wrote in message
ups.com...



There's certainly overwhelming evidence of lies, deliberate
misinterpretation of data and political interference.

Tell us what they are.

Mary

"Guy King" wrote in message
...
The message
from David Hansen contains these words:

In the UK there are charges for uplifts of such things in many
areas. These charges have been in place for a number of years and I
haven't noticed a rise in them being dumped somewhere.

Certainly have round here. People without cars, without sufficient funds
to pay for disposal end up tipping stuff by the roadside.

How do they get it there?

And how do you know it's done by people without sufficient funds?

Mary

The message
from "Mary Fisher" contains these words:

Certainly have round here. People without cars, without sufficient funds
to pay for disposal end up tipping stuff by the roadside.

How do they get it there?

Drag it.

And how do you know it's done by people without sufficient funds?

If you lived round here, Mary, you wouldn't ask that.

--
Skipweasel
Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.

"Guy King" wrote in message
...
The message
from "Mary Fisher" contains these words:

Certainly have round here. People without cars, without sufficient
funds
to pay for disposal end up tipping stuff by the roadside.

How do they get it there?

Drag it.

You've seen 'em?

LOL!

And how do you know it's done by people without sufficient funds?

If you lived round here, Mary, you wouldn't ask that.

That doesn't answer my question though ...

The message
from "Mary Fisher" contains these words:

Drag it.

You've seen 'em?

LOL!

Yup - and had words with 'em about it. I've also made loads of trips to
the dump for neighbours who otherwise have no way of getting rid of
bulky items.

And how do you know it's done by people without sufficient funds?

If you lived round here, Mary, you wouldn't ask that.

That doesn't answer my question though ...

I did say that some was and some wasn't. I certainly know that one lot
was 'cos my kids play with their kids and I know how the household is
run.

--
Skipweasel
Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.

In message , Andy Hall writes
On 2006-11-29 00:33:29 +0000, John Beardmore said:

In message , Andy Hall writes

That question would be "Which services would you like, for how
long are you willing to commit to a deal and is price X acceptable?"

Well - that's your view.
It's called the view of the market.
I'd rather the views of the consumer be heard. That doesn't always
involve imposing a market on them.

So would I. The most effective way for that to be measured is by
where they choose to spend their money.

Well - for the time being I choose to spend mine as I have been in the
past, and would rather resources were not wasted duplicating that
provision.


Some people may not voice it in these terms, but this is the
essence of a commercial transaction.
It could be represented as that, but it abandons the notion of
government acting in the collective interest, and ignores any notion
of social transaction.

Governments acting in the collective interest is one of the biggest
lies of history and could be a fourth in the series "The cheque's in
the post". Governments act in self perpetration and little more.

Seems to me they do both.


Social transaction - if there is such a thing, which I doubt - is not
relevant to a deal being made for the collection of rubbish from my
perspective.

You are no doubt entitled to your perspective.


If you would like to introduce a social transaction element into your
agreement, then hopefully you can find a supplier to include it.
Quite what that would be - who knows.?

There is one there already I think. That you have no sense of it comes
as little surprise.


Cheers, J/.
--
John Beardmore

In message . com,
writes
Owain wrote:
Andy Hall wrote:

The question is whether it's one of the types of plastic that is
currently recycled in a particular area.
Fine. So if the local authority wants to differentiate over this issue,
it can get it's employees sifting through these bottle.

I don't see why they can't put people on 'community service' doing this
sort of thing.

Owain

Maybe because there are far more useful things to have convicts doing
than this. Labour is worth money.

If recycling of sorted goods is going to work, companies buying the
materials need to either:
- sort them, at their own cost,

So I want aluminium and I have to buy mixed waste ?


- or accept payments from customers willing to pay for their rubbish to
be sorted (this happens in the commercial/industrial garbage business)
- or accept ready sorted garbage from those customers wiling to spend
their valuable time sifting their garbage.

Well - it doesn't take long.


At present the nation is expected to put a sizeable amount of hours
each week into rubbish sorting at home, for free, when the companies
that get the sorted goods should be responsible for this.

Hours ?!?


If it really
were a good value thing to do with ones time, this would work fine
economically. The truth is it doesnt, it doesnt even begin to. Which
means rubbish sorting is a very poor value way to spend ones time and
labour.

Takes seconds round here !


This has a direct negative environmental impact, as those hours could
be spent doing something genuinely useful, some of which things would
inlude the things you want to see happen, such as installation of
insulation, solar hw, working in socially positive jobs and so on.

Works for us !


I think one of the things that Peter Harper at CAT said a few years ago
re waste separation was

"Quit while you're ahead !".


He explained this to mean

Separate everything that can quickly be separated.

Don't waste time on things with no residual value that nobody wants.


Works for me.


Cheers, J/.
--
John Beardmore

In message om,
writes

Lack of competition. The concept of free at the point of use is an
umbrella terms for wastage, incompetence and inefficiency.

Also for 'access', 'relief of poverty', and 'facilitating change'.

Yes, F@POU services do distort markets hugely, but maybe sometimes it's
worth it ?

I'll vote for that.

OK - good.


But I for one don't want sycophancy from bin men - I want to know that
the waste I give them, sorted where appropriate, is disposed of with the
minimum practicable environmental impact, even if that's not necessarily
the cheapest option.

So tell us, afai concerned youre welcome to that, but why do you feel
an urge to dictate what the rest of us do, against our will? Maybe by
the very same justification we should dictate what you do, and force
you to have the service we want?

I have no more right to dictate than anybody else does. What we have
been talking about is what we WANT, and the axioms that underpin our
relationship with the environment and government.

