On 2006-12-29 01:27:46 +0000, John Beardmore said:

In message , Andy Hall writes

Have you actually been to Brussels and seen the machinery of the EU at
work? It made me physically sick to see the waste of time, effort
and money that goes on there.

I don't doubt it, but if dealing with the environmental problems we
face is any kind of a priority, and some of us think it is, we'll work
with the institutions we have thanks - especially when they seem to
getting something right.

It would be if they were. It's cloud cuckoo land to believe that is the case.



There is nothing wrong with unconditional choice in and of itself.
already said that each supplier would have to have a minimum offering
to meet minimum requirements.
Yes - the key word here is 'minimum'.

Again, those who would like to buy services over and above the minimum
or go sorting through rubbish as a Sunday afternoon outing are at
liberty to do so.

Indeed - but this hardly protects global commons.

Yes it does if it makes the difference to objectives being met or not.
Your assumption is that everybody has to be forced into sorting their
own rubbish for that to happen. I don't accept that principle, simple
as that.




and are unwilling to admit to mistakes. That's the most dangerous
situation of all.
No wonder with you breathing down their necks !
Nobody breathes down anyone's neck provided that they are doing what
they should be doing.
Maybe. Without knowing the history of the interaction between you and
your LA it's hard to know. Though I doubt you and your LA agree on
what they should be doing. You may be breathing down their necks just
because they doing what the law dictates.

I am sure that the law doesn't dictate that they need to bring in firms
of management consultants to do the work that their own staff should be
doing. One or the other should be dispensed with.

Well - I can't comment on the particular situations you identify, but
I don't see this kind of thing going on around here.

Have you looked?



I'm simply making the point that ivory tower academics are not
normally in very good touch with economic reality and therefor should
provide only a small data point and nothing more.
I'm not at all sure that industry demonstrates any clue about
sustainable development either.

Have you looked?

Very extensively.

Which isn't to say that no progress has been made of course - but what
there is, is massively short of achieving sustainability !

have you asked why or thought about it? Could matching services to
customer requirements have anything to do with it, or incentivising
businesses?





I am simply not going to accept that one-size-fits-all solutions
which assume that I take a specified role are the way to go.
You may not like them, but legislation ultimately determines what we
have to accept.
Unless legislation is changed or people choose to ignore it. This is
the ultimate result of over regulation and the problem then comes that
the good and useful things are ignored along with the worthless.
Yes - a lot of truth in that - which is probably why a lot of silly
town hall waste interpretations are ignored - but other things too.

Hardly a situation in which to encourage co-operation from people is it?

I don't know. Lines have to be drawn somewhere, and different
authorities and individuals will see various benefits to drawing them
in different places. I don't agree with our LA on a lot of the
details, but it doesn't stop me co-operating with them, advising them,
or occasionally taking the **** out them.

I don't see them as benevolently. They are a huge drain on financial
resources with a poor ROI. Apart from a few professional services
such as building control, which does have value, they behave
arbitrarily and do not provide what their customers want. What is even
worse is that they largely don't realise it.




Before you make the next suggestion of altering patterns of
consumption; forget it.
I don't suppose you big fan of measuring progress other than by GDP,
or Contraction and Convergence either ?
Clearly defined measurements and outcomes are the key way.
Yes - it's a question of which indicators and what changes you regard
as good outcomes though.
Freedom of choice for the individual.
Only that ?

No, but I think it's the most important,

Hmmm... I'm inclined to feel that in the long term, the most important
issue is still having a planet where a reasonably sized human
population can survive, and I doubt that unrestricted freedom of choice
can deliver that.

Ultimately, freedom of choice is what does happen. What happens in
addition are financial and other implications. Unnatural
restriction doesn't work because if people feel it's unreasonable, they
will find a way around it.




are met in one way or another.

Well - if you had in mind good environmental outcomes, they aren't
being at the moment !

If you didn't have them in mind, why not ?

As I've said, it depends on what you measure.




Therefore, I think it's quite reasonable to suggest that provided that
the outcome is achieved, the method, in terms of who does the work is
irrelevant.
Not if the total effort required to do the job is increased.
As long as the cost is covered, it's irrelevant.
From your perspective perhaps.
I'm the customer.....
But not the only customer, not the only type of customer, and not all
stakeholders are customers.
Stakeholders are at liberty to become customers if they are not suppliers.
I had in mind more that the EU is a significant stakeholder.

??

Customers are not the only stake holders.

They are, however, the main ones. Without them, the others are not
significant because there is nothing to discuss.



The full set of stake holders includes all the people whose lives are
changed as a consequence of our actions.

Too nebulous.


You might want to consider mitigating your environmental impacts for
their benefit.


I do already by paying for services to deal with the issue. I would
prefer to pay for services
that match my requirements better and produce a better outcome as well.