It seems to me that there has been a refreshing rethink of late on
several fronts. The EEC has dropped many of its ridiculous vegetable
size and shape rules. The Health and Safety boss has gone on record to
say that the application of the rules are TOT. The equality commission
now says equality has gone a step too far, and there are thousands of
solicitors making unnecessary rich pickings. Looks like the rules on
re-cycling will be modified, what is the sense of cleaning jars and cans
using more energy than is saved by recycling, then to rub salt into the
wounds send them to the Far East! Is this down to the financial downturn
(correct speak for slump?) or is common sense starting to prevail?

"Broadback" wrote in message
...
It seems to me that there has been a refreshing rethink of late on several
fronts. The EEC has dropped many of its ridiculous vegetable size and
shape rules. The Health and Safety boss has gone on record to say that the
application of the rules are TOT. The equality commission now says
equality has gone a step too far, and there are thousands of solicitors
making unnecessary rich pickings. Looks like the rules on re-cycling will
be modified, what is the sense of cleaning jars and cans using more energy
than is saved by recycling, then to rub salt into the wounds send them to
the Far East! Is this down to the financial downturn (correct speak for
slump?) or is common sense starting to prevail?

Perhaps, Lord Mandelson of Jiggery-Pokery did drop plans for extending
maternity leave like a hot potato, saying they were too expensive for
business - a direct consequence of the economic downturn. When the going
gets tough the touchy-feely stuff is suddenly out the window!


--
Bob Mannix
(anti-spam is as easy as 1-2-3 - not)

On Thu, 13 Nov 2008 13:57:59 +0000 someone who may be Broadback
wrote this:-

what is the sense of cleaning jars and cans
using more energy than is saved by recycling,

An incorrect assertion. Sloshing a few jars or cans around in old
dishwater uses zero energy, other than a tiny amount of elbow
grease.



--
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 Thu, 13 Nov 2008 13:57:59 +0000 someone who may be Broadback
wrote this:-

what is the sense of cleaning jars and cans
using more energy than is saved by recycling,

An incorrect assertion. Sloshing a few jars or cans around in old
dishwater uses zero energy, other than a tiny amount of elbow
grease.



Sad to say it is your assumption that is incorrect. We do not use
dishwater. If you place cans/bottles in a dishwasher the labels clock
the filters up, and removing them beforehand is another requirement for
hot water, anyway water itself is a resource that uses energy, how else
can it reach our homes teated?

On Thu, 13 Nov 2008 15:19:05 +0000, Broadback
wrote:

David Hansen wrote:
On Thu, 13 Nov 2008 13:57:59 +0000 someone who may be Broadback
wrote this:-

what is the sense of cleaning jars and cans
using more energy than is saved by recycling,

An incorrect assertion. Sloshing a few jars or cans around in old
dishwater uses zero energy, other than a tiny amount of elbow
grease.



Sad to say it is your assumption that is incorrect. We do not use
dishwater. If you place cans/bottles in a dishwasher the labels clock
the filters up, and removing them beforehand is another requirement for
hot water, anyway water itself is a resource that uses energy, how else
can it reach our homes teated?

He possibly meant dishwater in the sink or basin not in a dishwasher
machine

On Thu, 13 Nov 2008 13:57:59 +0000, Broadback wrote:

......................... what is the sense of cleaning jars and cans
using more energy than is saved by recycling, then to rub salt into the
wounds send them to the Far East!

Well, we've got to export something (even if it is only rubbish). If it also
stops the manufacturing countries from using *new* raw materials, it's a good
thing.
Since this country stopped making stuff that people want, at prices they're
preapered to pay, our options for trade are fairly limited. However, it's not all
bad news. The freighters that bring over all the desirables we buy on credit
from the far east would otherwise go back empty - so we might as well put
something in them.

pete wrote:
On Thu, 13 Nov 2008 13:57:59 +0000, Broadback wrote:

......................... what is the sense of cleaning jars and cans
using more energy than is saved by recycling, then to rub salt into the
wounds send them to the Far East!

