin construction of a
> 140,000
> > >ton/year corn stalk-based, chlorine-free pulp mill in Nebraska. It is a
> start.
> > >
> > >Is the destruction of our last remaining native and recovering forests
> in
> > >Michigan worth a few more years of fiber?
> > >
> > >For more information contact:
> > >
> > >Murray Dailey
> > >Northwoods Wilderness Recovery
> > >Murphwild1@aol.com
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Co-Sponsors of H.R. 1396, the National Forest Protection and
> > >     Restoration Act as of June 11, 1999:
> > >
> > >     1) Cynthia McKinney (D-GA)
> > >     2) Jim Leach (R-IA)
> > >     3) Gary Ackerman (D-NY)
> > >     4) Robert Andrews (D-NJ)
> > >     5) Tammy Baldwin (D-WI)
> > >     6) Thomas Barrett (D-WI)
> > >     7) David Bonior (D-MI)
> > >     8) George Brown Jr. (D-CA)
> > >     9) Michael Capuano (D-MA)
> > >     10) Bill Clay (D-MO)
> > >     11) John Conyers (D-MI)
> > >     12) Rosa DeLauro (D-CT)
> > >     13) Julian Dixon (D-CA)
> > >     14) Bob Filner (D-CA)
> > >     15) Michael Forbes (R-NY)
> > >     16) Harold Ford, Jr. (D-TN)
> > >     17) Barney Frank (D-MA)
> > >     18) Bob Franks (R-NJ)
> > >     19) Luis Guiterrez (D-IL)
> > >     20) Alcee Hastings (D-FL)
> > >     21) Rush Holt (D-NJ)
> > >     22) Jesse Jackson, Jr. (D-IL)
> > >     23) Jerry Kleczka (D-WI)
> > >     24) Dennis Kucinich (D-OH)
> > >     25) Tom Lantos (D-CA)
> > >     26) John B. Larson (D-CT)
> > >     27) Barbara Lee (D-CA)
> > >     28) John Lewis (D-GA)
> > >     29) Zoe Lofgren (D-CA)
> > >     30) Bill Luther (D-MN)
> > >     31) Carolyn Maloney (D-NY)
> > >     32) Edward Markey (D-MA)
> > >     33) Matthew Martinez (D-CA)
> > >     34) Jim McDermott (D-WA)
> > >     35) James McGovern (D-MA)
> > >     36) Marty Meehan (D-MA)
> > >     37) Carrie Meek (D-FL)
> > >     38) Gregory Meeks (D-NY)
> > >     39) Jerrold Nadler (D-NY)
> > >     40) Major Owens (D-NY)
> > >     41) William Pascrell (D-NJ)
> > >     42) Donald Payne (D-NJ)
> > >     43) Lynn Rivers (D-MI)
> > >     44) Bobby Rush (D-IL)
> > >     45) Jan Schakowsky (D-IL)
> > >     46) Jose Serrano (D-NY)
> > >     47) Pete Stark (D-CA)
> > >     48) Edolphus Towns (D-NY)
> > >     49) Stephanie Tubbs Jones (D-OH)
> > >     50) Maxine Waters (D-CA)
> > >     51) Mel Watt (D-NC)
> > >     52) Henry Waxman (D-CA)
> > >     53) Robert Wexler (D-FL)
> > >     54) Lynn Woolsey (D-CA)
> > >     55) Martin Meehan (D-MA)
> > >     56) Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-TX)
> > >     57) Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY)
> > >     58) Eliot Engel (D-CA)
> > >     59) Nancy Pelosi (D-CA)
> > >
> > >==============================================================
> > >ENVIRO-MICH:  Internet List and Forum for Michigan Environmental
> > >and Conservation Issues and Michigan-based Citizen Action.   Archives
> at
> > >http://www.great-lakes.net/lists/enviro-mich/
> > >
> > >Postings to:  enviro-mich@great-lakes.net      For info, send email to
> > >majordomo@great-lakes.net  with a one-line message body of  "info
> enviro-mich"
> > >==============================================================
> > >
> > >==============================================================
> > >ENVIRO-MICH:  Internet List and Forum for Michigan Environmental
> > >and Conservation Issues and Michigan-based Citizen Action.   Archives
> at
> > >http://www.great-lakes.net/lists/enviro-mich/
> > >
> > >Postings to:  enviro-mich@great-lakes.net      For info, send email to
> > >majordomo@great-lakes.net  with a one-line message body of  "info
> enviro-mich"
> > >==============================================================
> >
> > ==============================================================
> > ENVIRO-MICH:  Internet List and Forum for Michigan Environmental
> > and Conservation Issues and Michigan-based Citizen Action.   Archives at
> > http://www.great-lakes.net/lists/enviro-mich/
> >
> > Postings to:  enviro-mich@great-lakes.net      For info, send email to
> > majordomo@great-lakes.net  with a one-line message body of  "info
> enviro-mich"
> > ==============================================================
> >
> > ==============================================================
> > ENVIRO-MICH:  Internet List and Forum for Michigan Environmental
> > and Conservation Issues and Michigan-based Citizen Action.   Archives at
> > http://www.great-lakes.net/lists/enviro-mich/
> >
> > Postings to:  enviro-mich@great-lakes.net      For info, send email to
> > majordomo@great-lakes.net  with a one-line message body of  "info
> enviro-mich"
> > ==============================================================
> 
> 
> ==============================================================
> ENVIRO-MICH:  Internet List and Forum for Michigan Environmental
> and Conservation Issues and Michigan-based Citizen Action.   Archives at
> http://www.great-lakes.net/lists/enviro-mich/
> 
> Postings to:  enviro-mich@great-lakes.net      For info, send email to
> majordomo@great-lakes.net  with a one-line message body of  "info
> enviro-mich"
> ==============================================================
> 
> ==============================================================
> ENVIRO-MICH:  Internet List and Forum for Michigan Environmental
> and Conservation Issues and Michigan-based Citizen Action.   Archives at
> http://www.great-lakes.net/lists/enviro-mich/
> 
> Postings to:  enviro-mich@great-lakes.net      For info, send email to
> majordomo@great-lakes.net  with a one-line message body of  "info
> enviro-mich"
> ==============================================================
> 

==============================================================
ENVIRO-MICH:  Internet List and Forum for Michigan Environmental
and Conservation Issues and Michigan-based Citizen Action.   Archives at
http://www.great-lakes.net/lists/enviro-mich/

Postings to:  enviro-mich@great-lakes.net      For info, send email to
majordomo@great-lakes.net  with a one-line message body of  "info enviro-mich"
==============================================================