On 2006-12-28 00:27:24 +0000, John Beardmore said:

In message , Andy Hall writes
On 2006-12-18 02:19:29 +0000, John Beardmore said:

Or time.
But I think there are some things like eating and going to the toilet
that we seldom depute to others.
Really? Letting the government run services is exactly doing that
i.e. letting others wipe our arses.
Sorting your own waste takes the process under your control.

I can have control by paying somebody else to do the work

But it's hard to see how that can be done without increasing the
environmental footprint.

Perfectly simple. "Environmental footprint" is a nebulous term.
If this is something that makes the difference between recycling being
done or not being done, then (assuming that the recycling was worth
doing in the first place), the environmental footprint will have been
reduced.




The trouble is that the government always uses Bronco sheets and tells
us that it's Andrex.
N/A in this case.

Very applicable.

Mere diversionary word games.

Depends on whether you are happy with Bronco. You introduced the
topic of botty wiping.



Maybe sorting our own waste might be seen in that light.
If we are stupid enough to buy into that notion
If it gives the lowest environmental impact, it may not be 'stupid'
but 'responsible'.

That's pseudo-moral-highground-

Well - it wasn't about that, but why do you think you feel that way ?

I don't think how I feel, I know how I feel.



not impressed.

I don't care if you're impressed. I care if you are living with a
reasonable environmental footprint.

I am. However, it has to be consistent with all other activities.



I care far more however, if by imposing a market on those who don't
really care, you manage to increase the environmental footprint of
thousands of people.

You can't *impose* a market. The whole point is that it's a free
choice, which is not what we have today. The imposition is the status
quo.