DIYbanter - View Single Post

John Beardmore

In message . com,
writes
sarah wrote:
Andy Hall wrote:
On 2006-12-03 17:47:04 +0000, (sarah) said:
Andy Hall wrote:

That's *your* premise, not mine. Making a range of services from a range
of providers available means no one can apply economies of scale (and

no it doesnt, no-one said they would have to be small firms.

Indeed, but three large ones will still have to drive round your area
each week where one does now, even if two of them don't pick up from
you.

What does that do for road miles per bon lifted ?

someone will have to regulate and inspect the suppliers,

same as they do now

Yes, but in your dream we'll have the same volume of waste, but three
tenders to process, and three companies to police.

but that's
another issue, sorry, set of costs).

which we already pay

And would then have to pay for more of.

I'm perfectly happy to have
essential services provided by a single supplier ultimately responsible
to me (the electorate).

this is another political myth.

A bit like the assertion that a cheaper service must necessarily use
less energy.

!

You or the electorate didnt insitute
this LA garbage recycling system in the first place, theyre not acting
as you tell them, ie theyre not serving you. With a free market the
company does serve the customer/electorate, else it loses market share
and dies.

Or alternatively, the rubbish is processed the cheapest way, regardless
of consequences.

I beg to disagree. If regulation forces manufacturers to reduce their
packaging excesses, consumers will have to buy what's available.

the overpackaging myth

Not sure that it's a myth. Many things could do with a lot less
packaging.

You're not thinking it through. No one sorted refuse in the past: you're
requiring them to do additional work. Which means the cost of refuse
disposal would rise.

au contraire, I think Andy doesnt want to pay for sorting.

Quite possibly not.

Are you proposing a two- (or more) tier cost for
refuse disposal, with one price for those of us who sort their own and
another for those who prefer not to sully their hands with it? How much
would implementing *that* cost?

nothing. You leave the market to it,

And that makes it free ? Oh good !!

and people will buy from whichever
firm does closest to what they want. It would result in economies
rather than costs.

Yes - but that makes the preferred outcome cheap, not the most
sustainable one.

Add the cost of providing sorting
facilities, hiring people to do the sorting, working out how to charge
for it... gods, they'd have to have *another* collection round for the
dirty combined stuff, which shouldn't contaminate the sorted refuse, so
they'd need more trucks and drivers... the cost would be (relatively)
astronomical.

What would happen in reality is that in the earliest days of the
market, many types of service would be offered and chosen somewhere or
other. This would provide a mass of real hard factual data about the
various options, and analysis would show which was genuinely best for
the economy, environment and so on,

Really ???

and as consumers learn about this
the choices would move toward the better options, according to the
choices of the service user. None of this happens today, which is why
we're still debating it.

And as we know from market observation, it tends to be the cheaper
services that get large market share, not the astropriced ones.

Yes - but again, that makes the preferred (cheap !) outcome cheaper,
and does nothing to the more sustainable options.

Nope, I'm afraid that if you don't want to sort your
refuse yourself, the only effective solution is for you to hire someone
to sort yours before you put it out.

why cant he have another option, such as not sorting and not recycling?
Its not like the recycling option is beyond debate.

You could have options to poo in the street too, but you may not get
huge popular support !

Fortunately (or unfortunately, depending on your PoV), those responsible
for recycling don't necessarily agree with you. And they're bound by the
regulations anyway, so neither their opinions nor yours will influence
the outcome.

does that mean they dont have power in democratically deciding this
after all?

Well - you can lobby your democratically elected members using sound
numerically supported arguments if you like.

Alternatively, you pontificate until you grow old, and never make an
effective case.

Cheers, J/.
--
John Beardmore