But I do have a right to express what I think the priorities should be
in making a determination, which I do. I contribute my thoughts freely
to the debate in the hope, rather than expectation, that they will help
what I regard as 'common sense' prevail.

I freely acknowledge that acting on my wishes would deny you access to
uniformed sycophantic bin men and other perks of the market, but the
very act of establishing a competitive market is also likely to
undermine the environmental outcomes I seek, even if the service we have
now continues to be available, so simply putting a market in place may
deny me, and others, my preferred outcome.

I don't think there are any overriding 'rights' here. We should all
have a right to make practicable choices, and we should all have a right
to live sustainably as far as is practicable. In the technical sense of
the word, this is a classic 'messy' problem.

I seek to address it by asking people the real value of the outcome they
seek, and the real cost of the alternatives.

All of the above said, if somebody wants to put up a detailed LCA case
for a market based solution that indicates real net environmental
benefits, I'm up for examining it.

I can certainly see the problem with f@pou services, but if I felt the
urge to do something about bundled services and f@pou, (pronounce it
'fat poo' if it helps !), I'm sure I could find an example whose
resolution would bring real benefit, rather than one which might well
not.


Cheers, J/.
--
John Beardmore

In message . com,
writes
Andy Hall wrote:
On 2006-11-27 22:40:25 +0000, John Beardmore
said:

There will always be a vociferous few, but where as I've met lots of
people that want LAs to do better, you are the first one I've met who
wants them out of the loop except in a licensing and policing role like
they are already.

That shows just how politically clueless our population has become.

Or that alternative bin collections are seen as really underwhelmingly
dull and / or pointless !!


The important thing is tht the customer receives the service that he
is paying for.

No - that's only AN important thing. There are others.

Does that mean you would like to be able to decide what others get
instead of them deciding?

No - it means that I want to point out that I think, (as do some
others !), that there are other important things.


Cheers, J/.
--
John Beardmore

On 2006-11-30 02:20:16 +0000, John Beardmore said:

In message , Andy Hall writes
On 2006-11-29 00:33:29 +0000, John Beardmore said:

In message , Andy Hall writes

That question would be "Which services would you like, for how long
are you willing to commit to a deal and is price X acceptable?"

Well - that's your view.
It's called the view of the market.
I'd rather the views of the consumer be heard. That doesn't always
involve imposing a market on them.

So would I. The most effective way for that to be measured is by
where they choose to spend their money.

Well - for the time being I choose to spend mine as I have been in the
past, and would rather resources were not wasted duplicating that
provision.

That's fine. However, provision is not being duplicated (because of
different services) and if there are more vehicles required likely to
be smaller ones anyway.

Obviously, one would hope that you wouldn't seek to reduce the choice
of others who do not have the same order of priorities in terms of the
impact of additional choices of supplier.



Social transaction - if there is such a thing, which I doubt - is not
relevant to a deal being made for the collection of rubbish from my
perspective.

You are no doubt entitled to your perspective.

Of course.




If you would like to introduce a social transaction element into your
agreement, then hopefully you can find a supplier to include it. Quite
what that would be - who knows.?

There is one there already I think. That you have no sense of it comes
as little surprise.

Oh I do. For the moment, the supplier is offering the service that I
want (although his choice is limited) to one thing which is not good).
Secondly, I would prefer to negotiate my own deal rather than letting
the LA do so for me and applying its markup.

On 2006-11-30 03:01:53 +0000, John Beardmore said:



I have no more right to dictate than anybody else does. What we have
been talking about is what we WANT, and the axioms that underpin our
relationship with the environment and government.

Ultimately, these are the axioms that underpin most things. If people
experience too many things not to their liking, they will take action.
This begins with choosing to buy elsewhere, including behaviour at
the ballot box. It also includes people ignoring stupid legislation,
as we are starting to see.


But I do have a right to express what I think the priorities should be
in making a determination, which I do. I contribute my thoughts freely
to the debate in the hope, rather than expectation, that they will help
what I regard as 'common sense' prevail.

It may seem like common sense to you, but I would prefer to take the a
la carte menu and to choose which things I believe to be worthwhile and
leave aside things that I don't. I am not interested in people who
can't come with definable cases for actions and outcomes attempting to
run my life for me.



I freely acknowledge that acting on my wishes would deny you access to
uniformed sycophantic bin men and other perks of the market, but the
very act of establishing a competitive market is also likely to
undermine the environmental outcomes I seek, even if the service we
have now continues to be available, so simply putting a market in place
may deny me, and others, my preferred outcome.

That's fine, but then you will understand that others will not hold
that view and will make decisions not to co-operate with schemes where
no choice is on offer.



I don't think there are any overriding 'rights' here. We should all
have a right to make practicable choices, and we should all have a
right to live sustainably as far as is practicable. In the technical
sense of the word, this is a classic 'messy' problem.

The issue here is around the definition of practicable. For me, that
strongly includes the amount of time taken and the economic factors.
Any of these things have to pass those two tests first. If they
don't, then for me they are not practicable.



I seek to address it by asking people the real value of the outcome
they seek, and the real cost of the alternatives.

All of the above said, if somebody wants to put up a detailed LCA case
for a market based solution that indicates real net environmental
benefits, I'm up for examining it.

That would need to be done by a set of impartial and disinterested
people, and one is quite unlikely to do so. I would count
environmental benefit as anything that results in more *sensble*
recycling provided that there are choices in how that is implemented in
terms of the impact on the customer.
I am not going to buy into anything that doesn't meet the economic and
convenience factors first.

wrote:

Owain wrote:
Andy Hall wrote:

The question is whether it's one of the types of plastic that is
currently recycled in a particular area.
Fine. So if the local authority wants to differentiate over this
issue, it can get it's employees sifting through these bottle.

