In message , Andy Hall writes

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.

Well - you couldn't actually do any meaningful separation and have it
any simpler !


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?

Well - as you say, you've got no idea.


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..

Well - he certainly isn't doing what you want, but may well be doing
what he's employed to do.

I guess your attitude here suggests and inability to resolve 'what you
want', the 'single path of righteousness' and 'statutory duty'.

But you can always go and rant...


Cheers, J/.
--
John Beardmore

In message , Andy Hall writes
On 2006-11-27 01:43:12 +0000, John Beardmore said:
In message , Andy Hall writes
On 2006-11-26 13:13:21 +0000, John Beardmore
said:
In message , Andy Hall writes
On 2006-11-25 12:51:39 +0000, Huge said:

I do wonder if the State is that marvellous, why it isn't
prepared
to compete against private enterprise.

Because it knows full well that it can't.
The reality is that it doesn't get the opportunity.
Precisely. That's because it spends most of its time legislating
and regulating to protect its position rather than actually doing
somehting useful.
This is tosh. Cite one bit of waste legislation on the last decade
that "protects the position" of government. Or indeed any at all.

The comment was about the general behaviour of government.

Well - waste is what we were talking about.


The inevitable result is overpricing and poor quality. The only
way to defend that is not to have any competition so that people
have comparison points.
This strikes me as a political belief rather than an observation
based on what can be observed in the town hall.
One only has to look in a few places to see a consistent malaise.
Guess I just look under different rocks.

Perhaps that's where you are going wrong. The malaise is in broad
daylight for all to see.

I know what you mean in some departments, but it's not universal. I'm
going to support the people in LAs that are worth supporting.


Supply and branding can be applied in almost any sector. So for
example, SITA could offer a range of waste collection services that I
might like to buy; or I can buy a different package of services from
the local authoriity but operated by SITA.
It just requires a little imagination and application of business
principles.
Yes - though I'm not sure what the point is or how it helps.

Sigh.

Didn't your environmental studies course have anything about business
principles..?

Well up to a point, but they don't generally encourage the provision of
redundant services to gratify and ideological lust for choice where any
marginal benefit from the provision of choice is swamped by increasing
the environmental footprint of the service provision of a whole.


And calling it a "Home Care" package implies that there is more
bundled into it than waste collection. I thought you only wanted to
pay for what you used ?

So create "Home Care" bronze, silver and gold products.

Bronze is basic rubbish collection, silver includes collecting
additional things such as garden rubbish etc. and gold includes rat
catching and wasp nest destruction; or whatever. Just illustrations.

Hmmm... The only people to whom this kind of thing seems to appeal are
those who seem to be obsessed by the provision of choice a matter of
principle. Still - make it an election issue, and see how far you get.
It'd be interesting to see.


Cheers, J/.
--
John Beardmore

On Mon, 4 Dec 2006 12:39:59 +0000, Andy Hall
wrote:

I bet you could sort all the recyclable stuff from your rubbish in a
tiny fraction of the time you spend posting to uk.d-i-y and worrying
about ££££ tools.

I *could*. I wish to have the choice not to, but for it to be done by
the provider, not to be required to do so.

Well that's the price of living in a more civilised country, and one
where the democratically elected local/national government requires
you to play a part.

If you want to choose not to participate, why not exercise your right
to move to somewhere like Peru? There an army of homeless children
will scavenge from your rubbish at the dump, so nothing is required
for you to do.

cheers,
Pete.

"Pete C" wrote in message
...


If you want to choose not to participate, why not exercise your right
to move to somewhere like Peru? There an army of homeless children
will scavenge from your rubbish at the dump, so nothing is required
for you to do.

I was thinking along those lines, there are lots of other places too ...

Mary

wrote:

sarah wrote:
[-]
Nope, I'm afraid that if you don't want to sort your
refuse yourself, the only effective solution is for you to hire someone
to sort yours before you put it out.

why cant he have another option, such as not sorting and not recycling?
Its not like the recycling option is beyond debate.


Fortunately (or unfortunately, depending on your PoV), those responsible
for recycling don't necessarily agree with you. And they're bound by the
regulations anyway, so neither their opinions nor yours will influence
the outcome.

does that mean they dont have power in democratically deciding this
after all?

Yes.

regards
sarah


--
Think of it as evolution in action.

wrote:

sarah wrote:
Andy Hall wrote:
On 2006-12-03 11:02:36 +0000, (sarah) said:

I'd argue that sorting your own waste has an important psychological
impact.

if you believe so, youre free to do it. If otoh youre quite ill and
this is not on your priorities, you need to be free to not do it. Why
does nanny always think one course of action is best for all?

Nanny may not (I don't know, because I'm not one and I don't know any).
But one course of action may well be best for all. That's why we have
laws.


You may find that after a while there is no more psychological benfit
in sorting, once youre perfectly well aware of the rubbish situation.
There is no reason people ought to spent their whole life in that
learning about their rubbish phase.

Oh, I don't know. Some people never learn. As Usenet demonstrates, time
and time again :-(


It's *YOURS*. You (well, not you personally, John :-) bought the
stuff, and you should have to deal with the results of your purchasing.

.. or pay someone else to do it.

OK. But only if you and those others who want that service pay for it
*personally*. You can hire someone to come in and do it for you; you
could do so tomorrow if you felt like it. The rest of us who prefer not
to waste (ha) our money shouldn't have to pay anything towards provision
of that service. I would work hard to vote out any of my representatives
who suggested such a thing.

Ah, and thats important. Lots of people dont compost because there is
no financial incentive to, and this results in masses of extra rubbish
to dispose of and extra costs for us all. Why then do you not vote out
people supporting this problem?

Who? My un-elected neighbours? How am I to vote them out -- with a lynch
mob?



Alternatively, you have the option
to select products
based on the way that the manufacturer does the packaging. It's far
better not to have the packaging disposal issue in the first place.

Quite. But until legislation forces it on the manufacturers, their
marketing people, combined perhaps with a host of safety regs and
transport requirements, and sheer laziness on the part of some consumers
ensures the problem will persist.

Packaging is a signficant expense, as transport costs money and
packaging takes up transport volume. Manufacturers do not therefore
generally waste money on packaging. Its normally there because there is
a reason it needs to be. The excess packaging myth results from popular
lack of awareness of why its there.

I have never before heard of the 'excess packaging myth'. I'll try to
remember not to note excess packaging when I see it next.


If the local authority wants it to
be separated then they need to organise that.

If waste recycling were merely some whimsical initiative undertaken by
UK local authorities, that would be fair. Unfortunately it's not.
Recycling has been forced on them by EU directives

so not even a democractic decision, or even semi democratic.

Depends on your view of democracy. You voted in your MEP... didn't you?
S/he voted for/against the regulations when the opportunity arose... or
chose not to.


which are in turn a
function of general (you may be excluded if you wish) recognition that
we're running short of sites for bulk waste disposal

a classic untruth. There are areas of coastline begging for a ring wall
of rubble to be laid down in the water and the area filled with
garbage. The resulting land would pay us with its value, not cost us.


and that burying
valuable resources or sending them up in smoke to generate heat and
pollution is a Bad Thing.

