DIYbanter - View Single Post

John Beardmore

In message , Andy Hall writes
On 2006-12-15 02:48:21 +0000, John Beardmore said:

In message , Andy Hall writes
On 2006-12-05 08:10:40 +0000, (sarah) said:

Consider increasing transport costs at a time
of what is laughably termed 'energy insecurity'.
I don't accept that the approach does result in increased transport
costs.
Not have you made any case to support the notion that it wouldn't.

I didn't set out to do so.

OK then, so you accept that there may well be increased transport costs
then ?

If not, why not ?

And presumably road miles, congestion etc ?

Rather you have denied it rather unconvincingly and hidden behind
the notion that you 'weren't really making a proposal at all' when
pushed...

I wasn't pushed on anything. I told you at the outset that this was
not an area of particular interest. However, I do make the point that
increasing choice does not automatically mean an increase in road miles
for collection.

You have failed to indicate any means by which it wouldn't !

Certainly moving volumes of so called material for recycling half
way around the planet does.
So stick in the LCA and measure the outcomes.

Why don't you do that?

Because it's your proposal. I've got better things to do with my time.

However, do you believe you could do so on a disinterested basis.?

No more than you.

Any calculations should be open to scrutiny.

Where it is for the benefit of all, certainly. Mind you, despite
murder
being a bad thing for society in general I think I could make a case for
it to be legalised in some circumstances.
Never mind about "society". It's a bit of a problem for the
victim as well.

Yes, but 'society' has so much longer to dwell on it !

If society existed.

Well - we thing we do. YMMV.

If you choose to jumble it all together to make one large
horrid mess,
you should certainly have to sort that out yourself.
Why? I pay for rubbish disposal.
And your rubbish is disposed of.
Then I'm happy. I am not happy if I am expected to do part of the
supplier's work for nothing. Either they reduce the price or they do
the work.
You're not thinking it through.
Yes I am.
I suppose that from your PoV, you are. You are wedded to the outdated
notion that competition on the free market spit always results in the
best of all possible worlds.
Not outdated at all. The free market has stood the test of time.
Seems to be wanting in a number of areas, particularly around
environmental exploitation, degradation and equity.

Sigh.... the old chestnuts.

They are old because capitalism has never dealt with them well.

Get used to it, because it won't change. Millennia of human
development have amply demonstrated that market distortion never
ultimately works.

Indeed, but causing ecosystems to fail isn't too smart for human
development either.

Ultimately, regulated environments don't work because people will
find a way around them if they deem them to be too intrusive.
And unregulated ones do what's cheapest and 'hang the consequences'.
So what's the right compromise ?

Freedom of choice fo rthe customer.

With no restrictions ?

But stop
proselytising the free market spit
.. are you going to stop proselytising the restricted one?

You started it !

Don't think so...

seemed to start the attack on local authorities and
rubbish collection surveys, then "I would rather pay the same, directly
to a choice of two or perhaps three companies, and not have the overhead
of the local authority at all - they are not adding value and cost a
lot". Until then, I think we were mostly about the siting of panels for
solar water heating.

while at the same time demanding
that the publicly-funded local authority supply your chosen service at
no extra charge (as quoted above "I am not happy if I am expected to do
part of the supplier's work for nothing. Either they reduce the price
or they do the work.")
At the moment they do provide the service that I am paying for,
although not particularly well.
At the point that they wish to reduce it by requiring an additional
action on my part and not on theirs,
it is a reduction in service.
Or an additional activity, depending on your perspective.
In the sense that sorting is a requirement that is imposed neither
by you or the LA, neither of you is trying to reduce the service
provided by the other - this argument is just emotional fluff.

Paying twice for a service that doesn't deliver what the customer wants
isn't emotional fluff when it is your money that is being spent.

Indeed, but that issue only arises when you buy in an additional
services, which while it's something you personally want, may be judged
to have an unacceptable environmental impact if widely imposed. Making
a market more free is not the only worthy objective.

If you want to deal with the imposition, take yourself off to the EU
and exercise your democratic right.
Rather, one of you is being asked, and may ultimately be required,
to sort waste, and this is generally held to be something that is
least resource intensive when done at source.

That is certainly fluff when there are alternative solutions and
customers are being forced into a one size fits all.

Depends how well it fits.

In my experience, most people are fairly happy.

It is ultimately up to you and the LA to decide how this might be
accomplished, but either way, you will pay, by the commitment of time
or money, if, or perhaps when it becomes a legal requirement.

If it ever does, it is reasonable for the customer to have the choice
of how it is achieved.

As long as the aim of the legislation, reduced environmental impact, is
not defeated by your providing high environmental ways of sorting waste.

For example, my car needs to be serviced periodically. I could do it
myself - I have the ability and most of the tools required. However,
I don't like titting around with cars, so I pay the garage to do it.

Rubbish disposal should be the same as that. It is state involvement
that results in the restriction of choice of service based on very
wooly arguments and that is why I believe it to be unacceptable.

Well - get a consensus and change the law then, though unless you can
show that there are real wins for the end user, without causing
significant environmental impacts, including increases in road miles,
fuel consumption, emissions and congestion, I won't be voting for you.

Cheers, J/.
--
John Beardmore