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

E-M:/ Fwd: Supreme Court Decision re Nestle





Begin forwarded message:

Date: July 26, 2007 5:35:38 PM GMT-04:00
To: Katie Hajjar <katiehajjar@yahoo.com>, Bill Hansen <beedeehansen@core.com>,  Ann Rogers <a-rogers@charter.net>,  Greg Reisig <gazingnorth@hotmail.com>,  M'Lynn Hartwell <mlynn@traversearea.com>, Julie Hay <Julie@mlui.org>,  Robert Marshall <nmeac@charter.net>,  Heather Edwards <heather@GreatPrograms.org>,  Brad Boals <bradleyboals@charter.net>,  John Nelson <baykeeper@gtbay.org>,  Robert Carstens <31rst5ns2@sbcglobal.net>,  Pei-Shan Van Zoeren <pei-shan@anthology.com>,  Victoria Bunn <toriebunn@hotmail.com>, Emmy Lou <sjatc@charter.net>
Subject: Re: Fwd: Supreme Court Decision re Nestle

Bob et al.  Another option would be to attack Nestle front on with a new tax on its bottling facilities.  As many have already noted, bottled water is a threat to the environment in several dimensions.

1.  The bottles are currently not subject to the 10 cent deposit and are therefore one of the most likely bits of litter discarded on our public roads, streams and rivers.
2   The bottles are made from petroleum.
3.  Less than 50% of the bottles are recycled.
4.  At considerable expense, the local governments provide safe potable water directly or require all households to have government inspected wells to supply potable water.
5.  Much of the bottled water sold in this area is imported from other states.  The transport of this water consumes gasoline or diesel fuel to ship it here.  

All in all, we waste considerable petroleum products to drink bottled water in lieu of using the the taps in our own homes and businesses, we increase litter and we add to the landfields if those bottles are not recycled.

I propose that all water bottled within the State of Michigan be subjected to the 10 cent bottle return fee imposed at the time of manufacture, with no exemptions for bottles that might be shipped out of Michigan.  In addition, any business selling bottled water brought into Michigan from out of state would be required to pay the 10 cent return fee when they received the water bottles.  Further, the operator of any landfill or recycling facility that received an empty water bottle would be reimbursed by the state in the amount of the 10 cent deposit, with the state allowed to seek reimbursement from the bottling company, wherever the bottle may have been filled.   

P.S., after doing two roadside cleanups for the Leelanau Dems, it may be time to raise the bottle return fee and to impose it on other products besides water as well.  No reason for fruit juice, milk, or wine to be exempt from the bottle return fee.   

Obviously, taxing the water bottling industry would cost jobs.   But those jobs are not needed when we already have the public and private infrastructure to produce safe water in all homes and businesses throughout the state.  

I'd welcome any comments on my suggestion.  

Jay Johnson, Empire. 






---- Robert Marshall <nmeac@charter.net> wrote: 
Hi,
I tossed this note into the enviromich basket and there are several  
comments.
If you follow enviromich you might pay attention to some of these.
In particular Lana Pollock notes a meeting coming up and interest in  
option 1 of the list, voting out a majority judge.  I think Mark  
Brewer would favor this also.
Such a mess!
Bonjour,
Bob M.

Begin forwarded message:

From: Robert Marshall <nmeac@charter.net>
Date: July 26, 2007 12:56:20 AM GMT-04:00
To: Enviro Mich <enviro-mich@great-lakes.net>
Subject: Supreme Court Decision re Nestle

It seems that there are several routes to correct the situation:

Vote out one of the judges in the majority;
The governor with the agreement of 2/3 of the legislature can remove  
a judge; Art. VI Sect 25
Impeach the worst judge with consent of a majority of the  
legislature and conviction by 2/3 of the senate in trial. Art. XI  
Sect. 7 A judge once impeached cannot perform his functions until  
acquitted.
Amend the Constitution to include changes to Art. IV Sect 52 making  
standing of any person part of the article and making MEPA better based.
Appeal to the US Supreme Court.  (and hope for the best.)

Any lawyers out there?


Robert Marshall
Festina Lente



Robert Marshall
Festina Lente




Robert Marshall
Festina Lente