What we buy is mostly made from oil and plants. From an energy use
point of view, what difference does it make if we burn oil or burn oil
derived waste?

That's a remarkably... general generalisation. It's the specifics that
cause problems. Some of that oil-derived waste can be remade into useful
stuff not easily made from renewable resources. Burning some of that
oil-derived waste can generate remarkably toxic chemicals so the flue
gases must be cleaned (additional cost/effort). A lot of what's made
from oil and plants contains small or moderate amounts of valuable or
dangerous metals which are wasted/hazardous if simply discarded in
landfill.

I do agree the amount of stuff thrown away is excessive, but once items
are no further use and thrown away, turning them back to energy
sources, avoiding landfill use, does look like a sensible option.

TDP may change this picture.

TDP?

regards
sarah


--
Think of it as evolution in action.

wrote:

sarah wrote:

Perhaps like most things we're not looking for the place to draw a line,
but rather painting subtle shades of grey across a wide area :-) The
competent and concerned get to do more, the rest follow according to
inclination, ability and legislation.

surelt the competent have far more useful and important things to do
with their time, like try to crack technological problems for one
example.

? We're not just talking about sorting household rubbish.

regards
sarah


--
Think of it as evolution in action.

In message , Andy Hall writes
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.

ROFL !


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.

I'm not convinced. It's true that people need to understand the issues,
but I'm not sure we should offer any services that allow lower aggregate
standards of environmental performance than we have now. The 'prize'
just doesn't justify it.

For most people, the justification for separation and recycling seem to
be a separate issue to 'choice'.


Some people are happy to sit back, pay their taxes and let the state
run their lives for them.

The state commits bigger crimes than asking you nicely to separate your
waste.


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.

And others require absurd standards of evidence while basking in their
own ignorance.


Some people fall into both categories. I don't fall into either.

Excellent !


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

Not sure that they are generally represented dishonestly...


and with the implications as well as the environmental implications
considered.

Indeed. Can't argue with that.


Those include the economic effects in all aspects including the
burden on the individual.

There is certainly no harm in costing these things, but there is no
reason to expect the more sustainable option to be the cheapest one in
the immediate term.


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.

Well, per item, and sorted as thrown, it takes a fraction of a second
per item around here. Then the bags have to go out every 14 days. Say
4 minutes per fortnight ?


There are the issues of assorted containers hanging around the place
for weeks

Well - up to a couple of weeks anyway.


and the choice for the individual.

That's certainly an issue that gets you excited, but not most people I
meet.


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

Or at least what the limits of accuracy can be.


and that it is not possible to form the positions or implement the
policies and procedures arising from them genuinely.

Depends what you mean by "genuine".

Sometimes the differences are gross enough that you don't need more than
one significant figure... Usually I suspect...


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

Or the EU...

Fill your boots as far as I'm concerned...


The considerations that should be going into this are which things are
worth doing and why and to provide solid evidence.

Agreed.


Then consideration should be given to a range of options that can be
offered to the customer.

Yes - though you might take the trouble to see if the customer wants a
choice, taking into the account the environmental consequences of the
provision of multiple services / service levels.


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.

Well - you bleat about it as discredited and more data would certainly
be good, but most people seem happy to accept that there is a case to
recycle, and from what I've seen, this seems to be correct, though I
accept that there will be regional differences, and sometimes better
alternatives.


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

I'm saying that if you can't even be bothered to sort your own rubbish,
a low effort, low time commitment activity, you are not demonstrating
that you value the environment, or are willing to make much sacrifice to
support it.


- unless one participates in a set piece policy and implementation that
one doesn't care about the environment. Untrue.

Unsaid, but I expect there is a correlation.


There can be many different ways of achieving objectives.

Indeed. And very few people, me included, will do all of the things
that anybody might ever regard as 'green' - I'm not saying that
everyone has to do everything, but as waste separation is a low effort
activity, most people seem willing enough to undertake it.

What contribution are you making then ?


- unless one makes some kind of sacrifice, society isn't sustainable.

Well - probably not.


The concept of society is questionable

I think people have enough of a handle on it for it to be a useful idea,
despite Thatchers deprecation of it.


anyway and contraction and convergence is unlikely to be a realistic
goal anyway.

We'll have to see. Got any equitable alternatives in mind ?


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

That's certainly the way it goes if you are well resourced.
Unfortunately, as a species, we are neither evenly or well resourced, at
least with respect to the demands the technologically developed
countries are placing on the planet.

Contraction and convergence of course seeks to address the matter of how
evenly resourced people are.


Cheers, J/.
--
John Beardmore

Andy Hall wrote:

On 2006-12-04 10:29:24 +0000, (sarah) said:

Andy Hall wrote:

The whole premise was to have a range of services from a range of
providers so that people can choose what they want and with local
authorities taken out of the financial path between customer and
supplier. If you want to continue as you are then that is
accomodated.

That's *your* premise, not mine. Making a range of services from a range
of providers available means no one can apply economies of scale

Yes they can, because there is the potential to cover larger
geographical areas.

You're missing the point. Consider increasing transport costs at a time
of what is laughably termed 'energy insecurity'.


(and
someone will have to regulate and inspect the suppliers, but that's
another issue, sorry, set of costs).

That can be aggregated and outsourced as well

Hm. I think


I'm perfectly happy to have
essential services provided by a single supplier ultimately responsible
to me (the electorate).

Fine. I'm not. Your choice is a subset of mine.



Alternatively, you have the option to select products
based on the way that the manufacturer does the packaging. It's far
better not to have the packaging disposal issue in the first place.

Quite. But until legislation forces it on the manufacturers, their
marketing people, combined perhaps with a host of safety regs and
transport requirements, and sheer laziness on the part of some consumers
ensures the problem will persist.

There already is huge over-regulation in these areas. Adding more is
unlikely to alter the behaviour of consumers who want to buy a) on
price and b) on the attractiveness of the packaging.

I beg to disagree. If regulation forces manufacturers to reduce their
packaging excesses, consumers will have to buy what's available.

I see. So now we have this interference extending into customer choice
as well?

Where it is for the benefit of all, certainly. Mind you, despite murder
being a bad thing for society in general I think I could make a case for
it to be legalised in some circumstances.



If you choose to jumble it all together to make one large horrid mess,
you should certainly have to sort that out yourself.

Why? I pay for rubbish disposal.

And your rubbish is disposed of.

Then I'm happy. I am not happy if I am expected to do part of the
supplier's work for nothing. Either they reduce the price or they do
the work.

You're not thinking it through.

Yes I am.