I don't see why they can't put people on 'community service' doing this
sort of thing.

Owain

Maybe because there are far more useful things to have convicts doing
than this. Labour is worth money.

If recycling of sorted goods is going to work, companies buying the
materials need to either:
- sort them, at their own cost,
- or accept payments from customers willing to pay for their rubbish to
be sorted (this happens in the commercial/industrial garbage business)
- or accept ready sorted garbage from those customers wiling to spend
their valuable time sifting their garbage.

At present the nation is expected to put a sizeable amount of hours
each week into rubbish sorting at home, for free,

Em. It doesn't take long to separate waste at domestic level especially if
said waste is limited by avoiding taking home too much in the first place.

when the companies
that get the sorted goods should be responsible for this.

And will pay (far less) for mixed feed stock accordingly. Or go elsewhere.

If it really
were a good value thing to do with ones time, this would work fine
economically. The truth is it doesnt, it doesnt even begin to. Which
means rubbish sorting is a very poor value way to spend ones time and
labour.

If rubbish comes 'mixed' then yes: diminishing returns kick in.

This has a direct negative environmental impact, as those hours could
be spent doing something genuinely useful, some of which things would
inlude the things you want to see happen, such as installation of
insulation, solar hw, working in socially positive jobs and so on.

Take 10 busted metric pallets, dismantle same, build (a) 1 compost bin of ~1
cu metre capacity to suit available space, (b) temporary storage shelving
to tidy up the workshop and (c) have enough boards left to make a cold
frame using glass from a scrap double-glazed door.

:-)

On Thu, 30 Nov 2006 02:27:21 +0000 someone who may be John Beardmore
wrote this:-

those customers wiling to spend
their valuable time sifting their garbage.

Well - it doesn't take long.

Indeed. I think the main thing needed is a little organisation, just
like many things.

As Phil said the main thing is to reduce the amount of packaging and
the like taken into the house and reuse some of it. After that it
depends what the scheme is on one's area. If there is a scheme where
staff sort a mixed box at the kerbside then anything recyclable just
goes into a suitable container, to be taken out when convenient. If
there are separate bins then it makes sense to have separate
containers (or a multi- compartment container) corresponding to each
bin, which are taken out as necessary. The containers can be canvas
or string bags hung on hooks, some sort of box or even just little
piles somewhere convenient.

Properly organised one has the item in one's hand and instead of
throwing it in a residual waste bin one throws it in the appropriate
container.

Taking things out to put in a box or bin beside the residual bin is
no more difficult than taking things out to put in the residual bin.
Wandering past a recycling point and dropping things in can
generally be organised as part of another trip.

If some people really think this is too difficult or takes too long
then perhaps they should ask their local waste advisor to give them
some advice.



--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

On Thu, 30 Nov 2006 03:07:55 +0000 someone who may be John Beardmore
wrote this:-

That shows just how politically clueless our population has become.

Or that alternative bin collections are seen as really underwhelmingly
dull and / or pointless !!

I think that is the case. I imagine if it was considered a good idea
then the Tories (either the pre 1997 ones or the post 1997 ones)
would have extended the market idea from business to dwellings. That
is what was done with electricity and gas, but I see no sign of it
being considered for waste.

People are free to stand for election on a manifesto which includes
such a change, should they think it would be popular with the
voters. If they get enough votes then they would presumably try and
put it into action. I don't think there would be many votes in it,
but the public would decide.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

On Nov 29, 10:01 pm, "Mary Fisher" wrote:
wrote in oglegroups.com...



There's certainly overwhelming evidence of lies, deliberate
misinterpretation of data and political interference.

Tell us what they are.

It's all out in the public domain if you care to look. Some of the most
basic being the suppression of data for the medieval warm period and
the "little ice age" in order to come up with graphs showing a steadily
increasing temperature, rather than the actual variations over the last
two millenia.

MBQ

"John Beardmore" wrote in message
...
snip

This has a direct negative environmental impact, as those hours could
be spent doing something genuinely useful, some of which things would
inlude the things you want to see happen, such as installation of
insulation, solar hw,

Andy seems to have changed his opinion about solar hw ...


Works for us !


I think one of the things that Peter Harper at CAT said a few years ago re
waste separation was

"Quit while you're ahead !".


He explained this to mean

Separate everything that can quickly be separated.

Don't waste time on things with no residual value that nobody wants.


Works for me.

And us.

Mary


Cheers, J/.
--
John Beardmore

"David Hansen" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 30 Nov 2006 02:27:21 +0000 someone who may be John Beardmore
wrote this:-

those customers wiling to spend
their valuable time sifting their garbage.

Well - it doesn't take long.

Indeed. I think the main thing needed is a little organisation, just
like many things.

As Phil said the main thing is to reduce the amount of packaging and
the like taken into the house and reuse some of it. After that it
depends what the scheme is on one's area. If there is a scheme where
staff sort a mixed box at the kerbside then anything recyclable just
goes into a suitable container, to be taken out when convenient. If
there are separate bins then it makes sense to have separate
containers (or a multi- compartment container) corresponding to each
bin, which are taken out as necessary. The containers can be canvas
or string bags hung on hooks, some sort of box or even just little
piles somewhere convenient.

Properly organised one has the item in one's hand and instead of
throwing it in a residual waste bin one throws it in the appropriate
container.

As soon as a recyclable happens in our house I take it straight to the
green bin outside - it's part of my exercise routine :-) Non recyclables
are put in a carrier hanging next to the door. When it's full (up to twice
a week) it's put in the brown bin.