Well, we've got to export something (even if it is only rubbish). If it also
stops the manufacturing countries from using *new* raw materials, it's a good
thing.
Since this country stopped making stuff that people want, at prices they're
preapered to pay, our options for trade are fairly limited. However, it's not all
bad news. The freighters that bring over all the desirables we buy on credit
from the far east would otherwise go back empty - so we might as well put
something in them.

Compressed bankers maybe

On Thu, 13 Nov 2008 15:19:05 +0000 someone who may be Broadback
wrote this:-

An incorrect assertion. Sloshing a few jars or cans around in old
dishwater uses zero energy, other than a tiny amount of elbow
grease.

Sad to say it is your assumption that is incorrect.

Really.

We do not use dishwater.

So, do you use paper plates and cups, or do you clean the china
using some sort of dry process?

If you place cans/bottles in a dishwasher the labels clock
the filters up,

I didn't mention a dishwasher.

and removing them beforehand is another requirement for
hot water,

Not if it is old dishwater.

anyway water itself is a resource that uses energy, how else
can it reach our homes teated?

Not if it is old dishwater.


--
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 Thu, 13 Nov 2008 15:19:05 +0000 someone who may be Broadback
wrote this:-

An incorrect assertion. Sloshing a few jars or cans around in old
dishwater uses zero energy, other than a tiny amount of elbow
grease.

Sad to say it is your assumption that is incorrect.

Really.

We do not use dishwater.

So, do you use paper plates and cups, or do you clean the china
using some sort of dry process?

He said that he doesn't use dishwater, probably meaning that he has a
dishwasher rather than a washing-up bowl in the sink.

If you place cans/bottles in a dishwasher the labels clock
the filters up,

I didn't mention a dishwasher.

You didn't but he said that he doesn't use dishwater, leading to the logical
assumption that he has a dishwasher, and he was telling you that he can't
place cans/bottles in there because the labels come off and block the
filters.

and removing them beforehand is another requirement for
hot water,

Not if it is old dishwater.

He hasn't got any because he doesn't use it

anyway water itself is a resource that uses energy, how else
can it reach our homes teated?

Not if it is old dishwater.

He hasn't got any because he doesn't use it

On 13 Nov, 15:19, Broadback wrote:

Sad to say it is your assumption that is incorrect. We do not use
dishwater. If you place cans/bottles in a dishwasher the labels clock
the filters up, and removing them beforehand is another requirement for
hot water, anyway water itself is a resource that uses energy, how else
can it reach our homes teated?

Removing the labels doesn't require hot water, and jars and cans don't
need to go in the dishwasher.

Soak the jars overnight in cold water. The labels come off while being
soaked. Jam dissolves overnight.

Cans can be soaked overnight in cold water with a dash of washing up
liquid, which gets rid of enough of the gunk.

Regards,

Sid

wrote:
On 13 Nov, 15:19, Broadback wrote:

Sad to say it is your assumption that is incorrect. We do not use
dishwater. If you place cans/bottles in a dishwasher the labels clock
the filters up, and removing them beforehand is another requirement for
hot water, anyway water itself is a resource that uses energy, how else
can it reach our homes teated?

Removing the labels doesn't require hot water, and jars and cans don't
need to go in the dishwasher.

Soak the jars overnight in cold water. The labels come off while being
soaked. Jam dissolves overnight.

Cans can be soaked overnight in cold water with a dash of washing up
liquid, which gets rid of enough of the gunk.

Regards,

Sid


If you offered any half sensible adult a job that consisted of
removing labels and washing cans, and proposed to pay them the scrap
value of the cans minus all collection costs, they'd laugh. And yet
you're expected to spend a portion of your life doing exactly that -
oh, and its someone else that will be paid the scrap value btw.

The labour, fuel, materials and so on throughout the chain involved in
cleaning, collecting, transporting, sorting and processing means that
there is no genuine saving of energy & resources - figures quoted are
normally derived by completely ignoring significant portions of the
system that is working to do the whole recycling process.

And despite all the above, the greenwash is so unrealistic/dishonest
that many people think that not only is it s noble and constructive
way to spend your time, but that you have a moral duty no less to do
it! You couldnt make it up.

On Thu, 13 Nov 2008 15:01:28 -0800 (PST) someone who may be
wrote this:-

Removing the labels doesn't require hot water, and jars and cans don't
need to go in the dishwasher.