I suppose that from your PoV, you are. You are wedded to the outdated
notion that competition on the free market spit always results in the
best of all possible worlds. You should get out more, or at least open
your eyes and mind. As regards your demand that you be absolved from
sorting your own rubbish for recycling: put your money where your mouth
is.[1] If you think there's a market for the service, start a business
supplying it. If you're too lazy to do that (or have a niggling doubt
that there's insufficient demand), hire someone else to do it. But stop
proselytising the free market spit while at the same time demanding
that the publicly-funded local authority supply your chosen service at
no extra charge (as quoted above "I am not happy if I am expected to do
part of the supplier's work for nothing. Either they reduce the price
or they do the work.")

regards
sarah

[1] Note my self-restraint.


--
Think of it as evolution in action.

AJH wrote:

On Mon, 4 Dec 2006 10:29:25 +0000, (sarah)
wrote:

always imported 85% of our timber products you just have to recycle
15% of those and you equal the homegrown trade, now largely defunct.

The proportion of recycled material is impressive.

I was using it as an illustration rather than fact. I know both
shotton and kemsely replaced all their round timber with recycled pulp
but don't know where it came from.

The stats don't say, but I wondered what proportion is imported.


than just dreaming of doing so. This visit has reminded me that Usenet
is hard work if one tries to rely on fact rather than opinion :-/

Yes and dogmas don't seem to be open to change.

Same old same old.

And my temper shortens faster, too. I wonder if that's old age?

Are you asking me? Having met a few people through usenet it does seem
to be populated by us baby boomers ;-).

The young folk seem to be out dancing on the edge of the volcano. Or
striving to find deposits for a house.

Hope you are well and reasonably (or even unreasonably) happy.

I'm not built that way but am content enough, glad to see you're still
up for a fight but try to choose more worthy opponents ;-).

I plead ignorance, but I learn quickly. There's no point in arguing with
those incapable of reason! Speaking of which I see PG is still alive and
kicking vigorously ;-/

BTW I'm still for burning certain fractions of our waste rather than
recycling them, what I'm against is burning "residual" waste that
socially irresponsible people haven't seen fit to segregate.

Yup.

As I've said before I think the main EU drive against landfill was to
remove putrescible material that may affect ground water and pollute
the atmosphere rather than saving space per se.

I'm not certain. I suspect the intention was to reduce usage of a method
perceived as 'bad' for many reasons (pollution of groundwater, waste of
recyclables, lack of space, the relative importance of reasons varying
widely from place to place) and encourage more environmentally and
morally sound methods of disposal. I have a very vague and general
impression that the UK is more inclined to be pragmatic in an Industrial
Revolution style than some of the rest of Europe, which in public at
least pays lip service to grander ideals.

regards
sarah


--
Think of it as evolution in action.

Alan Connor wrote:

On uk.environment, in , "Alan
Connor" wrote:
snip

Actually I wouldn't mind at all. i

You do not want to live by a landfill.

Trust me here.


I know exactly what's coming next. This lady is obviously another
Beardmore, smart as a whip with the intellectual integrity
of a sleazeball politician:

She'll say something like:

"A modern, well-designed landfill is perfectly safe and
comfortable to live near."

No. Go spend a day adjacent to and downwind of one.

And those are _very_ expensive to create and maintain.

What does that mean: A whole lot things have to be
mined and manufactured and powered to create
and maintain them.

Of course, you don't see _that_ part of it.

NIMBY

But since you don't mind living near _all_ of the industry
necessary to make your lifestyle happen, you won't mind living
near the smelters and open-hearth furnaces and foundries and
rolling mills and factories necessary to do the job.

And don't forget the iron ore mines, coal mines, and limestone
quarries necessary to _begin_ the process of making steel.

Oh. And the coking plants.

And those landfills are still nothing but toilets. Nature being
flushed down the toilet.


snip

Alan

As you're happiest supplying both sides of the argument, I'll leave you
to it.

Usenet, eh?

regards
sarah

--
Think of it as evolution in action.

On Tue, 5 Dec 2006 07:31:44 +0000 someone who may be
(sarah) wrote this:-

so not even a democractic decision, or even semi democratic.

Depends on your view of democracy. You voted in your MEP... didn't you?
S/he voted for/against the regulations when the opportunity arose... or
chose not to.

Not only that. The Council of Ministers, if it is still called that,
also consists of people who have been elected. All these measures
which UK Ministers whine about have been voted for by the Ministers.


--
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 Tue, 05 Dec 2006 01:24:17 +0000 someone who may be Owain
wrote this:-

A small army of uk.d-i-y regulars have expressed the desire to scavenge
at the dump in the UK but are prevented from doing so by H&S regulations.

Have they? Perhaps you could indicate where. If you can't people may
conclude that this is yet another of your distortions.


--
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:

On Tue, 05 Dec 2006 01:24:17 +0000 someone who may be Owain
wrote this:-

A small army of uk.d-i-y regulars have expressed the desire to scavenge
at the dump in the UK but are prevented from doing so by H&S regulations.

Have they? Perhaps you could indicate where. If you can't people may
conclude that this is yet another of your distortions.

This may be related to 'It is an offence to remove, pick over etc. waste on
this site etc. etc. blah blah blah.' at bring (recycling) sites - Greater
Manchester anyway.

On Tue, 5 Dec 2006 08:10:40 +0000 someone who may be
(sarah) wrote this:-

You are wedded to the outdated
notion that competition on the free market spit always results in the
best of all possible worlds.

It is not outdated. Rather it is a very simplistic model, suitable
for O Grade economics but not something to rely on in the "real
world". Unfortunately some party politicians cling to it, as they
don't understand the limitations (and probably prefer something
simple).

The model was developed around small family owned and run
agricultural businesses in a small rural area. In such conditions
there is equal knowledge of the market by all participants (they can
see how the crops are doing in the fields and speak to the
customers), no divergence between the objectives of managers and
owners (they are the same people) and switching products is easy
(sow a different crop).




--
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

The message
from Phil Bradshaw ke
contains these words:

This may be related to 'It is an offence to remove, pick over etc. waste on
this site etc. etc. blah blah blah.' at bring (recycling) sites - Greater
Manchester anyway.

That's true almost anywhere. The trick is to make sure it doesn't apply
to you by being friendly and helpful to the staff.

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

"sarah" wrote in message
. ..

sarah

[1] Note my self-restraint.

Has to be a first time for everything :-)

Mary

"sarah" wrote in message
...


I know exactly what's coming next. This lady is obviously another
Beardmore, smart as a whip with the intellectual integrity
of a sleazeball politician:

I know sarah IRL and while she is smarter than any whip I know her
intellectual integrity is beyond reproach.

And we don't even always agree :-)

Mary

"Owain" wrote in message
...
Pete C wrote:
If you want to choose not to participate, why not exercise your right
to move to somewhere like Peru? There an army of homeless children
will scavenge from your rubbish at the dump, so nothing is required
for you to do.

A small army of uk.d-i-y regulars have expressed the desire to scavenge at
the dump in the UK but are prevented from doing so by H&S regulations.