Taking things out to put in a box or bin beside the residual bin is
no more difficult than taking things out to put in the residual bin.
Wandering past a recycling point and dropping things in can
generally be organised as part of another trip.

We generate one wine bottle a day unless we have guests (when there are
more). Spouse loads his scooter top box and panniers with them when he gos
to the post off, chemist or whatever. It's no problem.

If some people really think this is too difficult or takes too long
then perhaps they should ask their local waste advisor to give them
some advice.

I agree. But I suspect that anyone admitting that would feel foolish.

Mary

wrote in message
ups.com...


On Nov 29, 10:01 pm, "Mary Fisher" wrote:
wrote in
oglegroups.com...



There's certainly overwhelming evidence of lies, deliberate
misinterpretation of data and political interference.

Tell us what they are.

It's all out in the public domain if you care to look. Some of the most
basic being the suppression of data for the medieval warm period and
the "little ice age" in order to come up with graphs showing a steadily
increasing temperature, rather than the actual variations over the last
two millenia.

That doesn't answer my appeal.

"Guy King" wrote in message
...
The message
from "Mary Fisher" contains these words:

Drag it.

You've seen 'em?

LOL!

Yup - and had words with 'em about it. I've also made loads of trips to
the dump for neighbours who otherwise have no way of getting rid of
bulky items.

And how do you know it's done by people without sufficient funds?

If you lived round here, Mary, you wouldn't ask that.

That doesn't answer my question though ...

I did say that some was and some wasn't. I certainly know that one lot
was 'cos my kids play with their kids and I know how the household is
run.

I wonder, if they're hard up, how they can afford to replace their furniture
....

We've never replaced furniture in 47 years and while we're officially poor
we don't feel hard up.

Mary

--
Skipweasel
Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.

The message
from "Mary Fisher" contains these words:

I did say that some was and some wasn't. I certainly know that one lot
was 'cos my kids play with their kids and I know how the household is
run.

I wonder, if they're hard up, how they can afford to replace their
furniture
....

Often it's from a place called Spares and Chairs, a charity which
collects furniture and distributes it to people who need it. Your
furniture is probably quite well made, but if you've got crappy
chipboard rubbish to start with and you've got wild kids who break it...

--
Skipweasel
Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.

"Guy King" wrote in message
...
The message
from "Mary Fisher" contains these words:

I did say that some was and some wasn't. I certainly know that one lot
was 'cos my kids play with their kids and I know how the household is
run.

I wonder, if they're hard up, how they can afford to replace their
furniture
....

Often it's from a place called Spares and Chairs, a charity which
collects furniture and distributes it to people who need it. Your
furniture is probably quite well made, but if you've got crappy
chipboard rubbish to start with and you've got wild kids who break it...

Chipboard hadn't been invented when our furniture was thrown out :-)

Any which couldn't stand up to the children went on the bonfire or converted
to something else. Except the piano ...

Mary

--
Skipweasel
Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.

Huge wrote:
On 2006-11-28, Brian wrote:

So it's the infamous Hugh Davies!!

'Fraid so. "Infamous", eh? Gulp.

I used to hang out on uk.transport
about 10 years ago, and Huge was busy back then baiting the
environmentalists.

They haven't changed much. You only have to see David Hansen's
posts here to see that. If they'd only get some education and
stop treating environmentalism like some kind of bloody religion.

The daft thing is, I actually class myself as an environmentalist -
certainly a supporter of rail improvements etc. On the other hand, I
agree with you that rail at the mo in this country is ****e. I guess I
am a reluctant car user.

I stopped participating some time ago, due to the
repetitive nature of the forum,

Nothing's changed. Especially Doug Bollen.

mmm, I noticed that, and was glad I stopped reading it some time ago.

but recently have seen a few cross
posts on uk.railway. These got me wondering whether Huge was still
around - great to see that you are!

Why, thank you.

Have you mellowed at all over the
last 10 years? I sure hope not ...

Mellowed? Hell, I've got worse.

Chuckle.

Regards,

H.



--
"Other people are not your property."
[email me at huge [at] huge [dot] org [dot] uk]

On 2006-11-30 08:04:12 +0000, David Hansen
said:

If some people really think this is too difficult or takes too long
then perhaps they should ask their local waste advisor to give them
some advice.

Actually no, it's not that this is difficult in the final analysis but
that it is unnecessarily overcomplicated and inconvenient for dubious
value.

I have no idea who a "waste advisor" is. Is it yet another person
paid for from council tax with pie in the sky ideas about the rality of
what people require?

I would be very pleased to have a conversation with such a person, but
it would be along a few simple lines:

1) How is he going to offer me a choice of disposal services?

2) How is he going to reduce the cost?

3) How is he going to deliver the above with less use of time on my part?

If he has good answers for all of the above, then there is a basis for
discussion. If he doesn't, then I will want to know who his boss is
and who the budget holder is for his position because he isn't doing
his job properly and should be removed from the payroll..

On Thu, 30 Nov 2006 22:18:27 +0000 someone who may be Andy Hall
wrote this:-

I have no idea who a "waste advisor" is.

An interesting admission.

1) How is he going to offer me a choice of disposal services?

He or she would no doubt point out the choice of recycling services
available.

2) How is he going to reduce the cost?

That is most unlikely, for the reasons given earlier about changing
attitudes in society.

3) How is he going to deliver the above with less use of time on my part?

To my pointing out that it is not too difficult or takes too long
you accepted that it isn't difficult. Hopefully you will soon come
to the realisation that it doesn't take too long either. It is
simply a matter of organisation.