Soak the jars overnight in cold water. The labels come off while being
soaked. Jam dissolves overnight.

If you offered any half sensible adult a job that consisted of
removing labels and washing cans, and proposed to pay them the scrap
value of the cans minus all collection costs, they'd laugh. And yet
you're expected to spend a portion of your life doing exactly that -

Putting some cans or jars into water takes a long time?

The labour, fuel, materials and so on throughout the chain involved in
cleaning, collecting, transporting, sorting and processing means that
there is no genuine saving of energy & resources - figures quoted are
normally derived by completely ignoring significant portions of the
system that is working to do the whole recycling process.

Ah, proof by assertion.



--
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 Thu, 13 Nov 2008 15:01:28 -0800 (PST) someone who may be
wrote this:-

Removing the labels doesn't require hot water, and jars and cans don't
need to go in the dishwasher.

Soak the jars overnight in cold water. The labels come off while being
soaked. Jam dissolves overnight.
If you offered any half sensible adult a job that consisted of
removing labels and washing cans, and proposed to pay them the scrap
value of the cans minus all collection costs, they'd laugh. And yet
you're expected to spend a portion of your life doing exactly that -

Putting some cans or jars into water takes a long time?

The labour, fuel, materials and so on throughout the chain involved in
cleaning, collecting, transporting, sorting and processing means that
there is no genuine saving of energy & resources - figures quoted are
normally derived by completely ignoring significant portions of the
system that is working to do the whole recycling process.

Ah, proof by assertion.



Something you and green**** are entirely used to, of course.

In fact like most of the so called green iniatives, a large amount of
recycling is utter phooey.

WE know you don't do sums, so calculating e,.g. the carbon footprint of
a recycled bottle as roadfill versus simply chucking it in the sea and
letting nature turn it back to sand, will never convince you of
anything, so why bother?

David Hansen wrote:
On Thu, 13 Nov 2008 15:01:28 -0800 (PST) someone who may be
wrote this:-

Removing the labels doesn't require hot water, and jars and cans don't
need to go in the dishwasher.

Soak the jars overnight in cold water. The labels come off while being
soaked. Jam dissolves overnight.

If you offered any half sensible adult a job that consisted of
removing labels and washing cans, and proposed to pay them the scrap
value of the cans minus all collection costs, they'd laugh. And yet
you're expected to spend a portion of your life doing exactly that -

Putting some cans or jars into water takes a long time?

Once, no, repeatedly day after day it adds up. How some people cant
see a better use for their time I dont know.


The labour, fuel, materials and so on throughout the chain involved in
cleaning, collecting, transporting, sorting and processing means that
there is no genuine saving of energy & resources - figures quoted are
normally derived by completely ignoring significant portions of the
system that is working to do the whole recycling process.

Ah, proof by assertion.

A statement and proof are 2 evidently different things. The above is a
stement. Proof would require a lot more writing time. Sorry if you
were confused.


NT

On Fri, 14 Nov 2008 10:06:57 +0000 someone who may be The Natural
Philosopher wrote this:-

Ah, proof by assertion.


Something you and green**** are entirely used to, of course.

In fact like most of the so called green iniatives, a large amount of
recycling is utter phooey.

WE know you don't do sums, so calculating e,.g. the carbon footprint of
a recycled bottle as roadfill versus simply chucking it in the sea and
letting nature turn it back to sand, will never convince you of
anything, so why bother?

Ah, proof by assertion. Do keep it up.


--
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, 13 Nov 2008 17:38:19 -0000, "John" wrote:


Not if it is old dishwater.

He hasn't got any because he doesn't use it

anyway water itself is a resource that uses energy, how else
can it reach our homes teated?

Not if it is old dishwater.

He hasn't got any because he doesn't use it


If he was really green he'd get it shipped in from China.

Derek

On Thu, 13 Nov 2008 15:01:28 -0800 (PST), wrote:


If you offered any half sensible adult a job that consisted of
removing labels and washing cans, and proposed to pay them the scrap
value of the cans minus all collection costs, they'd laugh. And yet
you're expected to spend a portion of your life doing exactly that -
oh, and its someone else that will be paid the scrap value btw.