Owain

When I was a child I loved searching the local mill dump for what to me were
treasures.

That was during the war when treasures were few and far between for most of
us, everything's relative.

Mary

On Mon, 4 Dec 2006 12:30:34 +0000 someone who may be Andy Hall
wrote this:-

Then you would be welcome to visit and sort through my dustbin each week.

It would still be more efficient for you to do it.

No it wouldn't. My work time costs considerably more than what it
would cost for me to outsource it to a rubbish collection firm.

Have you asked for quotes?

Given that there is no impediment to your opting out of the public
waste service [1], just as you could opt out of public schooling or
health services, then you should be able to get lots of companies
who are interested, especially if they are passing your door anyway
on the way to industrial customers. I suspect that you will find the
quotes are very much lower if you sort the waste into bins for them.


[1] though it would be advisable to select a contractor who will
give you the appropriate paperwork, in case your waste is found
later scattered around the countryside.


--
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

The message
from "Mary Fisher" contains these words:

When I was a child I loved searching the local mill dump for what to
me were
treasures.

A friend and I in the mid 70s used to retrieve Flymos from the dump and
make 'em work again. Made a nice income from that which was very welcome
to a couple of teenagers.

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

Guy King wrote:

The message
from Phil Bradshaw ke
contains these words:

This may be related to 'It is an offence to remove, pick over etc. waste
on this site etc. etc. blah blah blah.' at bring (recycling) sites -
Greater Manchester anyway.

That's true almost anywhere. The trick is to make sure it doesn't apply
to you by being friendly and helpful to the staff.

Indeed. My son spotted some 486 computers in the white goods pile at one
site and did an ask ... and got the nod to whip the CPUs out and a couple
of other bits while I gave the site worker a hand sorting metal.

On 2006-12-04 16:39:38 +0000, John Beardmore said:

In message , Andy Hall writes

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.

Well - you couldn't actually do any meaningful separation and have it
any simpler !

Then one has to ask whether it is meaningful at all....




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?

Well - as you say, you've got no idea.

Perhaps you would like to enlighten the assembled throng so that we can
all have a laugh.




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..

Well - he certainly isn't doing what you want, but may well be doing
what he's employed to do.

By whom? Who is paying?

On 2006-12-05 08:10:40 +0000, (sarah) said:

Andy Hall wrote:

On 2006-12-04 10:29:24 +0000, (sarah) said:

Andy Hall wrote:

The whole premise was to have a range of services from a range of
providers so that people can choose what they want and with local
authorities taken out of the financial path between customer and
supplier. If you want to continue as you are then that is
accomodated.

That's *your* premise, not mine. Making a range of services from a range
of providers available means no one can apply economies of scale

Yes they can, because there is the potential to cover larger
geographical areas.

You're missing the point.

No I'm not.

Consider increasing transport costs at a time
of what is laughably termed 'energy insecurity'.

I don't accept that the approach does result in increased transport
costs. Certainly moving volumes of so called material for recycling
half way around the planet does.




(and
someone will have to regulate and inspect the suppliers, but that's
another issue, sorry, set of costs).

That can be aggregated and outsourced as well

Hm. I think


I'm perfectly happy to have
essential services provided by a single supplier ultimately responsible
to me (the electorate).

Fine. I'm not. Your choice is a subset of mine.



Alternatively, you have the option to select products
based on the way that the manufacturer does the packaging. It's far
better not to have the packaging disposal issue in the first place.

Quite. But until legislation forces it on the manufacturers, their
marketing people, combined perhaps with a host of safety regs and
transport requirements, and sheer laziness on the part of some consumers
ensures the problem will persist.

There already is huge over-regulation in these areas. Adding more is
unlikely to alter the behaviour of consumers who want to buy a) on
price and b) on the attractiveness of the packaging.

I beg to disagree. If regulation forces manufacturers to reduce their
packaging excesses, consumers will have to buy what's available.

I see. So now we have this interference extending into customer choice
as well?

Where it is for the benefit of all, certainly. Mind you, despite murder
being a bad thing for society in general I think I could make a case for
it to be legalised in some circumstances.

Never mind about "society". It's a bit of a problem for the victim as well.





If you choose to jumble it all together to make one large horrid mess,
you should certainly have to sort that out yourself.

Why? I pay for rubbish disposal.

And your rubbish is disposed of.

Then I'm happy. I am not happy if I am expected to do part of the
supplier's work for nothing. Either they reduce the price or they do
the work.

You're not thinking it through.

Yes I am.

I suppose that from your PoV, you are. You are wedded to the outdated
notion that competition on the free market spit always results in the
best of all possible worlds.

Not outdated at all. The free market has stood the test of time.
Ultimately, regulated environments don't work because people will find
a way around them if they deem them to be too intrusive.

You should get out more, or at least open
your eyes and mind.

I get "out" as you put it probably more than you do - spending approx.
a third of my time doing so in terms of traveling to different
countries and seeing different environments.


As regards your demand that you be absolved from
sorting your own rubbish for recycling: put your money where your mouth
is.[1] If you think there's a market for the service, start a business
supplying it.

At the point that the market is deregulated, that may be an interesting
proposition.


If you're too lazy to do that (or have a niggling doubt
that there's insufficient demand), hire someone else to do it.

Pointless until there is market deregulation.

But stop
proselytising the free market spit

... are you going to stop proselytising the restricted one?

while at the same time demanding
that the publicly-funded local authority supply your chosen service at
no extra charge (as quoted above "I am not happy if I am expected to do
part of the supplier's work for nothing. Either they reduce the price
or they do the work.")

At the moment they do provide the service that I am paying for,
although not particularly well.
At the point that they wish to reduce it by requiring an additional
action on my part and not on theirs,
it is a reduction in service.

On 2006-12-04 21:56:48 +0000, Pete C said:

On Mon, 4 Dec 2006 12:39:59 +0000, Andy Hall
wrote:

I bet you could sort all the recyclable stuff from your rubbish in a
tiny fraction of the time you spend posting to uk.d-i-y and worrying
about ££££ tools.

I *could*. I wish to have the choice not to, but for it to be done by
the provider, not to be required to do so.

Well that's the price of living in a more civilised country, and one
where the democratically elected local/national government requires
you to play a part.


I do play a significant part, through the payment of taxes. I am
looking for a return on that.

On 2006-12-05 12:47:07 +0000, David Hansen
said:

On Mon, 4 Dec 2006 12:30:34 +0000 someone who may be Andy Hall
wrote this:-

Then you would be welcome to visit and sort through my dustbin each week.

It would still be more efficient for you to do it.

No it wouldn't. My work time costs considerably more than what it
would cost for me to outsource it to a rubbish collection firm.

Have you asked for quotes?

No point because it is not an open market.



Given that there is no impediment to your opting out of the public
waste service [1], just as you could opt out of public schooling or
health services, then you should be able to get lots of companies
who are interested, especially if they are passing your door anyway
on the way to industrial customers. I suspect that you will find the
quotes are very much lower if you sort the waste into bins for them.