Those who are too stubborn to get the hang of new ideas do seem to
find it rather more difficult than the general public. The lack of
runaway success by "alternative" collection services does seem to
show that most of the public are coping.

I can remember the whining when "real" steel litter bins were
replaced by black plastic bags. I can also remember the whining when
black plastic bags were replaced by wheelie bins. However, most of
the public soon got the hang of both changes.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

"David Hansen" wrote in message
...

I can remember the whining when "real" steel litter bins were
replaced by black plastic bags. I can also remember the whining when
black plastic bags were replaced by wheelie bins. However, most of
the public soon got the hang of both changes.

I was thinking about that. When I was a child we had metal dustbins, the
lids rarely closed properly because the metal became distorted. My mother
said it was much better than before, when rubbish was simply thrown in the
midden and shovelled onto a horse-drawn cart every now and then.

All our coal ash (and everyone else's) went into the bins along with other
rubbish.

The bins were picked up and carried on the back of the binman to an open
cart, he tipped the contents into the cart, dust and ash flying everywhere.
It was a rotten job. Those carts DID smell and the bins were very noisy.

Later we had a sort of rubber bin but we weren't allowed to put ashes into
it if they were still hot. Some folk did and burned holes in the bins. We
never did, it's now used as a water butt.

The next progressive step was to provide a blag poly bag to line the bin so
that sticky rubbish wasn't left to build up at the bottom of the bin. This
meant that unless the bag burst it was a much more pleasant job for the
binmen.

The current wheelie bins are well designed and rodent proof. They are easy
to move by householders, binmen no longer have to risk injury lifting them.
The trucks are excellent, designed for that job only, all waste is well
contained and doesn't fly away. The binmen can empty far more bins than ever
before because of the mechanisation. Safety is the prime consideration for
the gang. Our gang is friendly and courteous as well as efficient. I say
'gang' because since the wheelie bin sytem began, years ago, there have been
very few changes in personnel. That says a lot about the system.

Who'd want to go back to any of the previous methods?

Not me, guv. If taxing my brain and spending my time, working out what's
paper and what isn't, for the sake of the improvements I've seen in over
sixty years I'll happily do it for whatever time I have left. If the system
is improved more, which I expect will happen, I'll go along with that too.

If sorting my rubbish is the hardest task I ever have to do I reckon I'm a
very fortunate woman.

Oh - Spouse is capable of sorting too but he doesn't know the plastic codes,
he has to look at the note I put on the door to get it right. He can do
things I can't though :-)

There are always whiners, it's a pity they've nothing better to do.

Mary

On 2006-12-01 08:12:24 +0000, David Hansen
said:

On Thu, 30 Nov 2006 22:18:27 +0000 someone who may be Andy Hall
wrote this:-

I have no idea who a "waste advisor" is.

An interesting admission.

1) How is he going to offer me a choice of disposal services?

He or she would no doubt point out the choice of recycling services
available.

2) How is he going to reduce the cost?

That is most unlikely, for the reasons given earlier about changing
attitudes in society.

3) How is he going to deliver the above with less use of time on my part?

To my pointing out that it is not too difficult or takes too long
you accepted that it isn't difficult. Hopefully you will soon come
to the realisation that it doesn't take too long either. It is
simply a matter of organisation.

No it isn't, it's a matter of customer choice.



Those who are too stubborn to get the hang of new ideas do seem to
find it rather more difficult than the general public.

It is not a matter of getting the hang of new ideas either.


The lack of
runaway success by "alternative" collection services does seem to
show that most of the public are coping.

Since the market is closed to them because of the local authority
monopoly, there are no alternatives.

In message , Andy Hall writes
On 2006-12-01 08:12:24 +0000, David Hansen
said:

To my pointing out that it is not too difficult or takes too long
you accepted that it isn't difficult. Hopefully you will soon come
to the realisation that it doesn't take too long either. It is
simply a matter of organisation.

No it isn't, it's a matter of customer choice.

Personal choice even.


Those who are too stubborn to get the hang of new ideas do seem to
find it rather more difficult than the general public.

It is not a matter of getting the hang of new ideas either.

Well, you certainly seem to be choosing not to.


The lack of
runaway success by "alternative" collection services does seem to
show that most of the public are coping.

Since the market is closed to them because of the local authority
monopoly, there are no alternatives.

Oh there there ! Can't you find an important problem to worry about ?

Even if you believed that customer choice was the most important issue
in the world, you could still do us all a favour by sorting your waste
and fighting this battle in other ways.


Cheers, J/.
--
John Beardmore

In message , Mary Fisher
writes
"John Beardmore" wrote in message
...

This has a direct negative environmental impact, as those hours could
be spent doing something genuinely useful, some of which things would
inlude the things you want to see happen, such as installation of
insulation, solar hw,

Andy seems to have changed his opinion about solar hw ...



Well - we put another one in last week. 2.75sqm flat plate for £2,406.
Granted it's not at all easy to make money at those prices, but it
worked and was described as "well insulated" by the agency that
commissioned it.


Cheers, J/.
--
John Beardmore

In message , Mary Fisher
writes

I wonder, if they're hard up, how they can afford to replace their furniture

DHSS ? Local charities ?


We've never replaced furniture in 47 years and while we're officially poor
we don't feel hard up.

I don't even want to think about it !


Cheers, J/.
--
John Beardmore

In message , Andy Hall writes
On 2006-11-30 03:01:53 +0000, John Beardmore said:

I have no more right to dictate than anybody else does. What we
have been talking about is what we WANT, and the axioms that underpin
our relationship with the environment and government.

