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

Re: [SPAM]RE: E-M:/ NEWS RELEASE: MUCC launches onlinepetition to expand Bottle Bill, schedules le




A small but perhaps major correction in this discussion.  It was Detroit Audubon Society that spearheaded the original bottle bill in the 1970s -- sponsoring the mailing of road-ditch cans by the hundreds of thousands to Lansing which created publicity and spurred legislative action.  MUCC picked up on the splash and with its strong statewide connection took media lead.  I sat on the committee with Anderson and Goemaere as the DAS rep and helped write the bill.
Dana Schindler
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2008 1:47 PM
Subject: RE: [SPAM]RE: E-M:/ NEWS RELEASE: MUCC launches onlinepetition to expand Bottle Bill, schedules le

James-
To address your point about motives: MUCC has been planning a bottle bill drive for at least two years.
 
They spear-headed the initiative in the 70s and want to update the law to reflect the current state of beverage consumption as it relates to recycling efforts and efficiency.
 
In my book, that's not a PR move; that's solid conservation work.
 
Jordan
 
Jordan Lubetkin
Senior Regional Communications Manager
National Wildlife Federation - Great Lakes Office
213 West Liberty, Suite 200 | Ann Arbor, MI 48104
 
Phone: 734-887-7109 | Fax: 734-887-7199 | Cell: 734-904-1589
 
NWF's mission is to inspire Americans to protect wildlife for our children's future. www.nwf.org/news/
 
Working to restore the Great Lakes by offering solutions to sewage contamination, invasive species and other threats. www.healthylakes.org


>>> James Lang <lang.sc.oak@hotmail.com> 6/25/2008 10:47 AM >>>

Craig:  Forgive me for skipping over your questions, but they assume a legitimacy that DM's bottle deposit campaign doesn't deserve.  This campaign is nothing more than a publicity stunt.  There was a flurry of criticism of DM and MUCC that spiked in mid-June about their involvement with Taylor and Nestle.  Then suddenly, less than two weeks before the deadline, out comes the plea to support what might otherwise be a noble cause, and it requires a 75 per cent vote!  DOA!  If there is a justification for the last-minute rush, why weren't we told on E-M what it is? 
 
Craig, you've taken the position that there's something to be said for both sides of this controversy.  If that's true, why aren't we hearing from DM?  As far as I'm aware, DM hasn't publicly disputed a single fact alleged by his critics.  Cat got his tongue?  Why are his friends and associates silent?  Is it incumbent on his critics to imagine his defense and state it for him?  Of course not.
 
The only reaction to the criticism that I've seen is the announcement of a 12 day, helter-skelter lobbying blitz for a bottle deposit amendment which looks to some of us like an effort at damage control or image refurbishing.
 
For the sake of its members and the environmental community and the public, MUCC has to define itself better.  Right wing? Left wing?  Elements of both?  If the latter, the two factions don't balance the act to create a centrist organization.  If there are two principal factions, left and right wing, and the leadership is right wing, then the organization is right wing.  Why don't they say so?  Why don't they brag about it?  Maybe it's because their membership is falling like a rock, and they can't afford to be candid about their ideology.  Nevertheless, flying a false flag is a shabby way to run an organization.
 
--  Jim Lang 


From: lang.sc.oak@hotmail.com
To: charles.cubbage@comcast.net; craig.harris@ssc.msu.edu; ajs@sagady.com; enviro-mich@great-lakes.net
Subject: RE: [SPAM]RE: E-M:/ NEWS RELEASE: MUCC launches online petition to expand Bottle Bill, schedules le
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2008 09:21:55 -0400


Exactly, Chuck.  You scooped me on the "effectively dead" point, but I'll restate it my way shortly anyhow. --  Jim

From: charles.cubbage@comcast.net
To: lang.sc.oak@hotmail.com; craig.harris@ssc.msu.edu; ajs@sagady.com; enviro-mich@great-lakes.net
Subject: Re: [SPAM]RE: E-M:/ NEWS RELEASE: MUCC launches online petition to expand Bottle Bill, schedules legislative
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2008 16:37:01 -0400

Politics and social issue resolution efforts among the variety of players, across time, make for interesting bedfellows.  Craig's points are well taken.  At the same time, the motives for MUCC support needs to be carefully examined.  Support for an issue that is effectively dead is no support, but empty positioning for the sake of image.
Regards,
Chuck 
----- Original Message -----
From: James Lang
Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2008 1:02 PM
Subject: [SPAM]RE: E-M:/ NEWS RELEASE: MUCC launches online petition to expand Bottle Bill, schedules legislative


Craig:  Yours was a thoughtful response.  More later.  --  Jim Lang

Subject: RE: E-M:/ NEWS RELEASE: MUCC launches online petition to expand Bottle Bill, schedules legislative
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2008 12:23:36 -0400
From: Craig.Harris@ssc.msu.edu
To: lang.sc.oak@hotmail.com; ajs@sagady.com; enviro-mich@great-lakes.net

I would hope that there might be a relatively robust discussion on enviromich of alex’s suggestion . . .

 

I don’t think the situation is as clear as alex and james seem to feel it is . . . indeed, I think that strong arguments can be made on both sides of the question . . .

 

all movement organizations have to deal with questions concerning what temporary coalitions are supportable and which one’s not . . .

 

to my mind, the question seems to turn, at least in part, on the extent to which different interests are benefited by the temporary coalition . . .

 

I think people would agree that the health of the environment is benefited by a deposit on water bottles . . .

I understand the argument that the environmental benefit is not as great if large water bottles are not included, but I also wonder if the discarding of large water bottles is much of a problem . . .

 

I think the reputation of various environmental organizations would be enhanced by association with the expanded bottle bill, and I don’t think their reputation would be significantly diminished by temporary coalition with mucc . . .

 

I think that the reputation of mucc will be enhanced by association with the expanded bottle bill, and my sense is that some environmental persons would like to diminish the benefit that mucc can gain from the expanded bottle bill effort . . .

I understand the tactical argument that it is more important to keep the spotlight on the negative impacts of mucc/muchmore on the public trust including water, than to obtain the benefit of passage of a partially expanded bottle bill . . .

 

three questions occur to me . . .

 

is it not possible to form a temporary coalition with mucc for the partially expanded bottle bill and at the same time keep the negative spotlight on the mucc/muchmore/tahylor impacts on the public trust doctrine . . .

 

if many environmentalists and environmental organizations boycott the mucc initiated expanded bottle bill effort, will that significantly diminish the benefit that mucc gets from its association with the effort . . .

 

if many environmentalists and environmental organizations boycott the mucc initiated expanded bottle bill effort, is that likely to lead mucc to suspend the effort . . .

 

if the answer to the first question is yes, and the answers to the second two questions are no, then it seems to me that the costs of a boycott outweigh the benefits . . .

 

cheers,

 

craig

 

craig k harris

department of sociology

michigan state university

east lansing  michigan  48824-1111

usa

.