They could well be. I could then make the choice between level of service
and the price.

On 2006-12-05 08:09:52 +0000, John Beardmore said:

In message , Andy Hall writes

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.

I'm not convinced.

Take a look at the history of trade and it becomes very obvious.


It's true that people need to understand the issues, but I'm not sure
we should offer any services that allow lower aggregate standards of
environmental performance than we have now. The 'prize' just doesn't
justify it.

It isn't an issue of their being a "prize", but rather of there being
more than one way to achieve an objective than letting the inefficient
public sector handle it.


For most people, the justification for separation and recycling seem to
be a separate issue to 'choice'.

I'm not sure. I think that a lot of people think it might be a good
idea because of greenwashing rather than properly justified and
explained reasons.




Some people are happy to sit back, pay their taxes and let the state
run their lives for them.

The state commits bigger crimes than asking you nicely to separate your waste.

Excess taxation being the major one. If they ask nicely, I shall
politely decline.




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

Not sure that they are generally represented dishonestly...

Too many cases of stupidity based around meeting of political targets.
Waste collection is one example of it, healthcare and education are
others.




and with the implications as well as the environmental implications considered.

Indeed. Can't argue with that.


Those include the economic effects in all aspects including the
burden on the individual.

There is certainly no harm in costing these things, but there is no
reason to expect the more sustainable option to be the cheapest one in
the immediate term.

Fine. How to you intend to convince people not to buy cheap imported
Chinese goods.?





There are the issues of assorted containers hanging around the place for weeks

Well - up to a couple of weeks anyway.


and the choice for the individual.

That's certainly an issue that gets you excited, but not most people I meet.

I don't get excited about things like this. I'll simply do what I
consider to be the correct course of action.



and that it is not possible to form the positions or implement the
policies and procedures arising from them genuinely.

Depends what you mean by "genuine".

Sometimes the differences are gross enough that you don't need more
than one significant figure... Usually I suspect...

I remain to be convinced. One cannot reasonably examine every facet
and every locality in detail, but as soon as the exposures of political
targets occur, the alarm bells should ring and the whole thing be
examined. This does not seem to happen, which discredits the whole
thing.




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

Or the EU...

Fill your boots as far as I'm concerned...

The gray train again




The considerations that should be going into this are which things are
worth doing and why and to provide solid evidence.

Agreed.


Then consideration should be given to a range of options that can be
offered to the customer.

Yes - though you might take the trouble to see if the customer wants a
choice, taking into the account the environmental consequences of the
provision of multiple services / service levels.

Customers where I live certainly do.




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.

Well - you bleat about it as discredited and more data would certainly
be good, but most people seem happy to accept that there is a case to
recycle, and from what I've seen, this seems to be correct, though I
accept that there will be regional differences, and sometimes better
alternatives.

Better alternatives are to have a range of services available so that
the customer can decide.



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

I'm saying that if you can't even be bothered to sort your own rubbish,
a low effort, low time commitment activity, you are not demonstrating
that you value the environment, or are willing to make much sacrifice
to support it.

It isn't an issue of "can't be bothered" but one of the choice between
whether I do this or someone else, who is being paid to do the job is
or is not doing it. That's a straightforward business decision and
is not on the emotional basis that you are trying to suggest.

It is not correct either to suggest that a "sacrifice" be made in order
to support something. That is the stuff of religious fanaticism.
Taking this to a more sensible proposition, I do value and support the
environment - both on a compulsary basis through taxation and on a
voluntary one through charitable donations. Again - one size does
not fit all.




- unless one participates in a set piece policy and implementation that
one doesn't care about the environment. Untrue.

Unsaid, but I expect there is a correlation.

No there isn't.



There can be many different ways of achieving objectives.

Indeed. And very few people, me included, will do all of the things
that anybody might ever regard as 'green' - I'm not saying that
everyone has to do everything, but as waste separation is a low effort
activity, most people seem willing enough to undertake it.

What contribution are you making then ?

Already stated.





anyway and contraction and convergence is unlikely to be a realistic
goal anyway.

We'll have to see. Got any equitable alternatives in mind ?

Who said that things have to be equitable?



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

That's certainly the way it goes if you are well resourced.
Unfortunately, as a species, we are neither evenly or well resourced,
at least with respect to the demands the technologically developed
countries are placing on the planet.

Contraction and convergence of course seeks to address the matter of
how evenly resourced people are.


A pointless exercise, then. Some animals are always more equal than others.

On 2006-12-04 16:48:31 +0000, John Beardmore said:



The inevitable result is overpricing and poor quality. The only way
to defend that is not to have any competition so that people have
comparison points.
This strikes me as a political belief rather than an observation based
on what can be observed in the town hall.
One only has to look in a few places to see a consistent malaise.
Guess I just look under different rocks.

Perhaps that's where you are going wrong. The malaise is in broad
daylight for all to see.

I know what you mean in some departments, but it's not universal. I'm
going to support the people in LAs that are worth supporting.

You must spend a lot of time looking.




Supply and branding can be applied in almost any sector. So for
example, SITA could offer a range of waste collection services that I
might like to buy; or I can buy a different package of services from
the local authoriity but operated by SITA.
It just requires a little imagination and application of business principles.
Yes - though I'm not sure what the point is or how it helps.

Sigh.

Didn't your environmental studies course have anything about business
principles..?

Well up to a point, but they don't generally encourage the provision of
redundant services to gratify and ideological lust for choice where any
marginal benefit from the provision of choice is swamped by increasing
the environmental footprint of the service provision of a whole.

Not in touch with reality then...



And calling it a "Home Care" package implies that there is more
bundled into it than waste collection. I thought you only wanted to
pay for what you used ?

So create "Home Care" bronze, silver and gold products.

Bronze is basic rubbish collection, silver includes collecting
additional things such as garden rubbish etc. and gold includes rat
catching and wasp nest destruction; or whatever. Just illustrations.

Hmmm... The only people to whom this kind of thing seems to appeal are
those who seem to be obsessed by the provision of choice a matter of
principle. Still - make it an election issue, and see how far you
get. It'd be interesting to see.


I think it will....

Andy Hall wrote:

On 2006-12-04 21:56:48 +0000, Pete C said:

On Mon, 4 Dec 2006 12:39:59 +0000, Andy Hall
wrote:

I bet you could sort all the recyclable stuff from your rubbish in a
tiny fraction of the time you spend posting to uk.d-i-y and worrying
about ££££ tools.

I *could*. I wish to have the choice not to, but for it to be done by
the provider, not to be required to do so.

Well that's the price of living in a more civilised country, and one
where the democratically elected local/national government requires
you to play a part.


I do play a significant part, through the payment of taxes. I am
looking for a return on that.

Then talk to local (and indeed regional and national) elected members and
officers. I'd be very surprised if public meetings are not held on issues
such as planning, waste management etc. and if times are inconvenient (they
can never suit everyone) then phone, snailmail and email can be useful for
having your say. Works for me.