Ultimately, these are the axioms that underpin most things. If people
experience too many things not to their liking, they will take action.
This begins with choosing to buy elsewhere, including behaviour at the
ballot box.

Yes. Seen any parties offering the unbundling of state services ?


It also includes people ignoring stupid legislation, as we are
starting to see.

Well - perhaps we all have a duty to do that - at least while the
human spirit has some strength.


But I do have a right to express what I think the priorities should
be in making a determination, which I do. I contribute my thoughts
freely to the debate in the hope, rather than expectation, that they
will help what I regard as 'common sense' prevail.

It may seem like common sense to you, but I would prefer to take the a
la carte menu and to choose which things I believe to be worthwhile and
leave aside things that I don't. I am not interested in people who
can't come with definable cases for actions and outcomes attempting to
run my life for me.

I'm sure you're not, but I'm not sure if you are more concerned to
protest at lack of choice assess the environmental issues objectively.


I freely acknowledge that acting on my wishes would deny you access
to uniformed sycophantic bin men and other perks of the market, but
the very act of establishing a competitive market is also likely to
undermine the environmental outcomes I seek, even if the service we
have now continues to be available, so simply putting a market in
place may deny me, and others, my preferred outcome.

That's fine, but then you will understand that others will not hold
that view and will make decisions not to co-operate with schemes where
no choice is on offer.

Understood - but slightly offended that you are more motivated by lack
of choice than the environmental issues.


I don't think there are any overriding 'rights' here. We should all
have a right to make practicable choices, and we should all have a
right to live sustainably as far as is practicable. In the technical
sense of the word, this is a classic 'messy' problem.

The issue here is around the definition of practicable. For me, that
strongly includes the amount of time taken and the economic factors.
Any of these things have to pass those two tests first. If they
don't, then for me they are not practicable.

For most people, it takes seconds and costs no more to do. This makes
it hard to sympathise with your position.


I seek to address it by asking people the real value of the outcome
they seek, and the real cost of the alternatives.
All of the above said, if somebody wants to put up a detailed LCA
case for a market based solution that indicates real net
environmental benefits, I'm up for examining it.

That would need to be done by a set of impartial and disinterested
people,

It needs to be done accurately for sure, but to criticise the people
that prepare the data rather than the quality of the data itself
generally seems to be a poor excuse for inaction.


and one is quite unlikely to do so.

To do what ?


I would count environmental benefit as anything that results in
more *sensble* recycling provided that there are choices in how that is
implemented in terms of the impact on the customer.

I am not going to buy into anything that doesn't meet the economic and
convenience factors first.

Well, unless you plan to place some value on the environment which you
don't seem to, that makes you more or less unable to make any of the
sorts of sacrifice that may be necessary to make society sustainable,
never mind the contraction and convergence agenda. A pretty mean
spirited and selfish stance in my view.


Cheers, J/.
--
John Beardmore

On 2006-12-02 16:20:45 +0000, John Beardmore said:

In message , Andy Hall writes
On 2006-12-01 08:12:24 +0000, David Hansen
said:

To my pointing out that it is not too difficult or takes too long
you accepted that it isn't difficult. Hopefully you will soon come
to the realisation that it doesn't take too long either. It is
simply a matter of organisation.

No it isn't, it's a matter of customer choice.

Personal choice even.

Always.



Those who are too stubborn to get the hang of new ideas do seem to
find it rather more difficult than the general public.

It is not a matter of getting the hang of new ideas either.

Well, you certainly seem to be choosing not to.

I already told you that it isn't a case of not getting the hang of new
ideas, but questioning them and choosing not to espouse them.




The lack of
runaway success by "alternative" collection services does seem to
show that most of the public are coping.

Since the market is closed to them because of the local authority
monopoly, there are no alternatives.

Oh there there ! Can't you find an important problem to worry about ?

You seem to think that it's an important issue. I don't *worry* about
problems. If I can address them, then I do, otherwise I don't attempt
to do so


Even if you believed that customer choice was the most important issue
in the world, you could still do us all a favour by sorting your waste
and fighting this battle in other ways

I have also explained to you that I choose not to sort waste, but
expect the supplier to do it if he wishes it to be sorted. At this
point, there is no battle involved in that because he does it.

In message , Andy Hall writes
On 2006-11-28 20:22:55 +0000, John Beardmore said:

If there were a competitive market the LA might not do especially
well, but there might still be less waste in simpler provision from a
single contractor.

Then the question to ask is why wouldn't the LA do particularly well?

Well for a start they don't have much experience at marketing and
advertising. Their history is in providing a service, not selling it.


Profits could perhaps go into local authority coffers, but
losses could not be made up from them - any borrowing would need to
come from the market.
Hmmm...
Well.... if it's viable, it should not be a problem.....
That seems a bit naive. The markets support projects that make
money for the markets.

Absolutely, and that's how it should be.

Only if making money for the markets is the ONLY thing that matters.
But it isn't.


Arguably they have less interest in end users that LAs do. You
don't vote for merchant banks !

The end user holds the cards because he can choose to buy elsewhere.
That is a very effective form of voting.

Only if you get the sensible options to choose from.


Cheers, J/.
--
John Beardmore

John Beardmore wrote:
In message . com,
writes
Owain wrote:
Andy Hall wrote:

At present the nation is expected to put a sizeable amount of hours
each week into rubbish sorting at home, for free, when the companies
that get the sorted goods should be responsible for this.

Hours ?!?

lets say 5 mins per person per week, x 65 million = 325 million minutes
= 5.4 million manhours per week = 280 million manhours per year, at a
value of 2 billion pounds, if we value it at £7/hr. Guess I should
have said millions of hours.