Scrap cans don't have any value. Corus has stopped taking them because
during the recession they have more than enough new steel produced
from iron ore for which they have signed long term contracts to take.

The labour, fuel, materials and so on throughout the chain involved in
cleaning, collecting, transporting, sorting and processing means that
there is no genuine saving of energy & resources - figures quoted are
normally derived by completely ignoring significant portions of the
system that is working to do the whole recycling process.

And despite all the above, the greenwash is so unrealistic/dishonest
that many people think that not only is it s noble and constructive
way to spend your time, but that you have a moral duty no less to do
it! You couldnt make it up.

Derek

On Fri, 14 Nov 2008 08:25:31 +0000, David Hansen
wrote:

On Thu, 13 Nov 2008 15:01:28 -0800 (PST) someone who may be
wrote this:-

Removing the labels doesn't require hot water, and jars and cans don't
need to go in the dishwasher.

Soak the jars overnight in cold water. The labels come off while being
soaked. Jam dissolves overnight.

If you offered any half sensible adult a job that consisted of
removing labels and washing cans, and proposed to pay them the scrap
value of the cans minus all collection costs, they'd laugh. And yet
you're expected to spend a portion of your life doing exactly that -

Putting some cans or jars into water takes a long time?

The labour, fuel, materials and so on throughout the chain involved in
cleaning, collecting, transporting, sorting and processing means that
there is no genuine saving of energy & resources - figures quoted are
normally derived by completely ignoring significant portions of the
system that is working to do the whole recycling process.

Ah, proof by assertion.

Better than nothing, David.

Derek

Broadback wrote:
It seems to me that there has been a refreshing rethink of late on
several fronts. The EEC has dropped many of its ridiculous vegetable
size and shape rules. The Health and Safety boss has gone on record to
say that the application of the rules are TOT. The equality commission
now says equality has gone a step too far, and there are thousands of
solicitors making unnecessary rich pickings. Looks like the rules on
re-cycling will be modified, what is the sense of cleaning jars and cans
using more energy than is saved by recycling, then to rub salt into the
wounds send them to the Far East! Is this down to the financial downturn
(correct speak for slump?) or is common sense starting to prevail?

Without any doubt, the number of fireworks I heard this
Halloween-Diwali-Guy Fakes season has been far lower than usual. Most
especially, the random ones on the streets, in the early hours, etc.
have been almost not-existent.

To me, a major plus.

--
Rod

Hypothyroidism is a seriously debilitating condition with an insidious
onset.
Although common it frequently goes undiagnosed.
www.thyromind.info www.thyroiduk.org www.altsupportthyroid.org

In article , Rod
scribeth thus
Broadback wrote:
It seems to me that there has been a refreshing rethink of late on
several fronts. The EEC has dropped many of its ridiculous vegetable
size and shape rules. The Health and Safety boss has gone on record to
say that the application of the rules are TOT. The equality commission
now says equality has gone a step too far, and there are thousands of
solicitors making unnecessary rich pickings. Looks like the rules on
re-cycling will be modified, what is the sense of cleaning jars and cans
using more energy than is saved by recycling, then to rub salt into the
wounds send them to the Far East! Is this down to the financial downturn
(correct speak for slump?) or is common sense starting to prevail?

Without any doubt, the number of fireworks I heard this
Halloween-Diwali-Guy Fakes season has been far lower than usual. Most
especially, the random ones on the streets, in the early hours, etc.
have been almost not-existent.

To me, a major plus.


Not here it isn't, just behind us across the way we have a Guy Fawkes
worshipper.. any excuse at any time is sufficient for a large display..

And his best trick is to wait till around half eleven when all good god
fearing people are almost asleep, and thats the right time for a small
low yield equivalent nooclear burst;!.....
--
Tony Sayer

David Hansen wrote:
On Fri, 14 Nov 2008 10:06:57 +0000 someone who may be The Natural
Philosopher wrote this:-

Ah, proof by assertion.


Something you and green**** are entirely used to, of course.

In fact like most of the so called green iniatives, a large amount of
recycling is utter phooey.