On uk.environment, in
, "Mary Fisher"
wrote:

"sarah" wrote in message
...


I know exactly what's coming next. This lady is obviously
another Beardmore, smart as a whip with the intellectual
integrity of a sleazeball politician:

I know sarah IRL and while she is smarter than any whip I know

Cute.

her intellectual integrity is beyond reproach.

No. That's obvious as hell.

She said she was willing to live near all of the industries
that make her lifestyle possible.

She isn't. She doesn't. And she won't. And she knows it.

OR, she doesn't know anything about industrial technology
and is thus not qualified to be discussing the subject.

If the former is true, then she's lying. If the latter
is true she would, if she had intellectual integrity,
admit her ignorance and bow out until she's done her
homework. A lot of it.

And amazing number of people who know nothing about how
this civilization works in the real world consider themselves
to be environmental experts.

Their psuedo-educations on the subject come from promotional
materials published by environmental orgs and/or from textbooks
produced by major corporations.

None of the above materials cover even the basics of how the
things we consume are produced.

And without that understanding you just can't talk realistically
about the environment.

For example: It takes about 3.25 acres of land to produce the
_food_ for the animals whose products you consume.

How many people in Great Britain? Do the math. If every scrap
of land in GB was devoted to growing the food for those animals
you still wouldn't have enough.

But it's much more fun to talk about sorting garbage and
"global warming", isn't it?

And we don't even always agree :-)

Sure you do. You agree on some basic, and erroneous, assumptions.

Like: We don't have to make fundamental changes in our lifestyle
because it isn't the cause of the environmental crisis.

It's those Evil Politicians and Evil Corporations who are to
blame.

And: We (billions of people) can live a supermaterialistic
lifestyle _and_ preserve the Nature that sustains us.

Those wonderful Scientists will invent amazing technologies
that will make this possible.

Alan

--
http://home.earthlink.net/~alanconnor/contact.html
http://home.earthlink.net/~alanconno...val/index.html
http://home.earthlink.net/~alanconno...nix/index.html

Thanks for your kookfart, Beavis.

--
article not downloaded:

Info about "Alan Connor"

Alan "The Usenet Beavis" Connor is a good friend of Bigfoot:
http://tinyurl.com/23r3f

A couple of years ago he was kidnapped and raped by Xena,
the Warrior Princess: http://tinyurl.com/2gjcy

Beavis believes that the MSBlast virus of yesteryear was explicitly
targeting him, for some inexplicable reason: http://tinyurl.com/ifrt

Beavis belongs to a UFO cult: http://tinyurl.com/2hhdx
Beavis's life in a UFO cult: http://tinyurl.com/24jqm
Beavis knows all about network security: http://tinyurl.com/5qqb6
And he's also a search engine expert: http://tinyurl.com/9pjnt



"But if you must know, Alans' name is Bruce Burhans, and he lives in
Bellingham WA. To his hippie friends he calls himself "Tom Littlefoot"
**Google Tom Littlefoot, Bruce Burhans and "Wildwood"**.

Bruce has some serious mental problems and spends a lot of time as an
in-patient at the big mental hospital in Bellingham, when he's not
hospitalized, he posts to usenet. In every group he posts to he comes off as
some sort of expert in the subject at hand, and when anyone disagrees (and
they will, he sees to that) he starts in on his trollery.

Again, Bruce is a true Professional Usenet Troll. It is his entertainment
and it's what he lives for."


http://www.pearlgates.net/nanae/kooks/ac/fga.shtml
http://groups.google.com/groups/prof...-MEqh3HQ&hl=en
http://www.pearlgates.net/nanae/kooks/ac/
http://linuxmafia.com/faq/Mail/challenge-response.html
http://www.spamcop.net/fom-serve/cache/329.html#CR
http://www.gatago.com/authors_pgs/13650.html
http://blog.bananasplit.info/?p=84
http://tinyurl.com/ifrt
http://tinyurl.com/3h6a5
http://tinyurl.com/ys6z4

Also in the headers for alan to read.

In message , The Central
Authority writes
On Fri, 24 Nov 2006 19:26:47 +0000, John Beardmore
wrote:

The plastic is shipped to China.

Well - if our plastic didn't go there, presumably oil would. Which do
you think has the lower net environmental impact ?

A non-sequitur.

Waste plastic going to China does not replace oil.

I think the word I used was "displace", and yes, it does, since PET is
made from oil.


I've seen
photographs of PET bottles being burnt in China on open bonfires
yielding acrid yellow smoke.

Even if you have, that doesn't mean that the Chinese burn all PET, or
indeed that all our PET goes to China.

And anyway - I think you'll find we use plenty of PET in the UK !


I am sure if PET could be shredded and included with pulverised fuel
at British power stations it would be.

Hmmm... Can't see why it couldn't be. It doesn't contain any nitrogen
sulphur or halogens so it should be 'game on' unless, as is likely,
there's a better use for it. Drax is tooling up to burn a bit of wood
on the side, but I doubt burning that is the best use for PET.


Waste paper (including Yellow Pages) can be put in a recycling box
but Yellow Pages cannot be put in a waste paper collection station.
The waste paper is driven to Kent and from there shipped to Sweden
where it is reprocessed,

Really ? I though Kent had a lot of UK based paper mills ?

Why should Kent have a lot of paper mills?

My understanding is that a lot of wood comes into the UK from Europe.


For composting, small branches are OK but dead woody matter isn't.
How you tell the difference between a small branch (which is dead
woody matter but allowed) and something which is dead woody matter
and not allowed is interesting but could cost you a lot of money to
get wrong.

In theory. How many are fined in practice ?

Sems to be about 1 per week, and the fines are not minor slaps on the
wrist either. ISTR £400 for a single item of junk mail in with the
waste paper.

I find that hard to believe.


Glass and Plastic bottles are supposed to be washed - which wastes
water and energy.

Water is a renewable resource, at least for the time being.

Water usage is currently restricted in many parts of this country.

Quite possibly, but it continues to fall out of the sky.

The real question is if recycling uses less energy than working with
virgin materials, and which of the above is more sustainable. Any
thoughts ?


How much energy is used raising a moderate amount of water to say 55
degrees, (and the tail end of the washing up water will probably do !),
as opposed to melting glass ?

Another non-sequitur, it still has to be melted.

Not if it's reused, but I take your point - that isn't what we were
talking about, true, but at least it avoids the production of the sodium
carbonate, calcium oxide, magnesium oxide, aluminium oxide and any
additives used to give colour etc. Reuse would be the better option
where possible of course !


Unsurprisingly this scheme is held up as a paragon of virtue by FOE
and won an award.

Well - I guess the question is, can you prove that the impacts outweigh
the benefits ? Because, of course there impacts - that's no surprise,
it's just a question of magnitude.

Or, more to the point, "Does any of it make sense ?"

