In message , Andy Hall writes
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.
I'll take notice of that opinion when you show any evidence of having
done any environmental work with any institutions.
In the mean time we are back to allegation and assertion.
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.
Which objectives ?
Your assumption is that everybody has to be forced into sorting their
own rubbish for that to happen.
There are many ways global commons can be protected, and our dependence
on them is clear enough - there is a point to all this.
Sorting waste is only part of the issue. It might be possible to live
sustainably without sorting waste at source, but if sorting it elsewhere
has greater impacts, it's unlikely to be an efficient way to be
sustainable.
I don't accept that principle, simple as that.
We guessed that I think. Does that make you right ?
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 don't look for problems so much as ways forward.
Maybe you go looking for trouble and find it ?
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
Which requirements ?
To live sustainably ?
To shovel waste for the lowest price ?
have anything to do with it, or incentivising businesses?
You mean have massive government intervention to bend the financial
structure of the universe away from capitalist excess towards something
else ?
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
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.
Well - much of that is open to debate I think.
Apart from a few professional services such as building control,
which does have value, they behave arbitrarily
Perhaps in part because they are led by political whim.
and do not provide what their customers want.
They are not there to provide what customers want. If you think they
should be, you have to address bigger issues !
What is even worse is that they largely don't realise it.
I'm sure they are very well aware of what their duties actually are, and
that many people don't get they want.
But people can't always have what they want. Or do you think they
can ? Discuss...
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.
! Whose choice ???
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.
Hmmm... I think on careful inspection, you'll find that most peoples
are repressed in various respects.
Or maybe we should be debate which restrictions are 'natural' or maybe
even which boundary conditions are 'imposed by nature'.
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.
Well - which environmental outcomes do 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.
Well - not always in any particularly direct way. This isn't Tescos -
this is government we are talking about, and maybe you should think
'citizens with duties to each other' rather than 'customers with a right
to purchase'.
Don't confuse your aspirations with reality !!
Without them, the others are not significant because there is
nothing to discuss.
Who ? Citizens or customers ?
All the worlds a shop where all the men and women are merely economic
units ?
I think there's more to it than that !
The full set of stake holders includes all the people whose lives
are changed as a consequence of our actions.
Too nebulous.
Too bad...
You might want to consider mitigating your environmental impacts for
their benefit.
I do already by paying for services to deal with the issue.
That may be quite sub optimal however, and in this specific case I
thought you stated that you were refusing to separate your rubbish ?
If so, it's a bit disingenuous to say "I do already by paying for
services to deal with the issue", as clearly it isn't a service that's
intended to be provided out of the tax you pay.
If you want to change this, the usual democratic channels are open to
you.
I would prefer to pay for services
that match my requirements better and produce a better outcome as well.
Wanting to pay for an environmentally better service doesn't stop
entropy precluding it.
Cheers, J/.
--
John Beardmore