HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0189.003 2008-2010
Page 1 of 2
Murashige, Laura (1'a._.;
L.j
Zt309
From: James Weatherford [gardengreen@hawaiiantel.net] 8PR
Sent: Saturday, April 04, 2009 11:06 AM P~ 8
To: counciltestimony@co.hawaii.hi.us
Subject: OPPOSE Resolution 66-09 Ir^Jr` 11~
OPPOSE RESOLUTION 66-09
1 oppose Resolution 66 as it is currently written.
I salute the enthusiasm of this Resolution's author and encourage him to withdraw this well-
intended and flawed proposal; and then to do the research necessary to bring forth a solid
proposal based on grounded evidence, rather than hype and speculation.
In its current form Resolution 66 is most definitely not good policy.
First, and fundamentally, this Resolution misrepresents what "solid waste" is about.
The "program" is said to be "processing the State's combined solid waste flow into organic
composted media". There is no indication of any awareness or need to be concerned that at
[east half of the combined solid waste flow in the state is not organic material suitable for
composting or any other biological process.
Furthermore, the justification for this major policy proposal, as laid out in the first three
Whereas statements, is based on highly speculative and unsubstantiated assertions.
In the first Whereas, no evidential basis is given for asserting "there may be significant
efficiencies..." The absence of support for this assertion means that significant inefficiencies
are at least equally as probable.
As a professional economist, in the second Whereas I would expect to see a specific
authoritative source regarding an alleged "economics of magnitude". Economies of scale,
economies of size, economies of scope, economies of co-location -with these recognized
economic analytics I am familiar and can understand the policy implications, if any, of
demonstrated, not simply speculated, impacts. Being unfamiliar with the concept of
"economics of magnitude" I am eager to [earn something new. An initial search of economic
literature reveals no such thing as "economics of magnitude".
In the third Whereas, no evidence is presented to support assertions regarding an of o4un3ity
Comm.
Ref. To:
4/6/2009 Ref. Date A PH 0 8 2009
Page 2 of 2
being "best" on this island and that there could be "significant returns". What location is "best"
for siting public investments and the nature of "returns" to those investments are policy matters
with serious potential consequence, require evidence of substance, and can not be left to
speculation.
Finally, in this Resolution that still needs work before being adopted as policy, the fourth
Whereas reveals an ill-conceived proposal. Based on the stated objective, and without any
evidence, it makes no sense to put forward "bio fuel crops" as an opportunity at the exclusion
of food crops.
The proposal is for all counties to "collaborate to develop a joint process."
What is proposed is action based on speculation.
In this citizen's opinion, that is a very risky way for you, the Council, to make policy and to
govern.
4/6/2009