WE know you don't do sums, so calculating e,.g. the carbon footprint
of a recycled bottle as roadfill versus simply chucking it in the
sea and letting nature turn it back to sand, will never convince you
of anything, so why bother?

Ah, proof by assertion. Do keep it up.

Makes more sense than ecobollox.


--
Dave - The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

David Hansen wrote:
On Fri, 14 Nov 2008 10:06:57 +0000 someone who may be The Natural
Philosopher wrote this:-

Ah, proof by assertion.


Something you and green**** are entirely used to, of course.

In fact like most of the so called green iniatives, a large amount of
recycling is utter phooey.

WE know you don't do sums, so calculating e,.g. the carbon footprint of
a recycled bottle as roadfill versus simply chucking it in the sea and
letting nature turn it back to sand, will never convince you of
anything, so why bother?

Ah, proof by assertion. Do keep it up.


Not really. Its not proof, its a hypothesis, which you have totally
failed to refute at any time on any post.

Whereas I have refuted most of your assertions time and again.

By doing the sums.

On Sat, 15 Nov 2008 17:06:30 +0000 someone who may be The Natural
Philosopher wrote this:-

Whereas I have refuted most of your assertions time and again.

By doing the sums.

Yawn. More proof by assertion. Do keep it up, it is mildly amusing.



--
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 Sat, 15 Nov 2008 17:06:30 +0000 someone who may be The Natural
Philosopher wrote this:-

Whereas I have refuted most of your assertions time and again.

By doing the sums.

Yawn. More proof by assertion. Do keep it up, it is mildly amusing.



Its not necessary,. You have amply demonstrated the point by saying what
you just said.

Not only do you not do maths, you don't understand the difference
between proof and refutation.

Proof demonsrates that an assertion is correct. refutation is much
easier. It demonstrates that an assertion is INcorrect.

I have demosterated that most of your assertions are total ********.
That's easy to do, I have never 'proved' or attempted to prove any of
mine, bar the one that says that you are at best a misguided idiot, and
at worts a compulsive liar with an axe to grind.

I propose theories and solutions that fit the facts. They may not bec
correct, but you have failed to refute any of them

You on the other hand spout theories and solutions that are manifestly
in conflict with the real world, and all of which have been refuted.

On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 19:37:35 +0000 someone who may be The Natural
Philosopher wrote this:-

I have demosterated that most of your assertions are total ********.

Yawn. More proof by assertion, this time a little louder than the
previous assertions but just as unconvincing.

Feel free to have the last word, if you wish to demonstrate your
lack of understanding of the subject further.


--
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 13 Nov, 23:01, wrote:
wrote:
On 13 Nov, 15:19, Broadback wrote:
If you offered any half sensible adult a job that consisted of
removing labels and washing cans, and proposed to pay them the scrap
value of the cans minus all collection costs, they'd laugh. And yet
you're expected to spend a portion of your life doing exactly that -
oh, and its someone else that will be paid the scrap value btw.

The labour, fuel, materials and so on throughout the chain involved in
cleaning, collecting, transporting, sorting and processing means that
there is no genuine saving of energy & resources - figures quoted are
normally derived by completely ignoring significant portions of the
system that is working to do the whole recycling process.

And despite all the above, the greenwash is so unrealistic/dishonest
that many people think that not only is it s noble and constructive
way to spend your time, but that you have a moral duty no less to do
it! You couldnt make it up.

You make some good points.

For my own part, I'm prepared to make a little effort to try and make
the environment less bad than it might have been. Reducing humankind's
effect on the environment, to me, is a good thing - so long as it can
be achieved without too radical a change in quality of life. I'm not
quite ready for composting toilets and knitting my own yoghurt yet.

Whole life economic calculations are extremely difficult to do (as you
allude to), often because people neglect externalities - both from the
'greenwash' side and the 'can't be bothered with this environmentalism
nonsense' side. For example, even using cold water to soak used food
containers is questionable due to the problem of using potable water
for non-drinking purposes. I suppose I could wait for the
(hypothetical) dishwater to go cold. :-) (It's hypothetical because I
use a dishwashing machine). I'm not a (vegetable-based) dyed in the
(organic) wool rabid tree-hugging card-carrying member of Greenpeace
environmentalist. I am, however, all for practical solutions that
minimise humanity's effect on our common living space, so that it can
become better for all of us now, and for future generations. I am
aware that some people believe quite strongly that future generations
can, will, and should look after themselves, and we'll enjoy what
we've got while we can.

