On 2006-12-05 08:09:52 +0000, John Beardmore said:
In message , Andy Hall writes
The point is that unless the market issues of choice are addressed as
well as customers being convinced that proposed courses of action are
genuine and have value, then they are not going to buy into the
environmental issues to the extent that you might like.
I'm not convinced.
Take a look at the history of trade and it becomes very obvious.
It's true that people need to understand the issues, but I'm not sure
we should offer any services that allow lower aggregate standards of
environmental performance than we have now. The 'prize' just doesn't
justify it.
It isn't an issue of their being a "prize", but rather of there being
more than one way to achieve an objective than letting the inefficient
public sector handle it.
For most people, the justification for separation and recycling seem to
be a separate issue to 'choice'.
I'm not sure. I think that a lot of people think it might be a good
idea because of greenwashing rather than properly justified and
explained reasons.
Some people are happy to sit back, pay their taxes and let the state
run their lives for them.
The state commits bigger crimes than asking you nicely to separate your waste.
Excess taxation being the major one. If they ask nicely, I shall
politely decline.
That does not mean that I do not think that activities to protect
the environment aren't important, but simply that they need to be
presented more honestly than they are being
Not sure that they are generally represented dishonestly...
Too many cases of stupidity based around meeting of political targets.
Waste collection is one example of it, healthcare and education are
others.
and with the implications as well as the environmental implications considered.
Indeed. Can't argue with that.
Those include the economic effects in all aspects including the
burden on the individual.
There is certainly no harm in costing these things, but there is no
reason to expect the more sustainable option to be the cheapest one in
the immediate term.
Fine. How to you intend to convince people not to buy cheap imported
Chinese goods.?
There are the issues of assorted containers hanging around the place for weeks
Well - up to a couple of weeks anyway.
and the choice for the individual.
That's certainly an issue that gets you excited, but not most people I meet.
I don't get excited about things like this. I'll simply do what I
consider to be the correct course of action.
and that it is not possible to form the positions or implement the
policies and procedures arising from them genuinely.
Depends what you mean by "genuine".
Sometimes the differences are gross enough that you don't need more
than one significant figure... Usually I suspect...
I remain to be convinced. One cannot reasonably examine every facet
and every locality in detail, but as soon as the exposures of political
targets occur, the alarm bells should ring and the whole thing be
examined. This does not seem to happen, which discredits the whole
thing.
That then begs the question of why they are being implemented, but of
course that doesn't suit the activists.
Or the EU...
Fill your boots as far as I'm concerned...
The gray train again
The considerations that should be going into this are which things are
worth doing and why and to provide solid evidence.
Agreed.
Then consideration should be given to a range of options that can be
offered to the customer.
Yes - though you might take the trouble to see if the customer wants a
choice, taking into the account the environmental consequences of the
provision of multiple services / service levels.
Customers where I live certainly do.
All the time that the arguments continue to be based on weak data,
poorly explained and only one option given, the whole exercise remains
discredited.
Well - you bleat about it as discredited and more data would certainly
be good, but most people seem happy to accept that there is a case to
recycle, and from what I've seen, this seems to be correct, though I
accept that there will be regional differences, and sometimes better
alternatives.
Better alternatives are to have a range of services available so that
the customer can decide.
I would count environmental benefit as anything that results in
more *sensble* recycling provided that there are choices in how that is
implemented in terms of the impact on the customer.
I am not going to buy into anything that doesn't meet the economic and
convenience factors first.
Well, unless you plan to place some value on the environment which you
don't seem to, that makes you more or less unable to make any of the
sorts of sacrifice that may be necessary to make society sustainable,
never mind the contraction and convergence agenda. A pretty mean
spirited and selfish stance in my view.
You are making loaded emotional arguments that are saying that
I'm saying that if you can't even be bothered to sort your own rubbish,
a low effort, low time commitment activity, you are not demonstrating
that you value the environment, or are willing to make much sacrifice
to support it.
It isn't an issue of "can't be bothered" but one of the choice between
whether I do this or someone else, who is being paid to do the job is
or is not doing it. That's a straightforward business decision and
is not on the emotional basis that you are trying to suggest.
It is not correct either to suggest that a "sacrifice" be made in order
to support something. That is the stuff of religious fanaticism.
Taking this to a more sensible proposition, I do value and support the
environment - both on a compulsary basis through taxation and on a
voluntary one through charitable donations. Again - one size does
not fit all.
- unless one participates in a set piece policy and implementation that
one doesn't care about the environment. Untrue.
Unsaid, but I expect there is a correlation.
No there isn't.
There can be many different ways of achieving objectives.
Indeed. And very few people, me included, will do all of the things
that anybody might ever regard as 'green' - I'm not saying that
everyone has to do everything, but as waste separation is a low effort
activity, most people seem willing enough to undertake it.
What contribution are you making then ?
Already stated.
anyway and contraction and convergence is unlikely to be a realistic
goal anyway.
We'll have to see. Got any equitable alternatives in mind ?
Who said that things have to be equitable?
Sacrifices tend not to happen, but rather a better and more acceptable
alternative comes along to replace them.
That's certainly the way it goes if you are well resourced.
Unfortunately, as a species, we are neither evenly or well resourced,
at least with respect to the demands the technologically developed
countries are placing on the planet.
Contraction and convergence of course seeks to address the matter of
how evenly resourced people are.
A pointless exercise, then. Some animals are always more equal than others.