Well - as said at length LCA is generally the best arbiter of that, and
as I understand it, generally recycling does make sense relative to
landfill, but that doesn't rule out any and all alternatives.


Cheers, J/.
--
John Beardmore

On Wed, 6 Dec 2006 01:37:41 +0000 someone who may be John Beardmore
wrote this:-

Sems to be about 1 per week, and the fines are not minor slaps on the
wrist either. ISTR £400 for a single item of junk mail in with the
waste paper.

I find that hard to believe.

I suspect the OP is referring to the following

http://environment.guardian.co.uk/wa...925467,00.html

================================================== ==================

Environmentalists yesterday criticised a council for prosecuting a
man who put the wrong kind of rubbish into a recycling bag. Friends
of the Earth said the case of Michael Reeves, who has been ordered
to pay £200 for putting a single sheet of paper in a bag reserved
for glass and tin, could put others off recycling.

Mr Reeves, from Swansea in south Wales, said he would not attempt to
recycle again. He was backed by other residents who said the council
ought to be putting more resources into keeping the streets clean
rather than chasing people who were trying to do the right thing.

The saga began when a recycling team spotted a sheet of paper in a
green bag outside Mr Reeves's flat - a bill with Mr Reeves's name on
it. He denied he had put it in the green bag but was fined £100 with
£100 costs by Swansea magistrates.

Friends of the Earth Cymru, the Welsh arm of the environmental
group, said the prosecution sent out the wrong signal. Spokesman
Julian Rosser said: "I feel a case like this can really damage
recycling.

"If someone persistently puts the wrong things into the wrong bags,
and is warned, then we would support prosecution." But the "one-off
offence was very, very minor." Mr Reeves, a 28-year-old local sports
journalist, said: "I am very angry. I still deny putting that piece
of paper in the bag." Swansea council said most people managed to
sort their waste. "It's not rocket science," said a spokesman. "The
bags are labelled clearly."

================================================== ==================



--
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:
On 4 Dec 2006 02:41:42 -0800 someone who may be
wrote this:-

They take up little extra space or get in the way if organised
properly.

tell it to people living in small accomodation, it wont wash.

There appear to be rather a lot of assumptions behind your remark.

Any extra container than the main black binbag one has to take up more
space, it cant fail to. Several of them, even if relatively small, are
a problem in some accommodation. Then the same deal happens again
outside.


There are few houses with gales inside them such that if a bag of
"junk" falls over it will be blown everywhere.

no, that occurs outside

Outside the "junk" should be inside suitable containers, a bin or
box, rather then bags.

Maybe you should tell our LA.


Boxes of cans in people's houses, gardens or the street?

outdoors

And how do these "fill up with neighbourhood rubbish"?

people put junk in them


Provided people comply with the rules there are few cases of binmen
not taking "junk" away.

i wish. If it were true I'd still be using the service.

Then you have a particular problem, but that doesn't mean it is a
general one. What is your description of the problem?

they fail to take the recyclables so often the system is unworkable.
Yes, the rules were followed. Anyhow the result of all this is
recycling is no longer practical.

You appear to now be saying the LA is not so great after all. Would you
say someone who can actually do the job should be given a chance to do
so?


NT

sarah wrote:
Andy Hall wrote:
On 2006-12-04 10:29:24 +0000, (sarah) said:
Andy Hall wrote:

I beg to disagree. If regulation forces manufacturers to reduce their
packaging excesses, consumers will have to buy what's available.

I see. So now we have this interference extending into customer choice
as well?

Where it is for the benefit of all, certainly.

That sounds ideal at first sight, but the question is, whose opinion do
we take on what is most beneficial? Nannying legislation means taking
the decision out of the hands of business managers that know their
business, and design engineers that know theirs, and putting it into
the hands of a government body that as often as not really doesnt.

Let me give you a classic example of this. Nannying legislation says
new builds must have an 'energy efficient' light fitting, and that it
must only be able to take cfl tubes. So theyre put into all new houses,
despite the fact that customers dont want them, and there is a real
lack of fittings suited to the domestic market. Most house buyers
object to the butt ugly thing and remove it once the inspections are
over. So instead of this policy producing energy savings, it is merely
producing a waste of time, energy and money all round. Then to take it
further, this failed policy is not repealed but continued! A policy
that wastes energy and costs money is continued.

Thats nannying. Now we can blame the customer if wanted, but in a
freeish market it would be immediately realised that the solution was
to develop fittings the customers liked. Under the present system,
despite significant sales volume, there is a lack of incentive to do
so, as theyre already selling just fine.

Lets compare what happens with failed policies in the private business
sector. Either the business corrects it, and they try to, or they cease
being a service provider, and those that come closer to what the buyer
wants stay in business. The motivation to do well is much larger there,
as the individual either prospers or loses it all.


Mind you, despite murder
being a bad thing for society in general I think I could make a case for
it to be legalised in some circumstances.

lol, I'll vote for that, in theory. Trouble is our state would pick the
wrong ones. US has a fair bit of legalised killing.


I suppose that from your PoV, you are. You are wedded to the outdated
notion that competition on the free market spit always results in the
best of all possible worlds.

It doesnt, but nor does any system. Oh for a perfect system. but there
really is none. A freeish market at least gives strong incentive and
works relatively well. I dont know why or in what way you consider it
outdated. Contrary to what someone else suggested, todays free market
economy is not comparable to nor assumed to be like the original model
of farmers and cottage workers. The understanding of freeish markets
moved beyond that a long time ago.


You should get out more, or at least open
your eyes and mind.

Welll I'd like to hear what works better and why. I cant promise to
agree though.


As regards your demand that you be absolved from
sorting your own rubbish for recycling: put your money where your mouth
is.[1] If you think there's a market for the service, start a business
supplying it. If you're too lazy to do that (or have a niggling doubt
that there's insufficient demand), hire someone else to do it.

this is a classic debate technique that isnt logically valid. There is
no real need for any of us to engage in business to have a valid case
in debate.


NT

sarah wrote:
wrote:
sarah wrote:
Andy Hall wrote:
On 2006-12-03 11:02:36 +0000, (sarah) said:

I'd argue that sorting your own waste has an important psychological
impact.

if you believe so, youre free to do it. If otoh youre quite ill and
this is not on your priorities, you need to be free to not do it. Why
does nanny always think one course of action is best for all?

Nanny may not (I don't know, because I'm not one and I don't know any).
But one course of action may well be best for all. That's why we have
laws.

I dont believe thats why we have laws, nor do laws dictate one course
of action for all. There are many examples where the law says some
people can do x, some cant, and there are laws where what you can do
depends on the individual circumstances.

Each of us has our own level at which we function, in the sense that
some have achieved more than others. Eg some are trying to make ends
meet while some put their energy into quite different things. A bit
like a maslow scale. no, its gonna take too long, its really another
thread. Lets just say different people have different things they can
best do with their money.