Quite often, recycling seems expensive, because the current price of
raw materials and energy is artificially low at present. If you have a
10-year perspective, it is obvious to make new 'stuff' from abundantly
available raw materials and energy. If you have a 100-year
perspective, it becomes a little more nuanced, and if you have a 1000-
year perspective, almost any use of limited resources becomes
anathema. One thing many successful Japanese companies have is a 1000-
year strategy. We all know that most companies (and people) have a
shorter lifespan than this, but is shows (a) ambition and (b) and
acceptance that long-term thinking has it's place.

I'm dead against greenwash. Lieing for the cause is an acceptable, or
even necessary (in some minds) means to an end, which I think gives
some parts of the green movement a bad name. Some people don't even
know they are doing it, which makes having a reasoned debate
difficult.

Now for the case in point, I realise we are not going to run out of
silica to make good quality glass any time soon. There's a little bit
less iron ore around. The energy required to make new rather than
clean or reprocess existing containers is where things get
interesting. At current energy prices, we can argue whether it is
worthwhile (I'd agree that cleaning a single glass jar in hot water to
remove the label, washing it in a dishwasher, then driving to the
recycling centre in a 'gas-guzzling' 4x4 isn't likely to save energy
over making new) - but the point is that by adjusting the variables we
can make the argument go one way or the other. As energy costs rise,
and raw materials become less available, recycling will become more
favoured. Where the cross-over point is, is anybody's guess. Some
would say now, some in the far future, but I don't think anyone
serious argues that recycling will not become necessary rather than
optional at some point.

Please do continue to question the necessity of recycling, but also,
please do be prepared to find out you may, just possibly be wrong. I'm
happy to be shown to be wrong, and hope to learn from the experience.

Regards,

Sid

wrote:
On 13 Nov, 23:01, wrote:
wrote:
On 13 Nov, 15:19, Broadback wrote:
If you offered any half sensible adult a job that consisted of
removing labels and washing cans, and proposed to pay them the scrap
value of the cans minus all collection costs, they'd laugh. And yet
you're expected to spend a portion of your life doing exactly that -
oh, and its someone else that will be paid the scrap value btw.

The labour, fuel, materials and so on throughout the chain involved in
cleaning, collecting, transporting, sorting and processing means that
there is no genuine saving of energy & resources - figures quoted are
normally derived by completely ignoring significant portions of the
system that is working to do the whole recycling process.

And despite all the above, the greenwash is so unrealistic/dishonest
that many people think that not only is it s noble and constructive
way to spend your time, but that you have a moral duty no less to do
it! You couldnt make it up.

You make some good points.

For my own part, I'm prepared to make a little effort to try and make
the environment less bad than it might have been. Reducing humankind's
effect on the environment, to me, is a good thing - so long as it can
be achieved without too radical a change in quality of life. I'm not
quite ready for composting toilets and knitting my own yoghurt yet.


Agreed.

Whole life economic calculations are extremely difficult to do (as you
allude to), often because people neglect externalities - both from the
'greenwash' side and the 'can't be bothered with this environmentalism
nonsense' side. For example, even using cold water to soak used food
containers is questionable due to the problem of using potable water
for non-drinking purposes. I suppose I could wait for the
(hypothetical) dishwater to go cold. :-) (It's hypothetical because I
use a dishwashing machine). I'm not a (vegetable-based) dyed in the
(organic) wool rabid tree-hugging card-carrying member of Greenpeace
environmentalist. I am, however, all for practical solutions that
minimise humanity's effect on our common living space, so that it can
become better for all of us now, and for future generations. I am
aware that some people believe quite strongly that future generations
can, will, and should look after themselves, and we'll enjoy what
we've got while we can.


Also agreed..