NT

David Hansen wrote:
On Thu, 30 Nov 2006 02:27:21 +0000 someone who may be John Beardmore
wrote this:-

those customers wiling to spend
their valuable time sifting their garbage.

Well - it doesn't take long.

Indeed. I think the main thing needed is a little organisation, just
like many things.

As Phil said the main thing is to reduce the amount of packaging and
the like taken into the house and reuse some of it. After that it
depends what the scheme is on one's area. If there is a scheme where
staff sort a mixed box at the kerbside then anything recyclable just
goes into a suitable container, to be taken out when convenient. If
there are separate bins then it makes sense to have separate
containers (or a multi- compartment container) corresponding to each
bin, which are taken out as necessary. The containers can be canvas
or string bags hung on hooks, some sort of box or even just little
piles somewhere convenient.

Properly organised one has the item in one's hand and instead of
throwing it in a residual waste bin one throws it in the appropriate
container.

Taking things out to put in a box or bin beside the residual bin is
no more difficult than taking things out to put in the residual bin.
Wandering past a recycling point and dropping things in can
generally be organised as part of another trip.

If some people really think this is too difficult or takes too long
then perhaps they should ask their local waste advisor to give them
some advice.

Sounds like you live in a perfect world where those extra containers
dont take up space or get in the way, the bags of junk dont fall over
and blow junk everywhre, the boxes of cans dont fill up with
neighbourhood rubbish, and the binmen actually take the junk away. In
many areas none of the above apply.


NT

In message , Andy Hall writes
On 2006-11-26 13:42:37 +0000, John Beardmore said:

In message , Andy Hall writes
On 2006-11-25 11:41:17 +0000, David Hansen
said:
On Wed, 22 Nov 2006 18:07:56 +0000 someone who may be John Beardmore
wrote this:-

Indeed. Some would rather pay for a monthly general bin
collection.
Would be fine for me, though I'm still not convinced that private
contractors sound that great.
It was fashionable at one time. Whether individual householders have
so much time on their hands that they can individually arrange waste
contracts is debatable. I suppose some have, typically the retired.
However, such people would have little bargaining power with the
contractors.
If one wants to involve contractors then the way to do it is
probably to do so collectively, as is done with many other things,
like roads.
Collectivism is the poison of advancement.
Only if you can't opt out, which in this case you can.

No I can't, because I still have to pay. That is not the ability to opt out.

Well - to be strictly accurate, you can opt out of using the service,
but you can't opt out of paying for it. Just like education etc...


Of course people can arrange their own waste collection agreements
in exactly the same way that they buy food, gas, electricity,
telecommunication
and most other commodities.
Not that most seem to want to.

That is not a reason for not offering a choice.

Well - I would have thought it should be a factor.


If the business model of the incumbent supplier is sound, he should
have nothing to fear.

That assumes that it is about protecting the incumbent supplier. It
might just be about efficiency of delivering the service.


There is no issue with bargaining power unless there is a monopoly
as there is today.
Guess we've done this one to death, but be it better or worse than a
monopoly, it is an aspect of state behaviour that is more akin to
'bundling' than a monopoly.
In effect you want to 'unbundle' waste disposal from the facilities
we pay for out of taxes.

Yep. That would be a good start, and an easier one than tackling the
health service first.

Not sure you'd get much support for that either...


It doesn't require a big bureaucracy to organise people's lives for
them.
?

If you don't understand that......

I can understand it, but surely a big bureaucracy is worse ? And
presumably what the bureaucracy does is also of some
significance ?


Cheers, J/.
--
John Beardmore

In message , Andy Hall writes
On 2006-12-02 16:20:45 +0000, John Beardmore said:

Those who are too stubborn to get the hang of new ideas do seem to
find it rather more difficult than the general public.
It is not a matter of getting the hang of new ideas either.
Well, you certainly seem to be choosing not to.

I already told you that it isn't a case of not getting the hang of new
ideas, but questioning them and choosing not to espouse them.

Well - you don't seem to have looked into it in any depth.


The lack of
runaway success by "alternative" collection services does seem to
show that most of the public are coping.
Since the market is closed to them because of the local authority
monopoly, there are no alternatives.
Oh there there ! Can't you find an important problem to worry about
?

You seem to think that it's an important issue. I don't *worry* about
problems. If I can address them, then I do, otherwise I don't attempt
to do so

Well, here is one that you can address easily, yet choose not to.


Even if you believed that customer choice was the most important
issue in the world, you could still do us all a favour by sorting
your waste and fighting this battle in other ways

I have also explained to you that I choose not to sort waste, but
expect the supplier to do it if he wishes it to be sorted. At this
point, there is no battle involved in that because he does it.

It has also been explained to you that there is greater efficiency if
waste is sorted at source. There is no need for battles either way.


J/.
--
John Beardmore

John Beardmore wrote:

Understood - but slightly offended that you are more motivated by lack
of choice than the environmental issues.

Well, unless you plan to place some value on the environment which you
don't seem to, that makes you more or less unable to make any of the
sorts of sacrifice that may be necessary to make society sustainable,
never mind the contraction and convergence agenda. A pretty mean
spirited and selfish stance in my view.

You appear to be presuming your view is in the interest of the
environment, which I dont believe is the case.


NT

In message m,
writes
John Beardmore wrote:
In message . com,
writes
Owain wrote:
Andy Hall wrote:

At present the nation is expected to put a sizeable amount of hours
each week into rubbish sorting at home, for free, when the companies
that get the sorted goods should be responsible for this.