You may find that after a while there is no more psychological benfit
in sorting, once youre perfectly well aware of the rubbish situation.
There is no reason people ought to spent their whole life in that
learning about their rubbish phase.

Oh, I don't know. Some people never learn. As Usenet demonstrates, time
and time again :-(

Right, which makes it pointless for them to be forced to sort.


OK. But only if you and those others who want that service pay for it
*personally*. You can hire someone to come in and do it for you; you
could do so tomorrow if you felt like it. The rest of us who prefer not
to waste (ha) our money shouldn't have to pay anything towards provision
of that service. I would work hard to vote out any of my representatives
who suggested such a thing.

Ah, and thats important. Lots of people dont compost because there is
no financial incentive to, and this results in masses of extra rubbish
to dispose of and extra costs for us all. Why then do you not vote out
people supporting this problem?

Who? My un-elected neighbours? How am I to vote them out -- with a lynch
mob?

no, the people in power that dictated the present system. In a freeish
market everyone woud have an economic incentive to compost, so suddenly
it would become far more popular.


Alternatively, you have the option
to select products
based on the way that the manufacturer does the packaging. It's far
better not to have the packaging disposal issue in the first place.

Quite. But until legislation forces it on the manufacturers, their
marketing people, combined perhaps with a host of safety regs and
transport requirements, and sheer laziness on the part of some consumers
ensures the problem will persist.

Packaging is a signficant expense, as transport costs money and
packaging takes up transport volume. Manufacturers do not therefore
generally waste money on packaging. Its normally there because there is
a reason it needs to be. The excess packaging myth results from popular
lack of awareness of why its there.

I have never before heard of the 'excess packaging myth'. I'll try to
remember not to note excess packaging when I see it next.

Are you trained in packaging design? Do you fully undertand why what is
done is done? If not, are you in the best position to know when its
excessive and when its not?


If waste recycling were merely some whimsical initiative undertaken by
UK local authorities, that would be fair. Unfortunately it's not.
Recycling has been forced on them by EU directives

so not even a democractic decision, or even semi democratic.

Depends on your view of democracy. You voted in your MEP... didn't you?
S/he voted for/against the regulations when the opportunity arose... or
chose not to.

Sounds like another thread's worth there too. I dont accept the public
decided on it, but would take too long to talk it through.


and that burying
valuable resources or sending them up in smoke to generate heat and
pollution is a Bad Thing.

What we buy is mostly made from oil and plants. From an energy use
point of view, what difference does it make if we burn oil or burn oil
derived waste?

That's a remarkably... general generalisation. It's the specifics that
cause problems. Some of that oil-derived waste can be remade into useful
stuff not easily made from renewable resources.

yes, and I think thats not hard to deal with. Anything of value can be
collected separately, when its of sufficient value to justify so doing.
In reality there isnt much like that, maybe ali cans is all.

Burning some of that
oil-derived waste can generate remarkably toxic chemicals so the flue
gases must be cleaned (additional cost/effort).

yes, I believe thats been dealt with though, and I'm told incineration
does make economic sense.

A lot of what's made
from oil and plants contains small or moderate amounts of valuable or
dangerous metals which are wasted/hazardous if simply discarded in
landfill.

yes, though recovery still isnt worthwhile. Discard them in ocean
landfill and you have less toxin problem and more end value. Incinerate
them and you have some return instead of cost. There are already
separate procedures in effect for hazmat.


TDP?

a real must read story, and might yet change the whole picture. Eg:
http://www.sovereignty.org.uk/features/eco/zwaste2.html


NT

Owain wrote:
Pete C wrote:

If you want to choose not to participate, why not exercise your right
to move to somewhere like Peru? There an army of homeless children
will scavenge from your rubbish at the dump, so nothing is required
for you to do.

A small army of uk.d-i-y regulars have expressed the desire to scavenge
at the dump in the UK but are prevented from doing so by H&S regulations.

Owain

is that truth or excuse though? How hard is it to sign a preprinted
waiver? How hard is it to buy electrical goods after showing evidence
of being in the trade? Etc.

And why is laying out the possibly saleable rubbish so much more
hazardous than it is when its done at jumble sales, second hand goods
shops and so on? I'm far from convinced.


NT

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

When I was a child I loved searching the local mill dump for what to
me were
treasures.

A friend and I in the mid 70s used to retrieve Flymos from the dump and
make 'em work again. Made a nice income from that which was very welcome
to a couple of teenagers.

this kind of thing is educational and gets kids into subjects at which
they later do well. So now its illegal, and we have armies of bored
clueless kids instead. Thanks Nanny.


NT

David Hansen wrote:
On Mon, 4 Dec 2006 12:22:26 +0000 someone who may be Andy Hall
wrote this:-

Perhaps like most things we're not looking for the place to draw a line,
but rather painting subtle shades of grey across a wide area :-) The
competent and concerned get to do more, the rest follow according to
inclination, ability and legislation.

surelt the competent have far more useful and important things to do
with their time, like try to crack technological problems for one
example.

Precisely....

I doubt if even ten minutes a week would make any difference to the
solving of problems by the competent, especially as they can still
think about these problems as they do the sorting.

doesnt sound like comprehension to me


NT

David Hansen wrote:
On Wed, 6 Dec 2006 01:37:41 +0000 someone who may be John Beardmore
wrote this:-

Sems to be about 1 per week, and the fines are not minor slaps on the
wrist either. ISTR £400 for a single item of junk mail in with the
waste paper.

I find that hard to believe.

I suspect the OP is referring to the following

http://environment.guardian.co.uk/wa...925467,00.html

================================================== ==================

Environmentalists yesterday criticised a council for prosecuting a
man who put the wrong kind of rubbish into a recycling bag. Friends
of the Earth said the case of Michael Reeves, who has been ordered
to pay £200 for putting a single sheet of paper in a bag reserved
for glass and tin, could put others off recycling.

Mr Reeves, from Swansea in south Wales, said he would not attempt to
recycle again. He was backed by other residents who said the council
ought to be putting more resources into keeping the streets clean
rather than chasing people who were trying to do the right thing.

The saga began when a recycling team spotted a sheet of paper in a
green bag outside Mr Reeves's flat - a bill with Mr Reeves's name on
it. He denied he had put it in the green bag but was fined £100 with
£100 costs by Swansea magistrates.

Friends of the Earth Cymru, the Welsh arm of the environmental
group, said the prosecution sent out the wrong signal. Spokesman
Julian Rosser said: "I feel a case like this can really damage
recycling.

"If someone persistently puts the wrong things into the wrong bags,
and is warned, then we would support prosecution." But the "one-off
offence was very, very minor." Mr Reeves, a 28-year-old local sports
journalist, said: "I am very angry. I still deny putting that piece
of paper in the bag." Swansea council said most people managed to
sort their waste. "It's not rocket science," said a spokesman. "The
bags are labelled clearly."

================================================== ==================

and bizarrely, some people want these folk to have a monopoly on their
waste services!


NT