On 2007-01-18 00:59:04 +0000, John Beardmore said:


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.

I don't really care whether you do or don't.

There is no need to have done detailed work with these organisations
either to figure out that the value is limited. One only has to look at
the inputs (substantial amounts of money), a few data points in the
middle (e.g. large numbers of bureaucrats and hangers-on populating
Brussels) and the outputs (little of value and very little in touch
with commercial reality)



In the mean time we are back to allegation and assertion.


No we aren't.




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 ?

Already described several times.



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.

There *may* be a point to *some* of it.


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.

Assuming that it is worthwhile at all (a big assumption), if it makes
the difference between it happening or not, then sorting it elsewhere
is better than not having it done at source.





I don't accept that principle, simple as that.

We guessed that I think. Does that make you right ?

Yes.



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 ?

One doesn't need to look. A light scratch of the surface reveals all.




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 ?

Already described.


To live sustainably ?

Depends on your definition of sustainably.


To shovel waste for the lowest price ?

To shovel waste for the lowest price consistent with where and how it
needs to be shovelled.




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 ?

No I don't. Not taking tax requires very little government intervention.



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.

Not as far as I'm concerned. There is more than ample evidence.




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 job creation schemes.




and do not provide what their customers want.

They are not there to provide what customers want.

That is precisely why they are there. They are being paid to do a
job for their customers and should do it.


If you think they should be, you have to address bigger issues !

Scaling down of the public sector is simple enough. Remove the
regulation nd you remove the need to measure and regulate. This
makes a pool of people available to do more gainful things. Whether
they are able to do them is a separate discussion but not a reason to
maintain worthless positions.



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...

Discuss what?

Of course people can't always get what they want. However, they can
within the range of what is available and the customer's ability and
willingness to pay, just like any other transaction.




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 ???

The choice of those in a position to influence. Ultimately, that is
those with the financial ability to do so.



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.

Of course. The question then becomes their ability to work around it.



Or maybe we should be debate which restrictions are 'natural' or maybe
even which boundary conditions are 'imposed by nature'.

Some are and some are not. Some can be influenced and some not,.




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 ?

Therein lies the great debate. Which are influenced by man's presence,
which are not, which might be. Nobody has accurate answers to those
questions.





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'.

No I shouldn't. The concept of "citizens duties to each other" is a
nebulous one at best and smacks of collectivism at worst.
Governments are ultimately a service organisation. They don't
actually produce anything but are net users of resources. That use
should be minimised and individuals given the choices on where, when
and how they wish to spend their hard earned income.



Don't confuse your aspirations with reality !!

Realities are economic realities within the scope of human development.



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 !

There is, but until or unless those fundamentals are right, the rest
doesn't happen.



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

Too nebulous.

Too bad...

Yes it is.



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 ?

It isn't sub-optimal for me.


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.

Why? I didn't ask to have my rubbish separated, and neither did I
volunteer to do so.


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.


I would rather not pay at all because I am not at all convinced about
the value. Nonetheless, I have already indicated that I am willing
to pay for such a service to be carried out, in the same way as I pay
for somebody to sweep the streets and cut the grass in the park.