Hours ?!?

lets say 5 mins per person per week, x 65 million = 325 million minutes
= 5.4 million manhours per week = 280 million manhours per year, at a
value of 2 billion pounds, if we value it at £7/hr. Guess I should
have said millions of hours.

Well OK, but if you want to aggregate things, have you looked at the
cost and environmental impact of centralised waste separation ? You
don't really have a decision to make until you've got both data sets.


Cheers, J/.
--
John Beardmore

John Beardmore wrote:
In message . com,
writes
Andy Hall wrote:
On 2006-11-27 22:40:25 +0000, John Beardmore
said:

There will always be a vociferous few, but where as I've met lots of
people that want LAs to do better, you are the first one I've met who
wants them out of the loop except in a licensing and policing role like
they are already.

That shows just how politically clueless our population has become.

Or that alternative bin collections are seen as really underwhelmingly
dull and / or pointless !!

that only demonstrates British political naivety again. Basic political
principles tell us that an open private market will deliver more
efficiency. This is not a concept specific to bin collection, but a
basic political principle that applies across the board. The lack of
any wish to change the system indicates ignorance of this, rather than
anything to do with bins per se.


Does that mean you would like to be able to decide what others get
instead of them deciding?

No - it means that I want to point out that I think, (as do some
others !), that there are other important things.

see the point above, many say thats important. That its relevance to
the bin game wasnt immediately apparent shows just how lost politically
Britain is.


NT

On 2006-12-02 16:43:21 +0000, John Beardmore said:



Yes. Seen any parties offering the unbundling of state services ?

Not yet, but then elections are a little way away yet. Dismantling
would be better, of course.

But I do have a right to express what I think the priorities should be
in making a determination, which I do. I contribute my thoughts freely
to the debate in the hope, rather than expectation, that they will help
what I regard as 'common sense' prevail.

It may seem like common sense to you, but I would prefer to take the a
la carte menu and to choose which things I believe to be worthwhile and
leave aside things that I don't. I am not interested in people who
can't come with definable cases for actions and outcomes attempting to
run my life for me.

I'm sure you're not, but I'm not sure if you are more concerned to
protest at lack of choice assess the environmental issues objectively.

Both issues are important.




I freely acknowledge that acting on my wishes would deny you access to
uniformed sycophantic bin men and other perks of the market, but the
very act of establishing a competitive market is also likely to
undermine the environmental outcomes I seek, even if the service we
have now continues to be available, so simply putting a market in place
may deny me, and others, my preferred outcome.

That's fine, but then you will understand that others will not hold
that view and will make decisions not to co-operate with schemes where
no choice is on offer.

Understood - but slightly offended that you are more motivated by lack
of choice than the environmental issues.

The point is that unless the market issues of choice are addressed as
well as customers being convinced that proposed courses of action are
genuine and have value, then they are not going to buy into the
environmental issues to the extent that you might like.

Some people are happy to sit back, pay their taxes and let the state
run their lives for them. Others do not appear to require very cogent
presentation of the justifications for various recycling and
environmental actions and the single approach offered to address them.

Some people fall into both categories. I don't fall into either.
That does not mean that I do not think that activities to protect the
environment aren't important, but simply that they need to be presented
more honestly than they are being and with the implications as well as
the environmental implications considered. Those include the economic
effects in all aspects including the burden on the individual.




I don't think there are any overriding 'rights' here. We should all
have a right to make practicable choices, and we should all have a
right to live sustainably as far as is practicable. In the technical
sense of the word, this is a classic 'messy' problem.

The issue here is around the definition of practicable. For me, that
strongly includes the amount of time taken and the economic factors.
Any of these things have to pass those two tests first. If they
don't, then for me they are not practicable.

For most people, it takes seconds and costs no more to do. This makes
it hard to sympathise with your position.

I'm not looking for sympathy. I don't agree that it takes seconds.
There are the issues of assorted containers hanging around the place
for weeks and the choice for the individual.



I seek to address it by asking people the real value of the outcome
they seek, and the real cost of the alternatives.
All of the above said, if somebody wants to put up a detailed LCA case
for a market based solution that indicates real net environmental
benefits, I'm up for examining it.

That would need to be done by a set of impartial and disinterested people,

It needs to be done accurately for sure, but to criticise the people
that prepare the data rather than the quality of the data itself
generally seems to be a poor excuse for inaction.

Then it should be made clear by them that the data is inaccurate and
that it is not possible to form the positions or implement the policies
and procedures arising from them genuinely.

That then begs the question of why they are being implemented, but of
course that doesn't suit the activists.

The considerations that should be going into this are which things are
worth doing and why and to provide solid evidence. Then consideration
should be given to a range of options that can be offered to the
customer. All the time that the arguments continue to be based on
weak data, poorly explained and only one option given, the whole
exercise remains discredited.



I would count environmental benefit as anything that results in
more *sensble* recycling provided that there are choices in how that is
implemented in terms of the impact on the customer.

I am not going to buy into anything that doesn't meet the economic and
convenience factors first.

Well, unless you plan to place some value on the environment which you
don't seem to, that makes you more or less unable to make any of the
sorts of sacrifice that may be necessary to make society sustainable,
never mind the contraction and convergence agenda. A pretty mean
spirited and selfish stance in my view.

You are making loaded emotional arguments that are saying that

- unless one participates in a set piece policy and implementation that
one doesn't care about the environment. Untrue. There can be many
different ways of achieving objectives.

- unless one makes some kind of sacrifice, society isn't sustainable.
The concept of society is questionable anyway and contraction and
convergence is unlikely to be a realistic goal anyway.

Sacrifices tend not to happen, but rather a better and more acceptable
alternative comes along to replace them.