Quite often, recycling seems expensive, because the current price of
raw materials and energy is artificially low at present. If you have a
10-year perspective, it is obvious to make new 'stuff' from abundantly
available raw materials and energy. If you have a 100-year
perspective, it becomes a little more nuanced, and if you have a 1000-
year perspective, almost any use of limited resources becomes
anathema. One thing many successful Japanese companies have is a 1000-
year strategy. We all know that most companies (and people) have a
shorter lifespan than this, but is shows (a) ambition and (b) and
acceptance that long-term thinking has it's place.


Yes, and for all the above reasons, the answer is stunningly simple:
Don't legislate on what people SHOULD do, simply raise the price of what
IS environmentally expensive, artificially if necessary, and let people
work it out in their context.

I've no objection to green**** setting an agenda: I heartily object to
all their solutions which are childish and silly in the extreme. And
dont actually address the problems.

You want less carbon? tax fuel.
Less electricity use? tax electricity.
All that needs be done in the whole arena is to replace taxes on
savings, taxes on labour and taxes on just about all the GOOD things we
do, and replace them with swingeing taxes on all the BAD things we do,
like spending money on crap in crap packaging, and driving far more than
we need, and using scarce resources in a profligate way.

If there was 100% tax on anything *new*, recycling would suddenly become
very profitable. No need for legislation at all.



I'm dead against greenwash. Lieing for the cause is an acceptable, or
even necessary (in some minds) means to an end, which I think gives
some parts of the green movement a bad name. Some people don't even
know they are doing it, which makes having a reasoned debate
difficult.

Its the same story as with T. Bliar.

If he is clever, he's a liar, If he's not lying he's stupid/incompetent.
Either way get the Cnut out of our faces.

Either Green**** are a bunch of cynical liars who want to return the
world to the stone age, or they are a bunch of well meaning nincompoops
who don't deserve the time of day.

Luckily as with T Bliar, the answer is the same in both cases. Ignore
them. They haven't a clue, cant do sums, and are about as much use as a
limp dick in a brothel.


Now for the case in point, I realise we are not going to run out of
silica to make good quality glass any time soon. There's a little bit
less iron ore around. The energy required to make new rather than
clean or reprocess existing containers is where things get
interesting. At current energy prices, we can argue whether it is
worthwhile (I'd agree that cleaning a single glass jar in hot water to
remove the label, washing it in a dishwasher, then driving to the
recycling centre in a 'gas-guzzling' 4x4 isn't likely to save energy
over making new) - but the point is that by adjusting the variables we
can make the argument go one way or the other. As energy costs rise,
and raw materials become less available, recycling will become more
favoured. Where the cross-over point is, is anybody's guess. Some
would say now, some in the far future, but I don't think anyone
serious argues that recycling will not become necessary rather than
optional at some point.

Well we could stuff all the bottles in a nuclear furnace and make nice
containers for nuclear waste ;-)

Frankly I favour using them to create islands in the sea. We could use
some offshore land. Build a dam round some bit of useless essex
estuarine marsh, and drive all the landfill there, and tip it in the
lagoon so formed.

Then eventually you can build a factory, a power station or an airport
on it. No NIMBY because its not in anyones back yard.

The thng about galss, is that its inert and non biodegradable, which
mens it should make excellent hardcore. So leave it in the actual sea fo
a decade, and let the tides turn it into fashionable gravel or shhingle,
all in pretty colors..


Please do continue to question the necessity of recycling, but also,
please do be prepared to find out you may, just possibly be wrong. I'm
happy to be shown to be wrong, and hope to learn from the experience.


There are two issues: environmental and cost benefit.

The surest solution is to align them. Tax energy and materials and new
goods, and the problem solves itself.

But governments haven't the balls to take Green**** on . So they fudge
legislation to keep green**** happy, and thereby pass the costs down to
the population.

Now I don't mind, if the costs reflected the actual problem: But they don't.

The cost is in mindless legislation that usually achieves the opposite
result. e.g. the massive rise in fly tipping.

The rise in metal prices magically removed nearly all of e derelict
vehicles from our streets. as well as a lot of lead from our rooves and
copper from our building sites.;-)




Regards,

Sid

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember David Hansen
saying something like:

I have demosterated that most of your assertions are total ********.

Yawn. More proof by assertion,

I forgot; proof by assertion is your particular strong point, isn't it?