On 2006-12-17 15:12:53 +0000, John Beardmore said:



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

There may or there may not be. The volume of rubbish remains the
same in either scenario

Transport cost would be a factor for each provider to work out and to
decide on the most cost efficient
solution.



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 !

I made the point that what actually matters is the total impact of a
situation and not just one aspect of it.



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.

But you were claiming to have a degree in the subject, so I naturally
assumed that you would have
the required set of skills.



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

No more than you.

Any calculations should be open to scrutiny.

Ah, that's OK then. It would certainly make a difference to the
current situation where all this goes on behind the scenes and the
customer gets a bill which he is forced to pay.




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.

Oh it does.......


Not outdated at all.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.

There isn't any viable alternative. Given that situation, the correct
approach is to achieve what is wanted by creating a win rather than a
loss situation such that there is incentive to take a course of action
as opposed
to a penalty for not.





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.

That depends on the extent to which you believe that human behaviour
influences ecosystems. Undoubtedly it does to some extent, the
question is the degree and indeed whether a course of corrective action
will actually make a difference.




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 ?

Refer to first point. If people find restrictions too intrusive, they
will find a way around them.




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.

You need to look more carefully.



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.

It's the only one that ultimately works.....




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.

Have they been asked the question or offered choice? Most people
would assume that the LA will continue to arrange rubbish collection
and therefore from thinking inside this restriction have no comparison.
Advancement happens from thinking outside the box and not accepting the
status quo.





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.

If you remember, there were several points made about use of technology
to sort and process waste.

Nonetheless, there is much discredit around recycling with numerous
scams going on in order to meet artificial targets. Until there is
more honesty about that, there is little point in discussing
environmental impact of measuring one detail vs. another.




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.

I wasn't seeking votes....